Civ 6 on E3?

[Monado]

Sound effects could easily come later in the development cycle.

Sound effects to what..there is nothing to give the illusion the sound effects belong to anything of substance when the leader is just standing outside of any realistic environment.

Hopefully better background images come later in the development cycle with those sound effects.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I wish the backgrounds would change with time. To see modern buildings stretching across the game board and to be in tense negotiations with Shaka (or some other leader) over the incursion of his nuclear submarines while he wears a loin cloth and stands in front of a row of huts is beyond silly.

It cuts both ways. They had that in Civ III and people rolled their eyes at Shaka in a business suit in the modern era and Abe Lincoln in a toga in the classical.

 

[Atwork]

It cuts both ways. They had that in Civ III and people rolled their eyes at Shaka in a business suit in the modern era and Abe Lincoln in a toga in the classical.

I understand, I was playing that game too and I remember the discussions. Count me on the side of outfits and backgrounds changing with time.

 

[Inhalaattori]

I'd rather say all civs prominent in eurocentric perspective get in automatically - those which interacted with Westerners have much more chances of being recognized that greater civs which didn't.

I really, really dislike this ignorant notion and it can be observed on numerous occasions. Look: Persia (Iran, to use native term, not Western one ) has 2500 years of history, with post-Achaemenid periods of it IMO more glorious and impactful than Achemenid empire, yet in civ series it is always 100% consisting of Achaemenid empire which lasted less than 250 years. Why? Because it was defeated by Westerners (Greeks - 'westerners' in classical ignorant perspective). Enormous cultural and scientific impact of Islamic Persia - ignored. Safavid empire - ignored, Nader Shah (absolute military genius) - ignored, because they weren't directly encoutnered by westerners.

Japan for most of its history was isolated bothering its own problems (in general I'd risk saying it is one of the most peaceful civilisations in human history), with no impact on the outside world till 20th century (so actually for like 95% of its history), but it is guaranteed to be in because it impressed Western people who encountered it. It also always have very strong military focus, despite real life Japan attempting outward expansion twice in ~2500 years of its history! Why? Because one of those periods of expansion, 1905-1945, just happened to be against Westerners.

Aztecs are less impressive than other Precolombian peoples (Mayas, Olmecs, Zapotecs...) but they are here because Western people encountered them first.

Zulus are a complete joke, primitive tribe which in no way should be among 'particularly great historical empires', but it is here just because British popculture noticed it.

Roman opponents get an unwarranted attention in civ series even if they, objectively speaking, didn't matter historically, they're here just because Romans encountered them - Carthago is here but Phoenicia not, Boudicca is here despite being failed leader of stupid suicidal rebellion, Attila was here despite being ephemerical as hell and quite quickly stopped...

Oh, and I very dislike Gandhi both as a leader of Indian civ and historical person (IMO he is the most overrated person of 20th century) and again I think he is here only because of Western popculture encountering him, while there were tons of much cooler and greater Indian leaders across history - just not encountered by West.

Couldnt agree more. I would although add that the game is also very Anglocentric rather than just simply Eurocentric. People who came in contact with British/English/Americans are heavily favored. Zulus are good example of this. Also for example Mapuche deserve to be in the game much more than any of the North-American tribes. I understand that this is a game and its sold largely to Americans, but still it kind of bugs me. I dont think people are going to not buy the game simply because it has couple of civilizations that are unknown to average American.

 

[cairnsy44]

For the most part I agree, but the combat animations are pretty cartoonish -- melee weapon hits cause giant explosions (which obscure much of the action), and tank hits cause target figures to fly wildly backwards and do somersaults.

The giant explosions kinda remind me of the old Batman cartoon with "POW!" "BANG!" "OOF!"
It's something I would rather have toned down a bit, but their existence itself is not a big deal to me. It does make me chuckle a bit.

 

[cairnsy44]

The painted leader backgrounds don't bother me at all. The player's focus is drawn to the character in the foreground, where it should be.

I totally agree. The backgrounds are something I will look at once and rarely spare another thought. The movements of the character? Another story. I really enjoyed Cleopatra's animation from the sample.

 

[m15a]

Doesn't Civ V use 2D painting as well?

I agree that some Civ V leader screens make really good use of the 3D elements, but some sort of look like they're sitting on or next to some basic polygons (or simple 3D objects like flower pots) that are stuck in front of a 2D image.

 

[AriochIV]

Doesn't Civ V use 2D painting as well?

I agree that some Civ V leader screens make really good use of the 3D elements, but some sort of look like they're sitting on or next to some basic polygons (or simple 3D objects like flower pots) that are stuck in front of a 2D image.

Yes, the Civ V leader backgrounds were mostly flat, static images with a few animated elements on top. I always thought they were rather silly in their "realism." "I am meeting Hiawatha for a diplomatic summit... in a stream in the forest?"

 

[darko82]

I always thought they were rather silly in their "realism." "I am meeting Hiawatha for a diplomatic summit... in a stream in the forest?"

Those backgrounds should change with eras - just like the music. It would be an interesting feature.

What about the leaders, then? Teddy with a tie and jacket in ancient era? It looks better than Teddy with an axe, though. They changed in Civ 3, but some of them looked kind of ugly in late game. In Civ VI this is impossible from the technical point of view. That is how the game is designed. This must be the way it is... there is no realism. It is just some kind of representation.

 

[AriochIV]

What about the leaders, then? Teddy with a tie and jacket in ancient era? It looks better than Teddy with an axe, though. They changed in Civ 3, but some of them looked kind of ugly in late game. In Civ VI this is impossible from the technical point of view. That is how the game is designed. This must be the way it is...

What I mean is that there's value in abstraction. The Civ VI leaders are slightly caricatured, and the background are paintings... so you can suspend some disbelief. But the more you try to make things photo-real, the more the uncanny valley starts to come into play, and the mind asks things like, "Askia, why is your city still on fire?"

 

[Mustakrakish]

Static backgrounds could be easier changed with era, though I doubt they'll bother. Some clothing changes would be very much appreciated and not that hard either, but again I doubt they'll bother. We would have noticed it already if they were going that route. Too bad :/

Then again I would prefer leaders to be in pop up windows (IV style) static 2D pictures with era specific clothing (V advisors style). I'm more of a make it simple and consistent or go all the way kinda guy In this case "all the way" meaning what I said above, give them era specific backgrounds and clothing.

EDIT: V leader screens annoyed & distracted me so much with their inconsistency I tried requesting someone to make a mod removing them all together, changing it all to some static art, say the map and emblem of that civ, and removing all reference to the leaders (as if there were no leaders, just empires). Sadly for me it wasn't that popular for someone to bother

 

[Zaarin]

I personally adored the Civ5 leader screens. Yes, some of them are obviously flat; Odo Nobunaga comes to mind. But many of them--especially those added by DLC or expansions--really filled you with a sense of awe. The downside was that the leader was quite static, though a few were more expressive (Monty, Dido, Theodora [one notices her movements more because of the clanking bracelets--a nice touch]), some considerably less (Caesar barely blinked and looked perpetually bored).

While I appreciate the more dynamic leaders in Civ6, I feel like the abstract background paintings were a step too far in the wrong direction. They could have gone with a matte painting without going for an abstract and honestly slightly tacky-looking matte painting. As others have pointed out, many of the Civ5 screens were basically matte paintings with a few 3D props.

 

[darko82]

Speaking of Civ 5 leaders, some of them were done very good; others were done very badly (not immersive or realistic, natural), to my mind. As if different people designed them?

 

[stiiknafuulia]

The only thing I remember from the Civ V leader screens is that they took ages to load... I'd have traded them for static images that load in a split-second in a, well, split-second. (Please don't tell me there's a mod like this available... Although it's a minor amount of time, the frustration would be great if I could've avoided this! )

 

[Monado]

The only thing I remember from the Civ V leader screens is that they took ages to load... I'd have traded them for static images that load in a split-second in a, well, split-second. (Please don't tell me there's a mod like this available... Although it's a minor amount of time, the frustration would be great if I could've avoided this! )

If I recall correctly there was a standard in game option to make the leader images static and reduce load times. I think leader quality had to be set to minimum.

(I could be wrong, I never used the feature, as my crappy laptop handled the game well)

 

[GlobularFoody]

Honestly, I never understand this argument. Just because it looks similar to civ5 in that it still has hexes, units, cities and tile improvements, does not mean that it is just an expansion. You have to look at the gameplay mechanics. Civ6 is a brand new engine and has a lot of mechanical differences from civ5. So I would hardly call it an expansion. Plus, what does the game need to do for you not to consider it an expansion? Every time the issue comes up whether the next civ game should be radical, players say "no". How can the game not be radical but at the same not be "just an expansion" in your eyes?

Really. All I see that is different is they moved some buildings out to tiles instead of having them built in the city. Big deal. And there are of course all the little changes that mean nothing really, like unit graphics and leader scenes...and the graphics style they chose is insulting. Oh, and this isn't even the thread I posted this in, the moderators on this site are insane.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Really. All I see that is different is they moved some buildings out to tiles instead of having them built in the city. Big deal. And there are of course all the little changes that mean nothing really, like unit graphics and leader scenes...and the graphics style they chose is insulting. Oh, and this isn't even the thread I posted this in, the moderators on this site are insane.

I think you are grossly underestimating the changes in civ6. "moving some buildings out to tiles" as you put has some major implications to other parts of the game. It allows for city specialization far more deeper than in civ5. It also forces combat away from cities since players will want to protect them. The encampment district can have its own ranged attack which means you can now face two ranged attacks when attacking a city instead of just one. Global happiness is gone. That is a big change. City growth is now dependent on housing. AIs will have agendas which modify their behavior. Civs have more unique bonuses. The eureka system changes how we do research since your science rate is no longer the only factor. The fact that there is a separate tech tree and civic tree is a big change too since the science civ can no longer beeline all techs with just science. Allowing stacks of 3 units is a big change as the player will be able to have mini armies of melee and ranged units together instead of having to spread everything out. I think there are a bunch of changes that are far more than just cosmetic as you seem to think.

 

[Babri]

Really. All I see that is different is they moved some buildings out to tiles instead of having them built in the city. Big deal. And there are of course all the little changes that mean nothing really, like unit graphics and leader scenes...and the graphics style they chose is insulting. Oh, and this isn't even the thread I posted this in, the moderators on this site are insane.

Yeah, right. From civ 4 to 5, they just spread out the stack of doom on multiple tiles. No big deal. Firaxis duped us, civ 5 should have been an expansion pack of civ 4.

Sent from my HTC Desire 820s dual sim using Tapatalk

 

[King Jason]

If I recall correctly there was a standard in game option to make the leader images static and reduce load times. I think leader quality had to be set to minimum.

(I could be wrong, I never used the feature, as my crappy laptop handled the game well)

It did. I used it because I hated the diplo screens. But I also played 80% of civ5 in strategic mode.

 

[stealth_nsk]

What I mean is that there's value in abstraction. The Civ VI leaders are slightly caricatured, and the background are paintings... so you can suspend some disbelief. But the more you try to make things photo-real, the more the uncanny valley starts to come into play, and the mind asks things like, "Askia, why is your city still on fire?"

The more I read your posts, the last I see need to post anything myself. Well said.