Civ V aesthetics theme/look

[gladoscc]

I find that Civ V's theme look more colorful, bright and playful? There's few dark shades and it generally looks more like a model / board game. Previous civ games were more dark and more realistic looking.

I prefer Civ 4's look, and I think the look might affect people's perception to the game. Like, Civ 4 but with V aesthetics might feel more casual, despite there's no change in gameplay. Are there any other people who like Civ 4's theme more than V?

 

[sumodaz]

I really like the look of Civ V although it took me buying a new computer to really appreciate it. I like strategy games to be user friendly (but complex) and a more casual look helps achieve this. I really hate that some hardcore strategy fans feel that for a game to be complex it needs to be hard for a casual gamer to understand!

 

[Lone Wolf]

I find Civ5's aesthetics to be a return to Civ3. In fact, I'd say that it's slightly more realistic then Civ4 (Civ3 fans had accused Civ4 of being cartoony).

 

[smallfish]

It's far more art deco than previous iterations, a fine mix between the realism and the pop history which I personally enjoy in between long hours of crushing my foes under iron hooves and hearing the lamentations of their menfolk.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Civ 3 didn't have the prettiest UI design, about similiar to Sims 1.

In my opinion Civ 5 is probably the most detailed UI.

 

[LegionSteve]

I love the terrain graphics in Civ 5. The mountains actually look like mountains, and the sea is beautiful. This is one of the big improvements over previous games.

I don't like the tile improvement graphics, these are a step backwards from Civ 4. Apart from the farms, you can't tell if they are being worked just by looking at them. And it is very difficult to tell the difference between a completed mine/tp and one that is half finished. Did they forget that the main purpose of the graphics is to give the player information?

The unit graphics are nice.

I don't really care one way or the other about the art deco style of the UI, I just don't like the way useful information is split across too many different screens and takes too many clicks to get to.

 

[CoolLizy]

Previous civ games were more dark and more realistic looking.

Civ IV was darker and more realistic-looking than Civ V? ...What?

I wouldn't use the words "dark" or "realistic-looking" to describe the original Civ, either.

 

[The_Quasar]

I find that Civ V's theme look more colorful, bright and playful? There's few dark shades and it generally looks more like a model / board game. Previous civ games were more dark and more realistic looking.

I prefer Civ 4's look, and I think the look might affect people's perception to the game. Like, Civ 4 but with V aesthetics might feel more casual, despite there's no change in gameplay. Are there any other people who like Civ 4's theme more than V?

No, I much prefer Civ V...

I was one that felt Civ IV was a bit "cartoony"

Civ V's graphics look far more realistic, all round... and a vast improvement. It's not perfect, but it's definitely a step forward.

 

[Sherlock]

no, i much prefer civ v...

I was one that felt civ iv was a bit "cartoony"

civ v's graphics look far more realistic, all round... And a vast improvement. It's not perfect, but it's definitely a step forward.

+1

-sh

 

[spider1]

I like the way Civ V looks. In fact, it is the best looking of all the Civ games by far.

 

[Ranos]

I find that Civ V's theme look more colorful, bright and playful? There's few dark shades and it generally looks more like a model / board game. Previous civ games were more dark and more realistic looking.

I prefer Civ 4's look, and I think the look might affect people's perception to the game. Like, Civ 4 but with V aesthetics might feel more casual, despite there's no change in gameplay. Are there any other people who like Civ 4's theme more than V?

Civ - Really fake, completely 2D, a board game.
Civ II - Less fake but still fake, less 2D but not 3D, still a board game.
Civ III - More realistic, more 3D but not quite, still a board game.
Civ IV - Back to fake (cartoony - I kept waiting for Bugs and Daffy to run along one of the beaches or Dora to wonder out of the jungle), nice 3D, still a board game.
Civ V - Really realistic looking not perfect but good, very 3D, still a board game but more like looking down from a plane watching giant people and animals.

The first time I started up Civ V the first thing I saw was how realistic the terrain looked. Civ V has more realistic and darker looking terrain and units than any Civ before it.

 

[Fern]

Try comparing Civ IV leader screens with Civ V ones, now that's a big difference. Civ V's screens can take my breath away and show the cultures, while in Civ IV I'd want diplo to be over ASAP.

Maybe try zoom out a bit and turn yields, grids and resources off? For me, it was just as realistic as it could get and made me really appreciate my empire and all the efforts I've put in building it.

 

[strijder20]

I don't understand all the hate against Civ4: I quite like it actually.

CivV completely steamrolls it in the aesthetical aspect, though.

 

[Shmike]

No doubt you'll get biased opinions.
Sometimes I have trouble telling the difference between terrain in Civ 5 and when I mouse over the terrain, it takes a couple of seconds for the information to show up. Civ 4 I could tell the difference easily. I also liked how in Civ 4, the tiles that were being worked on were animated. In Civ 5's city screen, I hate the icons when selecting a tile to work on, it takes up to much space and there's no way to turn off automated the automated tiles after a city grows unless you double click it so it has a locked icon. But I do like the graphics and the fog of war better than Civ 4's.

Would like to add, I think the cities look ugly, they should redesign the terrain and cities.

 

[durian]

The Civ V theme/UI/look is much prettier than that of any previous iteration, but the UI still needs to be polished a bit more. It needs to display information in a more intuitive and clear way than it does now, especially when it comes to diplomacy information.

 

[Proximus]

I find the theme/UI has a very optimistic feel, as though your people are always looking forward to the future. It's better than any previous Civ game, imo. My only complaint was that they didn't include any solid stats (presumably so you didn't know the AI was cheating) but infoaddict fixes that.

 

[claestw]

I actually can't remember what Civ 4 UI looked like. But I remember that I liked the Civ 5 look first time I started it.

I also remember complaining that the Civ 5 UI is a step backwards in terms of usability. They really need to find a proper UI engineer and let him decide what is displayed and what is not. Artwork and graphics design come after that.

 

[Junuxx]

Grades on a scale from 1 to 10:

|Civ 4 | Civ 5
UI|8|9
Terrain|8*|3
Units|7|6
Cities|8|4
Leaders|7|9
Total| 39 | 31

* with Blue Marble.

Overall, I find Civ 5 incredibly ugly. I mean, the UI and the art deco stuff is nice and all, but man, the terrain and the cities are awful. I still can't believe it isn't some half finished placeholder art but the actual product. At least the rivers were improved at some point.

Civ4 is less fancy in a few areas, but to me much more pleasant to look at as a whole.

 

[CoolLizy]

And you're sure you're playing with the graphics settings on high? I like Civ 4's look, but every time I go back and play it I cringe at the blurry, murky textures. :/

 

[The_Quasar]

I don't understand all the hate against Civ4: I quite like it actually.

CivV completely steamrolls it in the aesthetical aspect, though.

I don't think it's hate at all (at least definitely not in my case)... I've played countless hours of Civ IV, and I enjoyed it all... it's just that Civ V has now taken it's place as the next big improvement... ok, Civ V is not perfect, but it's, imho, better now than Civ IV was, and will likely be even better after G&K.