Civ V graphics

[eraofdiversion]

Anyone else think the graphics in V look worse than IV? Everything seems cluttered...I really like how the trees and other things moved in IV.

 

[lschnarch]

The style is a bit brighter which is good.

Except for that I cannot see any major improvement.

 

[Camikaze]

I think the graphics are better. The unit graphics in particular. They are notably improved from Civ4.

 

[Leif Roar]

I think Civ V looks prettier, but the graphics in IV were more functional and had more character and life. I prefer IV's, but I can see why others prefer V's.

 

[Saarud]

I have to agree that I did like the graphics from IV much more. I never cared for how pretty a game is to watch (I love Dwarf Fortress), for me the graphic should just be able to present the situation so I can make informed decisions. However I do love the Strategy graphics alot. This is how a real strategy games should look like imho.

 

[Xenobenignitas]

I like the Civ V graphics and their scaling. However the graphics engine is sloppy, there's no justification for all the resources it uses

 

[Windsor]

I think the graphics are better. The unit graphics in particular. They are notably improved from Civ4.

The unit graphic in Civ5 is so bad that you need a unit icon to tell what unit you are looking at.

But I still prefer Civ5-graphics. Especially mountains look very good(terrain overall is much better in Civ5). So does the UI. With better unit graphics and more animations I would love it.

 

[lymond]

I really don't like the unit graphics at all. I can't stand the icons but you actually need them to make out the units. While the graphics are technically better, I'm really not all the impressed with them. Hard to explain really but they just to too fluffy and bright for me. Civ IV graphics are much more "tangible" in my opinion. Doesn't really matter as I don't play the game anymore.

 

[Camikaze]

Huh. I don't. I guess the difference between each is not as marked, largely due to the representation of a unit as more than one figure, but they are differentiated enough for me. Besides, even if you are assuming they aren't differentiated, the actually quality of the graphic is greater.

 

[noncognosco]

I like the way the landscapes look but I think improvements are generally pretty ugly. Mines are ugly and trade posts are especially ugly. But on the other hand I have to have everything set on the lowest graphics level just to get the game to run so I suppose it might look better on a better system.

 

[eraofdiversion]

You guys said it better than I could have, while the graphics in 5 technically look better...civ 4 graphics had a lot more personality and were easier to look at in my opinion.

 

[Clement]

The map graphics are nice enough, some people don't like the rivers though they never bothered me, but the unit graphics on the other hand are kind of annoying, i use the symbols so i can recognise them instantly instead of having to squint for a few seconds each time, they aren't helped by a zoom function that just won't zoom in enough either.

 

[DaveGold]

My personal grievance is that partly worked plots look to much like finished plots. This is bad design as an unfinished plot should look like exactly that as the decision you need to make is to move a worker to finish it. Roads are logically wrong at junctions. You lose rivers under national borders. I dislike the style of the logs and overviews which looks cheap and tacky, a very poor interpretation of art deco. There are plenty of other issues too which should have been tackled in a good beta test. I'm not a fan of the console style interface which is a bit intrusive and tries to run your game for you (too much).

I also personally dislike the art style of the terrain, but I do have a poor graphics card so I will happily respect the opinion of other people with better technology who do like it.

 

[Polish]

I defiantely like the look of the maps, but I do miss the moving trees, working lumber mills and mines. I think the unit graphics are more precise in V, but less functional. I actually much prefer the unit graphics from IV and really never thought of them as cartoonish.

 

[vandyr]

I defiantely like the look of the maps, but I do miss the working lumber mills and mines.

I miss that too, and to me that's a key element...as you can see at a glance what's being worked.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

On par with current standards & reasonable Hardware capacities.

 

[de Maistre]

I still miss Civilization 3's two dimensional graphics

 

[rschissler]

I've had the same complaints about the unit graphics, that it's hard to tell what is what without the unit icons. It seems counterproductive to create pretty graphics, but they aren't functional, so let's slap a big ugly icon on there. I guess we should be thankful that Firaxis realized there was a problem with the unit graphics, and gave us the icons. However, it seems like there should have been a better solution.

 

[DST1348]

Hello,

the units are just too small. As others noticed before, you have to use the icons instead of the units. Not only does this spoil the immersion for me, it also raises the question of what's the point in higher resolution graphics if the units are so small they have to replaced by icons? Maybe the problem could be solved -with a mod- if there where only 3 soldiers per tile instead of 9. These 3 could then be three times bigger and still cover about the same amount of space. Maybe units would be distinguishable again.

I also don't like the static appearance of the landscape and improvements. The trees in CiV look like sprites. And there are the rivers...

 

[Zyxpsilon]

DST1348, what you really need is a trick or two...

Apply these changes and you'll be staring at everything from a whole new perspective!