Civ VII Screenshot hidden in error message on website!?

[pokiehl]

If so I am so glad this game has an art director for the first time since V, looks really neat! Obviously I don't play Civ for the visuals, but it's nice to have talent and effort there none the less.

Hoping the leader screens are this good as well, I miss the Civ V leader screens with their backgrounds and intro animations and etc.

Civ 6 absolutely has an art director. They could never ship a Civ game without one. It’s not an accident that there’s a “Civ 6 style” - without an art director everything wouldn’t fit together. In fact, he’s the one who made the civ 5 terrain style mod too.

And whether you like the art style or not, he did a darn good job. The game’s style is cohesive and coherent across all assets, eminently readable, creative, and distinctive.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

I am so glad this game has an art director for the first time since V

Okay I get it, I get it, you guys like Civ V graphics (though they aren't even as realistic as you might think they are...). Forgive me for a moment as this isn't directed at the poster I'm quoting but to all of the people who deride Civ VI's "cartoony" artstyle as lazy...

We're all entitled to our own opinions, but please don't disregard the work of an entire team of professionals just because you think it looks bad. The amount of effort required to make a single animated Civ VI-style leader is immense- you not only have to write, translate, voice, and animate their cutscenes, but you also have the idle animations, trade agreement animations and more!

This is not mentioning making the design. Some posters on here think that stylization is just a switch you can flip on or off, when in reality it's a slider. The farther to either end of an extreme on it you go, the harder it is. Civ V doesn't even go for photo-realism- it's stylized too! It is far less stylized than VI, but it is still not trying to imitate reality.

Making the ultra-stylized leaders seen in Civ VI isn't easier than V's style- it's actually much harder! It involves having a baseline design for a leader/object (with all the research that involves) and then choosing what to intentionally distort to make for a more expressive and striking character. These are character designs. Civ leaders are characters, for the purposes of the game. They are not portraits.

So once you've researched the design, finalized it after iterations of concept art, you still have to model, texture, and rig it, the entire process taking hours. Oh, and then there's all the animating, writing, translating, and more mentioned above.

So to imply that there is no "talent or effort" in Civ VI's visuals, that its highly detailed models and textures and animations all just appeared when someone said to "make the visuals 'cartoony,'" is not only ridiculous but also insulting to actual artists and game developers.

Civ VI did have an Art Director. His name is Brian Busatti.

...and because I realize that whole spiel was very rant-y and can be interpreted as a personal attack despite my disclaimer, I want to clarify that Civ VI's art isn't without its faults. @AffineConstant, I actually agree that Civ VI's leader backgrounds are pretty lacking. The painted artwork looks cool but it's relegated to such a small portion of the screen that the overall effect is that the leaders are just floating in a black void.

I also want to make it clear that I absolutely love this new style, as well, even as someone who appreciates Civ VI for what it tried to do.

Okay, long, ranty, long-winded post over. I am just excited as the rest of us to get to see more of this high-quality art from our favorite game series

(edit: thank you @pokiehl for saying what i said but at a length that most people will actually read )

 

[fy00sh]

It's hard to say because of the cropping and sepia overlay, but I thought those were roads, not rivers. We do frequently see road-splitting like that in Civ games.

oh. that makes way more sense then.

 

[Kostyarik]

Forgive me for a moment as this isn't directed at the poster I'm quoting but to all of the people who deride Civ VI's "cartoony" artstyle as lazy...

We're all entitled to our own opinions, but please don't disregard the work of an entire team of professionals just because you think it looks bad. The amount of effort required to make a single animated Civ VI-style leader is immense- you not only have to write, translate, voice, and animate their cutscenes, but you also have the idle animations, trade agreement animations and more!

Wc3 cartooney is good. Civ6 cartooney is bad.

 

[ezzlar]

The screenshot gave me a Settlers-feeling.

 

[Vandlys]

Okay I get it, I get it, you guys like Civ V graphics (though they aren't even as realistic as you might think they are...). Forgive me for a moment as this isn't directed at the poster I'm quoting but to all of the people who deride Civ VI's "cartoony" artstyle as lazy...

We're all entitled to our own opinions, but please don't disregard the work of an entire team of professionals just because you think it looks bad. The amount of effort required to make a single animated Civ VI-style leader is immense- you not only have to write, translate, voice, and animate their cutscenes, but you also have the idle animations, trade agreement animations and more!

This is not mentioning making the design. Some posters on here think that stylization is just a switch you can flip on or off, when in reality it's a slider. The farther to either end of an extreme on it you go, the harder it is. Civ V doesn't even go for photo-realism- it's stylized too! It is far less stylized than VI, but it is still not trying to imitate reality.

Making the ultra-stylized leaders seen in Civ VI isn't easier than V's style- it's actually much harder! It involves having a baseline design for a leader/object (with all the research that involves) and then choosing what to intentionally distort to make for a more expressive and striking character. These are character designs. Civ leaders are characters, for the purposes of the game. They are not portraits.

So once you've researched the design, finalized it after iterations of concept art, you still have to model, texture, and rig it, the entire process taking hours. Oh, and then there's all the animating, writing, translating, and more mentioned above.

So to imply that there is no "talent or effort" in Civ VI's visuals, that its highly detailed models and textures and animations all just appeared when someone said to "make the visuals 'cartoony,'" is not only ridiculous but also insulting to actual artists and game developers.

Civ VI did have an Art Director. His name is Brian Busatti.

...and because I realize that whole spiel was very rant-y and can be interpreted as a personal attack despite my disclaimer, I want to clarify that Civ VI's art isn't without its faults. @AffineConstant, I actually agree that Civ VI's leader backgrounds are pretty lacking. The painted artwork looks cool but it's relegated to such a small portion of the screen that the overall effect is that the leaders are just floating in a black void.

I also want to make it clear that I absolutely love this new style, as well, even as someone who appreciates Civ VI for what it tried to do.

Okay, long, ranty, long-winded post over. I am just excited as the rest of us to get to see more of this high-quality art from our favorite game series

(edit: thank you @pokiehl for saying what i said but at a length that most people will actually read )

I read this, and thank you for it! It echoed my thoughts exactly.

 

[Vandlys]

Wc3 cartooney is good. Civ6 cartooney is bad.

I feel the opposite.

 

[AffineConstant]

I feel the opposite.

Part of the problem is, I'd say the majority of people didn't like it as stylization replaces are near the top of the list for downloaded and upvoted mods.

I get it, some people like Funko Pop, which is pretty much how I'd describe the leaders, others very, very much do not like Funko Pop. A good art director, for a major game, should be going for broad appeal, whether that's art or not seems secondary to trying to sell the game to as many people as possible. Which isn't just their literal job, but is a service to all the other people they worked on the game with, whos hard work deserves not to be undercut because the art director wants a purposefully divisive art direction.

And thus I would still say, effectively, "Civ VI feels like it doesn't have an art director", at least in the map portion, and that is a very pointed insult by me, a person that tries to be positive 99% of the time, and it's meant to be.

Brian Busatti, Civ VI's "art director" publicly stated that the "art direction" was "ensuring readability" or rather ensuring players could tell at a glance what everything was visually. The problem is, that's not an art direction, that's an incredibly basic fundamental design consideration of an art direction that has multiple other parts to it. It's like a game designer saying the primary purpose of the entire game is to have the controls be good. But, what are you doing with the controls, what about literally the entire rest of the game? What about literally the rest of the art direction Brian, what is the player supposed to feel about what they're seeing?

That's what I mean about Civ VI "not having an art direction", and that's why I'm insulting about it. Sometimes people unqualified for a job get a big job none the less, and I feel I can tell Brian was unqualified not only by the amount of people that didn't like Civ VI's look, but by the rather sizable portion of people that still finds VI's overcrowded look to be confusing and frustrating, showing he made each unit and tile so bright and colorful they clash with each other for attention and thus there's a sizable failure case even in this one fundamental corner of art direction. At some point something goes so wrong that trying to pinpoint areas for improvement are much harder than just saying "This is a failure".

 

[pokiehl]

Part of the problem is, I'd say the majority of people didn't like it as stylization replaces are near the top of the list for downloaded and upvoted mods.

I’d say the majority of people do like it, given that Civ 6 is the most successful game in the series. Also the civ 5 terrain mod isn’t even in the top 20 most subscribed mods.

I get it, some people like Funko Pop, which is pretty much how I'd describe the leaders, others very, very much do not like Funko Pop. A good art director, for a major game, should be going for broad appeal, whether that's art or not seems secondary to trying to sell the game to as many people as possible. Which isn't just their literal job, but is a service to all the other people they worked on the game with, whos hard work deserves not to be undercut because the art director wants a purposefully divisive art direction.

And thus I would still say, effectively, "Civ VI feels like it doesn't have an art director", at least in the map portion, and that is a very pointed insult by me, a person that tries to be positive 99% of the time, and it's meant to be.

Brian Busatti, Civ VI's "art director" publicly stated that the "art direction" was "ensuring readability" or rather ensuring players could tell at a glance what everything was visually. The problem is, that's not an art direction, that's an incredibly basic fundamental design consideration of an art direction that has multiple other parts to it. It's like a game designer saying the primary purpose of the entire game is to have the controls be good. But, what are you doing with the controls, what about literally the entire rest of the game? What about literally the rest of the art direction Brian, what is the player supposed to feel about what they're seeing?

That's what I mean about Civ VI "not having an art direction", and that's why I'm insulting about it. Sometimes people unqualified for a job get a big job none the less, and I feel I can tell Brian was unqualified not only by the amount of people that didn't like Civ VI's look, but by the rather sizable portion of people that still finds VI's overcrowded look to be confusing and frustrating, showing he made each unit and tile so bright and colorful they clash with each other and thus there's a sizable failure case even in this one fundamental corner of art direction. At some point telling the people in charge that they made a mistake in hiring someone is a better option than trying to get that person to improve and I'd say this is such a case.

It’s extremely uncalled for to attack specific people like this. Your criticism should remain at the game—calling specific developers out is totally out of line and misguided.

 

[AriochIV]

I’d say the majority of people do like it, given that Civ 6 is the most successful game in the series.

That's a false equivalence... I like Civ 6, in some ways better than Civ 5, but that doesn't mean I like or prefer the Civ 6 art style. I don't.

 

[pokiehl]

That's a false equivalence... I like Civ 6, in some ways better than Civ 5, but that doesn't mean I like or prefer the Civ 6 art style. I don't.

The initial claim itself was a false equivalence if anything. My statement was simply following the same logic, so take the concept up with the original poster. The success of the game, positive critical reviews, and positive fan reviews at any rate all show us at the very least that the art style was not a dealbreaker.

 

[UWHabs]

I’d say the majority of people do like it, given that Civ 6 is the most successful game in the series. Also the civ 5 terrain mod isn’t even in the top 20 most subscribed mods.

It’s extremely uncalled for to attack specific people like this. Your criticism should remain at the game—calling specific developers out is totally out of line and misguided.

Yeah, like you can be upset about what they ended up opting for in the art direction. But it takes all of 30 seconds to see that Brian Busatti has been an artist and art director for like 20 years, was the project art director on Civ Rev, etc... it's not like it's some kid fresh out of school and this is his first big project.

Of course, I'm also one of those people who can't for the life of me understand why some people almost feel that the art style in 6 was a personal attack on them. It's nice to actually play a game and see what's actually happening on the map. Of course, maybe I was just too put off by some of the other parts of civ 5 that I put it aside for long enough to relish 6 when it came out, rather than do too too many side by side comparisons.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

That's a false equivalence... I like Civ 6, in some ways better than Civ 5, but that doesn't mean I like or prefer the Civ 6 art style. I don't.

Doesn't majority mean more than 51%+? You just fall under the 49%...

This whole discussion borderlines ugly at this rate.

Civ 6 achieved it's goal. and it *had* direction, stylized slightly cartoonish was the *direction*. You want games without art direction? Games like Millenia borderlined it, game like City Skylines 2 that used actual Unity Asset Store assets as well as the cancelled Life By You lacked "art direction".

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's bad. It's just your opinion, and you're just as entitled to it.

 

[AriochIV]

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's bad. It's just your opinion, and you're just as entitled to it.

I didn't say it was bad, I said I didn't like it, which is obviously a subjective opinon.

I merely called out that saying "it sold well, so people must have liked the art direction" is nonsense.

 

[pokiehl]

I didn't say it was bad, I said I didn't like it, which is obviously a subjective opinon.

I merely called out that saying "it sold well, so people must have liked the art direction" is nonsense.

It’s not nonsense to assume that most people who purchase a best-selling product probably like most aspects of what they bought.

 

[kaspergm]

Haven't really followed the discussion here. I was not a huge fan of Civ6's cartoonish style when it was released (and I still hate the leader models), and I used to call for a style closer to Civ5. However, seeing that screenshot, it seems almost too realistic for me, so I'm not sure I hope this is the art style we'll see. But I think it's too early to judge whether it will be good or bad from the little we see here, even if it is in fact from the game.

 

[AriochIV]

It’s not nonsense to assume that most people who purchase a best-selling product probably like most aspects of what they bought.

Civ 6 had a lot of bugs that were never fixed, including some (like the AI's inability to use air units) that made entire aspects of the game irrelevant.

But the game sold well, so people must have liked the bugs. Right?

 

[pokiehl]

Civ 6 had a lot of bugs that were never fixed, including some (like the AI's inability to use air units) that made entire aspects of the game irrelevant.

But the game sold well, so people must have liked the bugs. Right?

Very strange false equivalence, and there’s no need to get sarcastic. What you can deduce is that the bugs aren’t offputting enough to move the needle for most people.

 

[Blue whale]

No! Not wonders taking a whole tile again

 

[Pistol90]

No! Not wonders taking a whole tile again

I like that in Civ6

Makes them more spectacular and distinct

Also gameplay combinations are more interesting.


Hope they would not change it in civ7