Civ VII Screenshot hidden in error message on website!?

[AriochIV]

Yes, in interviews Firaxis has talked about the "unstacked cities" being the signature feature of Civ6 and that they were pretty happy with it, so I'm not surprised to see it returning (which the screenshot seems to support).

I'm fine with that; I think it's a good feature, especially alongside 1UPT units.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I also expect that they won't be walking back the "unstacked cities".

And personally, I like how it turns each city into a puzzle for figuring out where to place districts and wonders.

 

[nakzox]

I also like wonders taking up a whole tile and there being certain terrain requirements to do so. I like that it limits you in terms of what wonders can be built, and I think it makes sense from a gameplay perspective.

I very much dislike, however, the puzzle-like mini game of district planning and while I think it is pretty much guaranteed that districts will be in VII, I hope there is much less of an emphasis on adjacency bonuses.

 

[Vincent_lacruz]

Making something ultra-realist and all 3D rendering sounds nice... Until you think of how much ressource that consumes... Not everyone has a supercalculator, nor wants to change his computer for a new game...

CIV 6 might have been "cartoony", by I didn't mind it because all the artwork was homogenous, and it could work even on older computers (although the loading screen was longer, and there was some slowdown on big maps/lategame) without crashing. There might have been a few "bugs" not corrected (someone mentionned AI not able to use aircrafts), but none major ones (again, no crashs!).

Let's hope whatever they use for CIV 7 will be good, and scallable (I mean, for those that have low configuration to have something nice to the eyes even is they can't see the individual blades of grass...).

 

[Aquila SPQR]

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.

Let's not confuse game's popularity with liking its graphics. For many people Civ 6 is the only Civ they played simply because they, for some reason, never played earlier ones (they weren't interested before, or were too young to play). I've seen plenty of Civ 6 fans who never played Civ IV or even Civ V. Just because they play Civ 6 now say nothing about their preferences when it comes to graphics. They may dislike it, but they still play because it's the latest game in the series and they like the idea of the game.

I like that in Civ6

Makes them more spectacular and distinct

And makes the late game crowded with wonders which looks both ugly and creates problems with running out of space for wonders, creating the ridiculous situation of "oh, maybe I shouldn't build this Notre Dame here, because after 1000 years I'll need space for Eiffel Tower."

Civ V had the best approach - wonders build "in" cities, visible in or next to it.

Unfortunately I believe Civ VII will use the same system Civ 6 does.

 

[pokiehl]

Let's not confuse game's popularity with liking its graphics. For many people Civ 6 is the only Civ they played simply because they, for some reason, never played earlier ones (they weren't interested before, or were too young to play). I've seen plenty of Civ 6 fans who never played Civ IV or even Civ V. Just because they play Civ 6 now say nothing about their preferences when it comes to graphics.

This makes no sense and the speculation is just reflective of your dislike of Civ 6. Civ 5 and Civ 4 aren't vaporware. Anyone can go look them up and buy them and play them again.

Graphics are the most upfront thing in a game. It is perfectly logical to assume that those who play Civ 6 like its graphics, and its also logical to assume the negative talk about the graphics is a just a very vocal minority, given how popular Civ 6 is.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

It is perfectly logical to assume that those who play Civ 6 like its graphics, and its also logical to assume the negative talk about the graphics is a just a very vocal minority, given how popular Civ 6 is.

That is extremely faulty reasoning.

Myself, I didn't buy Civ6 for years, even though I had waited so expectantly for it, because the graphic style put me completely off. I only tried it when the base game was released for free for a limited time on Epic. I loved it, and ended up buying all the expansions, in spite of the graphic style which I still abhorred (and still do abhor). If it hadn't been for the Epic freebie, I might have never gotten into the game.

Your argument that Civ6's graphics must be more popular than Civ5's only makes sense if they were the same game with only different graphic styles. They aren't, there are a lot of other factors at play, and so the popularity of one game is not necessarily an indicator of the popularity of one of its features.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

This makes no sense and the speculation is just reflective of your dislike of Civ 6. Civ 5 and Civ 4 aren't vaporware. Anyone can go look them up and buy them and play them again.

Graphics are the most upfront thing in a game. It is perfectly logical to assume that those who play Civ 6 like its graphics, and its also logical to assume the negative talk about the graphics is a just a very vocal minority, given how popular Civ 6 is.

Of course it makes sense. Young people who have just discovered Civilization series will most likely start with the latest title. Why would they buy old Civ IV when there's Civ 6 available and there's so much talk about it everywhere? It's not that there is some storyline here and earlier games have some important parts of the story that are improving later games' enjoyment. All civ games are basically about the same thing, just with new features and graphics and usually the newer the game is - the more fleshed out these features are.

And it's not logical to assume that people who play Civ 6 automatically like its graphics. Many people downloaded mods who change those graphics (me included). Probably some of those who did not also don't enjoy it, but have no idea there's such mod available. And since graphics are not as important as gameplay (you can enjoy good game with bad graphics more than bad game with great graphics) it's absolutely feasible that some people dislike the graphics but grind their teeth and play, because they like new mechanics which are not present in previous games. I like Civ 6, I play it too, but I play it only thanks to the graphics mods. And from comments on the internet I know I'm not the only one.

When it comes to our poll here on the forum only 16.5% of people chose "cartoony graphics" and 47.8% chose "realistic (Civ V style)" as their wish for Civ VII. I've found another poll closed in 2023 about direction of art style Civ VII should adopt. There also realism like in Civ V wins with cartoony Civ 6 with 93:79. On steam workshop (if I read it correctly) graphics mod that makes it look more like Civ V has 241,052 current subscribers. On nexus mods it's in the top 10 downloaded mods for Civ 6 with 20,5k downloads. These are only people who learned about the mod and took action, we can safely assume that there are also people out there who dislike the graphics but don't know about the mod (there are people like that because there are questions on the internet about changing graphics).

I also checked the internet by googling "civ 6 recommended mods". I checked 5 articles. Only in one of them graphics mod wasn't mentioned. In one article it's only mentioned as "Other Civilization 6 Mods Worth Getting" and in 3 of them it has detailed section dedicated to it. Descrptions:

"In the Civilization series, players will spend a great deal of time looking at the map. Although certainly pretty to look at, its vibrant color scheme may not be everybody's cup of tea. Luckily, there's no shortage of Civ 6 mods that aim to tackle that problem.
Arguably one of the best available for the game is the Environment Skin mod, which alters the map visuals to bring them more in line with Civilization 5. The colors are toned down, giving the game a more neutral look. It's certainly a much-appreciated mod for those who preferred the previous entry's graphics."

"The most popular Civ 6 mod of all time (at the time of writing), despite Civilization 6 firmly overtaking Civ 5 in terms of player numbers, it seems many still can’t escape their love for those older, slightly muddier Civ 5 graphics.
This is graphics mod, technically, although it’s not a complete overhaul. Instead it changes and tweaks the textures and colour palette to bring it more in line with how Civ 5 looks. It’s probably not 100% accurate, but judging by the screenshots (and the subscriber count) it’s close enough. Personally, I never thought graphics were the main problem with Civ 6 but there’s no account for taste sometimes."

"One common criticism of Civ 6 is that it’s a bit too bright and cartoonish, as compared to the more realistic look of previous games in the series. This mod, released by a Firaxis dev, strikes a really nice balance between this Civ’s visual style and that of its immediate predecessor. The saturation has been turned down and almost every basic tile type and decal has been altered in some way. It even adds new, more naturalistic models for ground clutter like trees. Pair this with something like the R.E.D. Modpack (above) to get rid of the Clash of Clans-looking armies and you’re in for a much more immersive, less board game-y feel. "

In short - it's fine to like Civ 6 graphics, but I think you're trying to defend it too hard, discrediting the amount of people who simply don't like these graphics.

 

[pokiehl]

I also checked the internet by googling "civ 6 recommended mods". I checked 5 articles. Only in one of them graphics mod wasn't mentioned. In one article it's only mentioned as "Other Civilization 6 Mods Worth Getting" and in 3 of them it has detailed section dedicated to it. Descrptions:

"In the Civilization series, players will spend a great deal of time looking at the map. Although certainly pretty to look at, its vibrant color scheme may not be everybody's cup of tea. Luckily, there's no shortage of Civ 6 mods that aim to tackle that problem.
Arguably one of the best available for the game is the Environment Skin mod, which alters the map visuals to bring them more in line with Civilization 5. The colors are toned down, giving the game a more neutral look. It's certainly a much-appreciated mod for those who preferred the previous entry's graphics."

"The most popular Civ 6 mod of all time (at the time of writing), despite Civilization 6 firmly overtaking Civ 5 in terms of player numbers, it seems many still can’t escape their love for those older, slightly muddier Civ 5 graphics.
This is graphics mod, technically, although it’s not a complete overhaul. Instead it changes and tweaks the textures and colour palette to bring it more in line with how Civ 5 looks. It’s probably not 100% accurate, but judging by the screenshots (and the subscriber count) it’s close enough. Personally, I never thought graphics were the main problem with Civ 6 but there’s no account for taste sometimes."

"One common criticism of Civ 6 is that it’s a bit too bright and cartoonish, as compared to the more realistic look of previous games in the series. This mod, released by a Firaxis dev, strikes a really nice balance between this Civ’s visual style and that of its immediate predecessor. The saturation has been turned down and almost every basic tile type and decal has been altered in some way. It even adds new, more naturalistic models for ground clutter like trees. Pair this with something like the R.E.D. Modpack (above) to get rid of the Clash of Clans-looking armies and you’re in for a much more immersive, less board game-y feel. "

A random website you found on Google is a strange place to stake your appeal to authority on. You're quoting a content-farm gaming "article" that makes random lists of mods. These are always all over the place and not reflective of anything. A lot of them are generated by ChatGPT.

The Civ 5 environmental mod is not the most popular mod of all time - it's not even in the top 20. It's a cool mod and it's nice that the art dev at Firaxis made it, but it doesn't even change the "graphics," it just alters a select number of textures on the map. Models, animations, and textures for basically everything else are unchanged.

The article also incorrectly asserts that other Civ games were more "realistic." They assuredly were not. Everyone has rosetinted glasses and seems to forget the huge negative backlash Civ 4's graphics had, for instance.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

A random website you found on Google is a strange place to stake your appeal to authority on. You're quoting a content-farm gaming "article" that makes random lists of mods. These are always all over the place and not reflective of anything. A lot of them are generated by ChatGPT.

Well, it still indicates something even if you disagree, which you clearly do. It's also not random, since listed mods are also mentioned in reddit posts as gameplay mods recommended by players.

The Civ 5 environmental mod is not the most popular mod of all time - it's not even in the top 20. It's a cool mod and it's nice that the art dev at Firaxis made it, but it doesn't even change the "graphics," it just alters a select number of textures on the map. Models, animations, and textures for basically everything else are unchanged.

"The most popular Civ 6 mod of all time (at the time of writing)"

It's common and understandable that mods don't stay among the most popular forever. For many people complex gameplay mods or QoL mods are more desired, and it takes sometimes more time to make them. It's absolutely possible the graphics mod was the most popular early on and then was surpassed by gameplay/QoL mods. It still says a lot about its popularity though. You also omitted part where I wrote about other, possibly more trustworthy source - this forum. Polls on civfanatics, while not a perfect source, also suggest that a significant % of players dislike Civ 6 graphics.

I've just checked. It's not in the top 20 now. It's on the 24th place. That's still a very high position.

The article also incorrectly asserts that other Civ games were more "realistic." They assuredly were not. Everyone has rosetinted glasses and seems to forget the huge negative backlash Civ 4's graphics had, for instance.

It says the graphics were more realistic and it's true. Even Civ IV with "not so realistic" graphics (it's a pretty old game after all) had still more serious tone than Civ 6, where not only colors are strange, but also units and leaders have terribly exaggerated cartoony features. Civ IV had bad graphics for some, but definitely wasn't intentionally cartoony. Civ 6 has bad graphics not because of lack of technology or art skill, but because of artistic choice devs made. You may not agree it's a bad choice, but at least you should be able to admit it was a controversial one.

You see - to me Civilization was always about serious things like building civilization, expanding borders through colonization and conquest, scientific breakthroughs, evolving military and so on. And using silly graphics simply doesn't fit it. I would expect such animations the workers have in a mobile game for kids than in a game about improving economic output of the capital of your historical empire.

I've just imagined how Total War series or Europa Universalis, games set in human history as well, looked like with such cartoony graphics and units. Oh, the horror.

 

[pokiehl]

Even Civ IV with "not so realistic" graphics (it's a pretty old game after all) had still more serious tone than Civ 6, where not only colors are strange, but also units and leaders have terribly exaggerated cartoony features. Civ IV had bad graphics for some, but definitely wasn't intentionally cartoony. Civ 6 has bad graphics not because of lack of technology or art skill, but because of artistic choice devs made. You may not agree it's a bad choice, but at least you should be able to admit it was a controversial one.

You see - to me Civilization was always about serious things like building civilization, expanding borders through colonization and conquest, scientific breakthroughs, evolving military and so on. And using silly graphics simply doesn't fit it. I would expect such animations the workers have in a mobile game for kids than in a game about improving economic output of the capital of your historical empire.

These are pretty cartoony and silly to me. Civ 4 Hatshepsut is straight out of an iOS game or Clash of Clans. Civ has never been an overly serious game, even going back to Civ 2, which had silly sci-fi and fantasy scenarios.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Let's not confuse game's popularity with liking its graphics. For many people Civ 6 is the only Civ they played simply because they, for some reason, never played earlier ones (they weren't interested before, or were too young to play). I've seen plenty of Civ 6 fans who never played Civ IV or even Civ V. Just because they play Civ 6 now say nothing about their preferences when it comes to graphics. They may dislike it, but they still play because it's the latest game in the series and they like the idea of the game.

What about the people skipping over Civ 5 because of the graphics?

 

[Solver]

That Civ4 Hatshepsut screenshot is only half fair, that look featured in the promotional images but she was toned down a bit for the actual game so head leader scene was not quite that cartoonish. She was after all the first leaderhead made for Civ4, so got got toned down a bit, though you can definitely see in the final game how Hatshepsut and Gandhi are early leaderheads less serious than the rest.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

These are pretty cartoony and silly to me. Civ 4 Hatshepsut is straight out of an iOS game or Clash of Clans. Civ has never been an overly serious game, even going back to Civ 2, which had silly sci-fi and fantasy scenarios.

In general Civ IV was less cartoony. I never said it was 100% serious and realistic. Civ V was like that and I think majority of players liked it (there will always be someone who will dislike new things). I remember loving Civ V graphics from the beginning, even though I disliked early Civ V very much overall.

By the way, if I understand it correctly it's also quite telling that the graphics mod was made by one of the devs, who disliked the graphics choice so badly he decided to do something about it. I'm not sure I've ever heard of anything like that before, I think it's quite uncommon in game industry and proves that even among the devs not everyone agreed with the course set by art director.

What about the people skipping over Civ 5 because of the graphics?

I don't know, what about them?

 

[pokiehl]

In general Civ IV was less cartoony. I never said it was 100% serious and realistic. Civ V was like that and I think majority of players liked it (there will always be someone who will dislike new things). I remember loving Civ V graphics from the beginning, even though I disliked early Civ V very much overall.

Your initial point was specifically about leaders, so I posted leaders. Beyond that, Civ 4 was more cartoony than Civ 6 in every way. No unit armies--just single gigantic units like boardgame pieces. Silly, strange looking cartoon leaders. Bright colors everywhere. Silly fonts. Silly quotes. The rest of this is just your opinion about Civ 5 which doesn't indicate anything except your own feelings.

By the way, if I understand it correctly it's also quite telling that the graphics mod was made by one of the devs, who disliked the graphics choice so badly he decided to do something about it. I'm not sure I've ever heard of anything like that before, I think it's quite uncommon in game industry and proves that even among the devs not everyone agreed with the course set by art director.

That's not true whatsoever. The lead art director himself is who made the mod. He put it up as an example for other modders of what kind of cool visual mods are possible Just read his own description of the mod:

I was challenged by the team to create an expansive mod using Mod Buddy, and this was the end result. It's an example of how much you can change the visuals and I hope it provides inspiration to try your own modifications.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

Civ 4 was more cartoony than Civ 6 in every way. No unit armies--just single gigantic units like boardgame pieces. Silly, strange looking cartoon leaders. Bright colors. Silly fonts. Silly quotes.

Every Civ has gigantic units, so I don't know what you're trying to prove here.
When it comes to units in Civ IV they at least looked more realistic (body proportions and animations) despite being more primitive looking because of older technology.

Leaders, even though not realistic, also weren't as exaggerated as these ones for example:

I don't know of what silly fonts you're talking about. Silly quotes are just humor, they have nothing to do with being cartoony.

And when it comes to Civ V (which should be compared to Civ 6 after all, because it was its direct predecessor) it's totally more serious looking.

The rest of this is just your opinion about Civ 5 which doesn't indicate anything except your own feelings.

The same can be said about your opinion about Civ 6 graphics and comparison to other Civ games. You prefer Civ 6 graphics, we got it. It's nothing wrong or bad. But your determination in proving that "it isn't that cartoony/other games were more cartoony" is puzzling, since I believe it's a quite commonly known fact around here that Civ 6 is the most cartoonish Civ, both when it comes to design of units/leaders/terrain and animations (these dreadful worker animations).

That's not true; you do not understand it correctly. The lead art director himself is who made the mod. He put it up as an example for other modders of what kind of cool visual mods are possible

I see. It's still telling though that this mod became so popular for some reason

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Oh yay, more Civ VI graphics arguments.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't know, what about them?

Because there are people, like me, who did just that. Of course, graphics aren't the only thing, but I do prefer both gameplay and the art style of Civ 6. I do admit there are leaders and the backgrounds that look better, but that's about it.

 

[Pistol90]

I have a feling they will make it just right (at least for me) this time.

It wont be realistic like Civ5 and not too cartonish as Civ6. Somewhere middle of the road, if that screenshot is correct --- thats what we got.

It's safe bet if you ask me, and a right one.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

Because there are people, like me, who did just that. Of course, graphics aren't the only thing, but I do prefer both gameplay and the art style of Civ 6. I do admit there are leaders and the backgrounds that look better, but that's about it.

That's fine, but... so what? People always have different preferences. The reception of Civ 6 graphics is however what it is and was discussed many times, proving it was a controversial decision, despite the overall commercial success of the game.

I have a feling they will make it just right (at least for me) this time.

It wont be realistic like Civ5 and not too cartonish as Civ6. Somewhere middle of the road, if that screenshot is correct --- thats what we got.

It's safe bet if you ask me, and a right one.

Exactly. Extremes and controversies are usually bad and pointless. Middle ground is safe and enjoyable by many. Personally I would prefer realism, but if it won't be as cartoony as in Civ 6 I'll enjoy it with no problems.