AspiringScholar
King
Agree with most of this. I don't care for the graphics of base Civ 4 at all (although I think Blue Marble is quite nice), I do like 3d, even if it meant a smaller map.
Yeah, I can understand that. The Realism Invictus mod (the version of the game that I play) exudes a more "serious" tone (while being far more polished and modernized, as well), and I too dislike the kind of silly cartoony-ness that the vanilla game imbued its 3D graphics with. On the other hand, I really like the UI (from a sheer gameplay standpoint, I can't think of any other game that did a better job with cleanly presenting and making a huge density of information interactable), and the color-pencil sketching of most of the icons is a particularly pleasant look. Ironically, Civ 3 did the opposite and had a more natural appearance with the main map and units, but the UI was a little bit strange and artificial looking.
As others have mentioned, I liked the art deco of 5's UI quite a bit too, but I found the map and units to lack individuality and distinction. (The world also felt more "static" than it did in IV, which came across compellingly as a living, breathing environment that you were playing in, in my opinion.)
If I could have my way, though, I would probably prefer something like a modernized presentation inspired by Civ 3: a generally less "busy" look, which errs on the side of simplicity in emphasizing strategically important information, while still having a definite touch of leading style. Zooming introduces an interesting question, since, in Civ 4's case, in a closeup most things look pretty bad in a way that you wouldn't notice at the intended "medium," but could become enormously system-taxing today with what expensive hardware now enables, for the sake of introducing something that ultimately isn't intended for the primary mode of play.