[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[PhoenicianGold]

Art. is OK... but not at the cost of neglecting everything else .. which is just the case

Well.. if you like to be treated like a child ...ok .. I do expect to be treated like a adult consumer ...

The infantilization of America is a real phenomenon. Adults like zombies, sad as that may be.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Well.. You point is (please correct me if I am wrong) that Civs should be more "homogeneous" ... and I say that's not possible in a civilization game,.. specially in CIV VI

My point is that this is entertainment product and Firexis (legit) intend is to maximize sales.. so they tend to include "modern states" that are key markets... but a Game named Civilization has to include historic an characteristic historic civilizations and empires .. so you need some degree of abstraction to shape them has "playable factions" .. but on the other hand.. people -in these forums, not in real world- complains about "bloob" civs (the one who coined the term should receive royalties) .. in a strange taliban purity that accepts vampires and zombies but cannot accept India or Celts ..

My point is not they must be "homogenous" by any means but should be well-themed. Yes, you are right you need some degree of abstraction. That's a very good point. It was all started when I pointed that people were mad (you would say in a strange Taliban manner) about the Celtic blob (which is some degree of abstraction), but has no problem with the Italy blob (which is also some degree of abstraction). I just don't understand those double standards I have pointed it and then the discussion started. In my opinion degree of abstraction in the case of ancient Civs, about which we don't know really much can be more liberal, but in the case of modern history when we have some interesting recognizable Civ and we want to put it with the others (sometimes even minor) into one basket is not even a blob, but just a waste. And this is the whole point of the Venice vs. Italy case.
As for modern states being key markets. I know, I fully agree it's a thing, I am aware, but I may not like some things here. Following blindly this path we can someday reach the point where we (or Firaxis to be more precise) will start to consider what Civ we want in a game modern Mexico or Aztecs. And you know what is the funniest? I wouldn't be surprised if the main argument here against Aztecs would be they are a blob, really
So as for my "complains", this is it.
And don't count me as a vampire and zombie fan I am on the opposite side, but I am not a person that in every single post will be salty about it and leave an obligatory rant saying the devs are stupid and childish. It is not the devs but this kind of comment is childish in my opinion. So I will just rest with my "This is not a mode for me".

 

[PhoenicianGold]

My point is not they must be "homogenous" by any means but should be well-themed. Yes, you are right you need some degree of abstraction. That's a very good point. It was all started when I pointed that people were mad (you would say in a strange Taliban manner) about the Celtic blob (which is some degree of abstraction), but has no problem with the Italy blob (which is also some degree of abstraction). I just don't understand those double standards I have pointed it and then the discussion started. In my opinion degree of abstraction in the case of ancient Civs, about which we don't know really much can be more liberal, but in the case of modern history when we have some interesting recognizable Civ and we want to put it with the others (sometimes even minor) into one basket is not even a blob, but just a waste. And this is the whole point of the Venice vs. Italy case.
As for modern states being key markets. I know, I fully agree it's a thing, I am aware, but I may not like some things here. Following blindly this path we can someday reach the point where we (or Firaxis to be more precise) will start to consider what Civ we want in a game modern Mexico or Aztecs. And you know what is the funniest? I wouldn't be surprised if the main argument here against Aztecs would be they are a blob, really
So as for my "complains", this is it.

This is still a bit of pointless equivocation though, given that:

1) Again the civ franchise and specifically civ VI seem to really be trying to represent coherent polities and cultures to the most reasonable extent possible for that region/polity/culture; and

2) The Celts were not the best representation of that particular region/culture when we had specific empires/polities to work with like Scotland, Ireland, and Gaul.

The scale isn't consistent across civs; it slides based on whether the historians "could have done better." That's why for some regions and time periods we have Scythia and the Maori, while for others we have the Ottomans and Spain.

 

[The Kingmaker]

It was all started when I pointed that people were mad (you would say in a strange Taliban manner) about the Celtic blob (which is some degree of abstraction), but has no problem with the Italy blob (which is also some degree of abstraction). I just don't understand those double standards

It’s the degree of abstraction.

Having all the Gallic tribes represented as a single civ is still technically a “blob.” But it’s much more reasonable than trying to represent all Celts or all Native Americans (a la Civ4) or whatever as a single civ, because those are very large and disparate categories. A pan-Celtic civ would be like having a pan-Romance civ covering France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, etc.

The point is that if all of the various Greek, German, etc. polities can be condensed into recognizable civs called Greece, Germany, etc., then it only makes sense to have an Italy along those same lines.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Once again and last time to those who do not yet understand:
In my opinion degree of abstraction in the case of ancient Civs, about which we don't know really much can be more liberal, but in the case of modern history when we have some interesting recognizable Civ and we want to put it with the others (sometimes even minor) into one basket (labeled as a Modern Nation) is not even a blob, but just a waste.

 

[j51]

As far as the leader graphics go: The corners cut in NFP look bad because the previous models were so detailed and characterful. If, in Civ VII say, they went with less detailed leaders with more standardized parts, that could then be recombined to make new models, then it wouldn't break the in game immersion. I'd actually really like that if it meant more leaders in general (At least 2 per civ hopefully!) and made it easier for modders who aren't Sukritact to create passable leaders.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

As far as the leader graphics go: The corners cut in NFP look bad because the previous models were so detailed and characterful. If, in Civ VII say, they went with less detailed leaders with more standardized parts, that could then be recombined to make new models, then it wouldn't break the in game immersion. I'd actually really like that if it meant more leaders in general (At least 2 per civ hopefully!) and made it easier for modders who aren't Sukritact to create passable leaders.

1) They are already recycling animation, and

2) The leader screens as they are were already intended to allow for simpler construction as compared to V. Not only did they abandon fully rendered backgrounds (a choice I wholly support), but the leaders themselves are deliberately more cartoony so that the graphics can age better.

I just don't know how much more we could do while also making the game feel up to date and worth the price. Maybe cel-shading?

 

[Zaarin]

As far as the leader graphics go: The corners cut in NFP look bad because the previous models were so detailed and characterful. If, in Civ VII say, they went with less detailed leaders with more standardized parts, that could then be recombined to make new models, then it wouldn't break the in game immersion. I'd actually really like that if it meant more leaders in general (At least 2 per civ hopefully!) and made it easier for modders who aren't Sukritact to create passable leaders.

I think it's too late in the day to go backward on detail. Expectations have been set by Civ5 and Civ6 that would cause disappointment if they did something less detailed.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I think it's too late in the day to go backward on detail. Expectations have been set by Civ5 and Civ6 that would cause disappointment if they did something less detailed.

I'd buy a painterly aesthetic ala Okami or SF4. Could be cool, and maybe ease up on rendering requirements (although animation will always need finesse).

But then we'd have people complain that X leader should have been painted in Y style instead...

 

[Zaarin]

I'd buy a painterly aesthetic ala Okami or SF4. Could be cool, and maybe ease up on rendering requirements (although animation will always need finesse).

But then we'd have people complain that X leader should have been painted in Y style instead...

I'd be 100% on board with this (and was actually going to suggest as much before I changed my mind), but it's not going to happen (thanks, Frozen -_-). However, I'd want a consistent style, not "everyone painted in their native style." Visual unity would trump historical accuracy for me in this case, as novel as it might be to see the Egyptian leader in Egyptian wall art style and the Japanese leader in ukiyo-e or whatever. So as you say, everyone is inevitably going to complain about "Eurocentrism" if they go this route.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I'd be 100% on board with this (and was actually going to suggest as much before I changed my mind), but it's not going to happen (thanks, Frozen -_-). However, I'd want a consistent style, not "everyone painted in their native style." Visual unity would trump historical accuracy for me in this case, as novel as it might be to see the Egyptian leader in Egyptian wall art style and the Japanese leader in ukiyo-e or whatever. So as you say, everyone is inevitably going to complain about "Eurocentrism" if they go this route.

It's not going to be more "eurocentrism," it's going to be more effective budget spending.

 

[Zaarin]

It's not going to be more "eurocentrism," it's going to be more effective budget spending.

That depends on the painterly look they choose to imitate.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

That depends on the painterly look they choose to imitate.

Very true. I'm pretty sure they'd still choose a Western-style of painting, though.

 

[AsH2]

I think it's too late in the day to go backward on detail. Expectations have been set by Civ5 and Civ6 that would cause disappointment if they did something less detailed.

I'd buy a painterly aesthetic ala Okami or SF4. Could be cool, and maybe ease up on rendering requirements (although animation will always need finesse).

Exactly. The quality level has to be in parity or disappointment would be inevitable.

But then we'd have people complain that X leader should have been painted in Y style instead...

That's really no new problem and should then be "easily" fixed by modders.

 

[TeddyMain]

I'd buy a painterly aesthetic ala Okami or SF4.

Amaterasu as the next alt leader for Japan when?

 

[j51]

I think it's too late in the day to go backward on detail. Expectations have been set by Civ5 and Civ6 that would cause disappointment if they did something less detailed.

Sadly I think you're right. I just hope they keep it simple enough to make more leaders next time. Although I do think they could sell a simpler style if they sold it as part of a "make your own leader" feature. I guess Humankind is kinda doing that though, huh?

Honestly: I just want more leaders next time.

 

[Zaarin]

Very true. I'm pretty sure they'd still choose a Western-style of painting, though.

I meant how much time they save depends on the style. If we get John William Waterhouse-style animated leaders...that'll take some more time than if it's Disney-style.

Although I do think they could sell a simpler style if they sold it as part of a "make your own leader" feature.

Part of Civ's appeal is the historical leaders so, as much as I love this feature in Humankind, I wouldn't want to see it come to Civ.

 

[TreVor_ish]

Part of Civ's appeal is the historical leaders so, as much as I love this feature in Humankind, I wouldn't want to see it come to Civ.

Avatar Screen in Humankind (based on Feature Focus video) is showing quite a number of customizable options within archetypes, strengths and biases with addition to graphical representations in looks. If they decide to let it be moddable, we will be able to create any leader (historical or otherwise), although it already looked quite extensive. Possibilities will be endless, the only matter that would remain is voiced narrative (and the fact of cultural diversity throughout the ages).

 

[Zaarin]

Avatar Screen in Humankind (based on Feature Focus video) is showing quite a number of customizable options within archetypes, strengths and biases with addition to graphical representations in looks. If they decide to let it be moddable, we will be able to create any leader (historical or otherwise), although it already looked quite extensive. Possibilities will be endless, the only matter that would remain is voiced narrative (and the fact of cultural diversity throughout the ages).

I'm aware. Again, I love it for Humankind, but I don't want it for Civ.

 

[TreVor_ish]

I'm aware. Again, I love it for Humankind, but I don't want it for Civ.

Oh, no, totally agree. However from game that's based on historical figures, when selling additional ones as dlcs, I expect their quality at least not to worsen.