Does Civ IV look... cartoony?

[ainwood]

everybody who thinks the graphics are cartoony is stupid. They're fine. Besides, they'll probably be tweaking it some more.

I think calling people 'stupid' for expressing an opinion is a bit excessive. Please choose your words with a little more care.

On Topic: - I think the landscape looks fantastic. The units I am not completely sold on - they seem a bit big (people have been mentioning scaling them, and I hope that is possible).

 

[El Justo]

I think calling people 'stupid' for expressing an opinion is a bit excessive. Please choose your words with a little more care.

On Topic: - I think the landscape looks fantastic. The units I am not completely sold on - they seem a bit big (people have been mentioning scaling them, and I hope that is possible).

i couldn't agree more.

good point on the unit scale. i had thought the same thing; that they look sort of weird.

to be honest, i could care less what the graphic enhancements are. i want faster load times, more editor options and a smarter AI. i remain skeptical...

 

[Xen]

On Topic: - I think the landscape looks fantastic. The units I am not completely sold on - they seem a bit big (people have been mentioning scaling them, and I hope that is possible).

Thats stupid!

anyway, in soem screenies, the view has been soomed out, and units look smaller according to thier surroundingl but this may be just a quick glance as said screenshots on my part.

that said, I hold the same hope as you; let a Caesar king unti remain that size, so that such a colossus, as shakspear said, may bestride the earth; otherwise, I hope the units can be more realisticlly scaled to thier enviroment, now that it is possible to do so withthe 3D engine and all

 

[JtheJackal]

I don't remember anyone caring that they were giants in the previous civs.

 

[Goblin Fanatic]

Actually, i rather have cartoony graphics than high-end complicated graphics.
The simpler the better, i'd prefer the game not to be 3d but if it's 3d then cartoon-nes is a way to simplify it.
Also, the cartoony leaderheads are meant to make the game treat history with distance, and since the game is about all history distance is essential.
But it's right that Ghandi is a rather silly persona in this bunch and there's more to India than just holy pacifism and curry. Did somebody mentioned "Louie"? That would mean we will have Louis king of french? That would be good news.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Not more than Civ1, 2 and 3.

 

[oldStatesman]

Did somebody mentioned "Louie"? That would mean we will have Louis king of french? That would be good news.

Yuppers - good old Louie the 14th is one of the French choices - Napoleon being the other I believe.

 

[Mobilize]

I hate hate hate the graphics for this game. I seriously want to shoot who ever thought of making a sequel to such a great game series in such piss-poor graphics.

It's too cartooney. Firaxis is doing the same thing Blizzard did with WarcraftIII, and that makes me angry--very angry because WarcraftIII was so fricken ugly.

I'm sorry but, CivIV won't amount to nothing with it's current look.. I seriously want Firaxis to apologise to it's modder community for making such a childish looking game.

Long live CivIII.

 

[cemsity]

even if the grahics look cartoony the way they ave the skin difuse is relistic. the proper term i guees for the game is more characture of the units and the leaders.

Firaxis is doing the same thing Blizzard did with WarcraftIII

this is not true warcraft was a bit cartoony

 

[Hygro]

Before any one has a “wind waker” tantrum they should see the video thurderfall posted, as i thought the graphics looked cartooned and now I’m in love with them!

That's a good point. I was not excited at all about Wind Waker's cartoony aspect, and I ended up loving that game more than any other for consol.

I'm ready to give this a chance.

 

[p dandy]

I actually enjoyed to caricatures. Ghandi waving his finger at Soren was hilarious.

 

[troytheface]

they are definately more cartoony but better looking than the current cartooney graphics. The new generation of computer animators seem to use similiar styles and they are not as harsh looking as some of the first groups stuff- more realistic could be accomplished ( it seems) with simple photographs- but i do not think that is fun.
I think carving out ur own world and its own aesthetic is important for computer games-(i see doom and quake- and Halo- and they are all kind of the same "look" )
the movie "RoadWarrior" was a bit cartoonish but what it did was create a fresh original look- like a bosch painting-if everything went "realism" then the most important artists of the twentieth century would not be Matisse or Picasso- it would be some stodgy realist and the world would suffer from it-

 

[oldStatesman]

they are definately more cartoony but better looking than the current cartooney graphics. The new generation of computer animators seem to use similiar styles and they are not as harsh looking as some of the first groups stuff- more realistic could be accomplished ( it seems) with simple photographs- but i do not think that is fun.
I think carving out ur own world and its own aesthetic is important for computer games-(i see doom and quake- and Halo- and they are all kind of the same "look" )
the movie "RoadWarrior" was a bit cartoonish but what it did was create a fresh original look- like a bosch painting-if everything went "realism" then the most important artists of the twentieth century would not be Matisse or Picasso- it would be some stodgy realist and the world would suffer from it-

Good points. As I said it really does not bother me much one way or the other...

The only thing I dislike is the disparate styles ... why are Ghandi, the Eqyptian lady and the ancient Chinese emporer overly done very cartoony caricatures, and Louie XIV and Mao are not, instead they are much more realistic looking animations. Didn't their artists co-ordinate styles? Or are there other reasons?

To me, if you are going to use a certain style of graphics, use it all the way through - I don't like it when you can tell different artists did different parts of the graphics...it looks thrown together, unprofessional; and one wonders if the rest of the game is the same way.

 

[ainwood]

I don't remember anyone caring that they were giants in the previous civs.

I think that in Civ3 (at least) it looked very abstract. For example, a 'city' was a sort of blob of shapes that might be buildings. Horses were clearly just a symbol of it all. Forests and jungles were clumps of greenery. We didn't care that the units were giants, because everythng else was abstract.

In C-IV, the resources are now more like 'real' resources - the little houses do give the impression of being houses etc. I guess what I'm trying to say is that everything except the units appear to be scaled in C-IV. Now you can see what look to be individual trees with units towering above them.

 

[JtheJackal]

The game is still very abstract, resources are as big as cities, horse are as big as houses, ect. I would imagine no one would notice after they got into the game. (But considering the graphics mods people made for Civ3 that is probably unlikely)

 

[mdm]

I love everything about the graphics. I think the leader heads are better than the weird grainy thing that was going on with Civ3. Louis XIV looks tremendous.

Nerd thing: Pronounce XIV as if it were a word and it's Civ