Don`t like the cartoony look of the Leaders in Civ 6.

[King Jason]

I don't accept your premise in general, and particularly regarding visuals, I think that even most of Civ V's detractors would admit that it looked pretty good.

Regardless of what I thought of civ 5's gameplay, I thought it was ugly as hell. I'll admit I was actually excited about the realistic approach before the games release. My favorite thing in fact was that units were done in regiments, not single representations or groups of three. It looked awesome.

But it got dull real quick. Perhaps I say this as a result of a general distaste for the game itself (Made better and more whole by BnW, as most agree)- but civ5 just felt lifeless and boring to me; very drab.

 

[darko82]

But it got dull real quick. Perhaps I say this as a result of a general distaste for the game itself (Made better and more whole by BnW, as most agree)- but civ5 just felt lifeless and boring to me; very drab.

Yes, at release it was very empty, just as the leaders who are emotionless with almost no expression.

 

[Socratatus]

Green grass certainly conveys a lot about feudal Japan . The backgrounds in civ5 were too much effort for what they were.

The world is a big place, and all types post, so I guess I must be missing something here, but...

`The backgrounds were too much effort?`

This makes no sense to me unless you were the one who designed and put up the Civ 5 backgrounds. How are they too much effort? There wasn`t enough effort. Much more could`ve been put into that background; more animation, different lighting depending on time of day effects and even additional advisers behind the Leader would`ve been nice.

Some of the arguments I see against the excellent leaders and screens boggle my mind. I suppose you`d be happy with a spreadsheet of numbers and 1s and 0s to represent the leader graphics? I haven`t seen one decent argument against the realistic leader heads of Civ5.

They helped to get me into the game. To treat it like a real leader to real leader.

It`s like some of you are already so invested in Civ 6, that none may have any dissent towards it. Civ 6 can do no wrong. Everything Firaxis does is perfect. EVERYTHING. And if anyone says anything against it, ye must throw thyself down in sacrifice on the heathen blade for poor Civ 6 and Firaxis.

Then in 5 years when Firaxis goes the opposite way you`ll say Civ 7 is perfect then too, even before playing it.

It seems obvious.

 

[ToothedBomb]

Green grass certainly conveys a lot about feudal Japan . The backgrounds in civ5 were too much effort for what they were. Civ6 bg could be improved thats for sure, but as long as they are kept 2d, (fully rendered 3d bg is not really worth it).

I never said they were all winners. The further we went along in terms of DLC and expansions, the more interesting the screens became IMO. I was hoping they'd continue to pursue this direction, but now they're just taking a step back.

Also don't really see how it's too much effort. Civilization is a popular franchise. It has made a lot of money. I don't see why they can't just go all out here.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I frankly don't see the big deal in either direction regarding the backgrounds. It's just a different style. I do think that the static backgrounds draw more attention towards the animated characters, however (which IMO look pretty good).

 

[Stringer1313]

I prefer the more animated, cartoony look over the more "realistic" look of Civ 5. The Civ 5 leaders all seemed very subdued and boring. I prefer that they be overly dramatic. In fact this may be the first Civ with cartoony leaders that fill up the whole screen. Civ 4 came closest but only occupied a window. Civ 3 and Civ 5 were overly staid for my tastes (though I love how Civ 3 changed the costumes over the ages, I may be the only person who wishes they would do that again, b/c it makes you imagine different leaders in different eras).

 

[Thormodr]

The world is a big place, and all types post, so I guess I must be missing something here, but...

`The backgrounds were too much effort?`

This makes no sense to me unless you were the one who designed and put up the Civ 5 backgrounds. How are they too much effort? There wasn`t enough effort. Much more could`ve been put into that background; more animation, different lighting depending on time of day effects and even additional advisers behind the Leader would`ve been nice.

Some of the arguments I see against the excellent leaders and screens boggle my mind. I suppose you`d be happy with a spreadsheet of numbers and 1s and 0s to represent the leader graphics? I haven`t seen one decent argument against the realistic leader heads of Civ5.

They helped to get me into the game. To treat it like a real leader to real leader.

It`s like some of you are already so invested in Civ 6, that none may have any dissent towards it. Civ 6 can do no wrong. Everything Firaxis does is perfect. EVERYTHING. And if anyone says anything against it, ye must throw thyself down in sacrifice on the heathen blade for poor Civ 6 and Firaxis.

Then in 5 years when Firaxis goes the opposite way you`ll say Civ 7 is perfect then too, even before playing it.

It seems obvious.

A lot of hyperbole there.

Maybe, just maybe, *shock* *gasp* people are optimistic about Civ VI and actually do like the graphics.

I quite like the graphics and I'm certainly no sycophant. Firaxis is getting no free passes from me as I thought Civilization 5 was an unmitigated disaster. Only the hard work of Ed Beach and the community with CBP brought it up to the level of decent.

Anyway, the graphics in Civilization 5 were pretty good (I didn't mind Art Deco) but most of leader backgrounds were nothing special. Genghis Khan's background looks blurry and washed out, for example. The leaders looked good but they lacked emotion.

The leaders revealed so far in Civ VI look much more alive and seem to be returning to a more cIV style, which was a truly excellent game. The backgrounds will take some getting used to for some but it shouldn't be a deal breaker and should be able to be easily modded anyway.

So colour me not worried. The game already looks much better than the moribund Civilization 5 and the gameplay looks to blow it out of the water.

 

[King Jason]

I haven`t seen one decent argument against the realistic leader heads of Civ5.

They helped to get me into the game. To treat it like a real leader to real leader.

Cool. I hated them, and thought they were dull, boring, and a waste of resources. But I've felt that even since civ4's portraits, and civ3's silly changing outfits. While I didn't mind the portraits of civ4 aesthetically, I don't really see the point. Doing diplomacy with a painting would be sufficient for me to "get into the game"

Spoiler :

So yes, in that vein, I would rather the entire art section of the art department that develops the leader screens to spend their time and budget on... literally anything else. That said, I do enjoy the civ6 leaders thus far, just like I did ultimately enjoy civ4s; I still think they're a waste of resources.

Civ5 just had the extra bonus of me not liking the end result in addition to thinking the entire thing is pointless. In fact the best thing about civ5's leaderscreens was that I could turn off the animations and essentially turn them into paintings. Something that I hope remains in civ6

It`s like some of you are already so invested in Civ 6

Or maybe some of us just like the way the game looks; where you just don't.

This reminded me of something amazing - I got my girlfriend into civ with civ5 and when I showed her the stuff on civ6 she blew up in excitement and said "the leaders move!?" - Woops. My bad.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Wait -- you could disable leader animations in Civ V? Don't tell me that their superfluous faces loaded without your computer huffing and puffing like a steam engine after you did that... I might break something more valuable than I should if that was the case!

 

[King Jason]

Wait -- you could disable leader animations in Civ V? Don't tell me that their superfluous faces loaded without your computer huffing and puffing like a steam engine after you did that... I might break something more valuable than I should if that was the case!

Lol, yep. Set Leader animations (I think? Leader something) to minimum in the video settings and the diplo screen is pretty much just a screenshot of the leader.

 

[ehecatzin]

The world is a big place, and all types post, so I guess I must be missing something here, but...

`The backgrounds were too much effort?`

This makes no sense to me unless you were the one who designed and put up the Civ 5 backgrounds. How are they too much effort? There wasn`t enough effort. Much more could`ve been put into that background; more animation, different lighting depending on time of day effects and even additional advisers behind the Leader would`ve been nice.

Some of the arguments I see against the excellent leaders and screens boggle my mind. I suppose you`d be happy with a spreadsheet of numbers and 1s and 0s to represent the leader graphics? I haven`t seen one decent argument against the realistic leader heads of Civ5.

They helped to get me into the game. To treat it like a real leader to real leader.

It`s like some of you are already so invested in Civ 6, that none may have any dissent towards it. Civ 6 can do no wrong. Everything Firaxis does is perfect. EVERYTHING. And if anyone says anything against it, ye must throw thyself down in sacrifice on the heathen blade for poor Civ 6 and Firaxis.

Then in 5 years when Firaxis goes the opposite way you`ll say Civ 7 is perfect then too, even before playing it.

It seems obvious.

Who's talking about spreadsheets? as I said before, the leaderscreens in civ5 were incredible pieces of concept art, but barring some exceptions were incredibly dull when it comes to animation, it's almost like they were afraid that animating too much would break the composition, but its something that comes along being more realistic, it was easier for Firaxis to restrain the animation to go along with the more realistic look, yes it looks really nice, but you can't really push the animation or it gets substantially more expensive. So we ended up with very pretty backgrounds and leaders that hardly move.

Yes the leader screens on the expansions got much better, in good measure because most of them weren't just sit on a throne, and when they did, they actually put the effort into either them having a very interesting pose (Theodora) or actually moving on the damm chair (Attila).

I said this before, both have pros and cons, and I can see both. personally I like the focus on character animation better.

Also I've always been critical of civ 5 leaderscreens, maybe it's you that sees civ5 in rose colored glasses? either way to each its own, it's not like they are going to switch back to civ5 screens mid production, and I'm looking forward to see the rest of the leaders.

Anyway, I can see it now that this thread is just going to keep on repeating the same points, you don't like it? fine.

Enjoy raging about the rest of the leaders.

 

[Monado]

So we ended up with very pretty backgrounds and leaders that hardly move.

Maybe most of the original civ 5 leaders had little movement because the art team was simply unsure about how far to take things? Just a counter guess, but don't go acting like you know that for a fact, cause you don't.

 

[ehecatzin]

Actually the original leaderscreens were going to have advisors and a whole lot of characters standing around (if you look at the original concept art) again, the background were going to be even more intricate, if they weren't such a drain on resources why cut all of the bg characters then?

In deed we ended up with very limited animation on the leaders because of so much emphasis was put into the background in the first place. Again, later leaderscreens focused on the leader more, but you couldn't really make them super animated or they would have contrasted even more with how limited the vanilla ones were.

 

[Loaf Warden]

Some of them were anyway. Boudicca flailed around like a Looney Tune, and over-acted vocally as well. She felt out of place with the more realistic and serious tone of Civ V. I feel like she'd have worked better in VI.

 

[ehecatzin]

Some of them were anyway. Boudicca flailed around like a Looney Tune, and over-acted vocally as well. She felt out of place with the more realistic and serious tone of Civ V. I feel like she'd have worked better in VI.

Precisely my point, they clearly wanted to focus on character animation on the latter leaders, its seems only fitting that they would push the character animation angle harder for civ6.

Boadicca I didnt really like, Shaka however pulled the menacing warrior king card way better.

 

[Zaarin]

Some of them were anyway. Boudicca flailed around like a Looney Tune, and over-acted vocally as well. She felt out of place with the more realistic and serious tone of Civ V. I feel like she'd have worked better in VI.

Boudicca was just an all-around psychopath in Civ5. My last Civ5 game I had her denounce me, ask to exchange embassies, make a declaration of friendship with my arch-rival (while letting me know she did it chiefly because they were my enemy), and denounce me again, all in a very short span of time and all without her disposition ever dropping below neutral. Not only because I want Vercingetorix to be in, but just in general I do not want to see Boudicca return in Civ6.

 

[ehecatzin]

Not only because I want Vercingetorix to be in, but just in general I do not want to see Boudicca return in Civ6.

+1 for Vercingetorix

 

[Monado]

Actually the original leaderscreens were going to have advisors and a whole lot of characters standing around (if you look at the original concept art) again, the background were going to be even more intricate, if they weren't such a drain on resources why cut all of the bg characters then?

Maybe just because they wanted the only person to be focused on to be the leader itself. They might not have wanted to identify Bismark (who was supposed to have people in the background) with some type of war council but as an individual leader.

I don't know....but I know you don't know...so no need to bold your guesses. It doesn't make them facts.

 

[m15a]

Maybe just because they wanted the only person to be focused on to be the leader itself. They might not have wanted to identify Bismark (who was supposed to have people in the background) with some type of war council but as an individual leader.

I don't know....but I know you don't know...so no need to bold your guesses. It doesn't make them facts.

No. That's wrong. They spoke about the reasoning I think at a Firaxicon panel. It was because of system requirements and/or development resource requirements. I can't remember which though.

In general, I agree that people shouldn't act sure about development decisions they don't know about. But there is some value to speculation based on development knowledge such as technical animation constraints.

 

[AriochIV]

Not only because I want Vercingetorix to be in, but just in general I do not want to see Boudicca return in Civ6.

Aw, c'mon, she was actually cute in Civ V.