Graphics

It's got pretty much all the good stuff from Civ VI (indeed, Civ VI actually seems to have ripped off quite a bit from it)

I've played Vox Populi quite a bit, and I wasn't aware that it had swappable policies, Eurekas, and districts :p
 
I am still stuck in Civ IV (mostly PBEM now). I have Civ 5 + Exps and all DLC, but just can't seem to want to do "Just one more turn", like I did in Civ IV. I think I have only played about 20 hours in Civ V and that felt like 20 hours too much, versus 1,000s of hours in Civ IV.

I just think, Civ 5 and later, is now made for a new demographic, with lower spec portable computers and tablet style players.

My Intel Core-i7-4790K with Nvidia 770 GTX, will be better utilised on other games. Still Civ IV runs well on my Windows 10 and I am happy with that.
 
So your only metric for what makes a game fun is graphics? Ever think you only played about 20 hours of civ5 because you just thought it sucked?

Also, your lower spec comment about civ5 is absolutely laughable. My PC at the time played civ4 in the highest settings without skipping a beat and I could only play civ5 in strategic view. That game was a hog. :yuck:
 
I've played Vox Populi quite a bit, and I wasn't aware that it had swappable policies, Eurekas, and districts :p

'Pretty much' all the good stuff ;). Vox Populi isn't a perfect Civ VI-in-Civ V experience by any means, and Ed Beach is far too good of a designer to need to rip off someone else's mod in its entirety for his own game (though he's certainly 'borrowed' a lot of stuff from VP and other mods, which often happens for later installments in a series). But IMO VP is indeed the best option available for those of us who get hung up unnecessarily on game graphics.
 
Bah some will skip it because of graphics or even rate it negatively. Wont really matter in the end. it will either be praised or disliked based on other factors. Mostly the fun factor and performance. Firaxis should be wary in 2016 about releasing a buggy game...

I hope at least the same person wouldnt say civbe looks great by comparison because then we clearly have different tastes...

My personal main issue are the leader backgrounds which lost a lot of details compared to civ5.
 
I am fine with the static leader backgrounds. To me, prettying that up is a waste of resources.

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk
 
3,5 months since the announcement and screenshots, and children from the YT comment section still cry about the graphics and how they somehow ruin the strategy game for them (while mistaking art style with the graphic quality and repeating the same 'mobile game' 'jokes'). I had some minor concerns in the beginning (especially as the first three screenshots of the game were terrible :lol: ) but come on. After the release will they still continue despair?

And 'boycotting' or raging against the vast and deep strategy game because of such minor things as art style (not even graphics quality, which is an era ahead of civ5) or, to touch another topic, 'wrong' leader of one of 20 civs, is laughable.

My only issue are some leader portraits. It's not even that I don't like stylized or slightly cartoonish characters, I dislike the way some of they have been done, bordering claymations (Huangdi), political caricatures (el presidente Pedro) or uncanny valley (I still think that, to borrow another viewer's brillliant description, "Victoria and Catherine look as if they had an extra chromosome"). They look especially worse when compared to more... balanced portrayals, such as Tokimune, Cleopatra, Montezuma or Theodore (those four are very good).
 
After the release will they still continue despair?

Yes. This is the internet. Better be ready and ignore it instead of being annoyed. :king:

Although if these are the loudest I'll be happy since it probably means the game is good ;) The noise will be way bigger if users have trouble playing the game (crashes/performance).
 
Can somebody please explain to me what could possibly wrong with graphics? I feel really stupid tbh. I can't compare to any other game since I don't play any, but I loved Civ5 and Civ6 looks even better. To me it seems fantastic and my brain simply can't comprehend what people dislike on that, even to the point of not playing that at all purely because of graphics.

Seriously - can somebody who dislikes it, post some screenshots from other similar game, so I have a chance to understand what you actually like? I've checked some Civ4 videos and that just looks... older I guess? Do you guys want it that way, or something completely different? I am lost.
 
Can somebody please explain to me what could possibly wrong with graphics? I feel really stupid tbh. I can't compare to any other game since I don't play any, but I loved Civ5 and Civ6 looks even better. To me it seems fantastic and my brain simply can't comprehend what people dislike on that, even to the point of not playing that at all purely because of graphics.

Seriously - can somebody who dislikes it, post some screenshots from other similar game, so I have a chance to understand what you actually like? I've checked some Civ4 videos and that just looks... older I guess? Do you guys want it that way, or something completely different? I am lost.

You're not lost. You just have your own opinion.

In this case I agree with you. I LOVE the new art style and am looking forward to playing it a lot. I've played Civ I (when it was first released) and all the rest up to today.
 
Can somebody please explain to me what could possibly wrong with graphics? I feel really stupid tbh. I can't compare to any other game since I don't play any, but I loved Civ5 and Civ6 looks even better. To me it seems fantastic and my brain simply can't comprehend what people dislike on that, even to the point of not playing that at all purely because of graphics.

Seriously - can somebody who dislikes it, post some screenshots from other similar game, so I have a chance to understand what you actually like? I've checked some Civ4 videos and that just looks... older I guess? Do you guys want it that way, or something completely different? I am lost.

People are saying they are cartoon like instead of the realistic style we had in Civ 5. Some people are and some don't.

Honestly, they do look a bit cheesy, but I actually loved civ revolutions graphics. So nothing makes sense does it? lol
 
I don't think that they look cheesy art all. They look vibrant and alive. By comparison, I feel that Civ V's visuals were hard and dull.

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk
 
3,5 months since the announcement and screenshots, and children from the YT comment section still cry about the graphics and how they somehow ruin the strategy game for them (while mistaking art style with the graphic quality and repeating the same 'mobile game' 'jokes'). I had some minor concerns in the beginning (especially as the first three screenshots of the game were terrible :lol: ) but come on. After the release will they still continue despair?

And 'boycotting' or raging against the vast and deep strategy game because of such minor things as art style (not even graphics quality, which is an era ahead of civ5) or, to touch another topic, 'wrong' leader of one of 20 civs, is laughable.

First, art style is by no means a 'minor' thing - it's certainly not as major as it's been blown up to be, but for some of us it's also not something to be casually dismissed. You're looking at the graphics while playing after all, and if you can't tolerate them for whatever reason then you're not going to enjoy the game (which is why you're playing it in the first place, right?) In my view, the cartoony graphics of Civ VI don't mesh with my idea of what a Civ game is about (though neither would truly photorealistic ones either), and though my concerns about them indicating a dumbed-down game have been somewhat assuaged they honestly still simply turn me off from playing Civ VI.

Second, I think many of us who are refusing to buy Civ VI right now aren't 'boycotting' it. Speaking personally, I'm applying to it right now the same standards I do to any other game I see that looks neat:

1) Does the gameplay sound engaging?
2) Are the graphics good?
If yes to the first and at least 'the graphics are tolerable' to the second, then:
3) Am I willing to pay the asking price?

In Civ VI's case, as it stands right now, the answers are "It sounds good, but really no better than Civ V with Vox Populi, which does not require another purchase", "I think the graphics kind of suck", and so "No". Ergo, I won't buy Civ VI right now, and will continue to play Civ V with VP.

Now, once some (genuine) reviews come in, and the game goes on sale, I'll reconsider, but for now I don't see enough evidence of the promised 'vast and deep gameplay' to outweigh my distaste for the graphics and make me pay full price.


My only issue are some leader portraits. It's not even that I don't like stylized or slightly cartoonish characters, I dislike the way some of they have been done, bordering claymations (Huangdi), political caricatures (el presidente Pedro) or uncanny valley (I still think that, to borrow another viewer's brillliant description, "Victoria and Catherine look as if they had an extra chromosome"). They look especially worse when compared to more... balanced portrayals, such as Tokimune, Cleopatra, Montezuma or Theodore (those four are very good).

Agreed 100% on this - some of the leaders look excellent, and honestly (though the Civ V leaderscreens are truly great) I don't mind the static backgrounds. The problem for me is the utter lack of consistency amongst the leaders, taken to extremes by Dom Pedro.
 
Graphics are a huge step in the right direction IMO, Civ 5 was a lowpoint for graphics and especially cities and would have preferred an old school zoom-in considering the crappy looking cities we got. Even small things like active/inactive resources having different animations were removed. Civ 4 was a better looking game overall so hopefully 6 can get back on track and it seems to be.
 
I think the graphics look worse than CiV, which I think is an achievement in itself. CiVI looks way too cartoonish to me.
 
I think the graphics look worse than CiV, which I think is an achievement in itself. CiVI looks way too cartoonish to me.

Is it a step back? Sure? Is that wrong? Absolutely not.

A game like Civ, doesn't need flashy and gorgeous graphic to succeed, you don't play for the graphics, you play for the strategy it brings.
 
Is it a step back? Sure? Is that wrong? Absolutely not.

A game like Civ, doesn't need flashy and gorgeous graphic to succeed, you don't play for the graphics, you play for the strategy it brings.
No... It's not a step back. It's a matter of preference. I, personally like it better... Mich more vibrant and alive than the dull and hard graphics of Civilization V.

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk
 
Agree. Civ5 looked atrocious. A step back, this is not.
 
I meant in terms of appearance. Civ 5's graphics were gorgeous to look at. But were executed terribly and made the map and screen confusing

Civ 6 fixes that, as it should. Hence why I'm the one always getting annoyed at people complaining.

If I can understand what is going on in the map, then hell yea.
 
Top Bottom