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
) 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.