Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by stealth_nsk, May 12, 2016.
Firaxis is not "the Man"
We should call this game Civilization The Wind Waker. Because like that game the graphics were controversial before it was released. I'll be saying it ironically though, because I don't care about the graphics being "cartoonish" anymore now than I did before. However all are free to use it sincerely they same way others said "Celda" O' those many years ago. No one remembered the cel-shading wars after the game was out and no one will remember this one either.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
Here are reactions to the very first Civ IV screenshots from these very forums:
MY GOD! am i dissapointed, sure its only early days... but it looks like everythings gone very "cute" much like the new Link games on the gamecube! EUGH, i dont want cuty-lil-spear men, i want fearsome warriors!
The graphics aren't as much "cute" as they are "cartoony". Cute is different.
-has anyone seen the January PC Gamer? they have some screens from Civ 4 and, phew, THEY ARE UGLY! i really hope this is just a prototype that Sid's banged together to test things. hopefully his art department will freak out and set him straight.
It really does look a lot like Heroes IV at the moment. And that's not a good thing. But we'll see what happens.
Whoa! That looks weird. I definately hope the graphics are changed before the game comes out.
I don't really mind if it looks like warcraft...
So long as it doesn't PLAY like warcraft.
I pretty much agree with this. They should have made a more realistic look. This is Civ Revolution nonsense.
I don't know what you mean by dropping anvils, but I meant more caricatural mechanics. Coarse mechanics. Immersion breaking. What makes the game "gamey", more like board games with very simple to understand mechanics than with subtle and elegant ones making experiences that feel natural (don't frustrate you) and epic, rather than artificial and cold like a bill.
Guys, these are just some alpha screenshots. The game will look and feel A LOT better when you start playing it. You will enjoy it.
The screenshot on the right looks pretty blurry. Not the fairest comparison, eh?
You say that as if it makes a difference, like "If only it were clear! Then we'd all see how nice it really is!" Because it doesn't, no additional resolution is going to change the fact that the right one is objectively less sophisticated than the one on the left. You're better off arguing that the textures and models are just still WIPs
Actually going on my current CiV game the screen on the left isn't representative of the base game (zoom level has been tweaked), too.
But yes, the fact that the image on the right has been cropped from a full-size promotional image and zoomed to fit the relevant aspect ratio yes, is a factor.
You can throw around "objectively" and "sophisticated" all you like, it doesn't make you right. You have no idea how "sophisticated" the ones on the right are, because they're blurred-out. You don't know their poly count, how complex their animations are, the size of their texture map, and so on. That is what you mean by "sophisticated", right?
These are the horses at maximum zoom level in an unmodded game of CiV, with all graphical settings maxed (DX11):
Look at those lovely city assets. Blocky blurry textures for the win!
Oh, we all know "what makes me right". But we can leave it at that. I don't want to intimidate you with any more "big words".
You are right.
I think quite a few people would disagree, hence the point of threads like this
It might look more realistic, sure. But that's about it.
As for its age, absolutely. Civilisation 5 has a great art style that I enjoy, and was competently-made for the time. However, so does Civilisation 6. I appreciate the differences, and the underlying reasons.
I don't have a compulsive need to bash the art style and / or anyone who supports it.
The graphics of civilization VI reminds me of those in Rise Of Nations.
I like the one on the right better, unequivocally.
I personally like this style a lot, looks much more crisp than the ones in Civ V, even though I love that game.
There's nothing wrong if someone doesn't dig the style, but comparing it to Clash of Clans is taking it way too dramatic or simply lying.
Especially some reddit folk, the people self-identifying as Gamers (gamergate!! ) really love bashing unreleased games and being very childish.
Hint: in reddit visit only /AskHistorians.
On one hand I am a bit disappointed with much fewer "warriors per unit" than in civ5 as it obviously 'looks less epic'. However it has few big upsides:
1) support units/armies mean more warriors will be able to join these base 2/4 (maybe that's the main reason there are few of few, to make space for additions)
2) slightly better performance of a game
3) bigger, more visible units we can watch and embrace, unlike swarms of small creatures of civ5 (which combined with 2 meant I watched them usually in strategic view)
I prefer horses on the right.
I just want them to do something about the mountain textures; those are truly hideous. The rest of the game honestly seems to look fine when slightly desaturated.
I liked the style of Wind Waker, and actually hate the pseudo-realistic Zelda games. I think the simple style fits Zelda games best, because its really a kind of simple game, and plays out like a children's fairy tale. My favorite Zelda games are the ones on gameboy.
On the other hand, I hate the Civ 6 style --- or, at least, what we've seen of it so far. Its not even a matter of it being cartoonish, even though I don't think that's what best fits the Civilization games. The problem is I find it a bit cheap and tacky looking. Its also really high contrast and "noisy", which doesn't make it easier to look at, despite the dev teams assurance that they chose this art style for its utility.
So, its two different situations. People shouldn't assume that those that don't like the Civ 6 art style have some grudge against cartoons.
The problem for me isn't just the art style though. I'm really not excited by the added features in the game. I've been suggesting multiple tiles per city since Civ 1, but the implementation seems a bit goofy to me. "Campus districts" taking up a whole tile? and spread out buildings color-coded in pink and blue on the map? I also always supported combing arms, but I'm not sure whether this solution is really better than 2upt, or whether the gameplay enhancement is worth the trade-off, given the other things that turn me off about the game.
The bottom line is that the previews of Civ 6 just don't make me impressed or excited. Whether or not the gameplay is okay isn't really the issue, considering that the gameplay in earlier versions of Civ is also okay. The issue is whether I want to spend $60+ on another version of Civ, instead of staying with the current one. Like I said, the features don't excite me. The fact that I find the art style tacky just pushes me further away. Honestly, a big draw for Civ 5 was the art style, and even though I was lukewarm on some of the feature changes, the style sealed the deal.
I'm willing to be open minded and try the game out in demos. Its possible I'll change my mind, or things will change by release. I'm just explaining my current state of mind. How much we'll remember this I'm guessing will depend on how much it affects their bottom line in the end.
I didn't like the Civ 4 style either, and wasn't really excited about getting that game either. It wasn't as much a radical change in direction, though, and I chalked up the style problems to being their first attempt at a 3D game. The style improved by the time they released Civ 4: Colonization, which was more sophisticated looking. Then I was glad they released a beautiful game in Civ 5.
Separate names with a comma.