Graphics

[NeoNio]

I was so hyped after seeing the poster; but then i saw the first screenshot and thought to myself "there has to be a mistake here", sadly there was no mistake and the artstyle looks disappointing at best

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

Even though I like the style, I do agree that I'd like the colors less saturated and the trees improved. I'd also prefer the districts match the architecture of the city, which they don't appear to in the screenshots. Odd that we (finally) get ethnic units, but not ethnic city districts.

I agree with that last bit, city districts definitely need to match the architecture of the city center.

 

[True_Candyman]

I agree with that last bit, city districts definitely need to match the architecture of the city center.

So many cities historically have different "quarters" built at different time by different people that I don't see the districts as a particularly a-historical problem at least

 

[phoenix_jz]

I just don't know.
If someone reads me off what Civ VI has to offer, my reaction is nothing short of a massive adrenaline burst you can't even get from being shot at. It sounds amazing, from what they've said they'll be doing, and if the game had all this with a graphics style similar to something like what Civ V had, I would throw money at them even if the price was north of $50.
However, every time i see the screenshots, even the full resolution ones, my reaction is nothing short to repulsion. That's the only word i can think off. it just ends up being a major turn-off. I don't even play Civ V with a very high graphics setting, but i'd take that art style over this one any day.

 

[darko82]

I just don't know.
If someone reads me off what Civ VI has to offer, my reaction is nothing short of a massive adrenaline burst you can't even get from being shot at. It sounds amazing, from what they've said they'll be doing, and if the game had all this with a graphics style similar to something like what Civ V had, I would throw money at them even if the price was north of $50.
However, every time i see the screenshots, even the full resolution ones, my reaction is nothing short to repulsion. That's the only word i can think off. it just ends up being a major turn-off. I don't even play Civ V with a very high graphics setting, but i'd take that art style over this one any day.

Let's be seroius.

 

[MosheLevi]

I just don't know.
If someone reads me off what Civ VI has to offer, my reaction is nothing short of a massive adrenaline burst you can't even get from being shot at. It sounds amazing, from what they've said they'll be doing, and if the game had all this with a graphics style similar to something like what Civ V had, I would throw money at them even if the price was north of $50.
However, every time i see the screenshots, even the full resolution ones, my reaction is nothing short to repulsion. That's the only word i can think off. it just ends up being a major turn-off. I don't even play Civ V with a very high graphics setting, but i'd take that art style over this one any day.

In one word, this is ridiculous

No it is not.

I feel the exact same way and I have been reading hundreds of posts by hundreds of different people who feel as the poster above.

Everybody have their own opinion so it is expected that some will like the art and some won't.
Except this time the number of people who don't like the art is very high and that is not good for the future of Civ 6.

 

[Westwall]

It's strange then that this isn't reflected more in the recent poll.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=567493

People either seem to be "okay" or ambivalent towards it, but those who outright hate it are in the minority.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

I'm also feeling the same sense of disappointment. My hope is that they make up for it with great content and so far things sound great.

 

[Toulouse]

However, every time i see the screenshots, even the full resolution ones, my reaction is nothing short to repulsion. That's the only word i can think off. it just ends up being a major turn-off.

I know exactly what you mean. I actually have a physical reaction to those screenshots, they make me feel queasy.

It's so bad, I've wondered whether somehow Firaxis is trying to torpedo the franchise. Maybe the 2K relationship? After all, Sid must horribly sick of his studio's ball and chain, the monster that is Civ at this point.

We could speculate on all kinds of things, but this art direction strikes me as an extremely odd decision. Journalists should be asking about it. Map readability is one thing and mobile game style visuals are another. Something is going on with this art design beyond its supposed utility.

 

[MosheLevi]

It's strange then that this isn't reflected more in the recent poll.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=567493

People either seem to be "okay" or ambivalent towards it, but those who outright hate it are in the minority.

Many probably don't know about this poll.
I didn't know until you pointed it out.

In fact, I believe that those who dislike the art are not even visiting the forum because they decided to forget about Civ 6.
Yet those who are fine with the art are sticking around this forum to read more about Civ 6.

So I would say that this poll doesn't represent all of those who don't like the art.

In any case, even at 21% that is too high, because that means 21% reduction of sales for Cv 6 at the very least.

 

[brianshapiro]

It's strange then that this isn't reflected more in the recent poll.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=567493

People either seem to be "okay" or ambivalent towards it, but those who outright hate it are in the minority.

I don't think ambivalent is the right way to put it. Ambivalent means your feelings aren't biased one way or another. I think a lot of people are disappointed or find the graphics a turn-off but aren't willing to go to the extreme of declaring it "flat-out crap." At any rate, the poll shows a division between people who say they like it and people who say they don't.

For me the graphics are a definite turn-off, but I'd be willing to upgrade to Civ6 if I was excited about all the other features. I'm lukewarm about them; for instance, I find the district system a little goofy. I definitely agree with the design goal of making the map matter, but I'm not sure about the way they're doing it. I'm going to be waiting until demos or until more information comes out. The graphics alone won't keep me from playing, but they might seal the deal for me if I don't see the gameplay changes as worth it.

 

[m15a]

In any case, even at 21% that is too high, because that means 21% reduction of sales for Cv 6 at the very least.

No, it doesn't. That would only be true if we can assume that everyone that hates the art would not buy the game (and if the same percentage of people that wouldn't buy the game regardless of the art is equal inside and outside that category). The poll didn't ask if you hated the art so much you wouldn't buy the game, so it doesn't indicate anything in terms of sales.

 

[Westwall]

I think a lot of people are disappointed or find the graphics a turn-off but aren't willing to go to the extreme of declaring it "flat-out crap." At any rate, the poll shows a division between people who say they like it and people who say they don't.

Right, but I'm just trying to understand why. When people say it's a departure from Civ, it seems like what they really mean is Civ 5.

Because Civ has never had a consistent approach to art direction or style.

Spoiler :

 

[Toulouse]

I have to disagree about the lack of "consistent approach" in Civ's art design. I would say the first three screenshots are basically going for a realistic look -- except for proportion (obviously). The Civ 6 screen is going for a bright, unrealistic toylike look, so it is actually a major departure. It's a slicker version of Civ Rev., but it's descended directly from Civ Rev's visual approach.

 

[Monado]

Right, but I'm just trying to understand why. When people say it's a departure from Civ, it seems like what they really mean is Civ 5.

Because Civ has never had a consistent approach to art direction or style.

To me, those screens from 3,4, and 5 are pretty much the same design to me...just each with more updated, high defined graphics.

Civ 6 is very inconsistent with the previous games. Its much closer to the sister series, Civ Revolutions. (someone who has it should set up the same image in that game! haha)


I really don't care either way about the new graphics, its just obvious they don't mean ..just civ 5. 6 is a complete change from the main series.

EDIT: 100% agree with Toulouse

 

[Westwall]

Well one of the main complaints is that the trees don't look consistent with Civ 5, which to me is the game where trees and forests don't look like 3 and 4. 6 feels closer to the previous games in that respect. Also with color brightness, contrast and saturation.

 

[cpm4001]

I have to disagree about the lack of "consistent approach" in Civ's art design. I would say the first three screenshots are basically going for a realistic look -- except for proportion (obviously). The Civ 6 screen is going for a bright, unrealistic toylike look, so it is actually a major departure. It's a slicker version of Civ Rev., but it's descended directly from Civ Rev's visual approach.

I think this sums the matter up perfectly; every previous Civ game has made at least some attempt at realism, even if limited by technology and certainly willing to prioritize gameplay. But Civ VI throws all of that out the window in favor of Civ Rev-style graphics for no good reason.

EDIT: Er, no, the Civ VI trees don't look like those in Civ V, but compare their color saturation levels between the Civ VI and Civ IV screenshots. Also, though I acknowledge that the brightness levels are similar between Civ VI and Civ IV, the textures (notably on the desert tiles) are fairly obviously different.

 

[Westwall]

But Civ VI throws all of that out the window in favor of Civ Rev-style graphics for no good reason.

The reasons have been explained, whether you think they're good enough to justify the art is up for debate but to say it's for no reason at all is just false.

 

[cpm4001]

The reasons have been explained, whether you think they're good enough to justify the art is up for debate but to say it's for no reason at all is just false.

Eh? The ostensible reasons for the graphics are that they wanted an engine that permitted unit diversity (confirmed possible and actually interesting with Civ V's graphics - see the R.E.D Modpack), that looked good when zoomed all the way out (I can get that as why we have large units and buildings, neither of which bother me, but why does that need a Disney color scheme?), and that let them run a day-night cycle (again, that's why we get the mobile game graphics?)

So no, there's no real reason for this type of graphics, unless it's an effort to attract mobile gamers. Meh.

 

[brianshapiro]

Eh? The ostensible reasons for the graphics are that they wanted an engine that permitted unit diversity (confirmed possible and actually interesting with Civ V's graphics - see the R.E.D Modpack), that looked good when zoomed all the way out (I can get that as why we have large units and buildings, neither of which bother me, but why does that need a Disney color scheme?), and that let them run a day-night cycle (again, that's why we get the mobile game graphics?)

So no, there's no real reason for this type of graphics, unless it's an effort to attract mobile gamers. Meh.

Also they said something about showing the mood of units? And I'm not sure why that's important to gameplay yet.