I think they should do static leaderheads next game (or go full Humankind)

[SecretWeapon]

Disclaimer: I'm the biggest animated leaders fan. Like, i really love them, they're amazing and great at bringing visual uniqueness to Civ 6.

But i also consider myself pragmatic about it and:

• They're the most resource intensive asset when it comes to expanding the amount of Civs/Alt Leaders
• Said expense blocks other potentially fun things like having leaders evolve through ages (like in Civ3)
• In Civ 5 they were limited to diplo screen, which as we all know, isn't Civ's strongest point. Civ 6 managed to integrate them more in the game, since now they comeup when you transgress agendas/declare wars/etc but... they get old. At least for me, game gets to a point where i dont really wanna see Harald covering up my screen to say whatever about me not having an army.
• Animated leaderscreens leads to the biggest dissonance when it comes to mod civs: The lack of an animated leader

CIV6 animated leaders are one of the things that make the game standout the most, they're very recognizable. But damn, overall it feels weird that one of the most budget intensive assets of the game is the one you interact the least: it's the one furthest from "normal" gameplay normally (Diplo screen), unless it's forced upon you like in Civ6, where it eventually becomes disruptive (IMO) and on top of that, ironically its blocks having more of itself because it's cost restricts the amount of civs they can do. The solutions i see to this are

1. Digital Drawn "Static" Leaderscreens: Looking at the cards made for NLP made me realize i wouldn't mind if leaderscreens were done in that style. Producing that sort of art is obviously much cheaper and faster than a 3D model (and they kinda have to produce anyway as part of making a 3D model). They could easily go the Graphic Novel route and have a couple of different poses for each leader (war, neutral, allied, trade, denounce, declaration). The wonder of digital art means that they don't need to redraw the whole thing to do so so you could still make these characters have personality. This approach would also allow to better integrate leaders to the main gameplay screen without the game needing to cover your entire screen with them, likewise using stuff like "personas" to their full extent (and make money through that) would be far easier. Cons: Being less hype? Making people give less of a horsehocky about stuff like alt personas and making? If they threat mods as competition, then modding will be much more even so it would be an even bigger "threat"?
2. The Humankind approach: Basically making Create a Sim in Civ with a bunch of body features, clothing, animations, abilities and personality traits and letting the player go wild with it. All leaders would be created with that system and the equivalent to our current leaders would be the "default" ones for each Civ. This sytem would allow stuff like clothing changes through the ages and would probably be great for a "game as live service" approach if they want to continue the current style of leaders with a better cadence. Cons: It's still expensive, might make stuff feel less unique.

I don't expect things to change, but if they were to change, the way i see to ease those things are basically those two paths. Well technically there are three paths but the 3rd one is giving devs unlimited budget when it comes to animated leaderscreens so they can add more stuff without caring and that just won't happen.

 

[Zaarin]

I'd love to see 2D animated leader screens, but that wouldn't be any less work than what we have now--just a different kind of work. I don't expect that, sadly. As for Humankind's approach, the idea wasn't horrible, just horribly implemented, but even so it couldn't work for Civ, whose branding is too deeply invested in historic leaders to pivot to generic leader avatars (heavy emphasis on "generic" in Humankind's case). Civ7 with generic leaders would be a very tough sell for me.

Said expense blocks other potentially fun things like having leaders evolve through ages (like in Civ3)

I've played Civ3; I consider this a pro, not a con.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

I've played Civ3; I consider this a pro, not a con.

A Mr. Genghis Khan would like to have a word with you.

 

[Zaarin]

A Mr. Genghis Khan would like to have a word with you.

I believe that word is, "What has it gots in its pockets, preciousssss?"

 

[Evie]

The Authorities differ, it is true, on whether that is a mere sentence and not a word according to the ancient rules.

 

[pineappledan]

Rather than looking at the Sims and Humankind, they should be looking at fighting games like Soul Calibur VI.

The devs build a bunch of assets and animations for their skeletons of the leaders they were going to build anyways, and then dump all the assets into a character creator for players to mix and match. Some people have made some really terrific things with those character creators.

Only problem is I am sure that was a rather large part of the fighting game's budget and It's a lot of UI work, but it would result in an explosion of mods with animated leaders of at least decent quality.

 

[Zaarin]

Rather than looking at the Sims and Humankind, they should be looking at fighting games like Soul Calibur VI.

The devs build a bunch of assets and animations for their skeletons of the leaders they were going to build anyways, and then dump all the assets into a character creator for players to mix and match.

I don't see a meaningful difference TBH.

 

[pineappledan]

With humankind they didn't build specific leaders, they just threw a bunch of assets into a pile and let you mix and match.

In fighting games what they do is make a specific character that they have designed in concept art etc, and build him/her out of pieces purpose-made for that 1 character. And then when they are done making, say, Alexander, they toss all that into the pile for players to mix and match in the character creator. The difference is intentionality; at the end you get both your polished leaderheads and a pool of custom assets for players to mash together.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I hope they stay similar to how they are with hopefully a more dynamic background as well. I would hope for static backgrounds for the diplomacy screen for city-states, though.

 

[Quoth the Raven]

I would prefer a high-quality static leader portrait. Civ 5 already had this, if your graphics settings were not turned up enough. Old World also has some great static leader portraits. Spend more time and money on the actual game-play and making the AI good.

 

[Krajzen]

I had been very sympathetic to the criticism of civ's "immortal historical 3d leaders" all the way until playing Humankind... And immediately realizing how crucial their existence is for 4x games having the emotional connection with the audience. Instead of Humankind's, as my favourite eloquent steam review said, 'a complete sense of schizophrenia and alienation'.

Games like Age of Empires, Total War, or Europa Universalis can somehow work great without factions having a big human face, but for 4x games it just doesn't work imo. Or maybe it would, had we not been conditioned since 1991

Yes they are a huge investment, but they are the soul of civ series, and 3d animations as well as dialogue make them feel more real.

 

[mitsho]

It's less the 3D-leaders for me, I accepted that those are what the fans want and which is now kind of a "Civ" thing. Can't really go back from that. I do think they - ten years after the last game - will be able to play around with costumes and clothes a bit more though and provide some diversity. The bigger problem for me is that these leader models are shuffled away to an awful diplomacy screen which takes way too much time and makes them have no real gameplay value.

I would like to revamp diplomacy, in that f.e. every leader is in one single diplomacy screen, maybe seated around a table and you see the other leaders react to your proposal. Going from bilateral to multilateral so to speak. So my answer was 3D-models, but different, simpler and more complex at the same time

 

[SupremacyKing2]

The current 3D leaders in civ6 are nice and do add atmosphere to the game but I don't think they add anything in terms of actual gameplay. They are basically just eye candy and they add "flair" to the leader personalities. Furthermore, there are likely very labor intensive for Firaxis which does make it harder to add new leaders, especially for modders. Civ6's diplomacy is basically very shallow but pretty to look at. I would be perfectly happy with static 2D pics of the leaders or no pics of the leaders at all (like Call to Power) IF it meant actually making a better diplomatic system. In other words, I prefer a deeper diplomatic system that affects gameplay over eye candy. For example, Europa Universalis does not have fancy 3D leaders but has a deep diplomatic model with lots of treaties and options you can do.

 

[Haig]

It's so much more fun to deal with interesting leaders and have alliances and rivalries with them, compared to bland Humankind experience.

Civilization should never let go of the leaders even if it costs a lot to make.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

It's so much more fun to deal with interesting leaders and have alliances and rivalries with them, compared to bland Humankind experience.

Civilization should never let go of the leaders even if it costs a lot to make.

Ideally, civ should do both: have great 3D leaders AND a compelling, deep, interesting diplomatic system. But that requires a lot of work and companies like Firaxis have limited time and resources so they have to make compromises somewhere.

 

[Patine]

Or maybe it would, had we not been conditioned since 1991

"I speak for he who makes the earth tremble, Comrade Mohandas Gandhi of the People's Republic of the Indian (soon to switch to the Holy Empire of the Indians to whoop you good, then to the Republic of the Indians to rake in the loot and spoils of victory!). MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS! (but our AI status is OFFICIALLY Rational/Perfectionist/Civilized, though AI statuses are ALWAYS ignored, anyways).

 

[Caesar of Bread]

"I speak for he who makes the earth tremble, Comrade Mohandas Gandhi of the People's Republic of the Indian (soon to switch to the Holy Empire of the Indians to whoop you good, then to the Republic of the Indians to rake in the loot and spoils of victory!). MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS! (but our AI status is OFFICIALLY Rational/Perfectionist/Civilized, though AI statuses are ALWAYS ignored, anyways).

The view of Gandhi from a history buff's perspective has changed since '91 (I was born in 2009, so I shouldn't be talking). No longer do we think of him as the peaceful liberator of India, but as a maniacal warlord who has been nuking our cities for 6 games straight.

 

[mdl5000]

I'd like to see 2D impressionist paintings (does anyone remember the drawings or concept art in the Dishonored games? something like that style) but changes depending on mood. Sunny colors when relations are good. More muted colors at neutral status. Psychedelic when hostile. More threatening when at war. Almost drained of color when afraid or defeated.

I don't know if they necessarily have to be hand drawn, just manipulate their models a little bit and run it through some art filter.
This could give the leaders a dreamlike or legendary quality.

 

[Ryansinbela]

I imagined profiles like in Disco Elysium's style. That would look cool

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Go look at the 'Leaders' in this thread:
April Fools': Firaxis announces Civilization 2K23

Give us 'static' portraits with that level of gritty detail and background, and you might just wean the Civ community away from the Resource Sink that is the 3D animated diplo-heads.

But realistically (pun intended) the Civ franchise is not going to give up on one of their signature features, especially when it has proven to be a winner compared to the generic 'avatar' leaders of Humankind.