IGN Article" How Civ6 will redefine art design"

[dexters]

The one thing that bugged me with Civ2 was the perspective of the units were often not consistent (ie: Civ2 cruiser vs. battleship)

 

[Teproc]

This article makes me incredibly hopeful. The mention of people zooming out to see their empire might mean we're getting a full zoom-out back ? That would be awesome. Everything they're saying in that article is going in the right direction for me, loving it.

People are so paranoid about Civ becoming a mobile game that they don't want to believe it's really just going to be another great civ game.

 

[EgyptRaider]

I just love how some critics say that they have 'the people' on their side, like their personal taste represents every other's opinion. Because clearly, what I consider to be good, beautiful, bad and ugly must be true and thus shared by everyone else.

Also putting this in an image of Civ dumbing down clearly can't make the seperation between graphics and gameplay. Take a look at all the announced features already part of the game; it's a huge list and clearly signals that the game will be much more vivid than CiV was during launch.

My personal taste; sacrificing the graphics from CiV was the best move they could make. It lets Civilization return to what it's truly about. I don't even wanna know how much was sacrificed for the high-level graphics of CiV, both development wise as processing wise. CiV had hugeeee problems being properly run on good PC's which was stupid because Civilization never was about graphics, it was about gameplay. Go play Tomb Raider or Far Cry if you want amazing graphics.

It's also clear that this sacrifice brought forth many other much-loved parts of Civilization; ethnic diversity, wonder movies, zoomable worldmaps. And honestly, while the leader screens from CiV were amazing, I hope they make those less impressing as well; just for the sake of re-introducing multiple leaders per civ. Gameplay over graphics.

In the end I prefer this style a lot. It's refreshing and it's vibrant. With CiV I often ran into the fact that after a while the graphics bored the hell out of me. It was so bland from time to time that it didn't invite me to play all too long. In the end CiV, because of its high demanding processing, AI and pale art style turned out to be the least played civ game for me so far. and I love that so far it seems that all these issues will be addressed with CiVI.
And also I'm wondering, on a scale from realistic to cartoony, how realistic did the critics perceived CIV to be? That one was just as much vibrant and cartoony. It's not new to civilization.

People who make such a big deal of these 'immature' cartoony graphics seriously need to grow up themselves and accept that playing a game with cartoony graphics won't hurt their masculinity as much as they expect.

 

[ldvhl]

Excellent analyses, cuc and EgyptRaider. Spot on.

 

[King William I]

The thing that bothers me is that this is slowly turning into the Sims 4 discussions. People take one look at the graphics and assume the game will suck, and anyone with a remotely positive opinion gets flamed off the forums.

So get your flamethowers ready because: I like the new art style better than CiV's

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

The thing that bothers me is that this is slowly turning into the Sims 4 discussions. People take one look at the graphics and assume the game will suck, and anyone with a remotely positive opinion gets flamed off the forums.

So get your flamethowers ready because: I like the new art style better than CiV's

Which style is more better? Civ 5.

Which style is more efficient? Civ 6.

That's how I look at it.

If the graphics engine and modding support is anything they're low-key hyping it up (not sure if it's just us hyping it) then we will see the same things done to Civ 6 that were done in Civ 4, for that let alone, there should be no discussions. If blue Marble existed for Civ 4, surely there will be one in Civ 6.

Civ 5 wasn't very graphically modabble.

 

[dexters]

The thing that bothers me is that this is slowly turning into the Sims 4 discussions. People take one look at the graphics and assume the game will suck, and anyone with a remotely positive opinion gets flamed off the forums.

So get your flamethowers ready because: I like the new art style better than CiV's

I don't see that happening here. Rather, I see a lot of ambivalence to the style. I'm one of those people who feel that way.

The revelation that there will be a day/night system and wonder movies seems to have helped the mood

It all comes down to what we see when 2K/FIRAXIS has a blowout of media (videos and screens)

Looking at my Civ at night, at max zoom is something i've never seen before so I have to say I'm excited to see the day/night cycle.

It also depends on how lively the world is. Based on the 3 screens, on the OP, I could almost make out a flock of doves/birds flying overhead. If stuff like that is in the game, it would make Civ5 look like a static tabletop game.

 

[Wh1terabit]

Really you all complain about the looks?

For one the "Cartoon" looks are WELL done. So what if the the look is a-bit "cartoony". This should not be a major topic.

Everything from Civ5 BnW is in the game
New Engine (most likey 64bit), so better performance
Add tons of new mechanics, updating old mechanics to take the staleness out of the game

If graphics are such a concern, just wait 4 weeks after release for a terrain mod. If you want the city/Terrain to look like X, then go Mod it.

Really, the best part of any civ game is the fact you could mode almost anything to fit your preference. This why Civ 5 to this day is on the top ten most played on steam.

How about you all just focus on these new features which will bring freshness to the series, and add alot of depth instead of whining about something you can Mod

It's a good point that some of the "cartoony" imagery can probably be modded, but we shouldnt have to rely on the modding community to make the game look right. Also, I don't agree that the aesthetics don't need to be a big topic. Civ games are typically long games during which the player spends many hours looking at the same world map (a beautiful one in case of civ V). One of the reasons that I played BE way less than BNW is that I found it less inviting from an aesthetic point of view. Aesthetics is one of the reasons I prefer civ games over the paradox series.

 

[EgyptRaider]

It's a good point that some of the "cartoony" imagery can probably be modded, but we shouldnt have to rely on the modding community to make the game look right. Also, I don't agree that the aesthetics don't need to be a big topic. Civ games are typically long games during which the player spends many hours looking at the same world map (a beautiful one in case of civ V). One of the reasons that I played BE way less than BNW is that I found it less inviting from an aesthetic point of view. Aesthetics is one of the reasons I prefer civ games over the paradox series.

'right'

 

[Gorbles]

It's a good point that some of the "cartoony" imagery can probably be modded, but we shouldnt have to rely on the modding community to make the game look right. Also, I don't agree that the aesthetics don't need to be a big topic. Civ games are typically long games during which the player spends many hours looking at the same world map (a beautiful one in case of civ V). One of the reasons that I played BE way less than BNW is that I found it less inviting from an aesthetic point of view. Aesthetics is one of the reasons I prefer civ games over the paradox series.

I think people have far less of an issue with "well those aesthetics just aren't for me", which is what you're saying here, rather than the more prevalent "these graphics are terrible because they're made for children".

 

[Haig]

There has been no threads about disappointing game features, none. For me the features and strategy come first in a strategy game, especially as abstract as Civ.

I love the features and I am fine with the graphics, they could make the districts' colored roofs less bright but that's it.

I can't wait to see some live video.

 

[brianshapiro]

I think people have far less of an issue with "well those aesthetics just aren't for me", which is what you're saying here, rather than the more prevalent "these graphics are terrible because they're made for children".

I think its okay for people to say outright something looks terrible or outright something looks great, without couching it in subjective terms as to not offend people.

Yea, so, beyond that, some people are a bit rude and whiny in expressing their view, and that's a different matter. I've seen a lot of rude banter from the other side on this issue too. I think the idea of "kiddie" graphics in general comes from the fact games like CivRev, among others, do "talk down" to players. I don't think there's evidence to say that's what's going on here.

 

[m15a]

I think its okay for people to say outright something looks terrible or outright something looks great, without couching it in subjective terms as to not offend people.

Yea, so, beyond that, some people are a bit rude and whiny in expressing their view, and that's a different matter. I've seen a lot of rude banter from the other side on this issue too. I think the idea of "kiddie" graphics in general comes from the fact games like CivRev, among others, do "talk down" to players. I don't think there's evidence to say that's what's going on here.

I guess we're supposed to stay away from the meta discussions (arguing about arguing), but I agree with this completely. What "offends" me about negative posts isn't that they are too strong, but that they are tied with claims that are unfounded. "This is ugly" - fine. "This is ugly and clearly meant for people with low attention spans" - not fine because that's not reasonable speculation because there isn't a strong logical basis, or if there is, it's not stated because it's obvious to people that think like and have the experiences of the poster. It's hard to tell whether a comment like that is (1) something the poster thinks based on what they've seen, (2) a sincere fear but not based on what they've seen (e.g., based on what we don't know yet), or (3) simply posturing to position themselves in a positive light (as a "serious gamer" or whatever) while positioning people with an opposing view in a negative light (or just lead people towards pointless discussions for no reason or whatever.

With the mix of posts on the board, I'm thinking it's safest to just assume that it's option (2) or (3), meaning that I shouldn't respond or think much about what the poster is saying. Which is kind of a shame since I can't learn about other people's perspective or speculation.

 

[ldvhl]

I think its okay for people to say outright something looks terrible or outright something looks great, without couching it in subjective terms as to not offend people.

Except that one's opinion on the quality of a thing's appearance is purely subjective.

 

[brianshapiro]

Except that one's opinion on the quality of a thing's appearance is purely subjective.

As much as any opinion expressed is subjective. You don't have to preface every comment you make with "my opinion is..." though.

If you're saying there's no objective nature to aesthetics, well, not everyone agrees with that. Many artists, many philosophers haven't agreed with that. I don't agree with that. I think some things are objectively ugly and some are not. But people's views on aesthetics are kind of besides the point. There's just no reason to preface every opinion with "my opinion is...".

 

[m15a]

As much as any opinion expressed is subjective. You don't have to preface every comment you make with "my opinion is..." though.

On the other hand, saying "I hate X" is not harder or more convoluted than saying "X is terrible" while being clearer on what you want to say (and letting other posters know it's not a topic open to debate). (EDIT: sure, there are counter examples with more complex opinions. But I don't think trying to be clear on a forum is a bad goal - definitely better than trying to sound important.)

 

[brianshapiro]

On the other hand, saying "I hate X" is not harder or more convoluted than saying "X is terrible" while being clearer on what you want to say (and letting other posters know it's not a topic open to debate). (EDIT: sure, there are counter examples with more complex opinions. But I don't think trying to be clear on a forum is a bad goal - definitely better than trying to sound important.)

Maybe someone thinks something is objectively bad. That's fine.

I think whats toxic to discussion is when people are personally insulting, or take things personally that aren't personal.

But if someone says something is bad, and someone else say something is good, that's not really a problem as far as I see it. They can then debate the issue if they want. I mean, aesthetics is possible to debate on objective terms; people do it all the time, there's common ground. Or they can just choose to agree to disagree and leave it at that. Its not a problem. Just don't get nasty with each other about it.

 

[Browd]

Moderator Action: Really, as someone said earlier, this discussion of what constitutes an opinion and what is objective fact is wildly off topic. Please return to talking about the article and the game's art.

 

[Colon]

Civ is beginning to resemble The Settlers or some citybuilding game.

Oh well, at least we'll always have Civ 4.

 

[Westwall]

I always felt combat and diplomacy were the main features separating 4x from citybuilders anyway.

Just as citybuilding was one of the main things separating 4x from grand strategy.