Leader animations - What do ya really want?

[Terxpahseyton]

I just had a look at the CiV - leader animations and dame what a beauty (for Civ standards). Montezuma for instances just rocked.

However - the thought of seeing a 18th century Washington in the stone age or an Egypt Pharaoh in an Ancient setting in the modern era when talking to my beloved neighbors is a thought I literally despise.

Wasn't it great to see the appearance of the leaders change over time in Civ3? For me a key element flavor-wise.

And thinking about it I realize that I would actually prefer more simple but changing leader appearances over the fancy but constrained version like in CiV any time.

So, who is with me?

 

[eireksten]

The options aren't mutually exclusive. And you also left out the "I don't care" option...

 

[Skwink]

They should bring back the Civ 3 style, how as you advance, the leaders look more modern.

 

[Tee Kay]

They should bring back the Civ 3 style, how as you advance, the leaders look more modern.

I concur.

 

[Kimuyama]

I voted nr.2, though I'd prefer Fancy and changing!

 

[BobDole]

I just had a look at the CiV - leader animations and dame what a beauty (for Civ standards). Montezuma for instances just rocked.

However - the thought of seeing a 18th century Washington in the stone age or an Egypt Pharaoh in an Ancient setting in the modern era when talking to my beloved neighbors is a thought I literally despise.

Wasn't it great to see the appearance of the leaders change over time in Civ3? For me a key element flavor-wise.

And thinking about it I realize that I would actually prefer more simple but changing leader appearances over the fancy but constrained version like in CiV any time.

So, who is with me?

I'm with you. I agree it would be kind of weird for Montezuma to be working on a spaceship for a Space Victory and yet be hanging out in some ancient ritual shrine or whatever wearing some goofy ancient-era outfit that he should've ditched at least 500 years ago, maybe more.

Nothing was quite as awesome as Civ III in terms of leader appearances, where you could end up with a modern era Shaka wearing a suit..

 

[luke2345]

I just had a look at the CiV - leader animations and dame what a beauty (for Civ standards). Montezuma for instances just rocked.

However - the thought of seeing a 18th century Washington in the stone age or an Egypt Pharaoh in an Ancient setting in the modern era when talking to my beloved neighbors is a thought I literally despise.

Wasn't it great to see the appearance of the leaders change over time in Civ3? For me a key element flavor-wise.

And thinking about it I realize that I would actually prefer more simple but changing leader appearances over the fancy but constrained version like in CiV any time.

So, who is with me?

it would cost more time and money making it more expensive

 

[thelibra]

Actually what would make even more sense is that, not only do the outfits change with the time, but the outfits and settings change with the cultural decisions by that particular leader. For instance, a leader that has chosen a very militaristic culture path might be dresed quite severely, maybe with some medals pinned to his shirt and some epulets, and standing over a table of battle maps with army markers on it. A leader that has chosen a more philosophical approach might be dressed more relaxedly, sleeves rolled up, sitting in a leather armchair with bookshelves behind him...etc.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The options aren't mutually exclusive.

Firaxis seems to think so.

And you also left out the "I don't care" option...

Maybe it is the option to simply not vote?

And after you gave me so much advice I'd like to return the favor: To only criticize a question but not be concerned with an actual answer does not look good.

I voted nr.2, though I'd prefer Fancy and changing!

Of course, fancy by itself is rarely bad.

it would cost more time and money making it more expensive

One freaking clip of Warcraft 3 got more money behind it. I don't take this is as a valid justification, especially as I pointed out that the leader animations would be simpler.
So you
@thelibra
Would be dame cool, but lets stay in touch with reality.

 

[eireksten]

Firaxis seems to think so.

Where's your source for that?

Maybe it is the option to simply not vote?

Sure, but then you won't know if your 67% really maps to 10% when people it doesn't really matter to is taken into account.

And after you gave me so much advice I'd like to return the favor: To only criticize a question but not be concerned with an actual answer does not look good.

No reason to get offended. I thought it was pretty obvious that I would have voted "I don't care" or "It doesn't matter" if that was an option. I chose fancy leaderheads in this poll though.

 

[Krzowwh]

Perhaps the languages being spoken will also be 'evolved', if such is implemented.

 

[Magma]

I voted wrong.

I would have gone for "More simple but adapting in its historic setting" had I read it properly.

 

[The Hyper Duck]

I voted #2. This is one of the (very few) areas where I think Civ4 was a step back from Civ3. The butch modern-era Joan of Arc in Civ3 still kind of makes me giggle, and made up for the fact that she's a bad leader choice in the first place.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Where's your source for that?

It is me!
Civ3: Leader heads criticized for their out-of-date look, but evolving looks.
Civ4: 3d-Animated leader heads with actual facial expression. No evolving looks.
Civ5: Good looking 3d-Animated leaders with facial expressions and body movements. No evolving looks.

Conclusion: For whatever reasons Firaxis does either focus on the look or on the aspect of evolving.

Sure, but then you won't know if your 67% really maps to 10% when people it doesn't really matter to is taken into account.

I can live with that.

No reason to get offended. I thought it was pretty obvious that I would have voted "I don't care" or "It doesn't matter" if that was an option. I chose fancy leaderheads in this poll though.

Nevermind, no harm done.

 

[Bellringer]

I would like to see them change their expression when I tell them "Your head would look good on a pole!". I would also like to have the option to just send them a diplomatic insult, to aggravate them, short of declaring war. Why should my response to their taunts and threats always be polite and diplomatic?

 

[Depravo]

How about nudity? That never goes out of style.

 

[Bob the Barbari]

I would like to see them change their expression when I tell them "Your head would look good on a pole!". I would also like to have the option to just send them a diplomatic insult, to aggravate them, short of declaring war. Why should my response to their taunts and threats always be polite and diplomatic?

You can make demands.

As far as the topic is concerned I've myself been wondering: do we actually need leaders at all? Take Europa Universalis for example: there leaders are nothing more than a name and a few stats (e.g. 9/9/9 for all AI French kings). It does not really add much to the gameplay to see the same leaders perform the same scripted actions over and over again over entire millennia. In fact, it can actually get quite annoying to see Montezuma smiling mindlessly to you after your sixth peace treaty by 1000 AD. In my humble opinion simplicity of design can be better for gameplay than all that fancy full-screen diplomacy. Just think about it: Napolean declares war on you, but before you have a chance to see what actually happened you are forced to see him announcing his attack without any options to respond aside from "So be it.". At times it can get really frustrating.

I voted for the second option.

 

[ShiroKobbure]

I would like to see the clothes and background change to fit the history of the nation, not a Eurocentric idea, like how in Civ 3 the Chinese and Korean leaders wore European Renaissance clothing in the medieval period. The problem I think is the people at Civ do not spend a lot of time researching the history of cultures outside of the US and Western Europe, so it might not turn out well.

I think a really cool idea would be to have the leaders change through the eras. But I really don't think that will happen.

 

[awesome]

Where's your source for that?



Sure, but then you won't know if your 67% really maps to 10% when people it doesn't really matter to is taken into account.



No reason to get offended. I thought it was pretty obvious that I would have voted "I don't care" or "It doesn't matter" if that was an option. I chose fancy leaderheads in this poll though.

let's say you don't care about who's running in your local elections. do you still go to the voting booths and just leave your ballot blank or do you just not bother with it?

 

[Gamemaster77]

Who's to say we can't just mod them in?