[R&F] Mongolia First Look

[darko82]

I strongly disagree. I like Civ6 leaders a lot! They are much better than Civ5 ones.

When you try making "realistic" people and their animations, any unnatural things in them look much more unnatural. That's called "uncanny valley" and Civ5 is much closer to it than Civ6.

Some leaders look ok. But Khan should not look like a funny guy because he wasn't like that. So his looks is not historically accurate. Even carticatures can look dangerous or evil etc. So it's not even about the artstyle, which is a matter of taste.

As for realism in games, the current technology handles it pretty well. Though, I don't care about realistic graphics in games so much.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

5.

Some leaders look ok. But Khan should not look like a funny guy because he wasn't like that..

Nah, I bet he was a laugh riot.

 

[Cerilis]

On a related matter, I want to see him declaring war or denouncing.

The "laugh and then call the attack" is already taken by Harald.

 

[DeutschDachs]

While I disagree with that Darko guy, I also have quite different opinion on Civ VI leaders vs Civ V leaders. For me, Civ V leaders > Civ VI leaders.

If you need some reasons why, here they are. Askia, Harald Bluetooth, Enrico Dandolo, Harun al-Rashid, Erik XIV Gustavus Adolphus, Pedro II, Pocatello, and few others

Also, the leaders aren't mute for most of the game

Agreed, I thought Civ V leaders and their beautiful backgrounds are easily the standout in the series. I agree that it was nice that they weren't mute for most of the game as well (I even learned to love "would you be interested in a trade agreement with England?"). Civ VI leaders stand against a dead static background and don't say anything past their greeting and war declaration.

As for static realistic photos we always have Civ II

 

[darko82]

Nah, I bet he was a laugh riot.

Especially, when he burned down villages full of children and slaughtered women.

 

[pgm123]

Agreed, I thought Civ V leaders and their beautiful backgrounds are easily the standout in the series. I agree that it was nice that they weren't mute for most of the game as well (I even learned to love "would you be interested in a trade agreement with England?"). Civ VI leaders stand against a dead static background and don't say anything past their greeting and war declaration.

I thought the Civ V leader screens looked great initially, but I don't enjoy them all that much now. I think it's the leaders looking like plastic.

 

[Uberfrog]

I'm really not seeing this "funny guy". Sure he's cartoony like the rest of the Civ VI leaders, but I think they've done a decent job of making him look powerful and threatening. He's one of my favourite depictions so far.

 

[darko82]

I'm really not seeing this "funny guy". Sure he's cartoony like the rest of the Civ VI leaders, but I think they've done a decent job of making him look powerful and threatening. He's one of my favourite depictions so far.

He does not look dangerous or evil. Just look at his smile

And he is so short. Well, I wouldn't be afraid of him. I would smack him in the face and laugh

 

[Uberfrog]

He does not look dangerous or evil. Just look at his smile

If I was Genghis Khan I'd imagine I'd have plenty to smile about...

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Especially, when he burned down villages full of children and slaughtered women.

So three mongol horsemen stampede into a bar . . .

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Not sure it's fair to call Genghis Khan 'evil'.

I quite like the leader depictions in VI. Didn't mind them in V either. To be honest it's not something I care too much about, not enough to get my knickers in a twist anyway!

 

[darko82]

Not sure it's fair to call Genghis Khan 'evil'.

Isn't slaughtering massively innocent children and women "evil"?

 

[Lord Xavius]

I wouldn't call Genghis Khan purely good, but he wasn't some kind of demonic berserker. Sure, he conquered and destroyed a lot, but he also made a lot of social and cultural advancements, and he's by far the only leader in this game with blood on their hands. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who led an empire and didn't commit and/or condone their fair share of atrocities.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

^ that.

 

[pgm123]

I wouldn't call Genghis Khan purely good, but he wasn't some kind of demonic berserker. Sure, he conquered and destroyed a lot, but he also made a lot of social and cultural advancements, and he's by far the only leader in this game with blood on their hands. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who led an empire and didn't commit and/or condone their fair share of atrocities.

I definitely agree that he's hardly the only leader in the game with blood on his hands. I do feel the social and cultural advances were more a byproduct. I don't think he intended to unify the silk road and allow for the transit of ideas from East to West. It's similar to how Alexander is credited with spreading Hellenism to the Levant, Persia, and India, when he just wanted to conquer stuff. Good can come out of destruction, but we should credit the person doing the destruction with this great insight.

 

[Cerilis]

Isn't slaughtering massively innocent children and women "evil"?

I'd rather call it "ruthless". "Evil" is such a subjective word.

 

[steveg700]

Isn't slaughtering massively innocent children and women "evil"?

Living in a world now where we seek to eradicate monuments to anyone who doesn't live up to modern, absolutist notions of enlightened behavior would certainly lead us to think so.

In the general span of history, though, life was regarded as cheap. Genghis is not generally regarded as being malevolent, merely ruthless in carrying out his ends. Populaces generally got a choice: surrender or die. Rise up and open those gates, and throw your leaders over the wall if you must. Of course, those women and children had no voice in this, and were considered merely the property of the man of the house, and that's who their fate was bound to.

I"Evil" is such an objective word.

Subjective, rather.

 

[Cerilis]

Subjective, rather.

Yeah, I dunno what happened there, lol.

 

[Siptah]

Genghis Khan evil? No, he saved the planet! https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2011/jan/26/genghis-khan-eco-warrior

 

[darko82]

In other words, he was cruel, with no mercy and compasion. Good animations should be able to show it.