Not Caring For the New Leaders

[AtlantisAuthor]

I mentioned this in a previous thread, but having had more time with Civ VI I have come to feel even more strongly that Firaxis' decision to change up the Leaders of so many Civs this time around has had a detrimental effect on the game's enjoyability. This problem has multiple layers, which I'll list below.

First, having familiar (and far more iconic and associated with the Civ franchise) faces like Alexander, Napoleon, Nobunaga, Isabella, Genghis Khan, and others (so far) missing has really dealt Civ VI a blow. I'm sorry, but their replacements simply lack the charisma and notoriety to be the "faces" of their respective Civilizations; they're like a B-List of less-famous names, many of which a lot of players may have never even heard of (and several, such as France's Italian-born Catherine de Medici or Sumeria's possibly mythical Gilgamesh, seem to have been forced in order to accommodate the game's "Leader Personality" theming)...and despite the educational value of being able to learn a bit about them from the game, they're just not the same.

One thing that definitely isn't helping these new characters is the new dialogue and Diplomacy screens. While the animations are fluid and extremely well-done, they vary widely between having semi-human proportions (Peter the Great, Hojo Tokimune) and looking like outright caricatures (Qin Shi Huang, Theodore Roosevelt, Gandhi). It's frankly distracting. And compared to the fully realized, beautiful environments of Civ V (Kamehameha's Hawaiian beach, Hiawatha's forest stream, Nebuchadnezzar's throne room, Pedro II's office, etc.), the static, black-dominated backdrops behind them feel lifeless and even a bit depressing to look at.

On many levels Civ VI's greatest enemy is its amazing predecessor, Civ V, which set the bar so high by the time all its expansions were released that any drastic changes were bound to be controversial at best...and be perceived as failures at worst. Even though Civ VI is a beautiful and carefully crafted game in its own right, from the map to the Leader screens Civ V simply blows Civ VI out of the water both aesthetically and functionally (I never realized the importance of those puffy white clouds until I played in the eternal "darkness" of Civ: BE and the uninterrupted brown of Civ VI. But I digress.). The new Leaders were a risky move by Firaxis with so many other changes being made this time around, and so far sadly I think they made a big mistake. Much like the generic Leaders of Civ: BE, I just can't care about them or maintain interest in the "just one more turn" way that kept me going for over 1,000 hours in Civ V. And from what I've been reading here on the forums, I'm not alone in feeling that way; despite some truly intriguing innovations (such as the Districts and the Culture tree) Civ VI is missing the "It" factor many of us have come to associate with the Civ franchise. Hopefully that will come with more content, refinement, and patches.

 

[Mr.WorldWide]

I guess I'm not into rp as much as you, I've always cared more about the leaders in game traits and abilities than I did their personal charisma. That being said, I actually am glad they introduced some less iconic leaders this time as it gave me the incentive to read about their history. Personally, I prefer how civ4 handled leaders, much smaller window that was easy to esc spam out of.

Also, though it may seem ironic, the stupid white clouds seriously impacted my enjoyment of 5 for both me and my sister who grew up with civ 4. Dark fow perfectly conveys the mystery and danger of the unknown as I've opined many times. Civ 5 is just lame, reminds me of revolution, just silly floating in the clouds. Are we exploring some heavenly landmass? Heck no, this is earth, dark fow please.

That said, I feel civ 6 made a decent compromise and I have no real issues with it. Just for some understanding of my point of view here, I'm a huge fan of Civ 4 and it's still my favorite to date but I'll take 6 anyway over five. I know my opinion is in the minority but that's why I think it's so important to express it else this thread will be another echo chamber kicking dirt on 6 for its growth problems while ignoring those exact same growth problems both 4 and 5 went through.

 

[AtlantisAuthor]

No worries, Mr.WorldWide. Each of us are individuals and seek different things from the games we play, so there's no universal "right" or "wrong" when it comes to things like aesthetic preference. Your opinions are as valid as mine and vice versa; I do realize that Civ V had its own growth issues (especially starting out) and like you I'm anxiously hoping that Firaxis will shore up the areas each of us feel Civ VI still needs work in over the coming months. BNW was a long time coming when Civ V first released, and after that it felt like an entirely different game; I feel confident we may well be saying the same about Civ VI when all is said and done.

 

[God of Kings]

We should discuss leader voice acting (introduced in Civ V) as well.

I much prefer the leader voice acting in Civ VI.

Civ VI's Guild Wars 2-style backdrop is less intensive (and yes, whenever a leader is defeated the backdrop changes to your civ's backdrop when the defeat animation is played), though I personally prefer Civ V's backdrop.

Civ IV, V, and VI have their fair share of making certain female leaders become "waifus." Notice how Civ IV's Victoria is much older than Civ VI's Victoria (the latter can be considered a waifu). Jadwiga could be the queen of waifus in the Civ series (to be fair, she died rather young and became queen regnant on the onset of her puberty). Likewise, Civ V's version of Catherine the Great is more of a waifu than Civ IV's version of the same leader. Civ IV's Isabella however is slightly more of a waifu than Civ V's version of the same leader.

 

[HeliosDisciple]

I much prefer seeing some b- or even c-list leaders than the exact same faces every single iteration. Now if we could get rid of Gandhi too...

 

[need my speed]

Both Civilization V and VI put way, way, way too much in designing entire leader-theatres, with huge animations and unskippable things and whatnot, but only a tiny part that is actually useful (VI is really terrible in these regards, V was clearly better). I want IV's diplomacy back, graphically (III would also be fun, I very much liked the 'evolution' of leaders) and functionally.

And yes, Catherine de Medici in particular has no place in this game. I don't get it, because they kept Gandhi - is he too iconic to replace, then? I want 'worthy' leaders over new ones for the sake of being new.

 

[Vahnstad]

The only thing about Civ I don't like is that they focus too much on women. Catherine De medici is a civ leader I really don't like. I don't have big problems with the other leaders, although maybe they could have chosen someone from Old Egypt like Akhenaten, Hatseput or Thoetmoses III.

I however really like Jadwiga. she's the only civ leader i would like to have sex with

 

[Halcyan2]

First, having familiar (and far more iconic and associated with the Civ franchise) faces like Alexander, Napoleon, Nobunaga, Isabella, Genghis Khan, and others (so far) missing has really dealt Civ VI a blow. I'm sorry, but their replacements simply lack the charisma and notoriety to be the "faces" of their respective Civilizations; they're like a B-List of less-famous names, many of which a lot of players may have never even heard of (and several, such as France's Italian-born Catherine de Medici or Sumeria's possibly mythical Gilgamesh, seem to have been forced in order to accommodate the game's "Leader Personality" theming)...and despite the educational value of being able to learn a bit about them from the game, they're just not the same.

Well, Civ V had Russia's Prussian-born Catherine the Great and Carthage's possibly mythical Dido.

And Civ V had plenty of B-List names like Wu Zetian and Maria I.

Some would also argue that Theodora (even though she is my favorite leader in Civ V), Boudicca and Shaka don't really belong either.

One thing that definitely isn't helping these new characters is the new dialogue and Diplomacy screens. While the animations are fluid and extremely well-done, they vary widely between having semi-human proportions (Peter the Great, Hojo Tokimune) and looking like outright caricatures (Qin Shi Huang, Theodore Roosevelt, Gandhi). It's frankly distracting. And compared to the fully realized, beautiful environments of Civ V (Kamehameha's Hawaiian beach, Hiawatha's forest stream, Nebuchadnezzar's throne room, Pedro II's office, etc.), the static, black-dominated backdrops behind them feel lifeless and even a bit depressing to look at.

I do prefer the leader art of Civ V over Civ VI though. The static backdrops in Civ VI doesn't really do it for me.

 

[Halcyan2]

And yes, Catherine de Medici in particular has no place in this game. I don't get it, because they kept Gandhi - is he too iconic to replace, then? I want 'worthy' leaders over new ones for the sake of being new.

I don't mind Catherine.

As regent, she actually "ruled" unlike Bismarck, Gandhi, and Joan of Arc. Reminds me of all the pre-release threads about whether or not Catherine de Medici was better than the much maligned Joan of Arc.

 

[Athmos]

Alexander the Great wasn't even a proper Greek !
Really, what's the world coming to ?

 

[AtlantisAuthor]

I don't get it, because they kept Gandhi - is he too iconic to replace, then?

That's exactly the case, I'd wager. India didn't even emerge from under British rule until 1947, and before British colonial rule there frankly aren't any Indian rulers that readily spring to mind in most people's knowledge (I admit I can't think of any).

I'm not against trying new Leaders every now and again (especially if an entry employs multiple Leaders for each Civilization); I definitely get the need to keep things fresh. But when you try to think of "the face of" a given Civilization, what I'm saying is that Civ VI's Leaders definitely don't spring to mind as readily as the ones from previous Civ games.

One thing I failed to mention in my OP was the novelty of hearing each Leader speak in his/her native language; that really sold those animations for me. Yes, Civ VI also employs the same feature, but somehow it hasn't been the same for me; I know that the static backdrops (and all that black) has a lot to do with it. Anything that you have to view repeatedly across a game spanning many (many) hours needs to "click". One thing that's already gotten old with Civ VI is that unnecessary and time-consuming second screen that repeats verbatim via text what the other Leader just said to you. At least with Civ V you could click right through the animations if you didn't want to hear them; Civ VI currently has a lot of unnecessary extra clicks and other mechanical issues slowing it down and impeding its enjoyability (speaking for myself).

 

[Lay_Lay]

This is a really obscure complaint, given that we all play deity level and win every game easily because the AI is incapable of playing the game.
This is a big complex game of chess where the computer chess opponent plays like a beginner, and yet here we are complaining that White and Black haven't been anthropomorphized to our preferred specifications.
But do continue

 

[HeliosDisciple]

That's exactly the case, I'd wager. India didn't even emerge from under British rule until 1947, and before British colonial rule there frankly aren't any Indian rulers that readily spring to mind in most people's knowledge (I admit I can't think of any).

There's Indira Gandhi, who actually, y'know, led the country.

 

[Morningcalm]

Indira Gandhi is incredibly controversial and unlikely to ever make it into Civ. If she does, you can bet I will be there to protest her inclusion.

 

[Vahnstad]

Indira Gandhi is incredibly controversial and unlikely to ever make it into Civ. If she does, you can bet I will be there to protest her inclusion.

Why? What did she do? I'm not familiar with Indian history.

 

[God of Kings]

If France needed a female ruler, then Marie Antoinette would be a better choice than Catherine de' Medici.

 

[liv]

No way on the marie antoinette thing. She had an impact but unlike Catherine she would not make any decisions

 

[Halcyan2]

If France needed a female ruler, then Marie Antoinette would be a better choice than Catherine de' Medici.

You mean Austrian-born Marie Antoinette instead of Italian-born Catherine de Medici?

Catherine did a lot more since in addition to being Queen (as Consort), she ruled as Regent and had more influence during her sons' rules.

Marie Antoinette would be a pretty awful choice. Instead, her mother, Maria Theresa is far, far better (and Maria Theresa actually makes an appearance in Civ V).

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

Totally neutral. I liked them in V and I'm perfectly fine with them in VI. I actually like some of the more daring choices they made...just wish they'd have done the same with India.

 

[Comandante]

It is assumed that the women leaders must be feared like rivals no matter whether how attractive they are. I'm grateful to Firaxis, they made powerful women in the game. Most of the games have a sexist representation.

In respect of the new style in Civilization VI. I like the casual style simply because is new and refreshing.