Speaking of which... Why dose everyone have problems with inca's mountain path? It works same way as tunnels in a way it appears units are "teleporting" Incas get it unlocked much earlier because they are known for mountain paths.
One advantage to cartoonish visuals is that they do tend to look dated a lot slower than realistic visuals. That's a definite advantage for a game which they seem to be trying to support over a longer term, and I'm ok with it...
Speaking of which... Why dose everyone have problems with inca's mountain path? It works same way as tunnels in a way it appears units are "teleporting" Incas get it unlocked much earlier because they are known for mountain paths.
One advantage to cartoonish visuals is that they do tend to look dated a lot slower than realistic visuals. That's a definite advantage for a game which they seem to be trying to support over a longer term, and I'm ok with it...
This meme of realistic graphics aging badly is just so annoying. These aren't the times of the first 3d computer graphics, devil may cry 4 was released in 2008 and while you can definitely tell it's a videogame (as opposed to photorealistic graphics we had recently) it hasn't age badly at all
Still the problem with this game's graphics isn't the cartoony style, it's that they made the characters extremely ugly, female characters are especially terrible
well boy that is very opinionated thing isn't it? I mean I don't think they are ugly. Some of them are quite attrective- like victoria, Jadwiga,Gitarja, and seondeok. Heck I even find Lady Six Sky and Amanitore to be OK ( granted they should have made Amanitore to be bit thin but still I wouldn't call her ugly- just wrongly represented.)
This meme of realistic graphics aging badly is just so annoying. These aren't the times of the first 3d computer graphics, devil may cry 4 was released in 2008 and while you can definitely tell it's a videogame (as opposed to photorealistic graphics we had recently) it hasn't age badly at all
Still the problem with this game's graphics isn't the cartoony style, it's that they made the characters extremely ugly, female characters are especially terrible
Looking at Civ V... I honestly don't think the more realistic style has stayed as fresh.... It is subjective, but I'm happier with the cartoonish visuals.
This meme of realistic graphics aging badly is just so annoying. These aren't the times of the first 3d computer graphics, devil may cry 4 was released in 2008 and while you can definitely tell it's a videogame (as opposed to photorealistic graphics we had recently) it hasn't age badly at all
Still the problem with this game's graphics isn't the cartoony style, it's that they made the characters extremely ugly, female characters are especially terrible
Honestly most of the terrible ones to me are the male most notably Gandhi and Pedro.
The only thing I slightly prefer more graphics wise would be the leader screens, but I can understand why they wanted to tone them down. If they could get the leader screens from Civ 5 into Civ 6 it would be amazing though.
I've never really found the graphical depictions of the leaders that questionable. I was a bit caught off-guard at the beginning, but I've grown so accustomed to them that I can't bother "going back".
Looking at Civ V... I honestly don't think the more realistic style has stayed as fresh.... It is subjective, but I'm happier with the cartoonish visuals.
why yes, 2016 graphics are better than 2010 graphics. Realistic 2016 graphics wouldn't have aged anytime soon (look at ps4 games released in 2016). Besides 5 looking bad isn't a graphics problem, it's a cheap graphics problem. Compare darius to like kratos from god of war 3 which was released months before 5 was released
Again my problem isn't even the art style, characters like Peter, Gilgamesh, Hojo, Tomyris, even Lady six sky look great, it's that almost everyone else is an ugly caricature with extreme exaggerations
well boy that is very opinionated thing isn't it? I mean I don't think they are ugly. Some of them are quite attrective- like victoria, Jadwiga,Gitarja, and seondeok. Heck I even find Lady Six Sky and Amanitore to be OK ( granted they should have made Amanitore to be bit thin but still I wouldn't call her ugly- just wrongly represented.)
Looking at Civ V... I honestly don't think the more realistic style has stayed as fresh.... It is subjective, but I'm happier with the cartoonish visuals.
Honestly most of the terrible ones to me are the male most notably Gandhi and Pedro.
The only thing I slightly prefer more graphics wise would be the leader screens, but I can understand why they wanted to tone them down. If they could get the leader screens from Civ 5 into Civ 6 it would be amazing though.
why yes, 2016 graphics are better than 2010 graphics. Realistic 2016 graphics wouldn't have aged anytime soon (look at ps4 games released in 2016). Besides 5 looking bad isn't a graphics problem, it's a cheap graphics problem. Compare darius to like kratos from god of war 3 which was released months before 5 was released
Again my problem isn't even the art style, characters like Peter, Gilgamesh, Hojo, Tomyris, even Lady six sky look great, it's that almost everyone else is an ugly caricature with extreme exaggerations
Still the problem with this game's graphics isn't the cartoony style, it's that they made the characters extremely ugly, female characters are especially terrible
Uhhhh...the women in the game are fine. Cleo and Eleanor are designed to be hotties because that's how they were portrayed in media for centuries. Victoria, Kristina, and Wilhelmina are all based off their appearances (and Catherine, Jadwiga, and Tamar on less accurate portraits), and frankly European monarchs were rarely attractive by modern standards. While none of them are particularly beautiful in the game, they at least look like reasonably accurate depictions and incorporate facial characteristics of their respective heritage. Amanitore and Gitarja are reconstructions from pretty crude reliefs and statues and while Gitarja was given the Cleo treatment, the devs had complete creative liberty to give Amanitore a fuller figure. Nobody knows what Tomyris, Dido, or Six Sky would have looked like, and I wouldn't consider any of their models "ugly."
Also, I'm not even into women and am not a woman so I have no personal interest in defending how woman are portrayed in this game. But I would say objectively that aside from maybe Wilhelmina and Amanitore for being overweight and Kristina who notably had a very distinct face, none of the women in the game are "ugly."
Just want to point out Lady Six Sky does have a stone carving of her, so we kind of know how she would have looked like. On the other hand, for some reason, most of the Mayan arts tend to depict female figure in a "chunky" fashion, so her in-game character ends up being chunky as well. I wouldn't consider her model "ugly", it's actually well-presented in terms of that stone carving.
If you want to throw historical/IRL Brazil has never been recognized as having a particularly powerful navy and the ship itself sounded like a dud from what little I read about it.
IIRC the Minas Geraes and her sister ship São Paulo were two of the most powerful warships in the world when they were built. They were built in a British shipyard though, not in Brazil. And I wouldn't say it was a dud technologically or in terms of its capabilities, but it was taken over by mutineers in the Revolt of the Lash (a very interesting historical event. Since these two battleships alone outgunned the rest of Brazil's navy combined, the revolt was a matter of great concern to the Brazilian government.)
IIRC the Minas Geraes and her sister ship São Paulo were two of the most powerful warships in the world when they were built. They were built in a British shipyard though, not in Brazil.
The Minas Geraes it's what I would consider the most odd unique unit implementation. Yes it's a powerful battleship, but technically it's just not a Brazilian battleship. It was designed by the British designers, build by the British manufacturers, and Brazil just ordered it from Armstrong and Vickers. This class of battleship has nothing to do with the creativity or craftsmanship of the Brazilian people.
Lack of synergy is not necessarily poor theming. What some would call lack of synergy others would call flexibility. True, flexibility is a dirty word to some, because eggs-in-one-basket hyper-specialization towards a single victory is their notion of proper design.
I think that all the discussions are missing something important about "synergy", and especially about how Peter should not lead a religious Russia.
When FXS created Civ 6, one thing that I really felt was that you had a Civ and you had a Leader and those are two different things. Synergy could exist but it's not what's important. Teddy Roosevelt had bonuses to National Parks and home continent and America was about governments; Greece was about governments, but Gorgo was militaristic and Pericles was all about diplomacy; CdM was the spymistress but France was about wonders... You can find synergies between them, though.
What I dislike are civs like Korea, Macedon or Zulus: they're not civs, but they're Seondeok's civ, Alexander's civ, and Shaka's civ. They built those civs around their leader, and it's clearly tailored solely for them. And I find it too close from Civ V.
I mean, if you consider that Peter's Russia shouldn't be religious, why separate civs and leaders? Why not return to Civ V system where you had just one ability that synergized itself?
The synergy for Peter is maybe not great, but for all the people complaining about Peter's Russia being too religious, you clearly not understood what the design of the game was. You have a leader, you have a civ, and each are based upon their own thing. Russia has always been religious except under some rulers (and still, it's one of the bastion of the Orthodox Church), so not making Russia religious would be a complete miss. It would be like giving no cultural bonus at all for France, or no religious bonus at all for Spain, just because you had Napoleon or Franco as leaders. No, France has always been cultured and Spain religious, and even if we change leaders, the culture here is the same.
What I dislike are civs like Korea, Macedon or Zulus: they're not civs, but they're Seondeok's civ, Alexander's civ, and Shaka's civ. They built those civs around their leader, and it's clearly tailored solely for them. And I find it too close from Civ V.
I don't necessarily agree about Korea being Seondeok's civ. You could easily put Sejong in place of her and call his leader ability Hall of Worthies and it would still play the same as her. Maybe you meant Korea is the Seowon civ instead.
I'm not going to disagree about Shaka or Alexander but they are staples at this point.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
