Poll: For Civ VII, which art direction style do you prefer?

[nzcamel]

I would like to add that this goes beyond the art style. Civ 6 gameplay doesn't feel natural to me. It's too much like a board game. If Civ 7 plays the same way Civ 6 does it will be a huge let down.

The vast majority of turn based games on any platform are boardgame "like". Civ is not unique in this at all. I mean the main clear difference between your average boardgame and your average digital turn based game is that the latter isn't restricted by the cost of reproducing physical copies of everything from units to the size of a table to play on.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The vast majority of turn based games on any platform are boardgame "like". Civ is not unique in this at all. I mean the main clear difference between your average boardgame and your average digital turn based game is that the latter isn't restricted by the cost of reproducing physical copies of everything from units to the size of a table to play on.

Similarities are to be expected, especially if you are treating the same subject, like battles or history. A great many of the mechanics in turn-based computer games originated with board games over 60 years ago, after all: Zones of Control, ranged versus 'melee' combat factors, 'combat results tables' (which, in the computer game, can be hidden in the innards of the machine, but the principles and even the mathematics are frequently identical).

Which is one reason why I dislike 'board game-like' computer games: they are re-using mechanics that are older than most of the gamers, in a system which potentially could do so much more without burdening the gamer with the details. It smacks of intellectual laziness or an inability to appreciate the capabilities available.

The cost of reproducing physical copies of anything is not, by itself, the limitation to board games. I just got re-introduced to the topic because a good friend of mine just had a military history board game he designed and sold years ago re-marketed. The problem is not producing counters, maps, and playing aids, it's that cost amortised over a much. much smaller commercial base. Many computer games are sold to millions or at least hundreds of thousands of gamers, Jack's board game might sell to as many as 10,000 - if he's lucky. Ironically, this is the same Order of Magnitude ratio of sales that was already being talked about 20 - 30 years ago at the 'dawn' of computer gaming - the potential market was already huge compared to board games - and miniatures rules sell to another order of magnitude fewer gamers, along the lines of a few thousand copies of a rules book being a Best Seller!

 

[nzcamel]

Similarities are to be expected, especially if you are treating the same subject, like battles or history. A great many of the mechanics in turn-based computer games originated with board games over 60 years ago, after all: Zones of Control, ranged versus 'melee' combat factors, 'combat results tables' (which, in the computer game, can be hidden in the innards of the machine, but the principles and even the mathematics are frequently identical).

Which is one reason why I dislike 'board game-like' computer games: they are re-using mechanics that are older than most of the gamers, in a system which potentially could do so much more without burdening the gamer with the details. It smacks of intellectual laziness or an inability to appreciate the capabilities available.

The cost of reproducing physical copies of anything is not, by itself, the limitation to board games. I just got re-introduced to the topic because a good friend of mine just had a military history board game he designed and sold years ago re-marketed. The problem is not producing counters, maps, and playing aids, it's that cost amortised over a much. much smaller commercial base. Many computer games are sold to millions or at least hundreds of thousands of gamers, Jack's board game might sell to as many as 10,000 - if he's lucky. Ironically, this is the same Order of Magnitude ratio of sales that was already being talked about 20 - 30 years ago at the 'dawn' of computer gaming - the potential market was already huge compared to board games - and miniatures rules sell to another order of magnitude fewer gamers, along the lines of a few thousand copies of a rules book being a Best Seller!

We're going to get off topic, so I won't respond any further on this; but yes cost is the main difference. I can buy a AAA computer game for $100 NZD (or that was what it cost in '16 prior to all this inflation) and it came with maps that are too big to fit on almost any table in a persons house, with an unlimited number of detailed mintures etc etc etc. In the board gaming world minitures have really taken off since Kick Starting became a meathod of publishing games. But to get a semi decent game, with, oh, I dunno, 75 odd detailed minitures in it, and a board made to fit on the average kitchen table; will cost around twice as much as the AAA computer game. To get a board game that had the size and minitures in it that a turn based computer game can produce would cost thousands. Obviously war gamers come closer without spending quite that much; but they don't often play their games at homes with a few friends; mostly needing the far larger space that a hired venue provides.

Without a doubt, once you have a computer, you can play far more detailed larger richer "boardgames" than you will ever get on an actual physical board. Just usually against subpar opposition. There's no winning Of course I am not saying there is nothing to the scale of manufacturing point you make. That is a big deal. But not as big as the differnece between a boardgame having to provide all of it's own hardware at a cost effective price (table aside), vs a computer game having to provide none of that, and with it's related hardware (in the case of PC's) usually being easier and cheaper to upgrade vs the kitchen table.

My point though was that saying that Civ 6 is any more like a boardgame than any other civ in the series* is pretty shallow take. That the policy cards are "cards" and not called something else does not more a boardgame make.

*Let alone other turn based games on computers/consoles.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

I'm not against the "board game" approach. I just prefer it not to be so obvious. Civ 4 never gave me that feeling. Civ 5 played a bit like chess because of 1UPT but still managed to feel immersive. Civ 6 took things one step further with clumsy game mechanics that feel tacked on (like the Golden and Dark ages) instead of giving me the feeling of managing a nation. I just want more of a focus on realism to satisfy the sense of immersion that I crave.

 

[Vilvatiktan]

I wouldn't really mind if they take Civ5 or Civ6 art style, but please, let us have a globe map <3

 

[Krajzen]

I wouldn't really mind if they take Civ5 or Civ6 art style, but please, let us have a globe map <3

Why?
I'm asking as a genuine question, I could never understood the appeal of a globe map, it just seems to be inherently less ergonomic and comfortable in use that the good old flat world map

 

[TheCleanerDragon]

I like being able to zoom out and see the world as a planet in space, it makes me feel like I'm playing in a real world. I will admit it is less functional than a flat map, so if it makes it into Civ VII it should be toggleable

 

[UWHabs]

Why?
I'm asking as a genuine question, I could never understood the appeal of a globe map, it just seems to be inherently less ergonomic and comfortable in use that the good old flat world map

Personally, my biggest desire for a real Globe map would be to naturally limit the amount of tundra and arctic that appears on a map. Even if they, say, fixed the poles as a spot you cannot pass through, and made the map into like a bulging disk where there's like half as many tiles around the poles as there is at the equator, that would go a long way towards the immersive feel.

 

[pokiehl]

Why?
I'm asking as a genuine question, I could never understood the appeal of a globe map, it just seems to be inherently less ergonomic and comfortable in use that the good old flat world map

It's strange to me that a player could view something so inconsequential as that as more important than art style.

 

[Pistol90]

I would probably loved globe more than flat (specially with global warming mechanic) .... but it is not that important I guess ...

I would trade that for simple culture impact loyalty mechanics, or something else

 

[nzcamel]

I like being able to zoom out and see the world as a planet in space, it makes me feel like I'm playing in a real world. I will admit it is less functional than a flat map, so if it makes it into Civ VII it should be toggleable

Would you be okay with the way Civ 4 did this? Keeps the flat map.

 

[nzcamel]

I would probably loved globe more than flat (specially with global warming mechanic) .... but it is not that important I guess ...

I would trade that for simple culture impact loyalty mechanics, or something else

I mean, as long as we keep vampires and huge buildings that give special powers for eternity, sure, lets keep anthropomorphic global warming

 

[TheCleanerDragon]

Would you be okay with the way Civ 4 did this? Keeps the flat map.

That's exactly what I meant. A flat map that looks like a globe when zoomed out.

 

[Haig]

One thing people seem to forget about Civ V's graphics is that it was damn static! Apart from water, barely anything moved on the map.

In Civ IV trees waved in the wind, footprints were left in sand and cities had details like aqueducts and windmills moving, I was shocked to see how lifeless Civ V was.

Thankfully Civ VI returned more life to map with all the tiny animations and details.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

One thing people seem to forget about Civ V's graphics is that it was damn static! Apart from water, barely anything moved on the map.

In Civ IV trees waved in the wind, footprints were left in sand and cities had details like aqueducts and windmills moving, I was shocked to see how lifeless Civ V was.

Thankfully Civ VI returned more life to map with all the tiny animations and details.

- And this is something they should really, really try to continue in Civ VII.
Whatever else you say about Humankind's maps, there is animation everywhere - people moving in the city streets, animals galloping across the plains, etc.
Then take a glance at the maps in Anno 1800 or Farthest Frontier, both of which have animated elements on virtually every tile of the game map: animals, birds, fish, stray people and carts and, in general, maps that look like something is actually happening on them, not just a static backdrop for game mechanics.

 

[nzcamel]

I also hope that wonder videos of some type remain. VI smashed it out of the park showing us the build from start to finish in the very world we've created; so I'm not sure how VII tops that. I just hope they don't return to a picture like V had.

 

[Pistol90]

I also hope that wonder videos of some type remain. VI smashed it out of the park showing us the build from start to finish in the very world we've created; so I'm not sure how VII tops that. I just hope they don't return to a picture like V had.

Agree.

Any kind of going back in would be really disapointing, not just wonder animations (they 100% must stay)

Also I hope one tile for wonder/distict remains ... just a little more integration with city itself would be great

 

[TempusFugit]

One thing people seem to forget about Civ V's graphics is that it was damn static! Apart from water, barely anything moved on the map.

In Civ IV trees waved in the wind, footprints were left in sand and cities had details like aqueducts and windmills moving, I was shocked to see how lifeless Civ V was.

Thankfully Civ VI returned more life to map with all the tiny animations and details.

I love animation on my maps in strategy games! I do still think nobody has made a better or more immersive map than the one New World Computing made for Heroes of Might and Magic 2. The combination of the great art style, a huge amount of animations, and a lot of sound, connected to various areas on the map, was the reason it worked so well.

But when you also take into account how little animation there is on the Civ 5 map, it says a lot about how disruptive the art style in Civ 6 was to immersion for some players.

 

[TempusFugit]

I also hope that wonder videos of some type remain. VI smashed it out of the park showing us the build from start to finish in the very world we've created; so I'm not sure how VII tops that. I just hope they don't return to a picture like V had.

For wonder rewards I think Civ 2 did it the best. I would have loved to see a mix of real world footage, film and 3D animations in Civ 7, but it is probably also harder to get it all to blend well together these days.

I actually found the wonder rewards in Civ 6 a little underwhelming. The ones in Civ 4, and even in Civ 5 were more impressive. Even though they were only static images with music and quotes.

But it is no question that my favorite game of the series, Civ 3, had the worst wonder rewards.

 

[nzcamel]

For wonder rewards I think Civ 2 did it the best. I would have loved to see a mix of real world footage, film and 3D animations in Civ 7, but it is probably also harder to get it all to blend well together these days.

I actually found the wonder rewards in Civ 6 a little underwhelming. The ones in Civ 4, and even in Civ 5 were more impressive. Even though they were only static images with music and quotes.

But it is no question that my favorite game of the series, Civ 3, had the worst wonder rewards.

I prefer consistency over what civ 2 gave us. 3 must be awful... I can't even remember
Not sure how, as good as they were, you can claim 4's were better than 6's. It's almost the same thing, but without the very cool situating in your own world.