Units to big!

[SJSerio]

In Civ 4 every unit was always instantly identifiable without icons.

Icons and the 'strategic map' are excuses and crutches for poor graphical design. I cannot believe that the trend in Civ is actually a return to completely abstract, almost graphic-less, board game imagery.

This is Civilization... NOT Call of Duty! We don't NEED photorealistic graphics. The emphasis is on gameplay. Graphics are nice, but gameplay trumps graphics in a game like civilization any day. (Gameplay should trump graphics in ANY game, for that matter).

 

[Ryika]

In Civ 4 every unit was always instantly identifiable without icons.

No they weren't.

 

[stealth_nsk]

No they weren't.

Especially if you zoom out and the units are shown straight from above...

On the other hand, with stacks, unit identification wasn't as important as you still needed to hover for tooltip to see who's inside.

 

[jjkrause84]

This is Civilization... NOT Call of Duty! We don't NEED photorealistic graphics. The emphasis is on gameplay. Graphics are nice, but gameplay trumps graphics in a game like civilization any day. (Gameplay should trump graphics in ANY game, for that matter).

Do you play exclusively on the strategic map? Would you?

Anyway, your thing about 'photorealistic graphics' is a straw man. If you actually read my arguments you'll see I'm advocating for a more abstract or even 'cartoony' style than Civ 5 for the sake of clarity.

Also, gameplay and graphics are not in any way opposed.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

I actually prefer the strategic map, especially when it comes to shuffling units around.

 

[SJSerio]

Do you play exclusively on the strategic map? Would you?

Anyway, your thing about 'photorealistic graphics' is a straw man. If you actually read my arguments you'll see I'm advocating for a more abstract or even 'cartoony' style than Civ 5 for the sake of clarity.

Also, gameplay and graphics are not in any way opposed.

I don't, but some people do. My "photorealistic" statement is in response to people (and there are many of them) who seem to think that a game is no good unless graphics are top notch. I'm all for pretty graphics, but not at the expense of gameplay and, just as important, playability. They do affect each other. Processing for the graphics takes away from processing for the game systems.

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk

 

[Miravlix]

I don't, but some people do. My "photorealistic" statement is in response to people (and there are many of them) who seem to think that a game is no good unless graphics are top notch. I'm all for pretty graphics, but not at the expense of gameplay and, just as important, playability. They do affect each other. Processing for the graphics takes away from processing for the game systems.

Uhm, graphics style != top notch.

I believe Civ VI is very close to top notch on highest settings, the way it blends fog of war and visible map, looks scary high quality.

 

[Ryika]

Do you play exclusively on the strategic map? Would you?

These are not the same thing though.

While Civ VI goes for a board-gameish approach in design there's still tons of graphical fidelity in the game. It's just not "spread all over the place" like it would be in a game that goes for a more realistic design, and instead focused on the "points of interest". Units being overly big actually makes a lot of sense in that design, even without taking the silly "I need to be able to perfectly tell which unit this is without unit plates!"-argument out of the equation, because they're the stuff that has the most detail to them.

With that said though, I personally would still prefer a realistic approach over the board-game design. But it's clear why they made the choices they made after they had decided to go with a board-gameish design.