What do you think about graphics of the game? (poll)

Voted 8. Tbh, I like new graphics. I hope the new game doesn't require a new PC :/ Cartoonish graphics kinda gave me hope that maybe my PC can run Civ VI.

Btw, anyone has any idea about system requirements?

 

I seem to be in the minority here, but voted a 3. Still not impressed by the overly-Civ Rev style they're going for, and the gameplay video did basically nothing to change my mind (especially because of the moronic combat animations...)

 

I went with a 3, and was being generous.

The world graphics I would have went with a 5 or 6, but the limited amount of leader screens (Roosevelt screen and Qin leader icon) so far have me incredibly worried. I seriously am at a level 1 when it comes to that aesthetic area.

The Civ 5 leaders, with their well done, animated backgrounds was a huge immersion factor to me. I was never a fan of some of the major gameplay features of 5 (global happiness as an ex.) but the leader images was an area the devs did perfectly to me. Most of the leader's in game personality was very well portrayed with help from the backgrounds.

6 looks like it is reverting badly. I am really hoping the static background on Teddy in the video was only there because the real one is still unfinished. The Civ Rev/Civ world caricature design of characters just kind of makes me feel let down. (I'm still kind of in disbelief and shock of how bad Roosevelt looks). Really, I would debate on buying it or not. I don't want to play something, in which a very important artistic area, I find absolutely repulsive.

 

Why isn't 5 an "average" option? What is this, Metacritic?

 

Ar first glance it looks like the average must be around 7,7 something like that .

Good

 

I am delighted with the new look of the game.
Information is king in strategy games and the level of thought that has gone into how the graphics can best be used to convey information is outstanding.

 

I also wasn't really convinced of the art direction with the first screens, but in-game footage actually looks really good, not great, it can still use a lot of work, but it's going in a good direction.

Cities still need improving for example, but we're still 5 months away, so, we'll see.

 

I'm not sure I understand option 5. I've heard a lot of complaints about Civ V and more about BE, but they haven't been about the graphics. I think both these games are visually gorgeous.

As for my vote, I went with a 6. While I'm still not convinced its better than Civ V, the gameplay video dramatically improved my opinion. The initial screenshots had made me think it would be not just disappointing but actively distracting, but with the UI in place and a more reasonable zoom level this doesn't seem to be the case. The paper map fog of war also works surprisingly well. I'd still like to see the map under more conditions, especially late game, but at the point I'm cautiously optimistic.

 

I really like the new art style, it looks clean and the UI looks modern, I also was shocked for a moment when I first saw the screenshots but after a while and especially after the gameplay video it convinced me. And they maybe even decided to take this art style because many people liked Civilization IV and it looks a lot like Civilization IV. There is however something I don't like, the improvements, they have the size of a whole city (such as a small wonder like the oracle, or what about the broadway or the sydney opera house, are they also going to take one tile or will they be regular buildings which you can only build once? But maybe the cities will be very big in the later eras and thats why the improvements now looked odd. But I love the fact that there will be cliffs, thats going to change a lot when it comes to wars. However I hope they do improve the design of the rivers, since they looked very simplified.

 

To be fair, people have been up in arms about the way Civ V's roads and rivers look since before that games release.

 

I voted a 7... the rivers popped out at me as something that could be improved upon... looks more like a paved road than a natural waterway.

I was shocked by the screenshots, but held out hope that it would look better at a more zoomed out, game level distance. Looks great to me

 

I think you mean art style because graphics are technical things not aesthetic things. And we already had this dicussion for the past two weeks. I don't know about everyone else but I'very made my peace with it.

 

If we are talking about art style, I'd say it looks like a miniature golf course or theme park.

I like that every tree and blade of grass moves... but it still looks like a golf course.

 

Voted a 7. The gameplay video (which should have been out from Day 1) pushed up my opinion a few notches.

 

Well, I like this visual style a lot, it's clean, bright and sharp. Too much graphic realism is harmful to grand strategy gameplay, IMO.

That said, I find Roosevelt a tad too caricaturized for my taste.

 

voted 9 and stand by that. Glad to see that the median is much higher from what you would have suspected from going through the different threads here... silent majority?

P.S.: I know - this is far from being statistically or scientifically important - Don't drop it on me, pls.

 

A cursory search of T.R. caricatures seem to reveal people play up his cheeks.
We all have to be thankful they didn't go with this caricature.

Spoiler :

 

No, the gameplay videos with the great UI and beautiful fog effects as well as the apparently somewhat toned down terrain in it just have changed the minds of many.

The original screenshots are still very ugly.

 

Was genuinely dismayed when I saw the first screenshots...then saw gameplay video and realized how much better the graphics actually are, how nice the UI is and how awesome that fog of war looks. Would just like to see a little texture to the terrain and have things more "full"; also would like to see things slightly less vibrant.

Overall though, I am pleaseed at this point and glad that my knee-jerk reaction has been upended.

 

I'd play that!