ngl, realism always ages poorly. Civ V graphics looked cool when the game launched but now a lot of those models look borderline creepy. The stylism of Civ VI hasn’t aged in the same way—you don’t get a feel of “outdated” in the same way. You might not like the stylization but if not for it, you’d probably be feeling that the game would look outdated now, 8 years in.
I think this is the best argument against photorealism. But I concede that ultimately it's a matter of personal taste. I just happen to prefer a more stylized look. However it seems like the interface (from what little I could see in the video) looks a bit more like Civ V, which is great. I loved the Civ V interface..
As Inigo Montoya would say: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Unsurprisingly I've seen everything from praise for them being some of the best "realistic" graphics in the series to criticism for being so "cartoony" (and not just in this thread. Sure, if a random comment like that pops up in a stream, I wonder if the person is memeing rather than being sincere, but there's no way to tell.
The graphics are vibrant, some things pop. That is nowhere near "cartoony". And aside from some leaders, Civ 6 wasn't either, but here we are again.
Modern audiences are more used to cartoonish graphics, see popular games like Fortnite, TF2, etc. While Civ6 did lose some old fans over its art style (myself one of them) I bet they gained much more newer ones
TF2 is over 15 years old, just to put things into context.
Taste r.e. stylised graphics vs. realistic graphics has raged for probably double that amount of time (in video games alone, let's not touch TV or film).
My (hot? tepid?) take is:
Photorealism ages poorly, doesn't degrade nicely with LOD systems on lower-end hardware, and most critically: harms readability.
The real world isn't "readable". We've spent several millenia trying to make it look that way and we still have street signs on every corner and giant signs outside every shop. Humans love signposting. To the extent that if you drop us in the middle of nowhere with nothing but our hands, we'll still do our best to leave an "I wuz 'ere" somewhere along the trail we make as we go.
Colours blend together, perception is limited by the ability of the eyes we're born with (speaking as a 20 / 20 or better) and modified by the amount of light present, and don't get me started on the creative whackerdoodery that is architecture
I'm currently visiting Crete, on holiday. Half the roads are dirt, the shops range from fully Greek all the way to perfect English (tourist traps). There are five ways to the nearest beach, two ways are signposted, and only one turns up on Google.
And critically: I don't have to view all this through a 24" monitor. I've got my full range of vision to take this in, my ears and my sense of smell. On top of that, my brain's 35 years into calibrating how the real world looks. Video games - especially any that aren't first or even third person - are going to come nowhere near to simulating that level of immersion.
Can photorealism work? I think so. Is it readable? I would say not. Any game in question would have to bear this in mind during development.
Wait, Civ7 graphics are cartoony? I'm actually thinking they might be too realistic to my taste! I'm worried of readability. A part of hills, Civ6 is highly readable especially next to Civ5 where the only way I know where resources and units are by looking at the icons. Civ5 is literally just icons and cities surrounded by grayness in blue to me. Resources in screenshots of Civ7 seem a bit unclear (though I need to play the game before I know whether I am watching icons or actual assets.)
I was one of the vocal "haters" of Civ VI graphics and I absolutely love how the Civ VII looks. Beautiful, but more realistic. Units looking like real people/machines. Realistic animations instead of cartoony ones. Everything I hoped for.
Photorealism can very easily run into the uncanny valley problem. Also stylised art ages better over time whereas photorealistic graphics will be out of date in a few years.
As Inigo Montoya would say: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Unsurprisingly I've seen everything from praise for them being some of the best "realistic" graphics in the series to criticism for being so "cartoony" (and not just in this thread. Sure, if a random comment like that pops up in a stream, I wonder if the person is memeing rather than being sincere, but there's no way to tell.
The graphics are vibrant, some things pop. That is nowhere near "cartoony". And aside from some leaders, Civ 6 wasn't either, but here we are again.
In my experience, "cartoony" is code for "I don't like it" (or, less charitably, "colors brighter than mud make me feel insecure about my masculinity").
Civ7 is not remotely cartoony, but it is very stylized, which is good. Civ5 was not realistic either. Reality is not brown and grey. Civ5 was gritty, which is what most people asking for "realism" seem to actually want. For my part, I'm glad the industry isn't listening to them, because if realism is boring, gritty is just ugly. Civ5 was hideous (except the UI).
Wait, Civ7 graphics are cartoony? I'm actually thinking they might be too realistic to my taste! I'm worried of readability. A part of hills, Civ6 is highly readable especially next to Civ5 where the only way I know where resources and units are by looking at the icons. Civ5 is literally just icons and cities surrounded by grayness in blue to me. Resources in screenshots of Civ7 seem a bit unclear (though I need to play the game before I know whether I am watching icons or actual assets.)
It honestly seems like Firaxis can’t win with the “old school” crowd. The Civ 7 style was definitely a compromise from the Civ 6 style and we’re still hearing complaints. It’s like the only thing that would satisfy some players is a remaster of Civ 4 (which is horrendously goofy and cartoony but I digress).
I think the style they’ve gone for with 7 is awesome. Keeps the color of 6 while turning down the saturation slightly and upping the detail, which is exactly what I wanted. It’s very pretty. So my only hope is that my computer can run it.
The game is already very busy visually. A less realistic style helps with visual clarity as colors can be more vibrant, features can be exaggerated, etc. A "realistic" style would be muddier and proportionally harder to distinguish details. I think this looks beautiful.
Plus, "realistic" art styles tend not to age very well - and they don't actually look very photorealistic as our hardware just can't handle the detail that real life has anyways.
I'm sorry, but anyone who only ever calls a game's artstyle either "cartoony" (derogatory) or "realistic" (affectionate), is a philistine dog who only sees the good in art when it unites the aesthetics of the room
Moderator Action: Please be civil to your fellow CivFanatics. leif
I'm sorry, but anyone who only ever calls a game's artstyle either "cartoony" (derogatory) or "realistic" (affectionate), is a philistine dog who only sees the good in art when it unites the aesthetics of the room
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.
(in video games alone, let's not touch TV or film).
