Why are they still going in a cartoony direction with the graphics?

[SammyKhalifa]

I do think that the leaders in general are a little Meh looking to me at first look. Now HAVING SAID THAT, what the leaders look like is really close to the last thing on my list in what I look for in the Civ games. I always thought they were kind of a resource sink where that effort would be better spent being used on practically anything else in the game.

 

[bosioc]

idk I got the sensation they are steping back from the 'cartoony' art style, not entirely but I really liked the results, especially the terrain. Leaders are a different case, they look... weird? or straight bad

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

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

Not exactly sure what what's supposed to mean, but unless Civ7 is supposed to be hung up in an art gallery anyone should be entitled to their opinion of how a video game's presentation comes across to them

 

[Sherlock]

Easier to implement on consoles.

 

[durfal]

I found civ 5 a bit to dark and terain was sometimes hard to figure out but I didn't hate it. Civ 6 is real bright (especially in golden ages) and realy colorful, but I didn't hate it.
This artstyle seems to be a bit in the middle with a lot more details and I realy like what I've seen of the worlds so far.

 

[zaint]

Even if the graphics are good, the artstyle they go for makes it look messy and bad.

Why the oversized scale of everything?
Why does my city cover half the continent?
It would look much better if you cut the size with 50-75% More realism please!

 

[Zaarin]

More realism please!

People who think realism is the objective goal of art are the reason we have endless action film sequels.

 

[ombak]

When have cities, units, improvements etc. ever looked realistically proportional on the map? These are basically pieces on a board and they should look like they belong on that board. Making them proportionally tiny would just make everything harder to read.

 

[Zaarin]

When have cities, units, improvements etc. ever looked realistically proportional on the map? These are basically pieces on a board and they should look like they belong on that board. Making them proportionally tiny would just make everything harder to read.

Among HK's other bad ideas/bad implementations, it made buildings tiny specks on the map, and the end result is completely illegible.

 

[KayAU]

I strongly disagree that Civ 5 was "ugly". I know it's all subjective, but Civ 5 still looks pretty good to me. The textures are a bit dark and low res by today's standards, but to some extent that can be compensated for with a texture pack. This is how it currently looks on my computer:

Spoiler :

It's nothing groundbreaking, but the game is 14 years old at this point, and I think it compares mostly favourably to Civ 6. Also, the map visuals may be the most important component, but it's not the only part of the visuals. Civ 5's UI, icons, leader scenes, wonder paintings and so on, still look great in my opinion.

EDIT: Another point I forgot to mention. When Civ 5 was released, it was the first Civ with hexagonal tiles. This was a significant advancement in my opinion, which made the map look much more organic and natural than its predecessors.

 

[pokiehl]

Easier to implement on consoles.

Art style has nothing to do with that. It’s quality and fidelity that do. You can make low-res “realistic” art.

 

[Zaarin]

but the game is 14 years old at this point

As you say, it's a matter of opinion. I thought Civ5 was ugly 14 years ago. Everything is grimy and muddy and dark and desaturated; anyone who thinks that's realistic needs to go outside for a couple hours. I do agree that Civ5's UI was probably the best UI in the franchise, though.

 

[zaint]

People who think realism is the objective goal of art are the reason we have endless action film sequels.

When have cities, units, improvements etc. ever looked realistically proportional on the map? These are basically pieces on a board and they should look like they belong on that board. Making them proportionally tiny would just make everything harder to read.

That's true but compared to earlier civ games, your cities actually looked more like separate cities. So far, Civ7 makes cities look like one huge city that sprawls everywhere.

Something with the graphical designs of today has gone wrong if for example, Civ4Colo can make a world map that looks more clean and realistic with that old graphic.

 

[Zaarin]

That's true but compared to earlier civ games, your cities actually looked more like separate cities. So far, Civ7 makes cities look like one huge city that sprawls everywhere.

I think the sprawl looks very pleasing aesthetically, but I'll be honest I'd hoped that districts would remain discrete but better capture the original idea that districts are smaller towns.

 

[ombak]

Art style has nothing to do with that. It’s quality and fidelity that do. You can make low-res “realistic” art.

I can't read the mind of the poster who made the statement you replied to, but I can say I see no way to tell the difference between the statement you replied to when made by a well-intentioned poster or a poster who likes to throw out "console" in a derogatory manner.

 

[Ordnael]

For the people saying the graphics have been compromised for the sake of my beloved Nintendo Switch...it would still burn in your hands either running these beautiful graphics or photo-realistic ones...I do not intend to purchase this CIV for my NS...looks like overkill and the poor thing, as my main gaming platform, is in sore need of replacement...waiting for the NS2, not rich/stupid enough to double dip on a V2 or OLED model though!

 

[BackseatTyrant]

For those who are complaining: can you point to me any specific game that you wanted Civ 7 to look like? Which games shaped your expectations?

 

[ZeroSuitSenpai]

The map looks really good to me idk. The leaders...eeeehhhhh. But it's early, and I eventually got used to civ 6 leaders (even tho I didn't like them). The civ 7 leaders look a bit less caricature-like, so it's already an improvement imo, even if the diplo/trade screen in the demo was looking very wack and Humankind-esque.

 

[KayAU]

When it comes to Civ 7's graphics, what I have seen of it so far, I think it looks pretty good overall. I understand that people have different preferences. I grew up with crisp pixel graphics on systems like the Amiga 500, many games which looked a bit like this:

Spoiler :

I guess this had an impact on my tastes. Later there were a lot of 3D games, but the games which were most pleasing to look at for me, was often the crisper, 2D, pixel art style. Like Patrician 3:

Spoiler :

That game came out in 2002, but I still think it looks stunning.

Getting back to Civilization and its more recent competitors, I think the ones which are most visually noteworthy, are probably Humankind and Ara: History Untold. Just as a reminder, Humankind looks like this:

Spoiler :

I think it is quite pretty, but it has a few drawbacks. For one thing, this map view disappears when you zoom out a bit, and is replaced by a rather dreary, I guess "strategic" view, full of little numbers, symbols and text. For another, due to the way cities and regions work, there is extreme urban sprawl, and almost the entire map will quickly become plastered with districts. It ends up looking very visually busy to me. I'm not saying it's a bad looking game, but in my opinion, it doesn't quite live up to the promo screenshots in practice.

As for Ara, it is a game which I thought looked rather ugly in the early promo screenshots. With the third alpha however, my opinion changed. I'm not allowed to post screenshots from my own gameplay, and the promo screenshots mostly don't quite do it justice, but I grabbed some screens from a trailer. There is some compression, but they give an idea of how it looks:

Spoiler :

It has kind of a detailed, somewhat realistic, "city builder" aesthetic, which I personally really like. It also helps that the map is full of life, with people and animals walking around. For me, this is probably going to be the main competitor to Civ 7, both in terms of visuals and gameplay.

Getting back to Civ 7, it seems they are going for a similar style to Civ 6, but clearly modernised and improved. The map looks pretty good...a bit sparse, but not bad. Where it shines for me, is the buildings and improvements. Screenshots like these are beautiful for me:

Spoiler :

Of course,this is zoomed in and angled in a way that doesn't reflect normal gameplay, so the game will not look *this* good all the time. But it's still impressive to me.

 

[Zaarin]

As for Ara, it is a game which I thought looked rather ugly in the early promo screenshots. With the third alpha however, my opinion changed. I'm not allowed to post screenshots from my own gameplay, and the promo screenshots mostly don't quite do it justice, but I grabbed some screens from a trailer. There is some compression, but they give an idea of how it looks:

I also thought Ara looked ugly until the third demo. Interestingly, Ara and Civ7 both seem to be targeting the same aesthetic: diorama/mini terrain art.