Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Strong Reaction, Oct 5, 2016.
My bad. Replaced with a different screenie.
xD damn it reminds me of the intro cinematic of Civ1^^ I liked the graphics in that game
but seriously civ 6, it looks pretty amazing when you compare overall I think, not only "best" looking but it has amazing looks overall, feels right rich colorful and nice, also very readable etc, and since game elements make lot of sense they make interesting compositions on the screen
It's these exact kinds of threads that made me change my profile icon to Alexander the Great from the snes civ1.
80s hair band Alexander is the best; He really captures Civilization's serious tone and establishes the franchise's realistic roots.
there are great people in the background of diplomatic screen in civ 1 -_-
I think the question isn't so much "is it cartoony?" (yes) but "should we consider it being cartoony a bad thing?"
I don't think we should. I think most strategy games tend to kind of edge away from hyperrealism for a simple reason - you need to be able to distinguish different factions on the fly, and more importantly, need to be able to distinguish different kinds of units.
Plus, nobody's gonna tell me Tropico, with it's Margaret Thatcher caricature and brutal murder of political dissidents, is ever going to be for kids.
I don't really have a problem with VI's graphics... they've grown on me I guess... It's just that V's were so gorgeous.
Yeah, I don't really have an opinion on the style one way or the other (though the maps in 6 look really good to me), just an issue when people act as if this is some brand new development that's going to ruin the series.
Also "cartoony" is such a large term anyway, that encompasses from The Fairly Odd Parents to The Legend of Korra. They went' with a very healthy dose of exageration, historical context and quite an emphasis on personality, if anything the designs are closer to Asterix and Obelix (even the concept art) and I think it fits the series like a glove.
In my opinion, the realistic approach in Civ V was good. Civ has a historical theme and involves vast landscapes, epic battles and so much of what makes the real world beautiful. I live in a big city. My daily life is full of tall buildings, pavement and cars. I play Civ to escape from urban modernity, I play through a battle on an open plain adjacent the Aegean sea. I play a desert sheikh leading a religious empire. I play an Asian emperor or empress presiding over a vast land hidden in mountains and forests. I love history- experiencing it, talking about it, playing it. Civ represents so many beautiful things in the world and a realistic approach brings the beauty of history and the real world into my house. It brings the epic scale and immersion that makes me feel like I'm living through these things. I can appreciate artistic expression. I can appreciate unrealistic expression. I can see something stylized in a beautiful way and see it as beautiful. But I'm just not looking for that here. To me, every feature of the game has always been to the end of achieving that immersion that has me lost for hours. I'd rather play a game that makes me feel like I'm living in the game world than one that is strategically balanced or visually organized and clean. Life is chaotic and disorderly, so give me chaos.
It also gives the graphics a longer lifespan. 'Realistic' graphics tend to age poorly, while more stylized are more palatable despite improvements and changes.
Have we even mentioned how gorgeous the strategic view is?
I think the cartoon style will work if done right. I think I need to settle in and play for a few hours to draw a sharper opinion about it. The GUI allows for more information to be displayed. The style and animation of the fog of war probably has a lot of influence on the art style.
IN CIV V, I have found that on large map towards end game, sometimes my eyes would get lost as fatigue sets in. I curious to see if I have the same fatigue in CIV VI.
While the realistic world of CIV 5 is cool, how realistic is it when your rifleman is as big as a sky scrapper? We are dealing with 2 different scales, the unit level scale and the city scale. They both have to appear on the map simultaneously. Before a judge I want to play through a few times.
I have to compare how the GUI and available information about my CIV, the City scale and the Unit scale and fog of war works together as a whole before picking a hard line on the graphic style. After all this is not a first person shooter.
Neither III (the farms) nor IV (the weird log to the left) are quite original screenshots, but the difference doesn't matter.
I found V to be far harder to see at a glance than IV, so I certainly approve of VI's distinctive graphics.
The forests look more like tree farms in Civ 6.
I took another look at some screenshots of CIV VI. This version is gaining a huge amount of detail now that they are not stacking buildings in the city. Although the art style is cartoon-ish, the level of realism is much higher than in CIV V.
The more I learn about CIV VI, the more bored I am getting with playing CIV V.
I was cartoonish.
II was less cartoonish/about as much.
III was less cartoonish.
IV was more cartoonish.
V was less cartoonish.
VI is more cartoonish.
Yeah, a real trend there...
Gauls confirmed a DLC!!
Seriously and OT, I agree with the said above. The "cartoony" style is not meant to make it more childish, but to emphasize specific features of the buildings, units and terrain.
Just like gauls were roundish and romans square-ish in Asterix.
Separate names with a comma.