Why on earth...

[Aheadatime]

I like the "map" filter purely for artistic reasons, though I don't deny it has clarity issues.

Perhaps three options?

Sepia Map ( current )
Color Map ( Sepia map with artistically appropriate colorization )
Traditional ( Civ5 Style )

This is the rare case where just straight up adding more options is the way to go, IMO. You *can* please everyone in this case.

That would be adequate. Seems like a necessity to be quite frank, with this drastic of a change.

 

[oakdragon]

Satellites technology doesn't provide constant vision of every tile on the map, it just 'discovers' tiles that you didn't explore yourself throughout the course of the game.

Ah, I thought it did, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[orasis]

Yeah, I think they could do some work on the map... but so far I'm enjoying everything else.

 

[Sireaglestrike]

I don't know if it has anything to do with the art style but this game runs soooooo much smoother than Civ V. Halfway through Civ V and I'm sitting at 30-60s turns and god forbid I stick with a game into the late stages. So far I've made it through to the industrial age and turns don't seem to slow down at all, which is very impressive. But I wouldn't be surprised if the art style had something to do with it, as WoW has always been criticized for its art style but it allows them to scale the game very well so the graphics can vary drastically between systems.

 

[Zenstrive]

Yeah, the FOW is jarring to my eyes and confusing, as if they're not part of the map but just accesories...not real part of the map. Jarring cause then I see whole cities in the accesories.
Maybe the FOW could be just an undersaturated version of the visible parts of the map, slightly masked by sepia color, not a whole color-leeched version that is then completely painted in sepia and dark sepia

 

[AlpsStranger]

Yeah, the FOW is jarring to my eyes and confusing, as if they're not part of the map but just accesories...not real part of the map. Jarring cause then I see whole cities in the accesories.
Maybe the FOW could be just an undersaturated version of the visible parts of the map, slightly masked by sepia color, not a whole color-leeched version that is then completely painted in sepia and dark sepia

I don't care what they do so long as they retain the option to have it this way if we like it. More options would be great, but don't remove the FoW for those of us who find the clarity-for-beauty trade-off acceptable.

I know some of you are super hardcore and would play on a spreadsheet if the clarity was perfect, and I'm not even saying that isn't a legitimate point of view. But for those of us willing to sacrifice a little for art, leave this option in ( even if it's not default anymore. )

 

[Zenstrive]

I don't play on spreadsheet.
Although, gosh, Civ VI is the first civ game that feels like work to me. Everyone who has succesfully finished the game on all five victories need to be awarded MBA.

 

[ffifield]

Yeah, the fog of war is horrible is just awful. Hopefully it gets changed.

 

[killmeplease]

i prefer the new fog its very artistic
have no problem with spotting hills maybe because of good eyesight

 

[Xyriach]

I actually rather like it. I've found that it draws your attention to un-visible parts of the map and helps in the early game to position outpost units to stop barbarians from emerging.

Is it possible that part of the motivation to change the style is to cut down on the amount of processing that the game needs? Rendering land that isn't being used potentially takes up power that's better used elsewhere?

 

[Plus Ultra]

I love the new fog of war, but please, make hills and deserts easier to spot please.

In fact, just make hills will with forests/rainforests easier to spot at all times while you are at it.

 

[Zuizgond]

Agree about the hills issue in Civ 6.

 

[GermanSettler]

Hills could be clearer... but the "why" of the OP's question is easy to answer for me: it looks so much better

 

[faberGe]

I like the new map, but i like even more the overview map

 

[Haggbart]

How about.....just turning on the yield icons?

 

[kaltorak]

I agree. They went for the cool looking aproach, instead of the clear one. In theory it's not bad, making it look like a drawn map. You arent seeing there right now, so you see a map. But on practice, its just worse.

 

[Arkatakor]

Very good post. Man, what a stark difference.

 

[Staal]

I like the new map style but I can't disagree that it is harder to identify terrain. Personally I don't mind because I love the new theme. The only thing that annoys me is that unexplored and explored are slightly too similar for me.

 

[ronin_cse]

Well this seems like a good place for my first post!

I absolutely love the new art style for the map. Yeah fine maybe it's harder to identify stuff, but I play turn based games like this so I have the time needed to tell what the terrain is.

I'm sure there will be mods to "fix" this problem but I certainly won't use them.

 

[Aheadatime]

I think the shaders they are applying to the fog of war are nice. However the models of tiles like hills (and you can through the resource icons here too) are not that distinct. So the result is what we see.

This thread was aimed mostly at the shaders, which make looking into the fog unappealing. I agree with you on models, or textures, as well though. Even when I'm looking around my own city for some tiles to improve with a builder, it's very difficult to tell what's what at a glance. I find myself relying on yield icons and hovering over tiles to be sure of everything, which makes the whole 'map out your cities properly with districts in mind etc' feel like a huge chore.