will there be a patch to fix the graphics in Civ VII?

Likewise, the color palette in general is off. Most screenshots of cities I've seen contain oodles of weird colors that no one would decorate entire cities with.
I think the colors of cloth and some painted bits change to match your color palette.
 
What makes something realistic? That's an aesthetic quality that something can have, but not a statement of fact.

I'll call it "believability". Something that is insufficiently realistic makes it impossible to "suspend disbelief" in a fictional setting.
 
I think Civ5 was ugly when it released. The map is muddy. The palette is drab. The leaders look like animatronics. The UI was nice, though.

I can't honestly look at this and say 'Meh, it's kinda boring, I don't want this to come back'
I mean. This WAS atmospheric, and that's all I wanted from the 'aesthetics / vibes' of a Civilisation game.
1736454723603.png


Of course this was matched with amazing music -- the leader was the main focus, with peace and war themes.

But if their animation quality wasn't good, then I can't honestly blame the studio at the stage of their company.
But after so many years, DLCs, expansions, full releases, I expect more from them, I expect this but with ten times the attention to detail and quality.
That's perhaps what some people are missing from the latest release. But again, I don't want to judge without a release :)
 
I think the colors of cloth and some painted bits change to match your color palette.
Great idea! That sounds like a relatively easy patch. I recall one version of Civ had something called "blue marble" which subtly altered the appearance in a way many people found pleasing.
 
If the purpose of a Civ game is an immersive experience that makes it feel like you're inside of history, realism is necessary, and any winking neon sign that says "THIS IS A GAME!!!" will ruin that experience.
No, realism is not necessary, nor is there any neon sign. Realism is an art style. IMO it's a lazy art style. There are infinite perfectly valid art styles to choose from. I rather like Civ7's diorama-style art style. It's one I suggested some time ago as potentially pleasing, and I'm glad to see they went with it. I think it looks breathtaking. You don't; that's fine, too. But realism is not inherently superior to other art styles.

I'll call it "believability". Something that is insufficiently realistic makes it impossible to "suspend disbelief" in a fictional setting.
That again seems like your problem, and I think you are mistaking realism as an art style for verisimilitude in world building.

I can't honestly look at this and say 'Meh, it's kinda boring, I don't want this to come back'
I mean. This WAS atmospheric, and that's all I wanted from the 'aesthetics / vibes' of a Civilisation game.
1736454723603.png
[/URL]

Of course this was matched with amazing music -- the leader was the main focus, with peace and war themes.
I was chiefly talking about the maps, but I also don't think the leader models were great. What I do miss from Civ5 was the quality of the lighting in the leader screens and the variety of poses. Civ6's and Civ7's bright white lighting does not flatter the models. I'd love to see Civ6 and Civ7's dynamic leaders and more vivid color palette but in a proper setting like Civ5's.
 
If the purpose of a Civ game is an immersive experience that makes it feel like you're inside of history, realism is necessary, and any winking neon sign that says "THIS IS A GAME!!!" will ruin that experience.

Where in the game does it say that?

I don't know what an "immersive experience" is.

It is, objectively, a game - are you annoyed that there is a user interface that asks you to select units and end your turn?
 
I can't honestly look at this and say 'Meh, it's kinda boring, I don't want this to come back'
I mean. This WAS atmospheric, and that's all I wanted from the 'aesthetics / vibes' of a Civilisation game.
View attachment 714597

Of course this was matched with amazing music -- the leader was the main focus, with peace and war themes.

But if their animation quality wasn't good, then I can't honestly blame the studio at the stage of their company.
But after so many years, DLCs, expansions, full releases, I expect more from them, I expect this but with ten times the attention to detail and quality.
That's perhaps what some people are missing from the latest release. But again, I don't want to judge without a release :)
Amen! Askia looks like he's one second away from summarily decapitating you. The sense of menace is palpable. Even someone as cute and cuddly as Maria Theresa had a little gleam in her eye like she was calculating how to murder you, if she deemed it necessary.

The music is another issue: 4 and 5 had a soundtrack I can remember forever -first rate stuff. The only music I remember from 6 is some slow banjo music that made me feel like I was surrounded by inbred hillbillies.
 
No, realism is not necessary, nor is there any neon sign. Realism is an art style. IMO it's a lazy art style. There are infinite perfectly valid art styles to choose from. I rather like Civ7's diorama-style art style. It's one I suggested some time ago as potentially pleasing, and I'm glad to see they went with it. I think it looks breathtaking. You don't; that's fine, too. But realism is not inherently superior to other art styles.


That again seems like your problem, and I think you are mistaking realism as an art style for verisimilitude in world building.


I was chiefly talking about the maps, but I also don't think the leader models were great. What I do miss from Civ5 was the quality of the lighting in the leader screens and the variety of poses. Civ6's and Civ7's bright white lighting does not flatter the models. I'd love to see Civ6 and Civ7's dynamic leaders and more vivid color palette but in a proper setting like Civ5's.
Aesthetic relativism may have its place, but not in a history simulator. Failure to create the illusion of authenticity in a history simulator, is failure, and it is lazy.

What's wrong with the maps in 5? Grass is green, unless it's dead or diseased.
 
Great idea! That sounds like a relatively easy patch. I recall one version of Civ had something called "blue marble" which subtly altered the appearance in a way many people found pleasing.
What I mean to say is that I believe this is already how the game works: for instance, purple cloths and paint are applied to Settlements owned by Augustus.
 
What's wrong with the maps in 5? Grass is green, unless it's dead or diseased.
Screenshot 2025-01-09 at 3.03.59 PM.png

A lot of yellow and orange shades here, but I don't think that Nebraska's shortgrass prairies are currently suffering a plague.
 
Where in the game does it say that?

I don't know what an "immersive experience" is.

It is, objectively, a game - are you annoyed that there is a user interface that asks you to select units and end your turn?
An example of a winking sign is a googly-eyed cartoon character. That screams, "I'm not even trying to be real." An immersive experience is when you forget that it's a game.
 
What I mean to say is that I believe this is already how the game works: for instance, purple cloths and paint are applied to Settlements owned by Augustus.
I'd have to look at it again, but I recall those shades to be too light to be authentic imperial purple.
 
Aesthetic relativism may have its place, but not in a history simulator. Failure to create the illusion of authenticity in a history simulator, is failure, and it is lazy.
No, it's not. That's simply your opinion, one you're entitled to but not entitled to force on others. Your lack of imagination is not the artists' fault.

What's wrong with the maps in 5? Grass is green, unless it's dead or diseased.
Exactly. And in Civ5, they're brown. Everything in Civ5 is muddy, dingy, and ugly. It's not realistic. It's gritty. Grimdark "blood and mud" aesthetics are very unappealing IMO.
 
No, it's not. That's simply your opinion, one you're entitled to but not entitled to force on others. Your lack of imagination is not the artists' fault.


Exactly. And in Civ5, they're brown. Everything in Civ5 is muddy, dingy, and ugly. It's not realistic. It's gritty. Grimdark "blood and mud" aesthetics are very unappealing IMO.
Anachronism is not a matter of opinion, and day-glo colors in the ancient era are as much an anachronism as air strikes.
 
No, it's not. That's simply your opinion, one you're entitled to but not entitled to force on others. Your lack of imagination is not the artists' fault.


Exactly. And in Civ5, they're brown. Everything in Civ5 is muddy, dingy, and ugly. It's not realistic. It's gritty. Grimdark "blood and mud" aesthetics are very unappealing IMO.
And grasslands are not brown, they are green. A nice green.
 
I genuinely think this is the most beautiful 4x game I've seen. Civ 6 was too cartoony for my tastes while Humankind made the landscape look nice but the cities were flat. They really struck a balance in my eyes between beautiful natural terrain and cities and being able to take a brief look at a city and know where everything is. While the game isn't striving for 1:1 replication of realism it looks like a beautifully crafted model you'd find in a museum. It's the natural evolution of Civ 5's design and art style with the tweaks needed to account for the added dimensions from the terrain and city sprawl mechanics.
 
I genuinely think this is the most beautiful 4x game I've seen. Civ 6 was too cartoony for my tastes while Humankind made the landscape look nice but the cities were flat. They really struck a balance in my eyes between beautiful natural terrain and cities and being able to take a brief look at a city and know where everything is. While the game isn't striving for 1:1 replication of realism it looks like a beautifully crafted model you'd find in a museum. It's the natural evolution of Civ 5's design and art style with the tweaks needed to account for the added dimensions from the terrain and city sprawl mechanics.
I'll most likely give it a chance. Hopefully it's better than it looks.
 
Top Bottom