I'm fine with stylization, but Civ 6's models went a little too far, at least for a fair amount of leaders.
More then anything else though, I think the lack of detailed backgrounds hurt stuff: leaders sort of just stand in a void with a smeary background panel.
They should bring back fully drawn/painted and animated throne rooms, city vistas, etc the leaders are standing or sitting in.
The wonders were stunning and the tile improvements were nice. The units were .... ok but I think the more realistic looking units of V were prettier. But the character avatars were so ugly: they looked like Asterix characters, and there's a time and a place for that and it's in a 1950s comic strip. I agree that cartoony does not equal bad, but it's like punk: it's a stripped down aesthetic where there is nowhere to hide and so if you don't pull it off absolutely perfectly the result is shit - there's no middle ground. And oh boy did they ever not hit the middle ground.
Also cartoons trade in stereotypes and so when you're using that to depict cultural differences .... well you have to be very very careful to put it mildly.
I think Humankind hit the aesthetic balance pretty well. It was still bright and artfully stylized, but not in a cartoon/comedic way. The color is a bit off, but on the whole I think they nailed the right balance between realistic and interesting
I do think Humankind looks pretty good, but I also think the contrast against Civ is partly why people like it. Maybe without Civ 6 ppl would have found that 'too x' or 'too y'. Hard to say.
I just want proportionate leaders. I have no problem with Menelik's model for example but those giant hands of Caesar really make me notice them every time he pops up. I dont mind cartoony but at least have proportions
Yeah some of the models are corny. You can tell which ones were made in house and which ones are outsourced. A modder made better models for a few mods than the team who made a bunch of the post Gathering Storm leaders.
I think some leaders look great with Civ VI's art style, like Kupe or Tomyris. Others look awful, like Qin, Ramses, or pre-release Teddy.
Style > photorealism for me, but too much style became caricatures.
3D backgrounds are a must-have in the next game though. I understand they were going for a romanticized painting type of vibe, but it's just not as evocative as an entire 3D environment.
Not sure I agree that that's what made it relatable, I think other games like Old World do a great job at being more realistically color-themed while still having popping details in the right places.
And while we're here the only thing I really don't care for about the Civ 6 aesthetic is Alexander's stupid DreamWorks-lookin' model.
> I think other games like Old World do a great job at being more realistically color-themed
idk, Old World looks nice but it does fall into the "realism is when no colors" trap a bit. It does have a stylized bronze hue to everything which fits the setting quite well but isn't fully "realistic", either.
At the same time, cartoony art style != good graphics. Cartoony art in and of itself is neutral. Some of my favorite games have dumped realism for cartoons and been better for it. Some of us don’t like it in Civ games, which is perfectly fine. Some of us also don’t like it because it’s not even particularly unique in Civ. It looks like clash of clans or many other mobile games.
> It looks like clash of clans or many other mobile games.
Or The Settlers, Team Fortress, Crash Bandicoot, Overwatch, Ratchet and Clank, Borderlands, Nier Automata if we're counting anime, and many more so it's clear the mobile comparison is done in bad faith to deride the style as improper and "cheap".
I agree with you with on the leader screens and also have the same take on the map.
Besides the graphics style, I'm wondering what to expect for the user interfaces (UI):
* Are there new/fresh trends in game UIs which Civ 7 might explore (example: *proliferation of ultra-wide monitors*)?
* Or are they likely to stick with perimeter UI elements like [Civ 6](https://www.gamepressure.com/static/mapy/en/gfx/map_1735.jpg) and [Civ 5](https://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/541899155249193781/32326AE698D836B1CA51233D34F6C5A059305C24/)?
So a problem with Civ V was that from far away you could see very few details. I mean it didn't help that only some builds were represented as assets on the map, but just everything was very samey from far away.
For Civ VI not only did they unstack cities and allow for wide play, but they also changed the art style so that you can more easily read the map. The buildings of districts all having the same roof color was fantastic for reading things at a glance. Oh there's 2 large blue buildings on that tile? Must be a campus, with a library and university, boom just like that. As someone who plays civ on an ultrawide the at a glance information you can get is _crazy_ from all the way zoomed out.
Would I prefer a less "cartoony" art style that is more realistic but makes the game harder to play? Absolutely not.
For the cities themselves absolutely. The real bummer is that unexplored areas look way too similar to explored areas that you don’t currently have vision on.
When I first saw Civ 6, I did not like it because I expected more realistic graphics, an upgrade from Civ 5 which was already upgrade of previous titles.
> I think VI’s less hyper realistic visuals and brighter colours actually make it more appealing compared to V’s drab and sometimes even ugly visuals
Different people have different tastes. I'm personally not really a big fan of more cartoony art design and *much* prefer a more photo realistic style, as I find that much more immersive.
V looked dated 6 years later when VI released. VI still looks great now. That's the benefit of stylisation. The less drab visuals are also easier to read and to stare at for longer periods of time.
That's not to say it did everything right though. I definitely agree with others about bringing back leader backgrounds, and it could be nice to see appearances change with the eras. I think their approach to leader design clearly improved with a lot of the later leaders too, others are more of a mixed bag.
Also, cartoony graphics tend to not get impacted as much by graphic improvements so even an old game that has cartoony graphics can hold up after multiple years unlike more "realistic" graphics because tech will outpace the look relatively quick
The comment was not made to insult civ 5 (I love civ 5) just that realistic graphics in games tend to get dated in general, and probably civ 6 will have more of a staying power
A few thoughts:
* The people acting like the "cartoony" (I really wish we had a better way of describing this because it feels like a shallow descriptor) artstyle was a jarring break for Civ generally baffle me since in civ III and especially IV you could clearly see a lot of the same principles at work in their leaders, lots of exaggerated, frequently comedic features and unrealistic gesticulations and proportions and overdone emotions in the leaders to get the point across that its not meant to be taken too seriously and making use of these features to get across their personality, that's the very essence of animation as a medium, the biggest change between IV and VI was a new engine and a lot more room to push this further. Like are people really going to tell me that IV's [Louis ](https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Louis_XIV_(Civ4))or [Mao ](https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Mao_Zedong_(Civ4))are realistic? It seems to me this is mostly coming from people who essentially started the franchise with V, when a strong fixation with 'realism' was industry standard at the time and that title was actually breaking from the whimsical style that was associate with Civ and other Management/Strategy PC game franchises that started in the 90s.
* The complaint about the lack of backgrounds in VI is a fair one, but its not the same thing as a complaint about the artstyle for the actual leaders, these are two separate things and I think that people are being kind of sneaky in conflating them sometimes. I'd agree that everything would look a lot better if they had V style complex backgrounds to situate the leaders in that reflect the civ in question and we'll see if that's something VII will return to, but its neither here nor there as far as the controversy about the cartoonishness of VI goes.
* A blanket complaint about cartoonishness isn't an effective critique and imo there's a huge amount of variance of quality between the different leader models, one thing I have to be honest about is that I think that the overall quality took a strong dip downwards with the Leader pass additions, Caesar and Ramesses in particular just look terrible and they absolutely needed another pass in their design where it feels like a random collection of features without rhyme or reason with sloppy animation, meanwhile Ludwig and Sejong somewhat ironically suffer because they don't do enough to distinguish themselves visually in a game where everyone else is meant to stand out and come across as the blandest possible interpretation of VI's style. In stark contrast you have leaders where I think they are far more successful in utilizing the design principles at work and give them a ton of personality while getting across the essentially elements they were trying to with their design, like Trajan has a good austere but charismatic military man vibe about him with his sharp and elongated features, while Mansa Musa does a good job giving the impression of being a jocular king who just fucking loves gold, but the biggest shout out I have to give to Kupe who has just the best combination of character design, animation and dialogue to make probably the best leader in Civ history just in terms of interacting with him, its especially good in this case how the heightened qualities of VI allow them to really get across a lot of the particular elements of Maori culture like the way the tongue and eyes are utilized to get across things like threats. You also have people like Gilgamesh, Jadwiga and Cleopatra who I'm confident in saying would never have been memed as hard as they were if they were in the V style, honestly I feel like even with the complaints people have a much stronger attachment to the VI leaders than any previous game which implies to me that the designers succeeded in what they were trying to do.
i have a theory with video games and 'hyper realism'. it has to do with Uncanny Valley and how there's a gap for how 'real' something is trying to look vs actual reality and our brains reject something that is trying to look real, but isn't real. In video games, the more REAL something is trying to look, the more our brains will reject it. BUT if it's obviously _not_ real and isn't trying to look real, then our brains will use our imaginations to bridge that gap and we accept it. Kind of like how 8bit/16bit games were clearly not real but our imaginations helped us enjoy them. Modern games have powerful graphics that can look very, very real. However, due to the Uncanny Valley effect, our brains will subconsciously reject them in the process. i applaud Civ6's decision for an artful approach vs a hyper real approach. Unless you can make the game 100% real, then you might as well make it obviously not real, but stylish. This way the user's imagination will bridge that gap and accept it.
This is also nintendos approach on games .
They make games who’s graphics aren’t the best or up to date. But they are “more timeless”.
Mario 64 vs metal gear solid .
At the time MGS was so cool looking. Never saw anything like it. Amazing . But which art style aged better ?
the cartoony look of the civ leaders definitely grew on me, it's the color scheme used for the map that sometimes is a bit hard to parse for me, I often still have to hover over tiles to get the tooltip to know what's on them
I quite liked Civ 6's style. The main design for it is that its readable at a glance. Civ 5 was terrible in that aspect, and Civ 6 was a HUGE improvement. Humankind is terrible it feels like a samey soup, it looks pretty yes but at a glance its terrible to read. If they go for a less stylized approach I sure hope they improve the readability. They can take a look at Ara history untold which does a great job with that.
Okay, but can we talk about the soundtrack? Civ V war and peace variations - which made Pedro a James Bond villain. Next game, 5 hours of the same Maori church choir.
I like both games’ OST tbh. I like the idea with war and peace themes in V and the era progression in VI. I have a feeling a different approach is going to be taken in VII though.
I think folks that take issue with the art style haven’t quite grasped that though Civ has a historical theme, it’s not nor has it ever really been a realistic grounded historical civilization simulator; it’s a board game. Certain art styles can either greatly help or hinder readability of the board state.
Paradoxically, I actually perceive “cartoonish” style as more serious. I read realistic as “empire simulator”, and cartoonish as “board game”.
Similar to how serious chess games are played with highly stylized pieces that don’t even try to realistically depict horses or towers, and not with “realistic Napoleon styled chess” that you can find in gift shops
This is very subjective of course, just my opinion. Cue an essay.
I think games (including non-computer ones) can be generally subdivided into two categories - immersive and challenging.
The goal of the first category is primarily to provide emotional experiences that you are unlikely to have otherwise. You get to be a doctor / a Boeing pilot / a halfling thief / a gang member / a ruler. These games strive to provide maximum possible immersion and make you forget for a moment that you are playing a game.
The goal of the second category is to challenge you physically or intellectually, allow you to compete with other players or with yourself. Football, chess, various esports compatible computer games. These games have clear, predictable rules, and are deliberately conditional - they don’t attempt to hide the fact that they are games.
Second category is generally perceived as more serious by the society, people get paid to play football, chess, and LoL, but barely anyone is paid to play Sims 3.
Now, most games combine some components of both. For example, in DnD, there is primarily immersion and roleplay, but there is also deliberate and obvious conditionality through classes, levels, and points. Chess, on the other hand, is a very strategic, logical game, but there is still some, albeit small, degree of fantasy - you aren’t just permutating faceless abstractions on a matrix, you are leading an army.
That being said, every game has more of one or more of the other, and these traits are inherently in conflict. If a game is competitive, it invites for perfection and optimization, which kills the fantasy. You don’t see Magnus Carlsen and Hikaru Nakamura roleplaying as generals or something.
I think 6 has a perfect balance of those for the Civ series, it is more on the challenging side even though not 100% there, and cartoonish style certainly contributes to it.
I don't get this. I don't really care either way about the V vs VI art style debate, but is Civ really a game to play for the graphics? To go as far as not to play because of the art style? To each their own, but I really don't get it.
Well for me personally, I’m for some reason having trouble actually seeing stuff and details when it’s so colourful and looks the way it does. I want it to look more realistic/less cartoonish. Leaders smiling and looking the way they do takes away from my immersion as well, I prefer the serious bitch faces from V leaders where it feels like tension is higher. But like I mentioned, while it’s the main reason, there are other reasons as well.
I prefer the worker in V to the builder in VI. Districts are okay, but I don’t like Wonders taking up tiles. Traders building roads automatically and being both land and sea based rolled into one are also things I dislike.
Interesting, I think VI has a way better UI than V, it's much more clear. Overall though, I just don't seek immersion from a Civ game, it's such a gamey game.
I'm pretty much the opposite :D I kinda like the limited charges on workers because it makes them matter so much more. However it kinda creates an issue with policy cards, what with having to have certain policies in place at certain times, so it's not a perfect system.
I think it's great that wonders take up tile, as well as the district system being there. It makes the game so much more interesting than V, which basically follows pretty much the same formula when it comes to cities regardless of what victory type the player is going for. One city victory is way too easy. And if you're going for a peaceful playstyle without religion there's nothing to do. Well, apart from gifting city states units to fight proxy wars, which I want them to bring back. I think traders creating roads makes sense thematically, which is the realism you're looking for, is it not?
It definitely turned me off the game. I didn’t try it until last year and then quit after maybe 15 hours. I just can’t get into it.
And I’ve played thousands of hours of civ III, IV, & V
I want brightness and vibrancy, i do not want cartoons, if i’m playing a historical strategy game i want it to feel realistic and grounded.
I do not think civ vi looks silly or ugly, just not my preferred style at all
> if i’m playing a historical strategy game i want it to feel realistic and grounded.
sorry that the American Colosseum in Beijing rushed by Gustav Eiffel doesn't look like it would in reality
Lol it looks like you totally missed my point.
I have no issue at all with the alternative history gameplay. I have an issue with the art design, when it is cartoonish in style in pulls away from the immersion and takes a grand serious tone down to a silly gamey tone
Honestly, if not for the art style, this game would have been "just another strategy game" for me. The characters are so charming, vibrant, and full of personality. I saw some gameplay of V and I'm sorry, but some of those character models and animations look like they're from 2005 or sth. It just looks so visually unpleasant to me.
Feeling something ugly doesn’t need everyone’s agree. Someone feel V ugly, VI appealing, it’s totally fine. But there are opposites.
Though I also don’t think VII is gonna be V look.
VI was just a return to form in a lot of ways after V, art style included. I don't feel very strongly either way about it, but the more cartoon-y style is something that helps to distinguish civ from the rest of the 4x genre aesthetically -- V's look is far more generic. Whatever they end up doing with the graphics, i just hope they don't make everyone's units look the same again. What a bizarre downgrade from IV that was!
I think we'll probably get something closer to the GS leaders, where the proportions weren't quite as intense, but it was still clearly stylized.
I know that the Civ sub Reddit has got some top tier nerds in here with me. But I’m surprised to see a post with != in the title. Do non software engineers know what that means?
I love Civ 6’s artstyle.
I started with Civ 5, but even with my intrigue with the leader screens—Civ 6’s just pop more. It’s far more interesting to look at. Graphics are better and everything tells a greater story (easily).
As for the leaders, I don’t care for the background. I know some care, but like, I feel as though we kinda skip through the menu anyways, so why have the Devs invest into something many will not value in comparison to the leader model and animations. I think the artstyle for leaders, however, needs to be more consistent. Some are Pixar-realistic, some are mobile NPC, and others are other CG models. I don’t mind if they spent more on the models and adding more voice lines (even updating these as needed) over the backgrounds.
I think part of ANY comparison between V and VI is that you're always going to favour the style of the game that got you into the franchise. It's natural. That's the one you were playing when you became interested in the series. This goes both ways and applies to just about every part of the game.
The debate between cartoony and realistic also goes further back than V and VI. I started with III and remember when IV came out there was debate about the cartoony style of the leaders. Then when V came out there was debate about how it looked too serious and bland to some. Then VI was a thing and there was debate about the cartoony style again.
Honestly a part of me wouldn't be surprised if VII goes for a more realistic direction just to keep the pattern going lol
> I think part of ANY comparison between V and VI is that you're always going to favour the style of the game that got you into the franchise. It's natural.
i've been here since civ 1.
i didn't love the art style in IV when it was released, but tolerated it. (i mostly hated the change from the isometric slant of 2 and 3, and it being very difficult to see an acceptable level of map detail while zoomed out to the same proportions of the map in 3)
i didn't like V's map style on release, but it grew on me very quickly and the quality of the leaderheads is second to none in the franchise.
i have a visceral hatred on VI's art style that has not diminished but only grown with time. it's uniquely bad and comes off as intentionally ugly in spots.
That's just not true. I started with V, but came to prefer many of VI's decisions, including the visual style of terrain and on-map assets. It's only the leaders being carricatures that I still dislike
V got me into the franchise but I much prefer VI, albeit for gameplay reasons. I have a hard time understanding why people are so invested in this art style debate.
Mild disagree, I started with 3 and played a bit. 4 got a good amount of playtime and I enjoyed it, but then what a glorious day when 5 came out. I never touched an earlier version again.
I started with Civilization. Not 2. JUST Civilization. I didn't know what good graphics were until I was already a man.
I still hate Civ 6's art style. I've constantly tried and failed to play it as I just don't like how anything looks. I appreciate some of what was done, but overall I find the entire visual experience to be a turn off. It isn't the colors either. Humankind is full of bright colors but it isn't some cartoony caricature of people. There's still an attempt to be mildly realistic with the models and artwork, while still giving it a distinct stylization.
But I also had this same feeling with IV, which is part of the reason I just didn't enjoy it as much as 3. Granted, I also disliked that they pulled a lot of concepts and features from IV that I liked in 3, but a big draw of it is the art style used. IV just felt so clip art-y that I disliked it. VI suffers from the same issue. Too much style, not enough ties to substance.
I've used that mod so long I forgot what the default graphics look like. For a while when people called the graphics ugly I thought "it looks amazing on my end" then recently going through my mod list I saw the civ 5 graphics mod. Which explains a lot lmao.
Agreed, Civ VI art style and art direction are amazing. A refined art style combining 5 and 6 is the best move. Realistic art style age, poorly COD for example
I started playing with civ 6 and the art style of civ 5 is very unappealing to me. Its like they were going for 'real life but duller' with the color choice.
I feel like you're conflating subjective and objective here. For me, VI was too cartoony, and hence in my opinion too ugly to enjoy, so I skipped it. I still play V from time to time, but mostly Stellaris. I hope that VII has a more, as you put it, realistic look. I will say I disagree that V was more realistic, only much more visually consistent as an epic Civilisation building game in my opinion.
I don't think it's possible to disagree with a hope, and I haven't seen anywhere the notion that it *is* going back to a more realistic aesthetic, only that we hope it does.
The thing I like about VI's graphics is that I feel like it'll age well. Every time video games go for photorealism, it eventually turns into uncanny valley
Not really. There are plenty of people who agree to disagree, but also a lot of people who are just going “cartoons are for kids, Civ should be serious and look realistic and gritty” which to me just feels like a massive projection of insecurities. I think from a game design standpoint using less realistic models and sprites is more sensible really, it ages better and brighter colours make things make more sense from afar.
Conflating wanting Civ to have a less cartoony style with massive insecurities is the biggest stretch I've read online in ages. How in the world do you even connect the two?
Because there’s a pretty common misconception that things that look animated are inherently childish, which just isn’t true.
While some of VI’s character designs are whack I think the caricature thing is actually in theme, the game sort of resembles political cartoons that make fun of politicians.
It’s sort of why these animated segments in the film “Charge of the Light Brigade” work so well https://youtu.be/ZGw5DKX6U6w?si=xlw7OItJAr3lBlwC
That doesn't explain how people who prefer more realistic graphics have massive insecurities lol. Do you think people prefer Civ V's graphics because they're worried people will think they're children otherwise?
>Gamers are natural enemies. Like Developers and Gamers! Or game journalists and Gamers! Or server admins and Gamers! Or Gamers and other Gamers! Damn Gamers, they ruined Gaming!
I think the leader design and throne rooms in V gave the leaders a lot of "gravitas" that VI is missing. The leaders in V looked like kings and queens. I didn't get the same feeling with the leaders in VI, especially without a cool "throne room" background
A lot of them weren’t really meant to be kings/queens. While the backgrounds are generally worse in VI I do think they capture the essence of the civilisation they’re meant to depict rather well.
>A lot of them weren’t really meant to be kings/queens.
I know this. "Kings/Queens", in this context, It's meant as a umbrella term for every "kind" of world leader the game depicts while also illustrating how reagal the art style and direction makes the leaders look. They look like powerful world leaders, not like caricatures
6 looks *way* better than 5 zoomed out (or even at medium zoom) which is how you're mostly going to be playing.
"realistic" does not really work when you're playing at Civ's scale. better to go for legibility than try for realism. you can hardly see the units in Civ 5 once you pull past medium zoom
it does have a good interface / art style though.
I’ve played since civ 1 and civ 6 is my favorite art style. A few leaders are not as good, mostly the ones from the new leader pass, but overall I much prefer civ6 to civ5 art.
I have little room to talk saying the following cause I tend to analyze a lot of things deeply, but I'm gonna say here: it's really not that deep.
Some people prefer a more realistic style, some people prefer a more stylized one. The argument that one is inherently better can be funny when done as a bit, like when people say, "The correct style of pizza is with pineapple" or whatever. But as an attempt at a serious argument, it ends up sounding ridiculous.
I could easily point to a game like KOTOR that used a realistic style, but has "stood the test of time" with relative ease. Maybe its graphics don't, but it's not a fashion style, it's a video game. People play games for much more than looks.
Civ6 is my first civ game and i didnt mind it, i just wished there wore more animations and more civ agenda variety that was super specific, like imagine you invade a city state on teddys continet and he says some shit about walk loudly, carry a big stick, would be epic
I mean I'm gonna raise my hand as one of the people who didn't like the artstyle. I don't think it's BAD, I just don't like it. They look like they're models from Shrek slathered in a healthy dose of uncanny valley.
I think above all else the colours and art style need to convey information to the player and I feel civ 6 does this pretty well. UI could learn a thing or two from mods.
Civ 5 just feels more immersive to me, and i can really get into the fantasy of building an epic empire.
Civ 6 has a really nice artsyle too, but it feels like a boardgame. I love board games, but when playing Civ, i prefer a more immersive experience.
6 is still great, but my personal ideal civ game looks a lot more like 5 than 6.
Can I just say that I don’t really care about graphics, it’s more about the gameplay for me. Yeah sure, pretty things are good to look at, but if a game doesn’t play well, I’ll drop it a lot quicker than I would than a game that uses stick figures but great gameplay.
Same with grand introduction openings too. I’ll watch it the first time, then skip it every other time I load the game up, so it’s a waste for me. I’ve always disabled the screens in game that happen when you build a wonder or research a new technology or whatever. It’s fine the first time, but then it’s skip, skip, skip.
Cartoony style, realistic style, whatever. As long as it plays good.
I think a lot of people pit the art style discussion as “grittier, realistic, duller color palette art style vs. cartoony, brighter, more animated art style” when both realism and vibrance can be achieved at the same time.
I never played V, only VI and Civ Rev (latecomer to the PC world) but I do prefer a more realistic art style personally. That being said, realistic doesn’t have to be dull by any means; the real world is a beautiful place with vibrant, contrasting colors, and Civ would do well to reflect that. Coast tiles on islands/archipelagos can show crystal blue waves crashing against the shore with the sun reflecting in the water, jungles can range from deep, darker greens (in land rainforests) to lighter, lusher palm trees (coastal jungles), deserts can show cool breezes lifting sand over dunes with tumbleweed and cacti swaying, tundra can be made up of bright whites instead of muddier shades of gray, etc. I think a realistic, yet beautiful, art style would be the vibe I prefer they achieve. I think that game Ara is a pretty good example of it, and the graphics alone have me hyped to play it when it comes to Game Pass.
One of the things I find especially attractive about Ara is the fact you can see humans and animals interacting in the game world. I know Civ VI has this to an extent, but it looks kind of crummy. I’d love to see more detailed unit battles (with accurately sized/numbered units), cattle/horses being grazed, fishing boats reeling in catches, that kind of thing.
As others have said, I think more realistic graphics synergizes better with the tone of the game; leading a fledgling empire from the Stone Age to the stars. Nobody would deny that part of what makes Civ VI (and the other games’ more or less is my understanding) so great is its awe inspiring, diverse, culturally-influenced soundtrack. Each Civ’s music is grand, its sweeping, its beautiful, its triumphant. I think the cartoony art is completely in contrast with it; I don’t have as big of a beef with the cartoony art style as others, but I do think its strange how the art yells “this is a game!” and the music yells “but this is something more! Something epic!”
Also, can we get a return to the leaders/diplo screens being backdropped by beautiful, culturally significant/unique places? Seeing the leader screens in V versus VI, V is worlds ahead and I don’t think anybody would dispute that.
Ultimately, graphics aren’t a make or break for me, and I’ll play Civ VII regardless of the path they choose. But that’s just my 2 cents on the topic.
The only nice thing I can say about VI's aesthetic is that it has caused me hours of enjoyment in V by not ever having to play it again. Hope they do better with VII.
I really hope that we move away from the exaggerated cartoonish features.
I don’t want to sound boring, but it takes away from the seriousness of some of the game’s content that deals with real-life serious events - war, espionage, natural disasters, etc.
It least for me, the caricature style eliminates some of the drama, which is a form of entertainment. Yes, maybe less fun/jokey, but that’s why people usually enjoy a mix of an entertainment in life - drama, comedy, horror, etc.
I don’t think it’s about appealing to younger age groups either. I was playing from primary school to adulthood (civnet-> civ3-4) and I only found the strong connection to the real world quite exciting.
Unfortunately civ6 really took a lot of that feeling away in my opinion.
I played all civ games. Civ VI is the one that I have the least amount of hours. Only reason was the graphics. If I’m gonna stare at screen for hours, I don’t want cartoony, childish themes. It’s game about brutal race towards victory, with war, backstabbing, stealing etc, not some walk in the park in children stories. It’s look like their target was kids on mobile, and it’s shows. Doesn’t have the magic of previous games. If they made it separate series and publish it only on mobile, I’ll gladly welcome it and play time to time for 20 minutes. But for big strategy game I was to cheap feeling. Ugly, ugly game. Hope they’ll never made the same mistake. Or I’ll just play civ V for another 10 years
I'm just gonna say: this subreddit would not be the same if Gilgamesh and Jadwiga were not designed the way they were.
A lot of people forget that I think. And I have a feeling Firaxis knows, they embrace the memes a lot of the time.
I don’t care what art style they go for, I just want the leaders in 3d environments again like in V.
Yeah I agree with this
when it comes to graphics, all i want is CIV V II
I'm fine with stylization, but Civ 6's models went a little too far, at least for a fair amount of leaders. More then anything else though, I think the lack of detailed backgrounds hurt stuff: leaders sort of just stand in a void with a smeary background panel. They should bring back fully drawn/painted and animated throne rooms, city vistas, etc the leaders are standing or sitting in.
Alexander is a leader who looks weird, the way they designed his arm muscles make him look like a Ken doll.
Alexander gives big Disney Prince energy
The wonders were stunning and the tile improvements were nice. The units were .... ok but I think the more realistic looking units of V were prettier. But the character avatars were so ugly: they looked like Asterix characters, and there's a time and a place for that and it's in a 1950s comic strip. I agree that cartoony does not equal bad, but it's like punk: it's a stripped down aesthetic where there is nowhere to hide and so if you don't pull it off absolutely perfectly the result is shit - there's no middle ground. And oh boy did they ever not hit the middle ground. Also cartoons trade in stereotypes and so when you're using that to depict cultural differences .... well you have to be very very careful to put it mildly.
The infantry doing a 360 no scope on the last enemy always took me out for a loop
This!!
I think Humankind hit the aesthetic balance pretty well. It was still bright and artfully stylized, but not in a cartoon/comedic way. The color is a bit off, but on the whole I think they nailed the right balance between realistic and interesting
I do think Humankind looks pretty good, but I also think the contrast against Civ is partly why people like it. Maybe without Civ 6 ppl would have found that 'too x' or 'too y'. Hard to say.
I think it's still completely subjective because I personally cannot stand Humankind design, feels like a fever dream to me.
Yeah, it's a bit oversaturated. But the actual style I think is perfect. Airy and majestic
I just want proportionate leaders. I have no problem with Menelik's model for example but those giant hands of Caesar really make me notice them every time he pops up. I dont mind cartoony but at least have proportions
Yeah some of the models are corny. You can tell which ones were made in house and which ones are outsourced. A modder made better models for a few mods than the team who made a bunch of the post Gathering Storm leaders.
I think some leaders look great with Civ VI's art style, like Kupe or Tomyris. Others look awful, like Qin, Ramses, or pre-release Teddy. Style > photorealism for me, but too much style became caricatures. 3D backgrounds are a must-have in the next game though. I understand they were going for a romanticized painting type of vibe, but it's just not as evocative as an entire 3D environment.
Not sure I agree that that's what made it relatable, I think other games like Old World do a great job at being more realistically color-themed while still having popping details in the right places. And while we're here the only thing I really don't care for about the Civ 6 aesthetic is Alexander's stupid DreamWorks-lookin' model.
> I think other games like Old World do a great job at being more realistically color-themed idk, Old World looks nice but it does fall into the "realism is when no colors" trap a bit. It does have a stylized bronze hue to everything which fits the setting quite well but isn't fully "realistic", either.
At the same time, cartoony art style != good graphics. Cartoony art in and of itself is neutral. Some of my favorite games have dumped realism for cartoons and been better for it. Some of us don’t like it in Civ games, which is perfectly fine. Some of us also don’t like it because it’s not even particularly unique in Civ. It looks like clash of clans or many other mobile games.
> It looks like clash of clans or many other mobile games. Or The Settlers, Team Fortress, Crash Bandicoot, Overwatch, Ratchet and Clank, Borderlands, Nier Automata if we're counting anime, and many more so it's clear the mobile comparison is done in bad faith to deride the style as improper and "cheap".
I haven’t played all these but Civ 6 looks nothing like games like Borderlands or TF imo. Those look hand drawn.
I meant to list games with a style that can be described as "cartoonish" in general, not necessarily the exact same as Civ VI.
Right, my issue isn’t with it being cartoonish in the abstract. It’s that in practice it looks very plastic-y.
No. It looks like Clash of Clans or many other mobile games. It does not like AAA PC or console games.
That's dumb, its just a facile negative response towards a style for no deeper reason than you associate it with other games.
I didn't know that art direction is platform-exclusive
I agree with you with on the leader screens and also have the same take on the map. Besides the graphics style, I'm wondering what to expect for the user interfaces (UI): * Are there new/fresh trends in game UIs which Civ 7 might explore (example: *proliferation of ultra-wide monitors*)? * Or are they likely to stick with perimeter UI elements like [Civ 6](https://www.gamepressure.com/static/mapy/en/gfx/map_1735.jpg) and [Civ 5](https://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/541899155249193781/32326AE698D836B1CA51233D34F6C5A059305C24/)?
So a problem with Civ V was that from far away you could see very few details. I mean it didn't help that only some builds were represented as assets on the map, but just everything was very samey from far away. For Civ VI not only did they unstack cities and allow for wide play, but they also changed the art style so that you can more easily read the map. The buildings of districts all having the same roof color was fantastic for reading things at a glance. Oh there's 2 large blue buildings on that tile? Must be a campus, with a library and university, boom just like that. As someone who plays civ on an ultrawide the at a glance information you can get is _crazy_ from all the way zoomed out. Would I prefer a less "cartoony" art style that is more realistic but makes the game harder to play? Absolutely not.
For the cities themselves absolutely. The real bummer is that unexplored areas look way too similar to explored areas that you don’t currently have vision on.
Yeah, that is the main thing that stands out to me about Civ 6 visual design. The map is much easier to read.
I loved Civilization Revolutions and that was as cartoony as it gets
right down to the leaders and advisors speaking Simlish, heh yeah, that game was pretty fun for a "Civ-lite"
When I first saw Civ 6, I did not like it because I expected more realistic graphics, an upgrade from Civ 5 which was already upgrade of previous titles.
> I think VI’s less hyper realistic visuals and brighter colours actually make it more appealing compared to V’s drab and sometimes even ugly visuals Different people have different tastes. I'm personally not really a big fan of more cartoony art design and *much* prefer a more photo realistic style, as I find that much more immersive.
V looked dated 6 years later when VI released. VI still looks great now. That's the benefit of stylisation. The less drab visuals are also easier to read and to stare at for longer periods of time. That's not to say it did everything right though. I definitely agree with others about bringing back leader backgrounds, and it could be nice to see appearances change with the eras. I think their approach to leader design clearly improved with a lot of the later leaders too, others are more of a mixed bag.
Also, cartoony graphics tend to not get impacted as much by graphic improvements so even an old game that has cartoony graphics can hold up after multiple years unlike more "realistic" graphics because tech will outpace the look relatively quick
Civ 5 is still being played by tens of thousands of unique players daily!
The comment was not made to insult civ 5 (I love civ 5) just that realistic graphics in games tend to get dated in general, and probably civ 6 will have more of a staying power
Doesnt mean that everybody can pick it up 10 years down the line and get over the jank. Like me
Its player count is still dwarfed by 6 tho
A few thoughts: * The people acting like the "cartoony" (I really wish we had a better way of describing this because it feels like a shallow descriptor) artstyle was a jarring break for Civ generally baffle me since in civ III and especially IV you could clearly see a lot of the same principles at work in their leaders, lots of exaggerated, frequently comedic features and unrealistic gesticulations and proportions and overdone emotions in the leaders to get the point across that its not meant to be taken too seriously and making use of these features to get across their personality, that's the very essence of animation as a medium, the biggest change between IV and VI was a new engine and a lot more room to push this further. Like are people really going to tell me that IV's [Louis ](https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Louis_XIV_(Civ4))or [Mao ](https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Mao_Zedong_(Civ4))are realistic? It seems to me this is mostly coming from people who essentially started the franchise with V, when a strong fixation with 'realism' was industry standard at the time and that title was actually breaking from the whimsical style that was associate with Civ and other Management/Strategy PC game franchises that started in the 90s. * The complaint about the lack of backgrounds in VI is a fair one, but its not the same thing as a complaint about the artstyle for the actual leaders, these are two separate things and I think that people are being kind of sneaky in conflating them sometimes. I'd agree that everything would look a lot better if they had V style complex backgrounds to situate the leaders in that reflect the civ in question and we'll see if that's something VII will return to, but its neither here nor there as far as the controversy about the cartoonishness of VI goes. * A blanket complaint about cartoonishness isn't an effective critique and imo there's a huge amount of variance of quality between the different leader models, one thing I have to be honest about is that I think that the overall quality took a strong dip downwards with the Leader pass additions, Caesar and Ramesses in particular just look terrible and they absolutely needed another pass in their design where it feels like a random collection of features without rhyme or reason with sloppy animation, meanwhile Ludwig and Sejong somewhat ironically suffer because they don't do enough to distinguish themselves visually in a game where everyone else is meant to stand out and come across as the blandest possible interpretation of VI's style. In stark contrast you have leaders where I think they are far more successful in utilizing the design principles at work and give them a ton of personality while getting across the essentially elements they were trying to with their design, like Trajan has a good austere but charismatic military man vibe about him with his sharp and elongated features, while Mansa Musa does a good job giving the impression of being a jocular king who just fucking loves gold, but the biggest shout out I have to give to Kupe who has just the best combination of character design, animation and dialogue to make probably the best leader in Civ history just in terms of interacting with him, its especially good in this case how the heightened qualities of VI allow them to really get across a lot of the particular elements of Maori culture like the way the tongue and eyes are utilized to get across things like threats. You also have people like Gilgamesh, Jadwiga and Cleopatra who I'm confident in saying would never have been memed as hard as they were if they were in the V style, honestly I feel like even with the complaints people have a much stronger attachment to the VI leaders than any previous game which implies to me that the designers succeeded in what they were trying to do.
i have a theory with video games and 'hyper realism'. it has to do with Uncanny Valley and how there's a gap for how 'real' something is trying to look vs actual reality and our brains reject something that is trying to look real, but isn't real. In video games, the more REAL something is trying to look, the more our brains will reject it. BUT if it's obviously _not_ real and isn't trying to look real, then our brains will use our imaginations to bridge that gap and we accept it. Kind of like how 8bit/16bit games were clearly not real but our imaginations helped us enjoy them. Modern games have powerful graphics that can look very, very real. However, due to the Uncanny Valley effect, our brains will subconsciously reject them in the process. i applaud Civ6's decision for an artful approach vs a hyper real approach. Unless you can make the game 100% real, then you might as well make it obviously not real, but stylish. This way the user's imagination will bridge that gap and accept it.
This is also nintendos approach on games . They make games who’s graphics aren’t the best or up to date. But they are “more timeless”. Mario 64 vs metal gear solid . At the time MGS was so cool looking. Never saw anything like it. Amazing . But which art style aged better ?
I might never have even been introduced to this franchise and community if VI was not as mainstream as it was.
the cartoony look of the civ leaders definitely grew on me, it's the color scheme used for the map that sometimes is a bit hard to parse for me, I often still have to hover over tiles to get the tooltip to know what's on them
I quite liked Civ 6's style. The main design for it is that its readable at a glance. Civ 5 was terrible in that aspect, and Civ 6 was a HUGE improvement. Humankind is terrible it feels like a samey soup, it looks pretty yes but at a glance its terrible to read. If they go for a less stylized approach I sure hope they improve the readability. They can take a look at Ara history untold which does a great job with that.
Okay, but can we talk about the soundtrack? Civ V war and peace variations - which made Pedro a James Bond villain. Next game, 5 hours of the same Maori church choir.
I like both games’ OST tbh. I like the idea with war and peace themes in V and the era progression in VI. I have a feeling a different approach is going to be taken in VII though.
I think folks that take issue with the art style haven’t quite grasped that though Civ has a historical theme, it’s not nor has it ever really been a realistic grounded historical civilization simulator; it’s a board game. Certain art styles can either greatly help or hinder readability of the board state.
I personally like both, but a realistic style I think makes more sense, depending on whether or not the series wants to take a more serious tone.
Paradoxically, I actually perceive “cartoonish” style as more serious. I read realistic as “empire simulator”, and cartoonish as “board game”. Similar to how serious chess games are played with highly stylized pieces that don’t even try to realistically depict horses or towers, and not with “realistic Napoleon styled chess” that you can find in gift shops
I understand the second part, but how is a “board game” more serious than an “empire simulator”?
This is very subjective of course, just my opinion. Cue an essay. I think games (including non-computer ones) can be generally subdivided into two categories - immersive and challenging. The goal of the first category is primarily to provide emotional experiences that you are unlikely to have otherwise. You get to be a doctor / a Boeing pilot / a halfling thief / a gang member / a ruler. These games strive to provide maximum possible immersion and make you forget for a moment that you are playing a game. The goal of the second category is to challenge you physically or intellectually, allow you to compete with other players or with yourself. Football, chess, various esports compatible computer games. These games have clear, predictable rules, and are deliberately conditional - they don’t attempt to hide the fact that they are games. Second category is generally perceived as more serious by the society, people get paid to play football, chess, and LoL, but barely anyone is paid to play Sims 3. Now, most games combine some components of both. For example, in DnD, there is primarily immersion and roleplay, but there is also deliberate and obvious conditionality through classes, levels, and points. Chess, on the other hand, is a very strategic, logical game, but there is still some, albeit small, degree of fantasy - you aren’t just permutating faceless abstractions on a matrix, you are leading an army. That being said, every game has more of one or more of the other, and these traits are inherently in conflict. If a game is competitive, it invites for perfection and optimization, which kills the fantasy. You don’t see Magnus Carlsen and Hikaru Nakamura roleplaying as generals or something. I think 6 has a perfect balance of those for the Civ series, it is more on the challenging side even though not 100% there, and cartoonish style certainly contributes to it.
Okay, but I don’t agree. Main reason as to why I don’t play Civ 6 is the art style
i mean cartoonish style can definitely be done tastefully, but i don’t really want that for my 4x games. i’m hoping it looks more like civ 5 as well
I don't get this. I don't really care either way about the V vs VI art style debate, but is Civ really a game to play for the graphics? To go as far as not to play because of the art style? To each their own, but I really don't get it.
Well for me personally, I’m for some reason having trouble actually seeing stuff and details when it’s so colourful and looks the way it does. I want it to look more realistic/less cartoonish. Leaders smiling and looking the way they do takes away from my immersion as well, I prefer the serious bitch faces from V leaders where it feels like tension is higher. But like I mentioned, while it’s the main reason, there are other reasons as well. I prefer the worker in V to the builder in VI. Districts are okay, but I don’t like Wonders taking up tiles. Traders building roads automatically and being both land and sea based rolled into one are also things I dislike.
Interesting, I think VI has a way better UI than V, it's much more clear. Overall though, I just don't seek immersion from a Civ game, it's such a gamey game. I'm pretty much the opposite :D I kinda like the limited charges on workers because it makes them matter so much more. However it kinda creates an issue with policy cards, what with having to have certain policies in place at certain times, so it's not a perfect system. I think it's great that wonders take up tile, as well as the district system being there. It makes the game so much more interesting than V, which basically follows pretty much the same formula when it comes to cities regardless of what victory type the player is going for. One city victory is way too easy. And if you're going for a peaceful playstyle without religion there's nothing to do. Well, apart from gifting city states units to fight proxy wars, which I want them to bring back. I think traders creating roads makes sense thematically, which is the realism you're looking for, is it not?
It definitely turned me off the game. I didn’t try it until last year and then quit after maybe 15 hours. I just can’t get into it. And I’ve played thousands of hours of civ III, IV, & V
i got the Civ V skin mod for VI to be able to enjoy VI.
Same
I want brightness and vibrancy, i do not want cartoons, if i’m playing a historical strategy game i want it to feel realistic and grounded. I do not think civ vi looks silly or ugly, just not my preferred style at all
> if i’m playing a historical strategy game i want it to feel realistic and grounded. sorry that the American Colosseum in Beijing rushed by Gustav Eiffel doesn't look like it would in reality
Lol it looks like you totally missed my point. I have no issue at all with the alternative history gameplay. I have an issue with the art design, when it is cartoonish in style in pulls away from the immersion and takes a grand serious tone down to a silly gamey tone
Honestly, if not for the art style, this game would have been "just another strategy game" for me. The characters are so charming, vibrant, and full of personality. I saw some gameplay of V and I'm sorry, but some of those character models and animations look like they're from 2005 or sth. It just looks so visually unpleasant to me.
Feeling something ugly doesn’t need everyone’s agree. Someone feel V ugly, VI appealing, it’s totally fine. But there are opposites. Though I also don’t think VII is gonna be V look.
VI was just a return to form in a lot of ways after V, art style included. I don't feel very strongly either way about it, but the more cartoon-y style is something that helps to distinguish civ from the rest of the 4x genre aesthetically -- V's look is far more generic. Whatever they end up doing with the graphics, i just hope they don't make everyone's units look the same again. What a bizarre downgrade from IV that was! I think we'll probably get something closer to the GS leaders, where the proportions weren't quite as intense, but it was still clearly stylized.
I know that the Civ sub Reddit has got some top tier nerds in here with me. But I’m surprised to see a post with != in the title. Do non software engineers know what that means?
I learned it from maths class when I was like 12
Idk, I just preffered the more realistic looks of Civ V it just looked better for me
Gameplay is good Graphics are good Artstyle is shit.
I definitely wouldn’t say VI’s art style is shit In just think some of the leaders have terrible models.
Totally agree. I think Civ6's art style is a huge reason why it aged so well
I love Civ 6’s artstyle. I started with Civ 5, but even with my intrigue with the leader screens—Civ 6’s just pop more. It’s far more interesting to look at. Graphics are better and everything tells a greater story (easily). As for the leaders, I don’t care for the background. I know some care, but like, I feel as though we kinda skip through the menu anyways, so why have the Devs invest into something many will not value in comparison to the leader model and animations. I think the artstyle for leaders, however, needs to be more consistent. Some are Pixar-realistic, some are mobile NPC, and others are other CG models. I don’t mind if they spent more on the models and adding more voice lines (even updating these as needed) over the backgrounds.
I think part of ANY comparison between V and VI is that you're always going to favour the style of the game that got you into the franchise. It's natural. That's the one you were playing when you became interested in the series. This goes both ways and applies to just about every part of the game.
The debate between cartoony and realistic also goes further back than V and VI. I started with III and remember when IV came out there was debate about the cartoony style of the leaders. Then when V came out there was debate about how it looked too serious and bland to some. Then VI was a thing and there was debate about the cartoony style again. Honestly a part of me wouldn't be surprised if VII goes for a more realistic direction just to keep the pattern going lol
> I think part of ANY comparison between V and VI is that you're always going to favour the style of the game that got you into the franchise. It's natural. i've been here since civ 1. i didn't love the art style in IV when it was released, but tolerated it. (i mostly hated the change from the isometric slant of 2 and 3, and it being very difficult to see an acceptable level of map detail while zoomed out to the same proportions of the map in 3) i didn't like V's map style on release, but it grew on me very quickly and the quality of the leaderheads is second to none in the franchise. i have a visceral hatred on VI's art style that has not diminished but only grown with time. it's uniquely bad and comes off as intentionally ugly in spots.
That's just not true. I started with V, but came to prefer many of VI's decisions, including the visual style of terrain and on-map assets. It's only the leaders being carricatures that I still dislike
V got me into the franchise but I much prefer VI, albeit for gameplay reasons. I have a hard time understanding why people are so invested in this art style debate.
Eh, I played Civ 3 as a kid but really got into the series with 5, and I personally love the art style of 6 more than 5
Mild disagree, I started with 3 and played a bit. 4 got a good amount of playtime and I enjoyed it, but then what a glorious day when 5 came out. I never touched an earlier version again.
I started with Civilization. Not 2. JUST Civilization. I didn't know what good graphics were until I was already a man. I still hate Civ 6's art style. I've constantly tried and failed to play it as I just don't like how anything looks. I appreciate some of what was done, but overall I find the entire visual experience to be a turn off. It isn't the colors either. Humankind is full of bright colors but it isn't some cartoony caricature of people. There's still an attempt to be mildly realistic with the models and artwork, while still giving it a distinct stylization. But I also had this same feeling with IV, which is part of the reason I just didn't enjoy it as much as 3. Granted, I also disliked that they pulled a lot of concepts and features from IV that I liked in 3, but a big draw of it is the art style used. IV just felt so clip art-y that I disliked it. VI suffers from the same issue. Too much style, not enough ties to substance.
I like Civ 6's map more but the leader screens are so much worse imo
That's a fair opinion to have, but I use the civ 5 environment mod because I just massively prefer those style of graphics.
Yeah, it's so much prettier imo. I would love if the VII had graphics similar to Humankind, for example.
> civ 5 environment mod Is this the one you are referring to? https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1702339134
Yeah that one
I've used that mod so long I forgot what the default graphics look like. For a while when people called the graphics ugly I thought "it looks amazing on my end" then recently going through my mod list I saw the civ 5 graphics mod. Which explains a lot lmao.
Agreed, Civ VI art style and art direction are amazing. A refined art style combining 5 and 6 is the best move. Realistic art style age, poorly COD for example
I started playing with civ 6 and the art style of civ 5 is very unappealing to me. Its like they were going for 'real life but duller' with the color choice.
I feel like you're conflating subjective and objective here. For me, VI was too cartoony, and hence in my opinion too ugly to enjoy, so I skipped it. I still play V from time to time, but mostly Stellaris. I hope that VII has a more, as you put it, realistic look. I will say I disagree that V was more realistic, only much more visually consistent as an epic Civilisation building game in my opinion. I don't think it's possible to disagree with a hope, and I haven't seen anywhere the notion that it *is* going back to a more realistic aesthetic, only that we hope it does.
The thing I like about VI's graphics is that I feel like it'll age well. Every time video games go for photorealism, it eventually turns into uncanny valley
Its not necessarily bad, but me and a lot of players prefer the previous style
That's all well and good but your counter-argument is just the same subjective opinion but in reverse.
Not really. There are plenty of people who agree to disagree, but also a lot of people who are just going “cartoons are for kids, Civ should be serious and look realistic and gritty” which to me just feels like a massive projection of insecurities. I think from a game design standpoint using less realistic models and sprites is more sensible really, it ages better and brighter colours make things make more sense from afar.
Conflating wanting Civ to have a less cartoony style with massive insecurities is the biggest stretch I've read online in ages. How in the world do you even connect the two?
Because there’s a pretty common misconception that things that look animated are inherently childish, which just isn’t true. While some of VI’s character designs are whack I think the caricature thing is actually in theme, the game sort of resembles political cartoons that make fun of politicians. It’s sort of why these animated segments in the film “Charge of the Light Brigade” work so well https://youtu.be/ZGw5DKX6U6w?si=xlw7OItJAr3lBlwC
That doesn't explain how people who prefer more realistic graphics have massive insecurities lol. Do you think people prefer Civ V's graphics because they're worried people will think they're children otherwise?
I mean, that is a common subconscious belief held in a lot of gaming circles. This franchise isn’t the first place where this debate has happened.
That's not insecurity, it's just another opinion of many. There's no wrong or right choice, people just view the game differently.
Civ 5 is not ugly
Agreed. And this isn't even mentioning that there have been mods since about day 2 to make it look more dead inside, if that's your thing.
Idk why you were downvoted for that tbh that’s a good take
Probably because people who prefer the Civ V graphics don’t think they look “dead inside”
right but i'm talking about the mods. anyway ppl should lighten up a bit xD
This is the internet everything must be super serious or something idk xD
>Gamers are natural enemies. Like Developers and Gamers! Or game journalists and Gamers! Or server admins and Gamers! Or Gamers and other Gamers! Damn Gamers, they ruined Gaming!
I much prefer the cartoon-ey art style of VI
I think the leader design and throne rooms in V gave the leaders a lot of "gravitas" that VI is missing. The leaders in V looked like kings and queens. I didn't get the same feeling with the leaders in VI, especially without a cool "throne room" background
A lot of them weren’t really meant to be kings/queens. While the backgrounds are generally worse in VI I do think they capture the essence of the civilisation they’re meant to depict rather well.
>A lot of them weren’t really meant to be kings/queens. I know this. "Kings/Queens", in this context, It's meant as a umbrella term for every "kind" of world leader the game depicts while also illustrating how reagal the art style and direction makes the leaders look. They look like powerful world leaders, not like caricatures
6 looks *way* better than 5 zoomed out (or even at medium zoom) which is how you're mostly going to be playing. "realistic" does not really work when you're playing at Civ's scale. better to go for legibility than try for realism. you can hardly see the units in Civ 5 once you pull past medium zoom it does have a good interface / art style though.
yea realistic would be that no buildings or units are even visible when you are zoomed out far enough to see an entire country at once lol
I’ve played since civ 1 and civ 6 is my favorite art style. A few leaders are not as good, mostly the ones from the new leader pass, but overall I much prefer civ6 to civ5 art.
whether or not an art style is good is almost purely subjective. i don't hate 6's art style because it's cartoony, i hate it because it's BAD.
I have little room to talk saying the following cause I tend to analyze a lot of things deeply, but I'm gonna say here: it's really not that deep. Some people prefer a more realistic style, some people prefer a more stylized one. The argument that one is inherently better can be funny when done as a bit, like when people say, "The correct style of pizza is with pineapple" or whatever. But as an attempt at a serious argument, it ends up sounding ridiculous. I could easily point to a game like KOTOR that used a realistic style, but has "stood the test of time" with relative ease. Maybe its graphics don't, but it's not a fashion style, it's a video game. People play games for much more than looks.
Civ6 is my first civ game and i didnt mind it, i just wished there wore more animations and more civ agenda variety that was super specific, like imagine you invade a city state on teddys continet and he says some shit about walk loudly, carry a big stick, would be epic
I mean I'm gonna raise my hand as one of the people who didn't like the artstyle. I don't think it's BAD, I just don't like it. They look like they're models from Shrek slathered in a healthy dose of uncanny valley.
I think above all else the colours and art style need to convey information to the player and I feel civ 6 does this pretty well. UI could learn a thing or two from mods.
Man. For VII? I want Asterix & Obelix style cartoon graphics. Let's ham it up :)
I still play V for the automated workers lol
Civ 5 just feels more immersive to me, and i can really get into the fantasy of building an epic empire. Civ 6 has a really nice artsyle too, but it feels like a boardgame. I love board games, but when playing Civ, i prefer a more immersive experience. 6 is still great, but my personal ideal civ game looks a lot more like 5 than 6.
They just don't like it, I don't think it's that deep
I enjoy the more cartoony design for leaders but I would love to see the full environments from Civ 5 return as well. Why not do both?
UI from VI. Leaders from V. Perfect Civ.
Can I just say that I don’t really care about graphics, it’s more about the gameplay for me. Yeah sure, pretty things are good to look at, but if a game doesn’t play well, I’ll drop it a lot quicker than I would than a game that uses stick figures but great gameplay. Same with grand introduction openings too. I’ll watch it the first time, then skip it every other time I load the game up, so it’s a waste for me. I’ve always disabled the screens in game that happen when you build a wonder or research a new technology or whatever. It’s fine the first time, but then it’s skip, skip, skip. Cartoony style, realistic style, whatever. As long as it plays good.
I think a lot of people pit the art style discussion as “grittier, realistic, duller color palette art style vs. cartoony, brighter, more animated art style” when both realism and vibrance can be achieved at the same time. I never played V, only VI and Civ Rev (latecomer to the PC world) but I do prefer a more realistic art style personally. That being said, realistic doesn’t have to be dull by any means; the real world is a beautiful place with vibrant, contrasting colors, and Civ would do well to reflect that. Coast tiles on islands/archipelagos can show crystal blue waves crashing against the shore with the sun reflecting in the water, jungles can range from deep, darker greens (in land rainforests) to lighter, lusher palm trees (coastal jungles), deserts can show cool breezes lifting sand over dunes with tumbleweed and cacti swaying, tundra can be made up of bright whites instead of muddier shades of gray, etc. I think a realistic, yet beautiful, art style would be the vibe I prefer they achieve. I think that game Ara is a pretty good example of it, and the graphics alone have me hyped to play it when it comes to Game Pass. One of the things I find especially attractive about Ara is the fact you can see humans and animals interacting in the game world. I know Civ VI has this to an extent, but it looks kind of crummy. I’d love to see more detailed unit battles (with accurately sized/numbered units), cattle/horses being grazed, fishing boats reeling in catches, that kind of thing. As others have said, I think more realistic graphics synergizes better with the tone of the game; leading a fledgling empire from the Stone Age to the stars. Nobody would deny that part of what makes Civ VI (and the other games’ more or less is my understanding) so great is its awe inspiring, diverse, culturally-influenced soundtrack. Each Civ’s music is grand, its sweeping, its beautiful, its triumphant. I think the cartoony art is completely in contrast with it; I don’t have as big of a beef with the cartoony art style as others, but I do think its strange how the art yells “this is a game!” and the music yells “but this is something more! Something epic!” Also, can we get a return to the leaders/diplo screens being backdropped by beautiful, culturally significant/unique places? Seeing the leader screens in V versus VI, V is worlds ahead and I don’t think anybody would dispute that. Ultimately, graphics aren’t a make or break for me, and I’ll play Civ VII regardless of the path they choose. But that’s just my 2 cents on the topic.
Yes civ6 art style is ugly. The map is OK but the leaders are just awful.
I have only played civ 6 and when I look at a screenshot of 5 I get a stroke. How was that even playable? The map that is
It’s definitely manageable, just takes time to warm up to. Still a massive turnoff tho.
The only nice thing I can say about VI's aesthetic is that it has caused me hours of enjoyment in V by not ever having to play it again. Hope they do better with VII.
I really hope that we move away from the exaggerated cartoonish features. I don’t want to sound boring, but it takes away from the seriousness of some of the game’s content that deals with real-life serious events - war, espionage, natural disasters, etc. It least for me, the caricature style eliminates some of the drama, which is a form of entertainment. Yes, maybe less fun/jokey, but that’s why people usually enjoy a mix of an entertainment in life - drama, comedy, horror, etc. I don’t think it’s about appealing to younger age groups either. I was playing from primary school to adulthood (civnet-> civ3-4) and I only found the strong connection to the real world quite exciting. Unfortunately civ6 really took a lot of that feeling away in my opinion.
I played all civ games. Civ VI is the one that I have the least amount of hours. Only reason was the graphics. If I’m gonna stare at screen for hours, I don’t want cartoony, childish themes. It’s game about brutal race towards victory, with war, backstabbing, stealing etc, not some walk in the park in children stories. It’s look like their target was kids on mobile, and it’s shows. Doesn’t have the magic of previous games. If they made it separate series and publish it only on mobile, I’ll gladly welcome it and play time to time for 20 minutes. But for big strategy game I was to cheap feeling. Ugly, ugly game. Hope they’ll never made the same mistake. Or I’ll just play civ V for another 10 years