-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Civilization 6 announced, out October 21st
- Thread starter Moz La Punk
- Start date
Tacklemacain
Member
I dont mind the new Art style. Their will probably Mods to fix it, for the people who dont like it.
I agree with the people saying there are no perfect Civ-game, and I actually think all of them was heavily flawed in one way or another, however they have all been enjoyable despite this, and of course, some flaws are worse than others.
The biggest problem with Civ1 and 2, were that the infinite city sprawl (ICS) really was the only viable strategy. And for games that limited the number of civs to 6 and 7 respectively, this made most other strategies pretty useless since there was always more land to expand in. I remember going whole games (against the ai) without building a single city improvement in civ2 because it was always better to build another settler and get another city, only untill you got to the limit (256) was it any point to start building improvements, wonders and so on. The game was still pretty fun though, for a few reasons. First, if you played in mp where all 7 would play like this, there would quite quickly be conflict over land and this forced you into other strategies. Second, the amazing mod community for Civ2 gave that game a ton of replay value and made other strategies viable as well. But the base game of civ2, playing on a random map with 7 civs, was a pretty shallow experience.
As for Civ3, this was kinda fixed with the excessive corruption. However, this fix was so brutal, that the empire-building part of the game simply stopped being any fun, and there came points where there were simply no longer any point in expanding because of the corruption and new border mechanics. This game punished players for growth, and was ultimately flawed as an empire-building game.
With Civ4, this was turned around with the maintenance system. You were still punished for funding new cities, but since improvements no longer had any upkeep, it ment that they would all net a surplus eventually. I think this was the better way of handling expansion, however, the game still have a lots of flaws in its main game. One of those, which is also the main reason why people hates the "stacks of doom", were how time-consuming and exhausting warfare was. This could be slightly helped by turning off animations and zooming, and enabling quick combat, but it still took time to fight. The system itself was very strategic though, which was part of what made it time-consuming and exhaustive in the first place, and im sure most of us have hated that there was this one gap in our frontline that the enemy found, and went on to take a city of kill of a lot of workers or something like that. The AI was pretty good with this old system, and knew how to use sieges weapons, balance the armies, use the terrain effectively, look for holes in the frontlines and so on, and of course playing against a human was something completely different and extremely challenging and fun. Another huge flaw was how conquered cities would often be a huge pain to keep. Cultural conversion could be turned off, but there was really no way to turn off how the surrounding tiles defected to a neighboring civ that you was often not in conflict with - thus forcing you into another war if you ever wanted to get some use out of that new land. This underlined something else, the whole cultural system was flawed in Civ4. Control over territory should always be about being able to exert that power on the tile by military presence - not by building libraries. And when you conquered cities but didnt get the land, this ofte made for frustrations.
About Civ5, well, Ive already written extensively about it here.
Overall, I think all the games have problems, but I actually think the ICS-problem is the easiest to solve, which is why I would like a return to some Civ1/2-based mechanics. For instance, in Freeciv, which is based on Civ2, you could up the number of civs to about 50 or maybe even more - completely eliminating this problem and creating a whole other experience in the process. Land is still worth more than city improvements, so this changes the focus from building settlers to building military units early on, but since defense is always better than offense, that means a failed offensive is of course inferior to more developed land - meaning you actually get some interesting strategic decisions to make. Of course, this works even better in mp. So yeah, I guess my hope is that they take away a lot of the filler, and once again makes the game revolve around the strategic choice between development and expansion, and dont punish you for doing either - but instead offer meaningful challenges - like having the whole world being already occupied.
The biggest problem with Civ1 and 2, were that the infinite city sprawl (ICS) really was the only viable strategy. And for games that limited the number of civs to 6 and 7 respectively, this made most other strategies pretty useless since there was always more land to expand in. I remember going whole games (against the ai) without building a single city improvement in civ2 because it was always better to build another settler and get another city, only untill you got to the limit (256) was it any point to start building improvements, wonders and so on. The game was still pretty fun though, for a few reasons. First, if you played in mp where all 7 would play like this, there would quite quickly be conflict over land and this forced you into other strategies. Second, the amazing mod community for Civ2 gave that game a ton of replay value and made other strategies viable as well. But the base game of civ2, playing on a random map with 7 civs, was a pretty shallow experience.
As for Civ3, this was kinda fixed with the excessive corruption. However, this fix was so brutal, that the empire-building part of the game simply stopped being any fun, and there came points where there were simply no longer any point in expanding because of the corruption and new border mechanics. This game punished players for growth, and was ultimately flawed as an empire-building game.
With Civ4, this was turned around with the maintenance system. You were still punished for funding new cities, but since improvements no longer had any upkeep, it ment that they would all net a surplus eventually. I think this was the better way of handling expansion, however, the game still have a lots of flaws in its main game. One of those, which is also the main reason why people hates the "stacks of doom", were how time-consuming and exhausting warfare was. This could be slightly helped by turning off animations and zooming, and enabling quick combat, but it still took time to fight. The system itself was very strategic though, which was part of what made it time-consuming and exhaustive in the first place, and im sure most of us have hated that there was this one gap in our frontline that the enemy found, and went on to take a city of kill of a lot of workers or something like that. The AI was pretty good with this old system, and knew how to use sieges weapons, balance the armies, use the terrain effectively, look for holes in the frontlines and so on, and of course playing against a human was something completely different and extremely challenging and fun. Another huge flaw was how conquered cities would often be a huge pain to keep. Cultural conversion could be turned off, but there was really no way to turn off how the surrounding tiles defected to a neighboring civ that you was often not in conflict with - thus forcing you into another war if you ever wanted to get some use out of that new land. This underlined something else, the whole cultural system was flawed in Civ4. Control over territory should always be about being able to exert that power on the tile by military presence - not by building libraries. And when you conquered cities but didnt get the land, this ofte made for frustrations.
About Civ5, well, Ive already written extensively about it here.
Overall, I think all the games have problems, but I actually think the ICS-problem is the easiest to solve, which is why I would like a return to some Civ1/2-based mechanics. For instance, in Freeciv, which is based on Civ2, you could up the number of civs to about 50 or maybe even more - completely eliminating this problem and creating a whole other experience in the process. Land is still worth more than city improvements, so this changes the focus from building settlers to building military units early on, but since defense is always better than offense, that means a failed offensive is of course inferior to more developed land - meaning you actually get some interesting strategic decisions to make. Of course, this works even better in mp. So yeah, I guess my hope is that they take away a lot of the filler, and once again makes the game revolve around the strategic choice between development and expansion, and dont punish you for doing either - but instead offer meaningful challenges - like having the whole world being already occupied.
How on earth I didn't know about this, it looks great! Any other good game similar to Civilization that I'm missing?
how is that a real beauty when there is only one way to win again? because how scoring is implemented, which was a huge mistake, wonders shouldn't be sure way to win that makes no freaking sense.
So, among skilled players as you put it, victory depends on your starting point, as everybody is forced to use exactly the same strategy.
AstuteClass
Banned
I didn't even think of mods. I hope they make a speed art overhaul to this Sunset Overdrive fruitcakery looking trash.
It is objectively worse in terms of the seriousness the Civ series has taken history and subject matter (apart from the kiddie console game). Hell, it's completely converse to the announcement trailer and its epic, realistic feel and taking us on a journey throughout history.
I hope not. If the majority will be happy with it, then that's life, but I really hope I'm not alone in this, because I will have waited years for what feels like a downgrade to me.
I will definitely stick with Civ V due to the art style. Yes, it's that important for me.
I always wanted a Civilization game for consoles too but didn't buy Civ Rev either because of the cartoonish art style. I absolutely loathed it. I need an understated, "historical" presentation.
I always wanted a Civilization game for consoles too but didn't buy Civ Rev either because of the cartoonish art style. I absolutely loathed it. I need an understated, "historical" presentation.
I think it will be a lot harder for people to get over an art style change like this.
Cartoonish graphics!? IN MY CIV!?
I put good money down that everyone claiming they'll stick with V (or IV) and skip this altogether will be all over the OT this October.
If you're going to freak out this much over the direction they're taking with the visuals, at least wait and see it zoomed out with an interface. The push for realism makes little sense (not to mention when looking at the leader portraits in IV), especially for a franchise like Civ, where you're bound to see a bunch of pyramids in Philadelphia.
I put good money down that everyone claiming they'll stick with V (or IV) and skip this altogether will be all over the OT this October.
If you're going to freak out this much over the direction they're taking with the visuals, at least wait and see it zoomed out with an interface. The push for realism makes little sense (not to mention when looking at the leader portraits in IV), especially for a franchise like Civ, where you're bound to see a bunch of pyramids in Philadelphia.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
The problem isn't that VI has cartoony graphics, it is that the presentation seems a huge step down from V. Everything about V's direction and UI looks terrific.
Still going to play VI!
Still going to play VI!
Orthogonal
Member
If the gameplay is good, a lot of people will forgive it.
There was a huge outcry when Blizzard changed the art direction for Diablo 3 and the outcries continued when it launched with tons of other varying technical and design issues, but it still sold gangbusters and they eventually ironed things out.
I still don't like a lot of things about that game, but bought and played it anyway. It's one of those things where it may not live up to your expectations, but it is still a good enough game in its own right to still be fun to play.
That's what I am hoping will at a minimum happen with Civ VI. Maybe it will grow on me. Either way, I will give it a chance, but am still taking a wait-and-see approach and avoiding a pre-order for now.
The outcry over D3s art style was because the initial screenshots showed a much more colourful world. For example, the rainbow over the river and bridge in Act 1 as you head to the Field of the FAllen was used in the initial trailer, and it was *much* brighter. Blizzard did actually change the art a bit based on the feedback.
Obviously the core remained the same, but ther game was tuned to be a bit less colourful and not to emphasise the brightness as much.
Obviously the core remained the same, but ther game was tuned to be a bit less colourful and not to emphasise the brightness as much.
A step down in presentation is suggestive. This looks like just as much energy has went into the look of the game, they've just gone somewhere else with it. Civ V went for one style of portraying the geography, this is going somewhere else. What it lacks in realism it more than makes up for in clarity. This time I might be able to differentiate between resources better without needing a reference icon.
But barely any of this matters when 75% of my time with Civ V was spent in strategic view. That right there goes to show how vital visuals really are in a game like this. What's more important is the UI (which we haven't even seen yet) and, to me personally, unit icon art, wonder reveals, and tech quotes. That's where the cultural representation behind the franchise really shines through.
Yeah, I wouldn't call it realism either. After all, pretty much all depictions of settlements, units and map tiles are stylized in all Civ games. However, I absolutely cannot stand the cartoonish look. I want it to have some historical flair. Civ Rev did the same (but even more exaggerated) and I never bought it for that very reason.Cartoonish graphics!? IN MY CIV!?
I put good money down that everyone claiming they'll stick with V (or IV) and skip this altogether will be all over the OT this October.
If you're going to freak out this much over the direction they're taking with the visuals, at least wait and see it zoomed out with an interface. The push for realism makes little sense (not to mention when looking at the leader portraits in IV), especially for a franchise like Civ, where you're bound to see a bunch of pyramids in Philadelphia.
I'm pretty sure I will be able to stick to my claim of not buying Civ 6. Especially considering I have lots of content left to discover in the Civ V expansions that I barely played so far.
Good example. Loved D1 + D2. Haven't touched D3 yet (the art style was one of several complaints).
It's not like I hate cartoonish graphics. They have their place (if done well). One of my favorite games from recent years is Tropical Freeze.
AstuteClass
Banned
So because you change the course of history in the game (in a serious manner, through building a civilization, advancing in science, etc), the game has to be changed from the realistic representations of mountains, lakes, tanks, etc, in Civ V, to look like a cartoon in Civ VI?
Same. Hell, I haven't even bought the expansions. Just played the vanilla game for now.
JailDesigner
Member
So now people play Civ games based on their art direction?
dapperbandit
Banned
You're not alone, this looks like a step backwards
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Still baffled some people put significant enough stock into the art style of a civ game.
Not at all, but I'm attempting (perhaps badly) to address this perceived notion that Civ V's approach is the only way to depict these games, and that Firaxis is bound to simply touch up what ground they've already laid instead of considering an alternative. That kind of thinking is fine for expansion packs, but I don't know about new numbered entries. I love how V looks, absolutely love it, but this isn't Civ V, it's Civ VI. I don't want to hand over $60 for the same game, visually or mechanically. I want something new. Civ V isn't going anywhere on my steam account.
They aren't changing anything, they're moving on to a new entry and taking a new direction, something they've been doing for decades now.
woopWOOP
Member
The 'couple of units in one tile' was something I was hoping for. Civ4's 50 unit stacks are ridiculous, Civ5's 1 unit a tile was pretty lame. Even if it's just two a tile, I like this.
I'm okay with the artstyle... tho I'll admit it's a little too bright here. I'm sure there will be mods for all that eventually anyway.
I'm okay with the artstyle... tho I'll admit it's a little too bright here. I'm sure there will be mods for all that eventually anyway.
There needs to be UI scaling at the very least then, because any UI made for couch gaming looks like garbage on a monitor you sit close to.
AstuteClass
Banned
Because people will be putting 500+ hours into basically the same screen and seeing the same tiles, units, cities, etc, over and over. It needs to look visually appealing more than any other game.
That's fair enough, but them keeping a more realistic art style doesn't make it the same game. They could have changed the art style to be wildly differently from Civ V while still making it realistic. They could have added more details to tiles like farmlands, mines, etc. They could have changed all the units up and added different animations.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
If that is the case then the new style has met that objective. This new direction will be appealing to more people than all previous iterations.
I wouldn't say that it needs to look visually appealing, but it definitely needs not to be this bad. Neutral would work to.
where are those mythical people? all I see is complaining about that art style everywhere
AstuteClass
Banned
That's fine if you agree. I don't understand why anyone would be happy with a cartoon art style over a realistic one, but it's your opinion.
Civ V's art style was perfect because it captured the histories perfectly. The empty lands, mountain peaks, lakes, etc, early in the game captured what it must have been like for early man in an empty, metropolis devoid world. The detail of the tile improvements captured the toil and struggle man has gone through to keep civilizations well provisioned and thus moving forward. The animations from troops carried heft and felt deadly and captured the struggle and brutality of war, down to the thunder of siege and ballistic weapons firing.
It's just not going to feel the same in a sugary, fairy unicorn world.
hooijdonk17
Member
EDIT: I take that back, I went back and rechecked - I had never noticed that it had gotten so stylized.
It's graphics in a Civ game. I think the vast majority of the players will cease caring if the game is good.
I am not sure what your point about diablo 3 is, besides the artstyle most people would say that vanilla d3 wasn't that good. The game sold well on the diablo and blizzard name there were tons of complaints about the game for many months. After the ah was removed, legendery item drop rates greatly increased and tons of other changes and additions there was a lot more positive buzz around the game.
The art style was a complaint for many people, whether that is enough for someone to continue playing and enjoying the game is something completely subjective.
At least D3 didn't look like a mobile game and since the previous game so so long ago there were huge technical improvements compared to D2.
Personally i am a little disappointing with how civ6 looks but i doubt it will look so bad that i will not enjoy playing it, i reserve judgement until i see more about how it looks and plays. Changes in gameplay theoretically sound good to me.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
I'm not 'happy' about the graphics, but I'm also not turned off to them. They're just what they are. Again, this is a civilization game. Graphics are like point 25 on my things to care about. And beside that, I don't understand the obsession with 'realism' and how going in a more colorful or fake look is somehow bad. I mean, look at World of Warcraft, the most successful MMO to my knowledge. I think it looks awful with the unrealistic proportions compared to less popular MMOs like FFXI. But clearly that's not a detriment to the game as it was (still is?) a monumental success likely thanks to the content it provides opposed to the style.
Edit: To be clear, I understand why you may not like it. But what I don't understand is why it's so important to some people (I don't know if you're one of them) to the point they're saying they'll skip the game. It's their choice of course, but I just don't place so much stock into that element of a civilization game. It is not something I can empathize with.
plus, the cartoony art style is actually rather pleasing to my eyes
and I cam be reasonly certain that it will run on my 7-years old vaio laptop
that's a very good point!
AstuteClass
Banned
It's not enough to make me skip the game altogether, but I'm definitely holding off until there's a cheaper price.
And were it just the art style, I might have even gone all in on day one. But the biggest crime this game commits is that we're in 2016, with the GTX 1080 looming, processors that have 8 cores, and are on DDR4 ram that can go over the 100GB mark... and they've opted to have completely off-scale units to the point where we have horsemen as big as fucking triremes going by that one screenshot.
Now that, they have objectively gone backwards on. Civ V packed far more characters into their units. I think the average was about 10 characters of, say, riflemen in a rifleman unit, whereas this looks to be going back to just 3 like in Civ IV. Complete and utter step backwards.
sparky2112
Member
I think the biggest issue, for me, anyway, was the tech web. Nothing about it was intuitive, and if you're constantly in the dark about what's useful and what's not, it takes waaaaay too much experimentation to glean any insight.
While you make a convincing argument that the tech is certainly there for this game to look far more spectacular than these screenshots portray, you have to recognize the barrier for a mainstream audience willing to invest in that tech by October. Civ is the mainstream face of the 4x genre, and you cannot place the budget, marketing, and dev support behind that kind of franchise and expect everyone will be willing to make high-end investments into their rig. If you're willing to play Civ V in strategic view, which I had to do for years, you can run that game on almost anything. This isn't Galactic Civilizations or Endless Legend, games by developers who know their audience is the hardest of the hardcore and will have the tech to back up their enthusiasm (these are probably poor examples, but they're all I have at the moment). This is Civilization, a name that might not resonate with everyone, but it resonates with more people than can be expected to always carry the top of the line.
Their audience is broader than those who have rigs with 8gb processors or expect to own GTX 1080 equivalent any time soon, so it looks like they're scaling appropriately.
And again, the unit size is a clarity decision, not an aesthetic one. You will be playing this game zoomed out way further than what those screenshots indicate. This approach obviously swings more in the direction of allowing the player to actually use the visuals to know what unit they're looking at, rather than designate an icon like Civ V does. Neither approach is necessarily the best approach, this is just the one they're taking.
Considering the amount of time one spends staring at the screen in Civ, something visually appealing is desired. This isn't fancy effects, just an appealing art style that doesn't summon up images of freemium trash.
Yes. It looks like twee mobile trash too.
Sacrificing elegance and a realistic art direction for a stylized cartoonish look emphasizing readability doesn't seem like a good tradeoff, the Civ games don't have significant readability issues in my experience. Civ VI screenshot is more readable because it's zoomed all the way in.
The worst thing about the tech web was that it was completely unknown whether you were ahead in tech, keeping up or way behind. I remember losing a game simply because I had no idea an AI had the means and tech to win yet.
Definitely give it a shot. Endless Legends has several gameplay elements that should be brought into Civilization because they're flatly superior. It has a much better take on "city states" and war, for example.
I'm a bit worried about the visual style, but then again I can't think of a single time that a Firaxis game had good looking initial screenshots. They always improve once they release actual gameplay screenshots with the proper angles, HUD, etc.
Age of Wonders 3 is my favourite recent fantasy 4x game. (It's also quite beautiful)
Yeah, Age of Wonders 3 is criminally underrated. It's a pretty amazing game and for some reason it never gets mentioned.