Pre-Release CIV VI Discussion

[TheHumanHydra]

It sounds as though some traits are tied to leader, not just Civ (e.g. Teddy Roosevelt has a unique unit tied to him, distinct from the civilization's)? Does this mean there could be multiple leaders per civ again (if not in the base game, then in expansions)? I've always wanted to see some of the less-popularized but just-as-important rulers included (Philippe II Auguste, Edward III, and George III are those that spring to mind). However, I do think the iconic leaders are iconic for a reason - I feel like it isn't France if it can't be led by either Louis XIV or Napoleon. I'd love to see Catherine de Medici alongside Louis XIV and Napoleon.

My ideal scenario would be that, for every qualifying civilization, there was a leader available for each era - so e.g. a French player chooses from Philippe Auguste, Louis XIV, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Charles de Gaulle at game start. (Better yet, you were presented with a choice of multiple leaders upon entering each era - 'hmm, I'd like to get some colonies going; time for Elizabeth with her awesome naval bonuses - but I really need to get some industrial infrastructure up; maybe I should pick George instead' - but that's a pipe dream.)

[BRickAstley]

I never liked plastecene-cartoon graphics, which is the vibe they are going for, but I also never cared about leader art at all. Animated they look a bit more bearable, stills are particularly depressing.

[Bobchillingworth]

I miss the stately leader graphics of Civ III, where everyone looked like reanimated corpses.

[Commodore]

Civ1 all the way!


Sirian...the Civ6 leaders are worse than this?

[Sirian]

Since the leader art is why the game costs $60USD instead of $40 or less,

Why would you think that?

The leaderheads are animated. Creating them takes over half the man-hours put in to developing the game. This is not including QA, but most folks at QA make less than artists and programmers. Marketing costs something, too, but the art budget is the pivotal component of what elevates a title in to the AAA category.

I would think the game costs 60 because it's managed to stay in the AAA category, and that's the standard price anymore for a AAA game at release. I suppose the art is part of how they justify AAA, but it's definitely not just the leader-art that counts toward that!

Take away the animated leaderheads, replace with Civ1-style stills, and the entry price for the game drops to $40 tops.

Let's take an example: Civilization 4 vs Offworld Trading Company. The chief difference between the two games in terms of development pattern is the large team of animators off on the side doing "big art". Present for the former, absent from the latter. Same lead designer, same lead artist, same music composer, same "Multiplayer prototype first" design approach, same level of community testing and feedback, same length of development. If we stipulate that Civ4 "if made today" would cost $60, while OTC sells for $40, I rest my case.


- Sirian

[GermanJoey]

Why would you think that?

I would think the game costs 60 because it's managed to stay in the AAA category, and that's the standard price anymore for a AAA game at release. I suppose the art is part of how they justify AAA, but it's definitely not just the leader-art that counts toward that!

Claiming leader heads are worth $20 seems to me like claiming the sesame seeds are the reason Big Macs are so expensive.

I agree with him. What makes a AAA game a AAA is the polish, and a vast part of that is the art. And the art looks, well... I know it's supposed to be caricature, but Montezuma, and especially, ugh, Teddy Roosevelt barely even look human anymore. They somehow went from this:



to this:



I mean, what the hell? TR looks like he tried to eat a thanksgiving turkey whole but then all the bones accidentally got stuck in his head. Others, like Cleopatra, look fine as stills but then their faces bug out like a Loony Toon when they talk. The contrast is too much... it reminds me of Judge Doom (Christopher Lloyd) from the ending of Who Framed Roger Rabbit. It's just too out of place.

What's particularly frustrating though, is that Hojo... looks fine? Looks perfect, even! That means they clearly have the money, time, experience, and technical know-how to make great-looking leaderheads, but instead *chose* for them to look like weird alien monsters. Why?!?

That said, as long as the gameplay is good, I don't really care that much about the art. It's just another frustration to vent with this company, I guess.

[LKendter]

God that is UGLY. I understand why the thread is gripping about art.

Of course, pretty doesn't mean the game will be fun...

[T-hawk]

Since the leader art is why the game costs $60USD instead of $40 or less
...
If we stipulate that Civ4 "if made today" would cost $60, while OTC sells for $40, I rest my case.

This doesn't follow. That's not how a capitalist market works, and especially not how software with near-zero marginal cost works.

Civ 6 is set to cost $60 because Firaxis perceives that's what people will pay. How much the leader art cost to make is irrelevant. It's relevant for Firaxis's own decision to invest in the art to make for perceived production values so more people will pay that $60, but it's not relevant to the decision process of whoever might click the purchase button on Steam.

When you buy a Big Mac, you don't care how much McDonald's paid for the beef.

This is the same fallacy that sports tickets cost so much because the players get paid so highly. That's not true, in fact it's the other way around, the market decides how much they're willing to pay and then that determines the budget that the teams spend on the players.

[Magil]

To be fair, the art for Teddy Roosevelt is remarkably similar to how he was portrayed in some political cartoons of him from the time...

That's about the only defense of it I'd care to offer, though.

[Mardoc]

Let's take an example: Civilization 4 vs Offworld Trading Company. The chief difference between the two games in terms of development pattern is the large team of animators off on the side doing "big art". Present for the former, absent from the latter. Same lead designer, same lead artist, same music composer, same "Multiplayer prototype first" design approach, same level of community testing and feedback, same length of development. If we stipulate that Civ4 "if made today" would cost $60, while OTC sells for $40, I rest my case

The chief difference is that Offworld Trading Company is a new genre. It's not a sequel to anything, and can't even call itself a spiritual successor. First game by the studio, even if Soren has prior experience, so there's very little brand recognition. If you liked X, you'll like OTC...for no values of X!

If you want a comparison, a game that required its purchasers to take a gamble, try Minecraft. Never more than ~$25, new genre, huge success...eventually.

Oh, and yeah, Civ 4 had art, and music, and a theme anyone could grasp. Those don't hurt, when done right.