I think that is a nice Roosevelt caricature.
I have to run.
|
Pre-Release CIV VI Discussion
|
|
I like the art as well, I prefer the cartoon style over Civ V's serious look, I think.
Catherine isn't a great French leader, but she's a fascinating figure and I like that they're mixing up many of the usual leader heads. I strongly think that the game is better when it offers a broad range of female leaders, but sadly that means either reusing the same ones every single time, or occsaionally having an interesting B-Grade ruler to mix it up. There's been some interesting leaked info too, suggesting some cool never-before-seen civs are joining the mix.
Firstly, as they're making an AAA game, I think they **have** to have animated leaderheads. If they went with Civ4-style leaderheads (which are perfect in my opinion, dynamic and reflect AI's 'mood', but don't distract from the main point of the trade screen), they wouod've gotten a shitstorm from reviewers, who would complain about "lazy 10-year old graphic". And reviews, however little enfranchised gamers trust them, do affect sales
Secondly, as others said, $60 is the regular price for AAA games these days. They're setting the price defined by the market, and making animated leaderheads to match the market's expectations Thirdly, if the leaderheads are the worst thing about the game, I'd be pretty happy Personally, I think the leaderheads match the game's visual style well, and I like the visual style so far. I think if the leaderheads were not tied with real historic characters, they would've been great. As is, they do end up looking like caricatures. It's not a dealbreaker for me, but it is not a good fit for a game which aspires to be history-based That being said, when Gandhi starts dropping Nukes on you and Stalin adopts democracy and goes for cultural victory, perhaps it's better to have them portrayed as caricatures... 
I like them, mostly because I feel indifferent about it. But I have to admit that the Stalin leaderhead that Commodore posted is incredibly badass. Stalin's crew staring you full of swag, the cigarette, that old man to the left with the arms crossed. Man, I really liked it.
Anyway, I get more annoyed by poor choice of technology quotes than the graphics. Civ 5 tech quotes are very bad, for instance. (July 28th, 2016, 16:04)Sirian Wrote: 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. I don't think this is a fair comparison - Civ is a much more expansive game than OTC. To say that they'd be equally priced if you just didn't have fancy leaderheads seems massively disingenuous.
July 29th, 2016, 19:40
(This post was last modified: July 29th, 2016, 19:44 by NobleHelium.)
 (July 28th, 2016, 08:50)TheHumanHydra Wrote: 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. The ability to change leaders (and associated bonuses or modifiers or whatever) in the middle of the game is a very interesting idea and certainly something that a sequel in the franchise should explore. It's not that much different from changing civics/government I guess, but still substantially different if you can't go back and the choices you're offered differ based upon your civilization.
Civilization IV: 21 (Bismarck of Mali), 29 (Mao Zedong of Babylon), 38 (Isabella of China), 45 (Victoria of Sumeria), PB12 (Darius of Sumeria), 56 (Hammurabi of Sumeria), PB16 (Bismarck of Mali), 78 (Augustus of Byzantium), PB56 (Willem of China)
Hearthstone: ArenaDrafts Profile No longer playing Hearthstone. 
The problem with such a system is that the 3d leaderheads cost such a substantial part of the dev budget for each civ, needing VAs, background modelers, character modelers, ridiculous amounts of research, that it no longer becomes viable to invest in multiple leaders/civ. They really shot themselves in the foot by making it their standard for fidelity, when it's ultimately unnecessary.
Oh, the poor pocketbook...... Oh, this and that and the other thing does not justify the price of X for this game...
GET REAL people!!! I do not know what the game cost at the time of the various releases (i hope that some enterprising person can get the exact figures and post here), but this game has had several releases since the first in 1991... Want to bet that some shlub complained as to the price then or ever since with each release?? Hasn't anyone ever heard of inflation?? Civ 1 - 1991 Civ 2 - 1996 Civ 3 - 2001 Civ 4 - 2005 (i remember seeing BTS in Walmart for about $45 and I think that it had been reduced by the time that I had looked, but not certain). Civ 5 - 2010 Civ 6 - 2016 - supposed to be $60, but I have also heard about various pre-order prices with as much as 25% off ($45 or $48 for 20% or $54 for 10% off)... So, does the price hugely exceed the inflationary cost, especially when dealing with the corporate sunk costs of the hardware and software tools alone, not including the Dev's paychecks... Is it REALLY that expensive... not really, in comparison to the historical amount.... |
) would be amazing.