Editable Leader Images?

Arudanel · August 26, 2001, 03:20

PLEASE tell me that the leader images will be editable..this is NOT Alexander!!!!!! I don't know who had the idea of using some anorexic-looking Roman weirdo for a Macedonian..but talk about DUMB! How is anyone supposed to get into a game, settle down, and beleive they are actually negotiating with Alexander the Great when they got Machiavelli or some half-starved Roman senator staring at them? The sunburned Cleopatra was bad enough..now we get to swallow this?

tniem · August 26, 2001, 10:11

From what I understand Firaxis is going to let scenario editors and mod makers change leader graphics. Of course unless you use some massive 3D imaging program the pics won't be animated.

Alexander I · August 28, 2001, 16:03

We don't know WHAT the ancients looked like. The only possibilities we have for Alexander are a few contemporary coins and busts, and these are colorless and stylized.

Also -- none of the animations really look like who they are supposed to represent. As one of the magazine articles said, they are a disney-fied version of reality. Even the ones based on photographs are altered somewhat from the real thing.

Another example -- the only contemporary representation of Hammurabi that we have is on a tablet of his code of laws. It shows him with a beard AND mustache wearing a DIFFERENT hat. Will I change Hammurabi's portrait because it is mustahce-less and wearing a different hat? No. I was not disappointed because he doesn't look like I thought he might. It's only a game. And since we really don't know what he looked like, I think Firaxis did a good job.

There is no need to gripe.

Arudanel · August 28, 2001, 22:29

No need? As for your theory, if that was the case (which it isn't) then how is it we also have mosaics, paintings, etc, from the same period, depicting his image? There are plenty of descriptions and images of Alexander done while he was alive, so many that it is almost certain what he looked like. As for hammurabi, I intend to replace his image as well. There is plenty of reason to gripe- Firaxis promises us the gaming experience of a lifetime here, and HOW is anyone with a shred of historical knowledge going to become immersed in rewriting history when the images are all wrong? Sorry Sid, I for one an going to pass on this one. I'll wait for it to hit the bargain bin, I'm not paying 50 bucks for a game that is half the game Civ2 was. First full screen, then no unit workshop of any kind, and now totally butchered images of the leaders.

I was expecting great things from Sid on this game, it seems all the formerly great ones are taking great game concepts and massacring them lately (Attack of the Clones anyone?)

I'll be quite happy playing Civ2, at least it has leaders that looked right, and didn't cover my whole screen. I got a 19 inch to solve that problem folks, not so I could see bigger pixels from my games.

tniem · August 29, 2001, 07:14

Half of Civ II because of the leader pics?

Wow some people are obsessed with the littlest things. While I agree that Firaxis probably could have been more sensitive or accurate, that does not mean it is going to detract from the game. So Alexander doesn't look like how you would expect him too, rename him in one of the game files. And as for Hamurrabi, maybe he shaved.

In the end it is not something that is going to ruin the game as you seem to describe it.

Spinoza · August 31, 2001, 11:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander01
We don't know WHAT the ancients looked like.

Actually, we DO know that Cleopatra was in no way black. She was Greek for crying out loud! Greek as in European. She wasn't Egyptian, and as everyone else knows the Egyptians weren't black either. The Egyptians were "cousins" of the Canaanites and Israelites, with the same complexion.

The strange thing is that the text does say that Cleopatra was Greek, even though the picture next to the text shows a black woman. The other great Egyptian queens, Hapshetsut and Nefertiti weren't black either.

IMO Cleopatra shouldn't even be the Egyptian ruler, she should be a Greek/Macedonian ruler. A more apropriate Egyptian female ruler would be Hatshepsut, but since she's not so well known today, I guess that wouldn't "sell".

Historically female rulers were the exception. I liked the way you could choose your sex in Civ2, but if Civ3 only has 1 ruler, most rulers should be male. A balance between the sexes is "politically correct", but it is definitely not historically correct.

Ruler pics for Egyptians, Babylonians and Greeks are a huge disappointment, and to me it actually DOES detract from the game. It detracts a lot from the atmosphere. I am a student of history myself, so the historical aspect is important to me. I realize it's not important to everyone else, but it is to me.

Spin

Steve Clark · August 31, 2001, 12:16

I would expect that one can change the image, albeit without the animations. But more importantly, I would also expect that one can get rid of the image altogether! As much as Firaxis thinks that this is really a cool features, it's not. It's more a waste of resources that could have gone into making the AI better.

Melios · August 31, 2001, 17:14

I personally don't see why these leader images matter. They're just an image and probably could be disabled if you wish, sonsidering it is still text oriented (isn't it?).

easy · September 5, 2001, 12:30

I don't like Mao's photo either.
It's OK to say we don't know what Alexander looks like, but we do know what Mao looks like.
Since Firaxis thinks these 16 are great leaders in the history, then they should not play fun on their images.

ixnay · September 5, 2001, 12:50

I personally couldn't care less if the leaders don't look exactly perfect. I'll be playing this game to have fun for crying out loud, not to have an ultra-realistic civilization building experience. So the leaders look like caricatures - fine! As long as I can recognize all of them (which I can, so far) I'll be just fine.

redfox74 · September 5, 2001, 14:15

I am not satisfied with the choice of Catherine the Great as Russian Leader. She wasn't Russian. She was German. Peter the Great would be a far better choice (or may be princess Olga if you want a woman).

Catherine's image in the CIV III is really ugly. It is unfair, she also was young and beautiful. All human players would want to kill Russians because of this ugly face...

Another problem. When I (a young male) would play as Russians, which face would represent me? This ugly face of an old woman? (I will see it for example in the diplomatic relations screen).
Why can't I choose a male Russian leader?

tniem · September 5, 2001, 16:32

As far as I can tell, just like always you will never be shown. You are the human player so your representation will never show on screen.

If they plan on having some rep in MP, I have no idea. But in SP you will not see the nation's rep on screen at all.

mactbone · September 5, 2001, 23:26

What's the big deal with a picture of a leader? Or who the leader is? I'm sure the first day it's out you'll be able to find a mod that represents every civ the way you want them to be represented. These things are all cosmetic, as long as they are cosmetic and easily changeable it's no big deal.
Hey cool smiley!

ASHBERY76 · September 6, 2001, 18:55

I really hope that there's some good artists out there to make some decent (your like to play against them) leaders like stalin,hitler,napoleon,bill clinton etc because the leaders they choose are quite dull.

Adm.Naismith · September 7, 2001, 04:41

Quote:

Originally posted by tniem
As far as I can tell, just like always you will never be shown. You are the human player so your representation will never show on screen.

Wrong!

You forget the diplomatic relation (foreign advisor) screen http://www.civ3.com/gallery.cfm?startimg=7

You must see your leader face, like it or not

tniem · September 7, 2001, 13:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith
Wrong!

You forget the diplomatic relation (foreign advisor) screen http://www.civ3.com/gallery.cfm?startimg=7

You must see your leader face, like it or not

So I guess the human player is Brother Blobo or whatever.

I stand corrected. Thanks I think I will be changing the art then.

Steve Clark · September 7, 2001, 14:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith

Wrong!

You forget the diplomatic relation (foreign advisor) screen http://www.civ3.com/gallery.cfm?startimg=7

You must see your leader face, like it or not

Adm, even at that screen, what difference does it make if there is a leader's mug there or just blank? As long as you know that England is at war with the Zulus but is friendly with the Russians, the rest is just a needless waste of resources.

Adm.Naismith · September 7, 2001, 20:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Steve Clark
Adm, even at that screen, what difference does it make if there is a leader's mug there or just blank? As long as you know that England is at war with the Zulus but is friendly with the Russians, the rest is just a needless waste of resources.

By some friends of mine every game is a needless waste of resources!

Steve, you can fit a binary digit as the image of your face, if you feel confortable: once I sent a postcard to a friend with all text in hexadecimal (not the address, the postman would kill me!

), but I was younger and geeker...

I was just kidding by nitpicking with tniem about the only game screen (so far) who "mirror" the player face

There is also the setup screen, but you can probably force you to shut your eyes for that

Melios · September 8, 2001, 03:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Steve Clark

Adm, even at that screen, what difference does it make if there is a leader's mug there or just blank? As long as you know that England is at war with the Zulus but is friendly with the Russians, the rest is just a needless waste of resources.

Then by that logic, so are all other animations on the playing screen. While we're at it, let's get rid of the City View and Palace Exterior; those are "wastes of resources" too.