Polygon: Civilization 7’s creative director on the new Ages, leaders, and cultures ‘without any written records’

[CivKirk64]

Polygon has an interview with Ed Beach this morning.
Not sure if it gets it's own thread or not. Haven't finished it yet to see if there are new tidbits or just informing the unplugged masses.

Civilization 7’s creative director on the new Ages, leaders, and cultures ‘without any written records’

Keeping the same leader across every Age should give players a ‘cohesive experience’

www.polygon.com

 

[The_J]

I think given that we currently don't get that many articles, it should deserve it's own thread .
Ed Beach talks about the decision to split leaders and civs to allow more diverse/interesting choices, that they had 2 historians on the team and consulted with the Shawnee, that they considered the opposite with civs and leaders (1 civ with leader switching), but decided against it, and a couple of more details. I think worth a quick read .

 

[Haig]

Great for spotting a new article, we crave for all Civ 7 info!

 

[Wabnosa]

NDNs had and have written records. There are thousands of birchbark scrolls that tell stories that goes back to when there were glaciers covering the great lakes and possibly before. With individuals who make it their purpose to learn parts of these stories and hand them down through testing, generation to generation. The priests had the written language just like Europeans until the invention of the printing press. "This tribe didn't have a written language" is many times an over simplification and some times intentional for political and economic reasons. Also, some of this is the way you chopped us up. Certain bands had dominant functions. The keepers of the trade, religion, dominated by a certain clan with a specific function, etc.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Ed Beach “didn’t want to make a Civ 6.5;

As someone with 1k hours in 6 this make me happy.

NDNs had and have written records.

I think Ed was a little clumsy with his words, In the article it's referring to how to determine a leader.

but never had any idea how to create a leader for such a civilization that left no documentation on specific people.

 

[Zaarin]

I think Ed was a little clumsy with his words

Perhaps, but I think the transcriptionist and/or interviewer was more than a little clumsy. There are errors all through the article. Calling Humankind "Humanity" is my personal favorite. The game was so forgettable they couldn't even remember its name.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Multiplayer sessions can be completed in 2-3 hours. That feels like something we've not yet heard.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Multiplayer sessions can be completed in 2-3 hours. That feels like something we've not yet heard.

In the antiquity age live stream they mentioned that MP could be a single age. How you would win a single age was not mentioned.

 

[Zaarin]

In the antiquity age live stream they mentioned that MP could be a single age. How you would win a single age was not mentioned.

In the Modern Age stream my takeaway was that a single-age game was essentially won by score, based on how many legacy points you achieve.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Perhaps, but I think the transcriptionist and/or interviewer was more than a little clumsy. There are errors all through the article. Calling Humankind "Humanity" is my personal favorite. The game was so forgettable they couldn't even remember its name.

Thought I was the only one who noticed this one and had a chuckle

I actually looked up "Humanity 4x" to make sure there wasn't another game series I wasn't familar with lol

 

[Siptah]

In the Modern Age stream my takeaway was that a single-age game was essentially won by score, based on how many legacy points you achieve.

Potentially, there are also projects after completing a legacy goal to determine the winner. I also wonder whether single age games have a crisis?

 

[Hawke9]

Perhaps, but I think the transcriptionist and/or interviewer was more than a little clumsy. There are errors all through the article. Calling Humankind "Humanity" is my personal favorite. The game was so forgettable they couldn't even remember its name.

I didn't even notice that the first read, that made me chuckle

 

[CivKirk64]

A nice short little read, not much in there that hasn't been said differently in other interviews but fun nonetheless.

When I first saw the article, plus Sar's comments about a shift, I thought maybe some embargo was breaking on interviews and they wanted to get out the way of them, then didn't find anything new. Oh well.
We are weeks away from a deluge of info , to be honest I'm at the point where I just want to know what the remaining civs/leaders are, watch one more live stream and let myself discover the rest in the Civlopedia on launch day.
Ed or Sar hinted they will show off more about victories and maybe leader legacies, I can see them wrapping up with those topics together as one of/the last steam before launch.

 

[Nikolai II]

I refuse to believe that Ed is now misquoted somewhat in that article. No way he'd make this mistake:

Now any leader can be paired with the Mississippians, though other indigenous North American leaders such as Tecumseh and Pachacuti are especially recommended.

 

[Uberfrog]

I refuse to believe that Ed is now misquoted somewhat in that article. No way he'd make this mistake:

I suspect he either misspoke, or there is a clumsily-applied publication style guide that changed a verbatim “Native American” to “indigenous North American”.

 

[Civinator]

not much in there that hasn't been said differently in other interviews

Here I respectfully have to contradict:

He is speaking about the evolution of some empires such as India, from Maurya to Chola to Mughal. This means a point of view from the present civ India backwards to the past. So the fix point is the civ India in our present times and not a civ that did send "some splitters of broken glass" to India in the past.

I have to add to this point, that the question in former versions of the civ series about what “version” of such an empire should be used for the civ in that article, can be answered differentiated by the era-specific setting of such a civ, looking at the territory of the modern civ and cutting out times where this territory was occupied in the past by other civs that are in the game (quite the opposite of the setting that is now proclaimed for Civ 7).

Interesting are also the statements why Civ 7 went the way of civ-switching instead of leader-switching:

He said, the concept of keeping the same civilization with different leaders across the Ages, would be limiting to only selecting civs who have clear representation across all three Ages - like China or India. If selecting America, for example, which leader should be taken for America in 4000 BC?
In the same interview he speaks that they always wanted to include an early North American native culture such as the Mississippians, but never had any idea how to create a leader for such a civilization that left no documentation on specific people.

So it seems that the - in my eyes - much better concept of leader switching at Firaxis failed, because they were not able to find a leader name for an American civ that starts in era 1 with the Mississippians. Too bad, that Firaxis never had the idea to name such a leader the "Leader of the Mississippians" or alternatively give him/her the first known name of such a leader in that territory.

Even the statement, that having the leader staying the same across Ages lets the player develop a narrative about the opponents since they remain constant, is working for constant civs and changing leaders very well, too, as it is proofed by the Civ 3 mod CCM 3 and the extensive game stories in the Civ 3 succession games forum at CFC.

Really too bad, that Firaxis choosed the way of civ-switching, because they had no clue how to fix the problem of leader names for civs without written documentation.

 

[Zaarin]

He said, the concept of keeping the same civilization with different leaders across the Ages, would be limiting to only selecting civs who have clear representation across all three Ages - like China or India. If selecting America, for example, which leader should be taken for America in 4000 BC?
In the same interview he speaks that they always wanted to include an early North American native culture such as the Mississippians, but never had any idea how to create a leader for such a civilization that left no documentation on specific people.

So it seems that the - in my eyes - much better concept of leader switching at Firaxis failed, because they were not able to find a leader name for an American civ that starts in era 1 with the Mississippians. Too bad, that Firaxis never had the idea to name such a leader the "Leader of the Mississippians" or alternatively give him/her the first known name of such a leader in that territory.

Funny enough, while I am as adamantly against leader switching as some are against civ switching, I also thought that Ed failed to identify why leader switching doesn't work, namely that it's important for the player to create relationships with the leader and for the leader to have a consistent face.

 

[evonannoredars]

Really too bad, that Firaxis choosed the way of civ-switching, because they had no clue how to fix the problem of leader names for civs without written documentation.

I think focusing on the leader name wording oversimplifies the issue, it's the lack of a person that is the problem. Basically inventing a figure to be the leader would imo be out of place with the otherwise historical if possible/mythological at least leaders.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Funny enough, while I am as adamantly against leader switching as some are against civ switching, I also thought that Ed failed to identify why leader switching doesn't work, namely that it's important for the player to create relationships with the leader and for the leader to have a consistent face.

But for a lot of players a consistent face isn't particularly important, not for the leader that you are playing as. For those who view themselves as "God-emperor / Spiritual Representation of your People", I think it could actually be immersion creating to select a new leader for your people from time to time.

And for the leaders you are playing against, continuity can come from other sources, including from them representing a consistent civilization across all the ages.

 

[Zaarin]

But for a lot of players a consistent face isn't particularly important, not for the leader that you are playing as. For those who view themselves as "God-emperor / Spiritual Representation of your People", I think it could actually be immersion creating to select a new leader for your people from time to time.

Yes, I don't care about my leader, which is why I'm annoyed by the Mortal Kombat diplomacy. The leader should be addressing me directly.

And for the leaders you are playing against, continuity can come from other sources, including from them representing a consistent civilization across all the ages.

This doesn't work for me. I don't care if their icon stays the same; you can't form a relationship with an icon, but our brains are hardwired to react to even the crudest representation of a human face.