Civ VII Post-mortem: Crafting a redemption arc

[GeneralZift]

I like to think they are passionate but maybe misplaced, like they're not taking it slowly and evaluating all the aspects, or doing appropriate amounts of testing -- maybe exactly because they're rushed to release so early?

 

[Crashdummy]

I'll continue with my ad hoc reactions to things in your treatise that resonate with my own sense of what makes for a good 4x game.

You're quoting Meier from a talk he gave on the psychological underpinnings of the appeal of Civ games. He had initially thought that it would be fun for players to experience a major set-back and bounce back from it; the bounceback would be "more glorious and more dread than from no fall," as Moloch puts it in Paradise Lost.

He found out that players didn't like that, and so he shifted to a model where there is no "rise and fall" but only "rise, rise and more rise."

I think, and I have said recently in another thread, that there's a second advantage to the "rise, rise and more rise" model, and that has to do with the onboarding of new players. Civ is already complex enough that, when a new player starts to pick it up, that player doesn't need to be told, a third of the way through his or her first game, "now you're going to start losing things, and the challenge is to lose as little as possible." It would be like Monopoly hitting a stage where all of your hotels start getting sold off and you need to shift the strategies you'd been using earlier in the game and just try to minimize how many of them get sold off. If that was a dynamic in Monopoly, nobody would ever have learned the game. They'd throw up their hands in frustration and say "I thought I was mastering how this thing goes and now suddenly those plans are all out the window."

I have a larger point as well. This dimension of you OP, and the talk by Sid Meier on which it is based, makes me think it's time to retire the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 mantra (since that is this-next-game-to-the-previous) and instead work out a stable core of features that will be true of any good 4x (these psychological underpinnings) and say "every new iteration has all of those, and then goes on to differentiate itself from its predecessor in some measure).

There are so many obstacles you can put on the players before the game stops being a game and starts being a burden

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

The bugs and inconsistencies we're seeing come from poor refinement.

Poor refinement comes from poor organisation / ways of working, or poor product vision and coordination, or poor architectural communication / planning.

I wouldn't bring passion into it, but I'd put money on siloed ways of working that have teams of primarily introverted nerds not talking to each other cross team, and managers not solving the problem with structured ways of working being at the core of it.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I like to think they are passionate but maybe misplaced, like they're not taking it slowly and evaluating all the aspects, or doing appropriate amounts of testing -- maybe exactly because they're rushed to release so early?

Yes, I would agree with that. They clearly have passion but their passion apparently took them in the wrong direction. Part of the issue might be that the dev team does not really have any outside voices to give them feedback. There could be that group think where everyone at Firaxis will likely agree with the ideas since they have the ideas. So when Ed and Andrew are talking about "history in layers" and civ-switching, I am sure they were super excited about the features. They undoubtedly thought the ideas would make civ7 fantastic. There was nobody to tell them "well actually, these ideas really change the civ "soul" too much for many fans".

This is why I think early access with some veteran civ players could really help Firaxis. It could give them that outside perspective. It could also help them on how to design a better UI.

And considering that civ7 was in development for a few years, I am not sure we can say it was rushed. Perhaps they mismanaged their dev time to focus on certain features when they should have focused on other features like UI. If they were rushed to release early, it was only in the sense that as they got close to the release date, they still needed more testing time.

 

[GeneralZift]

Yes, I would agree with that. They clearly have passion but their passion apparently took them in the wrong direction. Part of the issue might be that the dev team does not really have any outside voices to give them feedback. There could be that group think where everyone at Firaxis will likely agree with the ideas since they have the ideas. So when Ed and Andrew are talking about "history in layers" and civ-switching, I am sure they were super excited about the features. They undoubtedly thought the ideas would make civ7 fantastic. There was nobody to tell them "well actually, these ideas really change the civ "soul" too much for many fans".

This is why I think early access with some veteran civ players could really help Firaxis. It could give them that outside perspective. It could also help them on how to design a better UI.

And considering that civ7 was in development for a few years, I am not sure we can say it was rushed. Perhaps they mismanaged their dev time to focus on certain features when they should have focused on other features like UI. If they were rushed to release early, it was only in the sense that as they got close to the release date, they still needed more testing time.

Maybe time mismanagement is part of it as you say. After all, you can see that they spent quite a lot of design effort into really intricate civlet design. But the core mechanics seem a bit watered down.

 

[tman2000]

If you watch this panel from PAX West where the dev team talk about "history is built in layers", especially Ed Beach and Andrew Johnson, they have tremendous inspiration and passion. So I strongly disagree that the dev team lacked inspiration or passion for the civ franchise.

There's a difference between "ideas guys" and builders.

There are certain narcotic substances which are known to interfere with the cognitive processes that specifically connect grand vision to concrete implementation. Specifically with detailed memory recall, required to put coherent interlocking systems together.

 

[tman2000]

In watching the live streams for years, I have come to some conclusions about what is going wrong with Firaxis. I have an extensive background in high level entertainment and media. I don’t want to be too specific because these opinions of mind could be aimed at individuals. I will some up my personal opinion with this. Uninspired teams, no matter how capable, will always miss the mark in the end.

It could be ineffective managers getting in the way of effective workers.

Civ used to get a new director each game. Don't know why that changed.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Anyone can sound passionate and excited in front of a camera, means nothing.

 

[timmychompchomp]

There's a difference between "ideas guys" and builders.

There are certain narcotic substances which are known to interfere with the cognitive processes that specifically connect grand vision to concrete implementation. Specifically with detailed memory recall, required to put coherent interlocking systems together.

I watched that panel. I have done panels just like it for productions. The audience was hostile and it was my job to put a good face on it. The crowd left satisfied and the show ran for 7 years. I made half of my inspiration up on the spot. I was more the Andrew than the Ed. It’s not passion in the high concept that was lacking for us, it was the stress of production and we had all the money and resources we needed. If you aren’t in the business of making something out of nothing, you won’t understand the difference. My opinion is not unfounded. I have had this opinion for quite some time and a recent job posting has cemented my belief. Passion and inspiration for the work is different than the passion and inspiration for the idea. I understand why you felt that way from the panel, I will say this, it wasn’t them that stood out to me. I also listen to podcast about game design. This malaise happens. I am not criticizing them, as much as I am relating and understanding.

 

[itix]

I find that panel quite boring to watch but it could be a language and cultural barrier.

About the possible lack of inspiration and passion, their new games have been quite rare. Before Civ 6, they were releasing a new game every year. After Civ 6, they have released only three games. There is this feeling of... dunno, stagnation? Lack of progress?

 

[Kenshiro70]

I'm going to quote a section of the post-mortem on QA that's only in the Google Doc:

---

Fixing QA​

Experienced QA leadership brings methodologies and frameworks that make QA a force-multiplier. In particular, they would move quickly to correct one of the most egregious mistakes: not leveraging Civ VII’s metadata development framework.

One of the biggest advantages of metadata is that you can create an automated QA framework with test plans that:

• Load a map with a test scenario
• Read metadata values (e.g., base yields)
• Executes actions or events (e.g., age transition)
• Reads the resulting values and evaluates a basic condition ("<actual yield> = <base yield>")
• Writes the condition out to a database for display on dashboards

Once you set that framework up, you have the ability to run a full suite of tests on demand.

What’s more, you can create a test plan UI that makes it so easy to author tests that even designers can specify tests right alongside their designs. You can also auto-generate variants to deal with results that vary, such as with results varying with difficulty levels.

This isn’t some weird science project – It's the only way to stay on top of systems with large numbers of checks and high permutations (e.g., endless combinations of leaders and civilizations).

Ten years ago this might have required a fair amount of work, but these days it’s become standard practice to the extent that there are open source frameworks that you can implement.

---

I left it out of this post for good reason - it does not pull any punches. The section above is neutral in tone, but I excoriate them in other parts (and the recent Modern Age Yield issue banished any second thoughts I had about doing so). I live and breathe this in my day job, and bringing a knife to a gun fight (i.e., not automating test plans) is one of the fastest ways to hurt morale across the entire organization because it feels like you're falling further behind every day.

 

[Gori the Grey]

If you watch this panel from PAX West where the dev team talk about "history is built in layers", especially Ed Beach and Andrew Johnson, they have tremendous inspiration and passion. So I strongly disagree that the dev team lacked inspiration or passion for the civ franchise.

If anything, the new ideas like age transitions and civ-switching, are born out of the dev team's passion. It is clear from listening to them talk about history. They wanted to take the ideas of civs changing throughout the ages and implement it in a civ game precisely because of their passion for history and for the civ franchise.

My response to this is that their passion is misplaced.

Their passion is for an idea about how history works that they wanted to find a way to reflect in a game. Setting aside the question of whether history really does work the way it is now modeled in Civ 7, that is the wrong focus.

Their central focus should be creating a fun game. Civ (as people repeatedly, and rightly, assert) is not a history simulator. It is a strategy game with historical flavoring.

Their starting idea should have been an idea about games and what makes them fun, not an idea about history and how it might be modeled in a game.

I'm sure that they tried to make this idea about civilizations and how they develop into a fun game mechanic. And I think they worked in good faith to do so (and with passion). But that's taking the matter up from the wrong end.

 

[Kenshiro70]

Their passion is for an idea about how history works that they wanted to find a way to reflect in a game. Setting aside the question of whether history really does work the way it is now modeled in Civ 7, that is the wrong focus.

Their central focus should be creating a fun game. Civ (as people repeatedly, and rightly, assert) is not a history simulator. It is a strategy game with historical flavoring.

This. So much this.

I actually did a very different take on selling the concept in the Immersion section. I focused on it as a "choose your own adventure" where you could draft leaders and Civs to further your playstyle. It kept the game front and center while talking up the new approach.

 

[aieeegrunt]

My response to this is that their passion is misplaced.

Their passion is for an idea about how history works that they wanted to find a way to reflect in a game. Setting aside the question of whether history really does work the way it is now modeled in Civ 7, that is the wrong focus.

Their central focus should be creating a fun game. Civ (as people repeatedly, and rightly, assert) is not a history simulator. It is a strategy game with historical flavoring.

Their starting idea should have been an idea about games and what makes them fun, not an idea about history and how it might be modeled in a game.

I'm sure that they tried to make this idea about civilizations and how they develop into a fun game mechanic. And I think they worked in good faith to do so (and with passion). But that's taking the matter up from the wrong end.

If you have this idea for a game you are so excited about, *go make that game*

Don’t take an existing IP, gut it, and drape the skin over your great idea.

 

[Gori the Grey]

If you have this idea for a game you are so excited about, *go make that game*

Don’t take an existing IP, gut it, and drape the skin over your great idea.

What you say might be true in its own right, aieeegrunt, but it's not my point.

My point is don't start the design of any game from an idea about historical dynamics, with your first question being "how can I model this historical dynamic within a game?" Rather, start the design of any game from an idea about what would make for a good game. If it's a historically-flavored game, your next question can be "how might we reflect X historical dynamic within our new game?"

On one level, I think it's cool that they hired an academic historian to help them with the game. But on another level, this is a sign that they had started thinking more in historical terms than in ludological terms.

I think they did start with some game-related ideas: let's streamline late-game micromanagement, e.g. But their passion centered on a vision of how history works, not a vision of how games work.

 

[Gorbles]

I think it was both.

Folks have a hard time letting go. It applies to players as much as it does games developers (or any profession, really).

The hard truth is that games have to change to survive. Balancing that amount of change whilst ensuring survival is the thing that's easy to say out loud, but hard to do.

It's easy to say "this is wrong" after you've played a game, and it feels wrong to you. But to extrapolate that to 1,000 people? 5,000 people? The millions required for an (economically) successful game in today's climate?

You can't do that. Nobody can. At some point, you just have to hope for the best.

Anyone who confidently knows how something is going to turn out, before it turns out, is still guessing. It might be an educated guess, or a confident guess, or both. But it's still a guess.

 

[Maiq]

Anyone can sound passionate and excited in front of a camera, means nothing.

Exactly, just check out your local used car dealer's commercials.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I think it was both.

Folks have a hard time letting go. It applies to players as much as it does games developers (or any profession, really).

The hard truth is that games have to change to survive. Balancing that amount of change whilst ensuring survival is the thing that's easy to say out loud, but hard to do.

It's easy to say "this is wrong" after you've played a game, and it feels wrong to you. But to extrapolate that to 1,000 people? 5,000 people? The millions required for an (economically) successful game in today's climate?

You can't do that. Nobody can. At some point, you just have to hope for the best.

Anyone who confidently knows how something is going to turn out, before it turns out, is still guessing. It might be an educated guess, or a confident guess, or both. But it's still a guess.

Oh, yeah. Any major artistic project is a huge risk. You have an idea about what your readership/audience/player-base might like, but you have to take a risk with your new vision.

A few posts back, I said I think they should do away with 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 and instead find the "basics of what makes a 4x work" and have 100% of that in any new design, then some level of deviation from the previous number. But it would almost be as true to say that the franchise, even the genre itself should be reinvented, as from the ground up, with each new number.

If I were lead designer, an early brainstorming exercise would be "pretend the Civ franchise didn't exist and we were inventing the historical god-game for the first time; what would it involve?"

 

[tman2000]

I watched that panel. I have done panels just like it for productions. The audience was hostile and it was my job to put a good face on it. The crowd left satisfied and the show ran for 7 years. I made half of my inspiration up on the spot. I was more the Andrew than the Ed. It’s not passion in the high concept that was lacking for us, it was the stress of production and we had all the money and resources we needed. If you aren’t in the business of making something out of nothing, you won’t understand the difference. My opinion is not unfounded. I have had this opinion for quite some time and a recent job posting has cemented my belief. Passion and inspiration for the work is different than the passion and inspiration for the idea. I understand why you felt that way from the panel, I will say this, it wasn’t them that stood out to me. I also listen to podcast about game design. This malaise happens. I am not criticizing them, as much as I am relating and understanding.

Sorry but as someone who spent two years doing instacart, given the amount of money these people are paid, if they can't figure out how to pull it off, they need to get booted from the industry.

Sometimes devs are such princesses like the customers owe them. I have zero sympathy or understanding for highly paid people who completely fail and via a misleading marketing campaign, waste my money.

Edit: Think of it like a trade off in a game. Either highly paid people fail easily and competency is kept high, but resource availability for lower paid people is kept abundant, or highly paid people get a million chances and excuses because the system protects people in that class, putting the costs and burden of their failure on lower paid people.

 

[Gorbles]

If I were lead designer, an early brainstorming exercise would be "pretend the Civ franchise didn't exist and we were inventing the historical god-game for the first time; what would it involve?"

I suspect that would lead to more radical changes, not less.

Which I'm a fan of, personally, but that's neither here nor there. The shift from VI to VII is far less than, say, Dawn of War to Dawn of War II. Change isn't necessarily bad, or even unpopular. A lot of post-hoc correlation in this case (not from you).