Civ VII Post-mortem: Crafting a redemption arc

[fjaoaoaoao]

You're absolutely right; there's no black and white and people do wear multiple hats. But if I didn't de-duplicate, the number jumped to 34. Because it was such an important item, I scrutinized each of those 34 people individually when I winnowed them down to 12.

Also, I view Designers as the game industry equivalent of Product Managers on the enterprise side. At the end of the day, the requirements a PM documents and the gameplay mechanics a Designer creates become the authoritative statement on how the game plays. Both the PM and Designers are directing the engineers on the results they need to program to create. In effect, they are are "spending" a developer's time (=£££) when they do this. For that reason, there's only a limited number of people with that spend authorization.

As to the issue you raised around the ratio, fewer developers means they have less time to consider and deal with the exception cases. They spend most of their time handling the "golden path" case (i.e., when everything goes right), but when there are interactions with other systems, error conditions, and additional permutations (e.g., new Leaders and Civs) they don't have the time to anticipate those situations and create a robust solution in advance. Add in a brutal schedule, and it's very likely the code will need more upkeep later, which over time builds up a level of tech debt that slows down new development.

Sorry if I'm babbling on a bit - it's not every day that someone shows enough curiosity about these things that they'd be interested in discussing it. You made my day.

I see the intended parallel between designer and product manager, and while that works as a general statement connecting to other abstractions, it sort of falls apart when trying to do a detailed analysis of a specific use case.

Also, a designer could very well be the one handling, analyzing, and communicating non-golden path scenarios.

Metadata: Amazing, but too much of a good thing​

---

...​

​

This approach is enormously powerful, because it allows you to create and test new buildings quickly, as long as they follow the basic template. ​

...​

This is where you can get too much of a good thing. If you could make five new buildings by following the template versus adding a new attribute to the template, which would you do? Did I mention that you've got to get four civs delivered this month for the next DLC? So you can see how over time there starts to be a bias towards using the existing templates.​

​

The problem is that from the player's perspective, what a designer would call "template", the players call "cookie cutter". Humans are very good at pattern recognition, and if you overuse the existing cookie cutters, they'll notice. It doesn't matter if this cookie has sprinkles on it and that one has green food coloring if the basic recipe is the same.​

​

That's essentially what's happened with the Leaders and Civs. They've got too many "+1 Food on improvement adjacency" abilities instead of unique abilities. Open up the "leaders-gameeffects.xml" file and read through it, and you’ll see that I mean. In fact, if you look at the 1.1.0 and 1.1.1 patch notes, the majority of items were tuning of parameters rather than code changes.​

​

The end result is that Leaders feel like cheap knock-offs of one another. It's hurting replayability because they don't feel that different to play.​

​

The only way out of this trap is that Firaxis will have to ratchet back on the template usage and enforce a ratio of 2 template-based abilities allowed for every new unique code-based ability.​

---

---

That over-reliance on metadata is one of the more subtle traps and reasons that designers and developers can fall into.

I see how overreliance on metadata can end up just being busy work for the designers, and I also think it's a fair argument to make that fixating on metadata encourages spitting out copycats. But that's just speculation as to what the devs are doing as well as speculating the impact of metadata on design. One could argue metadata could also very well free up time and cognitive space so they can more easily do other work, they just need to be conscious and deliberate in doing so. The inclusion of a possibility of a behavior doesn't automatically detract from the possibilities of other behaviors. It certainly influences a kind of design, and it's hard to argue against that happening here because of how the game came out, but my issue is the issue of onus. Who is influencing the design? In a large org that creates a legacy product for a large customer base, it is not merely those with design and developer titles. It feels a bit unfair to describe metadata is a trap or reason that a designer/developer falls into when there are also very clearly structural and environmental reasons that encourage it.

In other words, you are sort of posing metadata as a temptress that beguiles designers/developers and the designers/developers are not skilled enough to recognize this as an issue, rather than describing metadata as just a tool that they happened to overuse for design, not necessarily a reflection of their design or development skill. So I like the mention of metadata as it adds some insight into some potential pitfalls, but I feel the wording on this is too conclusive and a little bit uncharitable to the designers/devs.

 

[McSpank01]

But it's not amazing. The streamlining which makes antiquity feel smoother ruins the rest of the game, this feature set is a hard trade off. Civ isn't just its opening chapter.

Yeah I also don't think Antiquity is 'amazing' in Civ 7. It is ok, it's pretty good. I think the first 20-50 turns are really fun. That is the point where the flaws in the game really spring up, because you start to remember that this is a game with 'Ages' and that is going to have a knock on effect to all your decisions.

The game might be more streamlined, but it's also lacking in long term strategic thinking, you aren't making many impactful decisions overall, adjacency is less relevant than it could be, tech choices are kind of limited and its barely noticeable if you went one way or another down the tree. But when ages start to become relevant you realise that there is little point building things or starting a war or doing much of anything, thats when it gets less interesting.

One of the reasons I think Antiquity feels fun for a while, is that you can forget about the age system, and when you do that, you can sink into the game and enjoy it.

 

[notNamed]

edit: just wanted to add that i think one thing where civ still excels is the historical research and detail that it has. no other game, even during civ 7’s franchise low point, does the level of research, cultural consultation, etc. that civ does. ara, for example, still has a blobby celts and india—what other historical 4x games have the chola, buganda, let alone more notable, yet still rare civs

If you're really gunning for historical accuracy, Civ is definitely not the game to go with.
In the current (cavemen to cosmos) 4X landscape, Humankind absolutely takes the cake on that front. It did make it one of the design goals with all the artists and the writing team being given full reign to research things in detail and correct any inaccuracies presented to them, down to miniscule details like the arrangement of fingers in a bow draw.
Same thing for non-mainstream civs for now (Olmecs, Garamantes, Swahili, Nigeria, Nasser Egypt, Nazca, Taino, Rapa Nui,...), though depending on how Civ 7 continues, it might regain the crown by the end of its lifecycle.

Civ is a completely different game in this regard. Where a game like Humankind could be likened to a museum, Civ is really more of a Disneyland.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

tbf, firaxis kinda did it with later dlc on 6–separating leaders and civs to a smaller extent with choices like eleanor of aquitaine, kublai khan; rise and fall ages correlating loosely to eras.

in their case, what they didn’t realize is the issue was never with the thematic existence of what they had in mind, but rather the implementation

Yes, but all that implementation was still in Civ 6, which was my point.
If they had made spin-off game like "Civ Mythology" and put those elements in there, along with most of the NFP modes into that game, instead of in Civ 6, that would have been comparable to what Pokémon is doing with their "Legend" series.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

If you're really gunning for historical accuracy, Civ is definitely not the game to go with.
In the current (cavemen to cosmos) 4X landscape, Humankind absolutely takes the cake on that front. It did make it one of the design goals with all the artists and the writing team being given full reign to research things in detail and correct any inaccuracies presented to them, down to miniscule details like the arrangement of fingers in a bow draw.
Same thing for non-mainstream civs for now (Olmecs, Garamantes, Swahili, Nigeria, Nasser Egypt, Nazca, Taino, Rapa Nui,...), though depending on how Civ 7 continues, it might regain the crown by the end of its lifecycle.

Civ is a completely different game in this regard. Where a game like Humankind could be likened to a museum, Civ is really more of a Disneyland.

to be clear i didn’t say it was historically accurate, i said it was well-researched—though i do see your point and (partially) agree. i think the fact that civ works with consultants from these cultures, hires academics to help get rare/extinct/indigenous voices to come to life is still something that humankind doesn’t live up to, even when civ struggles.

that being said, humankind does a very good job with details that civ doesn’t even attempt to include, so i will very much grant it that

 

[notNamed]

i think the fact that civ works with consultants from these cultures, hires academics to help get rare/extinct/indigenous voices to come to life is still something that humankind doesn’t live up to, even when civ struggles.

They did try with the Haudenosaunee but as they're European, they never got a response back. It was as easy as that.
Civ is obviously able to reach out to US native groups since they live in the US and can always drive over to get some cooperation going. Short of adding Bretons, a Parisian studio just isn't able to do that.

Similarly with the foreign voicelines. They asked for it, SEGA said there's no money for that and that was it.
I do think Civ has long lost its crown in this regard since the OG implementation in Civ 4 as the likes of AoE4, or dedicated projects like all the Mohawk in AssCreed, Yucatec in Tomb Raider go a step beyond that Civ never iterated much on, but at least in 4X space, it's still comfortably the only one where we can hear all those 3 lines of modern Vietnamese. But also Lingala.

 

[tman2000]

I don't think that's true in this case. I personally like the reduced micromanagement.

Civ 7's problems stem from railroading, steamrolling, and poor immersion...

Railroading feels worse because outside of the legacy paths there's very little to do, this is also why there's poor immersion. All of which is related to streamlining.

Not the streamlining which is overwhelmingly a good thing... And I'd argue in modern doesn't go far enough.

I do think they need city growth events to be less interruptive and really ought to have an automation feature as well.

 

[Krikkit1]

Railroading feels worse because outside of the legacy paths there's very little to do, this is also why there's poor immersion. All of which is related to streamlining.

I do think they need city growth events to be less interruptive and really ought to have an automation feature as well.

Having a "Growth Queue" might help. basically say what tiles you want to grow on (maybe include specialist placing if possible.)

 

[Leucarum]

Railroading feels worse because outside of the legacy paths there's very little to do, this is also why there's poor immersion. All of which is related to streamlining.

The legacy paths do railroad you... I don't think I'd put that down to steamrolling personally... I think it was more a misguided attempt to create distinct gameplay in each era.

I do think they need city growth events to be less interruptive and really ought to have an automation feature as well.

It's not just city growth! By modern you end up with too many units and build queues. I think the settlement limits should be scaled back... Empires grow a bit too large.

 

[tman2000]

It's not just city growth! By modern you end up with too many units and build queues. I think the settlement limits should be scaled back... Empires grow a bit too large.

Just subjective here, but I don't agree at all. It feels like you'd prefer a board game or at least small map size. Strategy games inherently have lots of units.

 

[Core Imposter]

How large do empires grow?

 

[Leucarum]

Just subjective here, but I don't agree at all. It feels like you'd prefer a board game or at least small map size. Strategy games inherently have lots of units.

Civ games have always had too much micro in the late game. It's the #1 reason I stop playing. 7 improves it a lot - modern sucks for more reasons than that - but it's still too high IMO.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Civ games have always had too much micro in the late game. It's the #1 reason I stop playing. 7 improves it a lot - modern sucks for more reasons than that - but it's still too high IMO.

the flip side of this is that civ has never had *that much* macro—things like events, broad economic management, etc. have never been core gameplay features. the main gameplay loop of civ is actually pretty simple—build city, develop resources, build units/buildings/other win condition using resources, progress towards win condition using built things

because the game has never featured that much macro-management (think a more built out supply chain, more strategically-intensive war), that decision forces more micro-management to become part of the game to build out the core gameplay loop

other games supplement a light gameplay loop with lots of micromanagement (think paradox grand strategy games where the core gameplay loop is practically nonexistent or mind numbingly simple, but the micromanagement is extensive and occupies your energy) or design (think management games with planning side loops, like tropico or city-state)

because civ doesn’t suit either of those alternatives, and micromanagement actively harms its loop, it feels especially micromanagey. the obvious solution is fleshing out the core gameplay loop, either in expansion or civ 8, but that’s easier said than done.

 

[Leucarum]

the flip side of this is that civ has never had *that much* macro—things like events, broad economic management, etc. have never been core gameplay features. the main gameplay loop of civ is actually pretty simple—build city, develop resources, build units/buildings/other win condition using resources, progress towards win condition using built things

because the game has never featured that much macro-management (think a more built out supply chain, more strategically-intensive war), that decision forces more micro-management to become part of the game to build out the core gameplay loop

other games supplement a light gameplay loop with lots of micromanagement (think paradox grand strategy games where the core gameplay loop is practically nonexistent or mind numbingly simple, but the micromanagement is extensive and occupies your energy) or design (think management games with planning side loops, like tropico or city-state)

because civ doesn’t suit either of those alternatives, and micromanagement actively harms its loop, it feels especially micromanagey. the obvious solution is fleshing out the core gameplay loop, either in expansion or civ 8, but that’s easier said than done.

Or more things like commanders where you can pool the micro into one unit...

 

[Core Imposter]

Or more things like commanders where you can pool the micro into one unit...

My preferences seem 100% opposed to yours. Interesting.

I would guess you would not find yourself halfway through the tech tree, in your first war, on turn 640 of a Civ game either.

 

[Leucarum]

My preferences seem 100% opposed to yours. Interesting.

I would guess you would not find yourself halfway through the tech tree, in your first war, on turn 640 of a Civ game either.

I'm not sure I follow the connotation?

 

[tman2000]

Civ games have always had too much micro in the late game. It's the #1 reason I stop playing. 7 improves it a lot - modern sucks for more reasons than that - but it's still too high IMO.

Oh I agree, I just think it's the constant zooming in and out to pick city growth tiles.

 

[sonicmyst]

They tried out leader switching first, but to them it didn't work and was less immersive in their opinions because it seems like Firaxis liked to identify with leaders, rather than civs.
As someone who likes to identify as the civ, and not the leader, I think I might have much preferred that. I wonder how many more people would have preferred leader switching to civ switching?

Not to mention I think leader switching means more cost to do than civs because of animation and voice acting. Unless they make them static leaderheads?

 

[Pistol90]

More and more I starting to think that Civ7 is not fixable.

If you fix and remove everything what needs to be fixed/remove .... you end up with nothing.

Leader/Civ separation - REMOVE
Ages - FIX OR REMOVE
Civ change - REMOVE
Narative events - REMOVE
Legacy paths - REMOVE
Crisis - FIX OR REMOVE
Districts/Buildings - FIX
Cities/Tows - FIX
Diplomacy - FIX


Then you have things which were in base Civ6 and Civ7 removes them, lets list just some of them:

Nice looking map
Good UI
Religion (in Civ7 it so basic, you can remove it)
Easy to look screen (cartoony graphics, but you at least can see where things are)
Terrain (in Civ7 everything is the same basicly)
Map types (in Civ7 only one, and that is by game design-stupid distant lands and treasure fleets)
etc etc

You have 2 good thing in Civ7 ... navigable rivers and army commanders ... but those two are potential mods for Civ6 for good modder (mayba navigable rivers not, but how knows)

Game is broken on fundamental level, they release new DLC today and I who bought founder edition will probably wont even try it ... why waste time on this game, with Civ6+mods arroung

 

[Leucarum]

Oh I agree, I just think it's the constant zooming in and out to pick city growth tiles.

Automation is probably a good thing for those who want it so I wouldn't be opposed to "auto-grow my settlement" feature if that'a something you'd value. The range of automation options is something I'm looking forward to in EU5 TBH...