Civ7 dev interview

[Gorbles]

Without hard evidence? Ed Beach literally just admitted that the game and PC launch are being dictated with the Switch's capabilities in mind... The fact that we have to wait until after release and for modding to fix the fact that PC map sizes were handicapped is because the devs wanted the game to also release on the switch at the same time is

That's not what Gedemon's post suggests. Ensuring a smooth cross-platform launch doesn't mean the Switch is dictating anything. But I can't really go into detail on this without a) making assumptions about Firaxis based on general games development and b) going off-topic.

Regardless, if a poster translates something in a video by describing it as X, and somebody else says "actually, it's Y", then assuming "X" purely because of a post-hoc conclusion that the Switch did something to VII's development is going to be your own personal choice, and I can't really discuss that. You need to want to discuss it.

 

[TheGrayFox]

That's not what Gedemon's post suggests. Ensuring a smooth cross-platform launch doesn't mean the Switch is dictating anything. But I can't really go into detail on this without a) making assumptions about Firaxis based on general games development and b) going off-topic.

Regardless, if a poster translates something in a video by describing it as X, and somebody else says "actually, it's Y", then assuming "X" purely because of a post-hoc conclusion that the Switch did something to VII's development is going to be your own personal choice, and I can't really discuss that. You need to want to discuss it.

Gedemon is not an authority on what Ed Beach said. (no offense to Gedemon)

According to the devs in this interview (which you can watch yourself and not have to make assumptions) the PC version was designed with the switch's capabilities and cross play in mind and player sizes and map sizes the multiplayer PC version launched with constraits specifically to facilitate this multi-console launch.

 

[Kwami]

People who haven't watched the interviews should probably stop telling us that we're wrong.

Ed Beach himself said that the PC version will ship with limitations because of the Switch's capabilities. Those limitations include map sizes and player counts.

He said that they're looking to support larger maps and more players for the PC version in the future, but he had nothing to announce and we have no timeline for when that might happen.

 

[ombak]

Gedemon is not an authority on what Ed Beach said. (no offense to Gedemon)

According to the devs in this interview (which you can watch yourself and not have to make assumptions) the PC version was designed with the switch's capabilities and cross play in mind and player sizes and map sizes the multiplayer PC version launched with constraits specifically to facilitate this multi-console launch.

Saying "the PC version was designed with the switch's capabilities and cross-play in mind" is a bit of a mischaracterization.

The release build is prioritizing cross-play and this is, according to them, based on player populations among other data. They also made it clear the PC version will be capable of more but that will come after release. Were it "designed" with those things in made it might not be capable of more later.

I feel a bit nitpicky with this post, but I feel like nitpicking these definitions is what this branch of the conversation is kind of about at this point.

 

[Gorbles]

Gedemon is not an authority on what Ed Beach said. (no offense to Gedemon)

The point is, nobody is. Yourself included. We all take what we take away from it. I haven't even had the time to watch it myself yet.

According to the devs in this interview (which you can watch yourself and not have to make assumptions) the PC version was designed with the switch's capabilities and cross play in mind and player sizes and map sizes the multiplayer PC version launched with constraits specifically to facilitate this multi-console launch.

It will have been. Just like the game will have also been designed with the PC minimum specifications in mind. And every other platform.

If you want to read into this to assume that the Switch therefore dictates what final decision(s) were made, that's your choice. That's not "according to the devs". Also, "according to the devs", they're looking to increase the current constraints. So this design is not a permanent constraint, and like ombak points out, this design isn't actually how it was designed. They're not designing how the game is meant to work because of the Switch. They're just settling for certain numbers based on performance targets at launch.

Which, again, is due to factors other than just the Switch. Even without the Switch, there still would've been some kind of base range of numbers for player count and map sizes. Targeting low for minimum spec is standard on PC these days (again, to maximise market coverage). Would you blame them for that? If so, that'd at least be consistent, but in my opinion I can't fault them for wanting to make the game run on as many systems as possible. This isn't compromising the game's actual design. It's a multiplayer limitation.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Saying "the PC version was designed with the switch's capabilities and cross-play in mind" is a bit of a mischaracterization.

It's not when Ed Beach and his team say this exactly. I'm not mischaracterizing what was stated, many of you simply don't want to entertain that the PC version and launch were designed with switch capabilities and cross play in mind.

The release build is prioritizing cross-play and this is, according to them, based on player populations among other data. They also made it clear the PC version will be capable of more but that will come after release. Were it "designed" with those things in made it might not be capable of more later.

The PC version being able to be later modded or the devs stated they will EVENTUALLY work on increasing map size, player counts, etc for PC is irrelevant to that fact this PC version of this PC series was designed and launched with the Switch's capabilities in mind

 

[TheGrayFox]

The point is, nobody is. Yourself included. We all take what we take away from it. I haven't even had the time to watch it myself yet.

Then you should try to watch it because you'll see that Ed Beach said exactly what I'm telling you

It will have been. Just like the game will have also been designed with the PC minimum specifications in mind. And every other platform.

So what are we arguing about? Minimum PC minimum specifications are irrelevant to Firaxis designing the PC release of the game around the Switch's outdated console hardware, cross play, and mutli-platform release in mind.

If you want to read into this to assume that the Switch therefore dictates what final decision(s) were made, that's your choice. That's not "according to the devs". Also, "according to the devs", they're looking to increase the current constraints. So this design is not a permanent constraint, and like ombak points out, this design isn't actually how it was designed. They're not designing how the game is meant to work because of the Switch. They're just settling for certain numbers based on performance targets at launch.

The Switch and Firaxis' intent on cross play and multi-platform release DICTATED the final decisions made when designing Civ on PC. Again, you don't have to take my word for it. The Firaxis dev team stated this very clearly in this interview. Again the fact that Firaxis intends to change things after launch on PC (with no timeline) does not change that the launch version of this series was designed with Switch's capabilities in mind.

Which, again, is due to factors other than just the Switch. Even without the Switch, there still would've been some kind of base range of numbers for player count and map sizes. Targeting low for minimum spec is standard on PC these days (again, to maximise market coverage). Would you blame them for that? If so, that'd at least be consistent, but in my opinion I can't fault them for wanting to make the game run on as many systems as possible. This isn't compromising the game's actual design. It's a multiplayer limitation.

No its not due to factors other than the switch, the player count and map sizes were dictated cross play and a multi-platform release in mind. Again you don't have to take my word for it, just watch the interview where this is clearly stated.

 

[Evolena]

It's never been explicitely said, but all these discussions about the map size and player counts, either on these interviews or in the FAQ, are always in relation to multiplayer. So I would not extrapolate that to the possibilities for a single player playthrough.

 

[ombak]

It's not when Ed Beach and his team say this exactly. I'm not mischaracterizing what was stated, many of you simply don't want to entertain that the PC version and launch were designed with switch capabilities and cross play in mind.

I've watched all 3 interviews, but maybe I forgot where the exact quote was. So I just rewatched a portion of the Ursa Ryan one. Is that the interview in qustion? If not, which of the other two and can you point me more or less to where this quote is?

 

[Evolena]

From the FAQ, my understanding is that on the Switch, multiplayer is limited to the map size level below Standard (4 players in Antiquity), while without any player on Switch, multiplayer is limited to Standard map size (5 players in Antiquity), but at least one map size above that does exist, so I assume if that exists then it is for single player.

Does Sid Meier's Civilization VII support cross-play?

Yes! Players who link their 2K Account to Sid Meier's Civilization VII will be able to play multiplayer across any platform of choice.*
*Online play and features (including progression bonuses) require an Internet connection and 2K Account (minimum age varies). On Xbox, PlayStation, and PC up to five players supported in the Antiquity & Exploration Ages, and up to eight players supported in the Modern Age. On Nintendo Switch, up to four players are supported in the Antiquity & Exploration Ages, and up to six players supported in the Modern Age in games. Map size restrictions may apply to certain cross-play multiplayer games. More info available here: https://civilization.2k.com/civ-vii/faq/.. Console online play on Xbox and PlayStation requires a separate paid subscription. Terms apply.

Are there any limitations to cross-play in Sid Meier's Civilization VII ?

Nintendo Switch version is not expected to support map sizes of Standard and above, which also applies for multiplayer cross-play with Nintendo Switch players. For multiplayer, up to four players are supported in the Antiquity & Exploration Ages, and up to six players supported in the Modern Age, in games with Nintendo Switch players.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I've watched all 3 interviews, but maybe I forgot where the exact quote was. So I just rewatched a portion of the Ursa Ryan one. Is that the interview in qustion? If not, which of the other two and can you point me more or less to where this quote is?

Ed Beach: "and the limit of 5 is also sort of constrained by the size of map we are shipping intiially. We are releasing to all platforms simultanously and some of the platforms are more constrained than others. There is a certain size that works across all platofrms so you can take a game of that size and move it back and forth between Switch and PC. Those constrains we will be looking so that count of 5 won't stick"

Interview: " So alot of it has to do with cross play between different consoles and how the consoles interact with each other"

Ed Beach: "That's a lot of it. once we have that in place and in a good place then we can look at pushing up those limits"

 

[pokiehl]

Yeah, sounds like they’re going to be bumping everything up for PC folks and are just focusing on shipping a unified core experience at first.

 

[ombak]

Ed Beach: "and the limit of 5 is also sort of constrained by the size of map we are shipping intiially. We are releasing to all platforms simultanously and some of the platforms are more constrained than others. There is a certain size that works across all platofrms so you can take a game of that size and move it back and forth between Switch and PC. Those constrains we will be looking so that count of 5 won't stick"

Interview: " So alot of it has to do with cross play between different consoles and how the consoles interact with each other"

Ed Beach: "That's a lot of it. once we have that in place and in a good place then we can look at pushing up those limits"

I appreciate you linking (with time stamp) and quoting it. That is the exact portion I rewatched.

Now, you might be surprised by this, then again you might not, but my opinion remains unchanged. I remembered the interview accurately. I rewatched it and once again feel your characterization is innacurate.

They are discussing a prioritization choice at launch, something any AAA game has to deal with, especially for cross-platform logistics.

As I stated in my post above, I may be nitpicking a little, but now I feel like we're both engaging in "someone on the internet is wrong" type behavior, and I don't know about you, but I'm too old for that.

 

[Trengilly]

It's definitely a good looking number. Around 4 times as much as HK at release. And a 1/10 of final CK2 or a 1/3 of release CK3.
I assume (and we've seen an example) that a lot of them are tied to specific leaders, civs, (religions), or unlocked by gameplay actions. Hence, if you always play Augustus with Rome for a conquering game, you'll see the same 15 each game.

also Old World has about 5,000

It will be interesting to see how Event Focused they are making Civ 7. Games like CK and Old World are really event driven so they need tons of events to prevent them from getting stale.

We haven't seen enough to know how impactful events will be in Civ 7 . . . will they be occasional flavor, or will it be a core part of decision making.

 

[stealth_nsk]

also Old World has about 5,000

It will be interesting to see how Event Focused they are making Civ 7. Games like CK and Old World are really event driven so they need tons of events to prevent them from getting stale.

We haven't seen enough to know how impactful events will be in Civ 7 . . . will they be occasional flavor, or will it be a core part of decision making.

I haven't played Old World, but I could say about games like Crusader's King or Europa Universalis, they are more historical simulations than actual strategic games, that's why they need so many events. Civilization is focused on gameplay more than simulation, so it should take replayability from things like random map, not the amount of premade events.

Anyway, let's wait and see how those events actually play out.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I appreciate you linking (with time stamp) and quoting it. That is the exact portion I rewatched.

Now, you might be surprised by this, then again you might not, but my opinion remains unchanged. I remembered the interview accurately. I rewatched it and once again feel your characterization is innacurate.

They are discussing a prioritization choice at launch, something any AAA game has to deal with, especially for cross-platform logistics.

As I stated in my post above, I may be nitpicking a little, but now I feel like we're both engaging in "someone on the internet is wrong" type behavior, and I don't know about you, but I'm too old for that.

At the end of the day, I'm not going to lose sleep or try to force my opinion down your throat, we can totally walk away from this conversation agreeing to disagree but I am genuinely confused how you could interpret the dev's words any differently or what there is to nitpick.

Civ VII's PC release's mutliplayer was designed and is being released with cross play and the Switch's capabilities/limitations in mind. The fact that Firaxis intend to later (read: with no timetable) increase these map sizes and player counts for PC players and other consoles is irrelevant to that fact.

 

[Siptah]

While I can't say that I like the lower limit, I think their approach has a lot of sense to it. I guess I would do it the same: get a common base and then extend it. It just seems more appropriate for the 2020s compared to making and optimizing a game for a single platform and leaving all others as an afterthought/scaled-down version. Especially if you charge the same price (admittedly though, it seems that the Switch version, at least here, is a bit cheaper than the Steam version). I just hope that this time, they also continue to keep all platforms in mind until the final patch, and not leave some forever outdated, as with civ VI. Admittedly, I would wish that the devs calculated the time to "push it up" before release and not in the months after. But I guess the simultaneous release (which is great service to us fans! I can't believe some people see this as something bad!) is an absolute nightmare for FXS and their schedules.

 

[Trengilly]

I haven't played Old World, but I could say about games like Crusader's King or Europa Universalis, they are more historical simulations than actual strategic games, that's why they need so many events. Civilization is focused on gameplay more than simulation, so it should take replayability from things like random map, not the amount of premade events.

Anyway, let's wait and see how those events actually play out.

I brought up Old World because it is also gameplay focused like Civ, its a direct comparison to Civ. Its nothing like CK.

In fact I feel Old World does a MUCH better job of gameplay that Civ 5 / Civ 6 . . . and its the reason I haven't bothered to play Civ for several years now.

The various game systems of Old World are very tightly integrated and very well balanced . . . the AI is also much better than anything the Civ franchise has ever released.

This is one of the reasons I'm actually excited about Civ 7. From all the developer discussions and changes they are making it appears that Ed Beach and Firaxis are laser focused on trying to improve Civilization Gameplay. And Gameplay is what I play these types of games for. I was really disappointed with Civ 6 . . . it plays as just a sandbox building gaming rather than an actual 4x strategy game with meaningful challenge. I don't like Anno or City Skylines, those aren't my type of games.

I'm looking forward to getting back into the Civilization franchise.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I really don't understand the source of discussion here. What we see is:

1. At launch the game is focused on smaller maps to ensure smooth cross-platform play
2. Larger maps for platforms which support them have lower priority and may not come on release, but will surely be added as soon as possible

That's a question of prioritization and I'm totally fine with this.

I also read one great thing from this information. Firaxis are not going to just throw in large maps on PC, they want to invest some resources into them. That's clearly reassuring and hope different map sizes are equally balanced. Game balance and player experience on different map settings always was an issue with Civ.

 

[Thormodr]

Looks like they will be (or promised to be) bumping up the PC player count and map sizes in the future.

The question is, though, what is the game engine being used and can it handle the rather impressive graphics shown?