Civ7 dev interview

[Siptah]

Here's a german interview. I'll wrote a protocol. There are a few new infos I think (highlighted in bold type):

One unit per tile and AI problems: what are your solutions?

• Ed made unit AI for civ V. He knows about the problems. Corps and Armies helped in VI. Commanders are helping the AI in VII (and the player). Ed didn’t like the stacks in IV. He thought its confusing to find out who is fighting against whom. He preferred tactical combat. VII would be best of both worlds. It’s as easy as IV to move around, but as deep as V and VI tactically.
• New commanders in each age. They will reduce micromanagement a lot.

How about modern tutorials, good tooltips, onboarding? Is it less complicated but has the same complexity as before?

• Five principles in development: one was depth instead of complexity. For example, each bonus should be easy to understand with 1 line of text. It’s easier to learn and rewarding.
• Carl designed many civs
• Each civ has a unique civic tree. They start with an easy to comprehend bonus, but then the other bonuses come one at a time. Timing and order are in the player’s hand.
• Learning about when to build builders and how to use them best was very complex. Population management was also very complex, especially for new players. The new system brings more depth, but less complexity.
• There will still be micromanagement for players that want to have it. For example, in the new resource system. Assigning resources to cities is comparable to population management, just with resources.

Builders as an example how hard it is to have a mechanic that’s fun in early and late game. WB missed the builders in the beginning when playing civ VII, while he didn’t like it in late game civ VI.They acknowledge that sometimes what is appropriate in the early game should be different in the late game.

• One example in civ VII are trade routes. They can’t go into details how these work in the later ages. There are merchants in all three ages, but what they do and how they create trade routes will change throughout the ages. They enjoyed to incorporate a similar feeling of changing the map that people previously had with builders into merchants. Ed likes to think of merchants as people that explore the world for trade opportunities. It’s the Marco Polo feeling of going out and creating the Silk road. The merchant is a unit that contains some feel of the builder.
• In the beginning the merchant is sent out and he needs to go tile by tile to find a city with which he can start a trade route. There is less automation in trade routes compared to civ VI. It’s a step-by-step feeling of trade.
• Resource trade and trade routes are merged. They are no longer separate parts of the game. Ed believes it is fun to send the trader around the map towards their destination.

WB finishes his matches, he shows late game content on Twitch and YouTube. But there are way too many clicks in civ VI. Now there are crises and a new beginning. How does this work? How can you manage that the player gets new sensations but is rewarded for gaining advantages in the previous age?

• They have wrestled with these questions. What happens in the transition? What you take with you and what gets simplified had gotten the most attention and rework during development. They tried different variants to make sure that you keep what you can be proud of and that you are not too disrupted by the transition.
• On the recent live stream, they showed some impressions and what happens.
• Everything on the map stays. You don’t lose cities or buildings, the commanders also stay around. And then there is the legacy system itself. You are getting rewards for what you’ve accomplished. You gain points for your achievements in the previous era that you can spend on bonuses for the next one.
• If you are ahead in culture, you will probably stay ahead in culture if you spend the points on culture.

Multiplayers are worried that games will not be epic, because there aren’t enough players on the map. What can multiplayers expect?Multiplayer has been a big focus. The direction is not less epic, but more epic.

• Multiplayers benefits from the three ages. Each age can be played as a standalone in multiplayer, which makes for a more practicable game duration. You have all the empires that were on the heights of their power during that each that knock their heads against each other.
• They also thought about how it would work if players start in later eras. You can’t just start with a single settler and a unit. Players need different tools. They came up with a new system how players can prepare their empire. They have never shown that nor talked about it in detail. But it is a great system to assure a great start in a multiplayer game that start in the later ages.
• There is currently a smaller player count when players want to play all three ages together. All players start on the same continent to great a competition. There will be support for numbers of players as we are used to during development, e.g., 8 players.
• Ed thinks that multiplayer won’t be less epic, he believes the multiplayer community will take off.

 

[AriochIV]

Ed specifically said that they were putting limitations on PC to allow for cross-play, both for multiplayer and single-player, so that its possible to save a game on PC and then play it on Switch. It's not ambiguous at all... I don't see how anyone can pretend that's not what he said. I don't get the attempts at gaslighting here.

 

[Thormodr]

Ed specifically said that they were putting limitations on PC to allow for cross-play, both for multiplayer and single-player, so that its possible to save a game on PC and then play it on Switch. It's not ambiguous at all... I don't see how anyone can pretend that's not what he said. I don't get the attempts at gaslighting here.

So, the question is, will they seek to keep this cross play as a feature for the future? Can the Switch handle larger maps and higher player counts or is it the bottleneck?

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Civ VII's PC release's mutliplayer was designed and is being released with cross play and the Switch's capabilities/limitations in mind.

Agreed, this is absolutely clear from the interview.

How you feel about that is open to interpretation though, right?

If you are worried that the game is being watered down to appease casual & console players, you'll naturally react more negatively to this news and be wary of the promises to increase these limits later. It's confirmation of your fears, so to speak.

If you don't believe that it is being watered down, then it's easier to simply view it as a pragmatic decision for launch, and accept that larger maps will be added later.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Agreed, this is absolutely clear from the interview.

How you feel about that is open to interpretation though, right?

If you are worried that the game is being watered down to appease casual & console players, you'll naturally react more negatively to this news and be wary of the promises to increase these limits later. It's confirmation of your fears, so to speak.

If you don't believe that it is being watered down, then it's easier to simply view it as a pragmatic decision for launch, and accept that larger maps will be added later.

The conversation wasn't about how any of us felt about it though....

The original comment I was responding to implied that that people were crazy to even suggest that devolopment for consoles has effected PC devolopment and there was "no hard evidence" despite Ed Beach literally telling us exact opposite in interview... and then the conversation continued with several uses claiming "mischaracterization" despite what was very clearly stated.

 

[ombak]

The conversation wasn't about how any of us felt about it though....

The original comment I was responding to implied that that people were crazy to even suggest that devolopment for consoles has effected PC devolopment and there was "no hard evidence" despite Ed Beach literally telling us exact opposite in interview... and then the conversation continued with several uses claiming "mischaracterization" despite what was very clearly stated.

I think this is all a result of how forum post conversations involving multiple people work.

I can understand you feeling it was necessary to push back on Gorbles saying Switch isn't dictating something. When you used the word "design" though, I felt you were equivocating so I added my input, and I tried to limit it and be clear it was nitpicky, particularly about the word "design". That's why I used quotation marks in my text, not just the quote feature.

I think there's a world of difference between saying a game is designed one way, including in the context of the conversation that was being had, versus saying what features are making it to launch.

So in the end, we risk getting into the weeds over definitions and equivocation, or continue a conversation that ends up talking past each other, and I suspect that's why Gorbles said something like "can't really go into detail on this without ... b) going off-topic" while I lamented caving in to my base instincts of responding because "someone on the internet is wrong".

Mods forgive me.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I think this is all a result of how forum post conversations involving multiple people work.

I can understand you feeling it was necessary to push back on Gorbles saying Switch isn't dictating something. When you used the word "design" though, I felt you were equivocating so I added my input, and I tried to limit it and be clear it was nitpicky, particularly about the word "design". That's why I used quotation marks in my text, not just the quote feature.

I think there's a world of difference between saying a game is designed one way, including in the context of the conversation that was being had, versus saying what features are making it to launch.

So in the end, we risk getting into the weeds over definitions and equivocation, or continue a conversation that ends up talking past each other, and I suspect that's why Gorbles said something like "can't really go into detail on this without ... b) going off-topic" while I lamented caving in to my base instincts of responding because "someone on the internet is wrong".

Mods forgive me.

Gotta keep the mods on their toes or else they'll get bored

Even putting aside and ignoring the natural desire to be right and respond to "someone on the internet who i believe is wrong", I'm still confused about where the source of disagreement here is... to the point where I actually want to understand.

Are the features that are making it to launch not choices in design....? Why would we look at things that Firaxis wants to potentially add and change with future support (without any timeline) when talking about the product they're are currently desiging and plan on releasing? It would be like looking at base Civ V and objecting to the statement that it was "designed" without religion in mind because Firaxis planned on adding religion to later expansion pack.

 

[chaosprophet]

I forget which one of these interviews it was, but I was glad to hear that Ed wanted to solve this problem in 6 where you can't move your unit when it still has some movement remaining but not enough to go anywhere and that forces you to make one extra click before you end the turn. It's small detail, but it's something that everyone's had to deal with in the game. It really shows they're serious about alleviating the micromanagement problem from the game.

It is small but really great, happened so much, especially early on the game where you're manually moving 2~3 scouts to explore the map for the first time.

From the interview, it sounds like maps are only size-restricted for multiplayer. Single player will probably have the usual assortment of sizes.

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.

The interview isn't very clear imo, you can read it as being only for MP or for SP. The quotes Evolena got from the FAQ does indeed point to bigger sizes than Standard existing, albeit that could be the FAQ already being written with they knowing they will have bigger maps at some point, even if not at launch.

I think it makes sense for them to do that for MP if their main focus for release is having the MP cross-play between platforms working well and later expanding on the MP that will be available only on the platforms that can support bigger games. But would be a bummer if it also affects the single player of platforms that can support the bigger maps. I always play the biggest maps available, sometimes with less civs than the base amount for the size as I really like the early exploring, and the more players and smaller maps the less you can find things as the other players are also looking for them. To have the SP experience be impacted because of the MP at launch would be a minus for me who rarely ever plays MP and when I do it is just with a very small amount of friends. Hopefully it is something they don't take too long to implement if it is really the case.

 

[Gorbles]

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

Like you already said, forum posters aren't an authority on what the developers are saying. That includes you.

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.

Incorrect. Minimum PC specifications matter significantly. I can't go into the details without causing a tangent, but the short version is "PC optimisations aren't always the same as console optimisations".

The Switch and Firaxis' intent on cross play and multi-platform release DICTATED the final decisions made when designing Civ on PC

Possibly. Performance targets tend to be considered well in advance of any "final decisions". That said, neither of us work at Firaxis, nor have an uncle that works there (presumably. I don't ).

Regardless, notice the lack of the word "Switch" in this sentence.

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.

I've read several posts interpreting the same interview in different ways. When I get a chance I will, but it's my daughter's birthday party this weekend and I'm not good with sitting through videos in the first place (never have been).

That said, I do hope you're prepared for the possibility that I might still disagree.

 

[Evolena]

Are the features that are making it to launch not choices in design....? Why would we look at things that Firaxis wants to potentially add and change with future support (without any timeline) when talking about the product they're are currently desiging and plan on releasing? It would be like looking at base Civ V and objecting to the statement that it was "designed" without religion in mind because Firaxis planned on adding religion to later expansion pack.

Well.... When I'm designing my product for my day-job, I plan ahead. Some things will be done quickly, some others may take years. What is shipped into a release is not a question of design but totally a question of prioritizing.

 

[Kwami]

Regardless, notice the lack of the word "Switch" in this sentence.

Ed specifically mentioned the Switch when giving an example of making sure that the game was the same on all platforms. He also mentioned that consoles were a limiting factor. He didn't say "Switch sucks", but we all know that the Switch is by far the weakest of the supported platforms.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Even putting aside and ignoring the natural desire to be right and respond to "someone on the internet who i believe is wrong", I'm still confused about where the source of disagreement here is... to the point where I actually want to understand.

Are the features that are making it to launch not choices in design....? Why would we look at things that Firaxis wants to potentially add and change with future support (without any timeline) when talking about the product they're are currently desiging and plan on releasing? It would be like looking at base Civ V and objecting to the statement that it was "designed" without religion in mind because Firaxis planned on adding religion to later expansion pack.

It all comes down to the concept of "design". For me, design is conceptual. To use a (not the) dictionary definition, "the art of conceiving and producing a plan of something before it is made".

Did the design team conceive of Civ VII with Switch technical capabilities in mind, even before they started making the game? Almost certainly not.

Have they made some technical compromises in order to accommodate the Switch for launch? Undeniably yes.

The problem for me is that people use this fact to argue that the whole game is limited by a desire to release cross platform, that it is being "dumbed down". I don't see the evidence for that; strategic depth is not predicated on processing power.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Like you already said, forum posters aren't an authority on what the developers are saying. That includes you.

Which is exactly why I've provided verbatim quotes from Ed Beach and the discussion in context of interview with timestamps .. So we don't have to make assumptions about what the devolopers said.

Incorrect. Minimum PC specifications matter significantly. I can't go into the details without causing a tangent, but the short version is "PC optimisations aren't always the same as console optimisations".

Incorrect? Minumum PC specifications matter significantly TO PC releases. We are talking about the Switch specifications, which are MUCH weaker than your average gaming PC today and quite dated in specfications even amongst consoles

Possibly. Performance targets tend to be considered well in advance of any "final decisions". That said, neither of us work at Firaxis, nor have an uncle that works there (presumably. I don't ).

But we don't need to work at Firaxis to understand what Ed Beach said in this interviiew.

Regardless, notice the lack of the word "Switch" in this sentence

What...? Ed Beach specifically mentions the Switch in the quote provided and following the context of conversation its obvious when talking about "some of the platforms are more constrained than others." he's talking about the Switch

I've read several posts interpreting the same interview in different ways. When I get a chance I will, but it's my daughter's birthday party this weekend and I'm not good with sitting through videos in the first place (never have been).

That said, I do hope you're prepared for the possibility that I might still disagree.

You are more than welcome to disagree with me about whether these devolopment designs are "dumbing down the series" that is subjective but what Ed Beach himself said about the subject is quite clear and objective. The Switch's specifications, cross play, were taken into account when designing and releasing VII on PC.

Well.... When I'm designing my product for my day-job, I plan ahead. Some things will be done quickly, some others may take years. What is shipped into a release is not a question of design but totally a question of prioritizing.

Now we're venturing into the realm of pure semantics, which is almost always a waste of time but I will say what you design for your day job and release publicly is undeniably part of what you designed regardless of what grand design ambitions or future support you may plan to continue providing to your product. Civ VII was designed with the Switch's limitations, crossplay, and a mutli-platform release in mind, even if we can say the game was also designed with eventually increasing those Switch-based limitations and concessions (without a clear timeline or road map for consumers)

 

[Bleakz]

The Switch is brought up a ton but I believe there is also a lower civ limit specifically for switch/switch crossplay to specifically help on that front but I would think that something like the Xbox series S (which devs of other games have pointed out as an issue to hit an exceptable resolution + frame rate while developing for the series x and ps5) or lower end PCs (ex: people gaming on low end or budget laptops that were bought for school use is a situation that ends up happening alot or the growing popularity of hand held pcs like the steam deck or rog ally) would also be a huge part of trying to limit the game on launch

I would personally believe that having a strong launch performance across all platforms and then opening up the game as time passes to the platforms that can support it will most likely be better received than hearing people complain about performance cause their toaster can't run the largest map size with the most amount of civs on launch day

Especially if it is also their goal to launch with a specially designed experience that makes the best use of the systems they are designing the game around

If this was from a developer who had a history of not supporting their games post launch I would be very worried but I don't believe that is the case here.

 

[TheGrayFox]

It all comes down to the concept of "design". For me, design is conceptual. To use a (not the) dictionary definition, "the art of conceiving and producing a plan of something before it is made".

Okay I'm starting to get that there might be a little bit more semantical wiggle room here than I previously thought if we fixate specifically on the word "design".. In this case though, what Firaxis decided, concieved, and produced to launch before it was made would still also be considered part of its design.

Did the design team conceive of Civ VII with Switch technical capabilities in mind, even before they started making the game? Almost certainly not.

Have they made some technical compromises in order to accommodate the Switch for launch? Undeniably yes.

Almost certainly not? They started devolopment with the intent of multi-platform release including the Switch and specifically had cross play in mind....

Technical compromises that ultimately effect gameplay like map sizes and player counts on PC made to accomodate the Switch for launch is because the design team concieved of Civ VII with Switch technical capabilities in mind. Both things here can be true.

The problem for me is that people use this fact to argue that the whole game is limited by a desire to release cross platform, that it is being "dumbed down". I don't see the evidence for that; strategic depth is not predicated on processing power.

but that's exactly what Ed Beach told us in this interview. The game (read: map size and player counts in what we can hope applies to multiplayer only) was limited by a desire to release cross platform and cross play. PC Multiplayer options and capabilities were dumbed down to accomodate for the Switch and cross platform release/play.

 

[Gorbles]

Ed specifically mentioned the Switch when giving an example of making sure that the game was the same on all platforms. He also mentioned that consoles were a limiting factor. He didn't say "Switch sucks", but we all know that the Switch is by far the weakest of the supported platforms.

It's a good thing he didn't, because the Switch doesn't "suck". It's a different piece of hardware that occupies a different market space to both PCs and other consoles.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with forum posters reading into what the developers are saying to create their own conclusions. The Switch was undoubtedly a factor. But that's as far as any statement can possibly go, and performance has many factors to it beyond the target platforms. Which is also different to design.

Which is exactly why I've provided verbatim quotes from Ed Beach and the discussion in context of interview with timestamps .. So we don't have to make assumptions about what the devolopers said.

So we agree that "dictated" is your semantic choice for rhetorical effect? Because we've been over what they've said already, and that wasn't a word they used.

I'm not saying you're lying or anything like that. I believe you. But there is a hard line between "the developers said X" and "which means Y", and your opinion is the latter. PM me if you want that derail I've referred to.

Incorrect? Minumum PC specifications matter significantly TO PC releases. We are talking about the Switch specifications, which are MUCH weaker than your average gaming PC today and quite dated in specfications even amongst consoles

Again, a derail, but consoles optimisations are different, and at times very different, to a PC platform release. The PM offer stands.

But we don't need to work at Firaxis to understand what Ed Beach said in this interviiew.

Understanding is individual. You're the one who said nobody was an authority on what the developers actually meant. Remember this goes way back to someone claiming X and Gedemon pushing back on that.

The Switch's specifications, cross play, were taken into account when designing and releasing VII on PC.

You keep going in circles between "taken into account" and "dictated". As others have said, this is perhaps purely a semantic derail.

So, one more time: there is a difference between the two phrases, and choosing the phrasing that suggests the developers somehow hamstrung the PC release is a choice you are making that the developers did not say. Feel free to agree to disagree.

 

[TheGrayFox]

It's a good thing he didn't, because the Switch doesn't "suck". It's a different piece of hardware that occupies a different market space to both PCs and other consoles.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with forum posters reading into what the developers are saying to create their own conclusions. The Switch was undoubtedly a factor. But that's as far as any statement can possibly go, and performance has many factors to it beyond the target platforms. Which is also different to design.


So we agree that "dictated" is your semantic choice for rhetorical effect? Because we've been over what they've said already, and that wasn't a word they used.

I'm not saying you're lying or anything like that. I believe you. But there is a hard line between "the developers said X" and "which means Y", and your opinion is the latter. PM me if you want that derail I've referred to.

Again, a derail, but consoles optimisations are different, and at times very different, to a PC platform release. The PM offer stands.

Understanding is individual. You're the one who said nobody was an authority on what the developers actually meant. Remember this goes way back to someone claiming X and Gedemon pushing back on that.

You keep going in circles between "taken into account" and "dictated". As others have said, this is perhaps purely a semantic derail.

So, one more time: there is a difference between the two phrases, and choosing the phrasing that suggests the developers somehow hamstrung the PC release is a choice you are making that the developers did not say. Feel free to agree to disagree.

Okay at this point this kind of feels like I'm being gaslight, especially considering that some of you still haven't just watched the interview in question.

You can get upset about the phrasing but the reality is the devolopers themselves said that the PC release was being hamstrung, in this case specifically multiplayer and its supported map sizes and player counts, because of the limitations of consoles and their desire for a simutaneous console release and the sake of cross play . This part isn't really up to subjective interpretation. (I'm saying this without any intent of being rude btw. Happy birthday to your daughter)

 

[Gedemon]

Ed specifically said that they were putting limitations on PC to allow for cross-play, both for multiplayer and single-player, so that its possible to save a game on PC and then play it on Switch.

I was just clarifying that those are not hardcoded/definitive limitations, as the post I quoted didn't make it clear by not mentioning the part about raising that number after release. So I was kind of hoping it wouldn't lead people to overreact without actually watching the full interview, but... I suppose I should have known better.

it is something that we're looking at to add in the future, a greater player count with additional map types that is a little bit different more of a traditional Civ6/Civ5 type gameplay experience

we want to make sure we do a good job supporting that right out of the gate once we've got that in a good place then we can start looking at pushing up these limits, absolutely

 

[AriochIV]

"Something that we're looking to add in the future" don't feed the bulldog, my friend.

 

[Gedemon]

It's not hardcoded, that's the important part, one less deal breaking item checked off my list.