Civ7 dev interview

[8housesofelixir]

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

Thank you for the translation; this is fascinating! I especially love the new Merchant, linking trade routes and active exploration has the potential to become a masterstroke. I'm looking forward to seeing its implementation.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

but that's exactly what Ed Beach told us in this interview.

That's not how I interpret it, and that's pretty much an end to it, as far as I'm concerned.

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

I think the trade system is the thing I'm most curious to see in more detail. It has always been a bit basic in Civ, and just another part of the endgame click bonanza in VI.

 

[Gorbles]

Okay at this point this kind of feels like I'm being gaslight

No, I just think we see constraints as being different things.

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.

If the Switch prevented the game from ever having more players, or larger maps, I would agree with you.

It's not. They're explicitly looking at raising the current limits.

The choice was "cross-platform release including the Switch", or "slightly more PC options and no / a restricted cross-platform release". This is a business strategy. It's not hamstringing anything. Who are you to say that ignoring a potential market is the right decision to make? Someone had to make that call, to do what they thought was best for this iteration of Civ; a franchise whose iterations often get years of support.

 

[TheGrayFox]

That's not how I interpret it, and that's pretty much an end to it, as far as I'm concerned.

This isn't really a matter of interpretation though as you've already admitted that what I've stated was very clear from the interview. Civ VII's PC release's mutliplayer was designed and made worse specifically to accomdate cross play and the Switch's capabilities/limitations in mind. The end.

No, I just think we see constraints as being different things.

If the Switch prevented the game from ever having more players, or larger maps, I would agree with you.


It's not. They're explicitly looking at raising the current limits.

A constraint is a limitation or restriction, something that was done to PC's multiplayer and map sizes/player counts in order to ship it at the same time and facilitate cross play with consoles as weak as the Switch. The Switch and console releases/crossplay is what prevented the PC version from having more players and larger maps, at least at launch and for the foreseeable future. This is undeniable and clearly stated by Ed Beach.

Firaxis can make future promises to increase those player counts and map size all they want but until resources are actually dedicated and we have a timeline/road map for that devolopment, "Sorry doesn't feed the bulldog" as another user pointed out.

The choice was "cross-platform release including the Switch", or "slightly more PC options and no / a restricted cross-platform release". This is a business strategy. It's not hamstringing anything. Who are you to say that ignoring a potential market is the right decision to make? Someone had to make that call, to do what they thought was best for this iteration of Civ; a franchise whose iterations often get years of support.

The choice was between releasing on all consoles/cross play between PCs and a 7 year old handheld console that had outdated specifications when it was released and designing the best PC version for their predominately PC series they could.... they chose the Switch.... that's kind of the problem here.

No one is arguing that it's not a business strategy but that business decision still undeniable made a worse product for PC consumers in their historic PC series to facilitate a simutaneous Switch release and cross play between consoles. Something you inititally filed as a baseless and evidenceless claim.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Random Events are something that is tough to get right.

Too impactful and it feels like you got shafted by RNG.

Not impactful and it feels like a waste of time.

I kinda like a bit of chaos thrown into the mix, but I get why so many people hate it

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

This isn't really a matter of interpretation though as you've already admitted that what I've stated was very clear from the interview. Civ VII's PC release's mutliplayer was designed and made worse specifically to accomdate cross play and the Switch's capabilities/limitations in mind. The end.

It's not my problem if you refuse to accept there is room for interpretation.

Random Events are something that is tough to get right.

Too impactful and it feels like you got shafted by RNG.

Not impactful and it feels like a waste of time.

I kinda like a bit of chaos thrown into the mix, but I get why so many people hate it

Yes, I agree. Random events are risky business. I like that there are lots, it would be disappointing if you kept getting the same events with every game. But they were rather pointless in IV, not sure they added much. So I guess we'll see!

 

[Gedemon]

This isn't really a matter of interpretation though as you've already admitted that what I've stated was very clear from the interview. Civ VII's PC release's mutliplayer was designed and made worse specifically to accomdate cross play and the Switch's capabilities/limitations in mind. The end.

That's not the only factor for the design, the other being gameplay, which was also very clear in the interview.

Gameplay is balanced on standard map size, with percentage modifiers based on standard for other map size.

Standard number of players is 8 in civ5 and civ6, it was 7 in civ4.

It's now 5 in antiquity for civ7 because of the map type and the gameplay intended, then 8 after, as in previous versions of the game.

So I'd say the MP is designed as before for standard map sizes, not worse to "accommodate crossplay".

It's a fact they don't plan to have larger maps available for MP at release, but it's your interpretation that the design is worse.

 

[aieeegrunt]

It's not my problem if you refuse to accept there is room for interpretation.



Yes, I agree. Random events are risky business. I like that there are lots, it would be disappointing if you kept getting the same events with every game. But they were rather pointless in IV, not sure they added much. So I guess we'll see!

Even the minor events in IV were too much for a lot of people, I seem to recall removing them being popular.

I ditched disasters in 6 not because I don’t like the idea, but because the implementation was awful. Like I ended up with Floodplains and Forests with utterly broken yields because each time they flooded or whatever the yields simply ratched up.

The Captain Planet Villain strat of deliberatly flooding other civs was amusing though

 

[Siptah]

I'd like to speculate that the whole Switch hardware holding back some things at release wasn't intended. We know that civ VI on the Switch was a huge success for 2K - obviously, I dare to say as it's such a natural combo of platform, game, and target group. Hence, the decision to bring the next civ to a hybrid Nintendo platform is all but unexpected. My speculation now is that FXS expected that the Switch 2 would be out by the time civ VII hits the market, and the game would be released for Switch 2 (with maybe a backwards compatible version that runs in some way on the original Switch). Which isn't too far fetched: some industry people expected a release in 2023 already and many more expected a release in fall 24. This is not going to happen, as we now know. Current speculations are March 25, so after civ VII releases. Some people may have decided to bring it to *a* switch right at release nonetheless and that's what we are getting now. Yeah, wishful thinking and baseless speculations, but it has some sense to it for me.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Even the minor events in IV were too much for a lot of people, I seem to recall removing them being popular.

I ditched disasters in 6 not because I don’t like the idea, but because the implementation was awful. Like I ended up with Floodplains and Forests with utterly broken yields because each time they flooded or whatever the yields simply ratched up.

The Captain Planet Villain strat of deliberatly flooding other civs was amusing though

Huh, interesting. I wasn't part of any Civ community then, I'm surprised people had strong feelings - I always considered them a bit of a non-event.

The events in VII intrigue me though. I like that they are triggered by things that actually happen in the game, and I like that they have historical flavour for each Civ. But I do still remain a bit cautious on the whole idea.

 

[chaosprophet]

Huh, interesting. I wasn't part of any Civ community then, I'm surprised people had strong feelings - I always considered them a bit of a non-event.

The events in VII intrigue me though. I like that they are triggered by things that actually happen in the game, and I like that they have historical flavour for each Civ. But I do still remain a bit cautious on the whole idea.

I think it all depends a lot on how they are balanced. If events are balanced that regardless of which you get story wise, what you get from them are similarly good to what you get from others events that can trigger around the same time, then it won't feel like being very lucky or not. Also if there is some kind of internal cap where you only get an x amount of events per age, and generally between a similar date range every match to once again not make it so someone is lucky and get 15 events in antiquity while someone isn't and gets only 5.

Although, these events number may not be just random events triggering but also counting events that trigger as you finding a ruin or the new equivalent for the huts.

 

[TheGrayFox]

That's not the only factor for the design, the other being gameplay, which was also very clear in the interview.

Switch, Crossplay, and multi-platform release weren't the only factor but they were a major one. which was also very clear from the interview

Gameplay is balanced on standard map size, with percentage modifiers based on standard for other map size.

Standard number of players is 8 in civ5 and civ6, it was 7 in civ4.

It's now 5 in antiquity for civ7 because of the map type and the gameplay intended, then 8 after, as in previous versions of the game.

This is an seperate issue but one still impacted by Switch and console releases at the end of the day based on what Ed Beach said.

So I'd say the MP is designed as before for standard map sizes, not worse to "accommodate crossplay
It's a fact they don't plan to have larger maps available for MP at release, but it's your interpretation that the design is worse.

and you would be wrong based on what Ed beach himself said. He quite literally said that the map sizes and player counts on release are smaller to compensate for cross play and mutli-platform release and limitations of consoles like the Switch. That isn't up for interpretation. The fact that larger map sizes and increased player counts are not currently supported for PC multiplayer, is undeniable worse design for PC consumers of the series. Basically this conversation could've be ended with one yes/no question

If I buy the PC release of Civilization VII, is my multiplayer experience hindered and limited from what I would normally expect from the series to accomodate for the technical limitations of the Switch and a simutaneous multi-console release/crossplay? Yes or no?

 

[Siptah]

If I buy the PC release of Civilization VII, is my multiplayer experience hindered and limited from what I would normally expect from the series to accomodate for the technical limitations of the Switch and a simutaneous multi-console release/crossplay? Yes or no?

Experiences are also limited by PC multiplayer, not just cross-platform. The equation PC = high end doesn't make sense. FXS has a history for having low specs as minimum for their games. As in barely able to play the game at all. And some people will play it who don't even reach minimum specs. At civ VI launch, I had an old laptop that fulfilled the minimum but couldn't run standard maps without getting dangerously hot. So, I had to play on small with this laptop. Similar situations can and do exist in PC multiplayer. Just because everyone in a multiplayer game plays the game on a PC doesn't mean they can all run it well. I assume we all had such experiences when we organized a multiplayer round of whatever game and one of the people couldn't properly run it, leading to compromises for the whole group?

 

[aieeegrunt]

Huh, interesting. I wasn't part of any Civ community then, I'm surprised people had strong feelings - I always considered them a bit of a non-event.

The events in VII intrigue me though. I like that they are triggered by things that actually happen in the game, and I like that they have historical flavour for each Civ. But I do still remain a bit cautious on the whole idea.

I ended up turning them off not because they were Too RNG, but the opposite, it was just another pop up that wasn’t worth dealing with

I really like the concept, but like a lot of things it’s how it’s implemented that matters

 

[TheGrayFox]

Experiences are also limited by PC multiplayer, not just cross-platform. The equation PC = high end doesn't make sense. FXS has a history for having low specs as minimum for their games. As in barely able to play the game at all.

and those minimum specs for gaming PCs and laptops are still usually leagues and bounds ahead of the specifications of the Switch, especially at this point. Again notice how Beach didn't blame lower end PCs for this design choice.

And some people will play it who don't even reach minimum specs.

That's their fault. Minimum specs exist for a reason in PC gaming , Firaxis shouldn't be designing their games and its multiplayer for old non-gaming laptops that cannot feasible run it.

At civ VI launch, I had an old laptop that fulfilled the minimum but couldn't run standard maps without getting dangerously hot. So, I had to play on small with this laptop. Similar situations can and do exist in PC multiplayer. Just because everyone in a multiplayer game plays the game on a PC doesn't mean they can all run it well. I assume we all had such experiences when we organized a multiplayer round of whatever game and one of the people couldn't properly run it, leading to compromises for the whole group?

Then it sounds like you needed a new laptop or PC?

No one is under the impression that everyone in a multiplayer game playing a PC is capable of running it flawlessly..... however most AAA PC series and devolopers don't gimp their multiplayer capabilities for computers shouldn't be and can barely run the game in the first place, even those who purposefully create lower end specs to compromise.

 

[Gedemon]

If I buy the PC release of Civilization VII, is my multiplayer experience hindered and limited from what I would normally expect from the series to accomodate for the technical limitations of the Switch and a simutaneous multi-console release/crossplay? Yes or no?

For me, it's an easy answer, no, it doesn't.

Unless we're back at civ5 level of limitations in modding related to MP, which I doubt as they do seem to have based it on civ6 framework, which was recoded for that part.

 

[TheGrayFox]

For me, it's an easy answer, no, it doesn't.

Unless we're back at civ5 level of limitations in modding related to MP, which I doubt as they do seem to have based it on civ6 framework, which was recoded for that part.

So your answer is entirely hinged upon the assumption that Firaxis gave you the same exact levels of MP modding tools and capabilities as 6 and that these MP limits are not hard coded..

 

[Gorbles]

The choice was between releasing on all consoles/cross play between PCs and a 7 year old handheld console that had outdated specifications when it was released and designing the best PC version for their predominately PC series they could.... they chose the Switch.... that's kind of the problem here.

And if that's what you disagree with, then fair enough. It's just an opinion though. Disagreeing with business strategy is different from making claims about what the Switch "dictates".

Something you inititally filed as a baseless and evidenceless claim.

I haven't denied it once. Again, I'd love to go into more detail about the project management and games development side of things, and I've offered a PM exchange at least once. I'll repeat the offer, and leave this here, as we seem to be going in circles. Peace

 

[Gedemon]

So your answer is entirely hinged upon the assumption that Firaxis gave you the same exact levels of MP modding tools and capabilities as 6 and that these MP limits are not hard coded..

Exactly, and I found the interviews very reassuring on that point, for me the few Q/A about modding were the most important part TBH.

 

[ombak]

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.

Your question has been answered since this reply, but since I appreciate that you actually want to understand, I'm replying directly as well.

And I'll start with the caveat I added to my original reply to you: yes, this feels a bit nitpicky.

"Are the features that are making it to launch not choices in design...?" No. I would characterize those as production choices, not design choices. Additionally, the way Ed Beach talked about upping those limits after release suggests to me that design is not the limiting factor here.

The reason this is not just nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking is that I feel your characterization of what Carl and Ed said relied a little bit too much on equivocating between "design" specifically and "choice" in general when production and business factors dictated their choices.

Ed mentioned that the console community grew during a lot 6 and that the launch scenario is different today. It sounds to me like cross-play supports a larger community than shipping bigger MP maps and higher player capacity. Had they chosen not to have cross-play at release, it sounds like they could have made larger maps. That's not the Switch "hamstringing" them, that's a choice based on other factors first. Even if the Switch were capable of supporting larger maps and more players, choosing to do so at launch could exponentially increase some of the testing they would have to do for console certification.

It's just in the nature of a project this big that these kinds of choices need to be made for launch.