Confirmation that Civ 7 did not "steal" civilization-switching from Humankind

[TheGrayFox]

But Humankind wasn't released when "serious production" began. It was only announced at about that time. Nobody knew how well the game would do for another two years.

No one said it Humankind was released before they started serious production... Humankind was still showcased and gameplay of its gimmick was already out before Firaxis even had permission to start production work on VII and the game was released 3 years ago as a flop and Firaxis still doubled down on the mechanic. That's simply a fact,

The whole debate about when exactly both teams started devolopment or if they independently arrived at the concept is kind of irrelevant.

 

[ombak]

They literally say it right there in the interview, they didn't begin working on the game until 2k gave them permission... all they did was bring a pitch to a meeting and that pitch still happened days after Humankind showcased its gimmick and gameplay to public

I'd say it lines up fairly well with my expectation. While I might have estimated being a tiny bit further along, it still fits my description of high-level designers working on ideas at the time.

Also, while they require 2K permission, the pitch is probably part of a well-oiled process for a developer like Firaxis that has worked with the same publisher for several releases. It's mostly a formality when it comes to a franchise of this scale. Once the pitch is approved, then you can start moving bigger teams and adjusting budgets since you would now have that new project on the books.

I wouldn't expect a 2K to say no to Civ 7. It would take a disastrous pitch for them to say anything besides "go ahead". In fact, I wouldn't expect game design to be a factor in the publisher's decision. Business questions like "is 4X still a viable genre, will it bring in revenue?" or checklist questions like "what kind of new thing will it have to keep it fresh?" to make sure the devs aren't just going through the motions (though some publishers might want that) are what I imagine they would be concerned with.

If anything, it might be more difficult to pitch as a general idea after HK's release and after their numbers went down. That timing might prompt a conversation about "how are you going to do it different/better?" to reassure the publisher.

 

[Professor Phobo]

Why would they abandon their own design vision because someone else announced a game with a similar - but not identical - mechanic?

They pitched it because that's what they wanted to do.

 

[wesplaysciv]

Sports Illustrated covering Civ … never knew they had a gaming branch!

It mentions that players with Ben Franklin can always choose America. Has anyone seen info on how conflicts will be addressed? The simplest thing is to just allow multiple of the same Civ… could those players be at a disadvantage though if they have the same bonuses towards a certain wonder for example?

 

[E.C.H]

Sports Illustrated covering Civ … never knew they had a gaming branch!

It mentions that players with Ben Franklin can always choose America. Has anyone seen info on how conflicts will be addressed? The simplest thing is to just allow multiple of the same Civ… could those players be at a disadvantage though if they have the same bonuses towards a certain wonder for example?

We've seen a similar ability with Amina always allowing you to select Songhai, so I'm guessing most leaders (those from the Medieval era and beyond) will have a civ like that. As for civ selection, I get the feeling in single player they're simply going to let the player chose first, no idea for multiplayer. Alternatively, perhaps all leaders in a game will choose in order of score, or something along those lines?

 

[aieeegrunt]

Sports Illustrated covering Civ … never knew they had a gaming branch!

It mentions that players with Ben Franklin can always choose America. Has anyone seen info on how conflicts will be addressed? The simplest thing is to just allow multiple of the same Civ… could those players be at a disadvantage though if they have the same bonuses towards a certain wonder for example?

If it’s a unique pick, then hopefully you pick in reverse order of how well you did in the previous era, otherwise it’s a “winner wins harder” mechanic

 

[Thormodr]

From the interview: Religion has been fairly absent from all the released material so far, but Shirk confirms that it’s there – in a simplified form. “Religion is in the game,” he tells me. “It’s not one of those things that made huge strides, we actually simplified it a little bit in Antiquity. You’re still going to get to push through the process and earn a pantheon, but you don’t go through as many steps to do it. In the Exploration Age, religion is a system that gets introduced. We’ve simplified it, we know that religion has a love-hate relationship with our fans, so we’ve tweaked and redesigned it to be something more interesting and valid in the Civilization 7 world.”

Religion is introduced during the Age of Exploration, and it is simpler yet more interesting than in Civilization VI.

Now that is interesting and new information.

Simplified or refined? We shall see.

 

[Krajzen]

The very idea that game mechanics can be "stolen" is ridiculous. Different video games have been inspiring each other for their entire history. An idea how to approach a strategy games is not an intellectual property - did first ganes after Dune II steal RTS mechanics from it? It doesn't take a secluded team of secret scientists to come up with the simple idea "you know, in historical games you usually play as one culture for 6,000 years but IRL cultures change dramatically... let's make the game reflect that this time".

It is weirdly comforting that civ had this idea independently though hilariously in the same time as Humankind team, and that HK's flop wasn't apparent until civ was deep into development.

It is worth noting that HK civ switching was significantly different from civ7 switching, most notably having 6 civs over the game session, not 3, so much more chaos; also no historical leaders.
For those two reasons plus civ7 mechanic and game structure being given more attention in general I would expect it to be more pleasant.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I must confess I found the lightning bolt religious combat hilarious

 

[kaspergm]

Why would they abandon their own design vision because someone else announced a game with a similar - but not identical - mechanic?

They pitched it because that's what they wanted to do.

I'm not sure anybody is saying they should abandon it because someone had a similar idea.

I think people say they should abandon it because it's very similar to what Humankind did, and it was awful and people hated it.

 

[Kwami]

No one said it Humankind was released before they started serious production... Humankind was still showcased and gameplay of its gimmick was already out before Firaxis even had permission to start production work on VII and the game was released 3 years ago as a flop and Firaxis still doubled down on the mechanic. That's simply a fact,

The whole debate about when exactly both teams started devolopment or if they independently arrived at the concept is kind of irrelevant.

I'm sorry, but you're being ridiculous here. Your initial claim was that Firaxis doubled down on a "failed mechanic" after Humankind flopped. But 1) Humankind actually sold very well and got a lot of buzz and good reviews before people got bored with it, and 2) Civ7 was already in development for years before that happened. Firaxis wasn't going to just start all over again.

 

[Nikolai II]

I'm sorry, but you're being ridiculous here. Your initial claim was that Firaxis doubled down on a "failed mechanic" after Humankind flopped. But 1) Humankind actually sold very well and got a lot of buzz and good reviews before people got bored with it, and 2) Civ7 was already in development for years before that happened. Firaxis wasn't going to just start all over again.

This. Game development doesn't work like that. You can't just change things over the weekend.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I'm not sure anybody is saying they should abandon it because someone had a similar idea.

I think people say they should abandon it because it's very similar to what Humankind did, and it was awful and people hated it.

i don't how many times this can be repeated

who had the idea first is truly irrelevant to the fact that it played badly in Humankind and it doesn't look to be done in a much better way in Civ VII

 

[The_J]

I guess we can also repeat multiple times that one bad implementation does not mean that the other implementatin will be bad.

 

[bv98132454]

The very idea that game mechanics can be "stolen" is ridiculous. Different video games have been inspiring each other for their entire history. An idea how to approach a strategy games is not an intellectual property - did first ganes after Dune II steal RTS mechanics from it? It doesn't take a secluded team of secret scientists to come up with the simple idea "you know, in historical games you usually play as one culture for 6,000 years but IRL cultures change dramatically... let's make the game reflect that this time".

It is weirdly comforting that civ had this idea independently though hilariously in the same time as Humankind team, and that HK's flop wasn't apparent until civ was deep into development.

It is worth noting that HK civ switching was significantly different from civ7 switching, most notably having 6 civs over the game session, not 3, so much more chaos; also no historical leaders.
For those two reasons plus civ7 mechanic and game structure being given more attention in general I would expect it to be more pleasant.

Civilization has a brand name, Humankind didn't. It's really that simple, and may be the thing that saves Civilization.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Civilization has a brand name, Humankind didn't. It's really that simple, and may be the thing that saves Civilization.

Franchise momentum can save you from a bad game or two, but eventually it catches up to you, as 343 found out

Sometimes all it takes is one really bad call like Fallout 76

 

[Professor Phobo]

Franchise momentum can save you from a bad game or two, but eventually it catches up to you, as 343 found out

Sometimes all it takes is one really bad call like Fallout 76

Oddly enough, FO76 is thriving now. The people who like that game really like it, and Bethesda has put a ton of content in since the abysmal launch.

 

[bv98132454]

Franchise momentum can save you from a bad game or two, but eventually it catches up to you, as 343 found out

Sometimes all it takes is one really bad call like Fallout 76

I don't think Fallout and Halo are dead. Fallout and Halo as live service games are dead though.

What you need to kill a franchise is:
1. Disastrous product
2. Good alternative

This is why SimCity is dead after dominating the city builder genre. It put out a disastrous product, and then viable alternatives came in to fill the gap. By the time EA could bring SimCity back, the alternatives dominated the space it used to.

 

[mackintosh]

1) Humankind actually sold very well and got a lot of buzz and good reviews before people got bored with it

Humankind lost 90% of its active player base within a month of release. People didn't get bored with it. People dropped it because it was fundamentally flawed and never looked back.

 

[thecrazyscot]

I don't think Fallout and Halo are dead. Fallout and Halo as live service games are dead though.

What you need to kill a franchise is:
1. Disastrous product
2. Good alternative

This is why SimCity is dead after dominating the city builder genre. It put out a disastrous product, and then viable alternatives came in to fill the gap. By the time EA could bring SimCity back, the alternatives dominated the space it used to.

I truly hope we both get some good alternatives to the Civ franchise and that Civ continues to see success. Isn't that the ideal situation?