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

[Leyrann]

You know Sid stole the whole concept of Civ from Francis Tresham, right?

I didn't - or rather, I had heard of this before but had forgotten.

But that just further shows that all of this whining about "stealing" is selective outrage and people looking for an excuse to hate on Civ VII (like there aren't real reasons to hate on Civ VII if you want to lmao).

 

[stealth_nsk]

Do you think it's true that they didn't copy Humankid?

One of the proves is what despite some general similarities, those games approach culture switching differently. Humankind is a continuous game, where culture switching was slapped on top. Civ7 is about age swapping from the beginning - developers started from total reset and later adding things to keep.

 

[itix]

You know Sid stole the whole concept of Civ from Francis Tresham, right?

Francis Tresham designed and published the board game Civilization in 1980, and was credited with coming up with the technology tree concept for that game. Sid had stolen a previous game of Tresham's to come up with Railroad Tycoon. Now Franics, who used to be in the RAF, knew a pilot in the USAF by the name of Bill Stealey. Incidentally, Bill and Sid met in Las Vegas where Sid kept beating Bill at a fighter combat game, with Sid saying he could make a better game in a week. Boom, MicroProse was born.

Anyways, Bill and Tresham used to play the Civilization board game, and Sid got interested. He then made it into a computer game.

So yeah, Sid stole the whole idea of Civilization from a British board game.

Doesn't matter who "stole" what from where. It's what you do with those ideas that matters.

No, that is not true. Civilization's origins are in the Empire video game. Although it borrows some ideas from the board game of the same name, it is not based on it. The only video game adaptation of that board game is Avalon Hill's Advanced Civilization, which is completely different.

 

[Stoic]

It is natural that competition and the exchange of ideas creates innovation, but I would have implemented the change of civilization better. There is a more historical feel to the game, but I see that there is still a lot of work to be done. The game feels too static as it is.

 

[Stoic]

There is also the commercial reason to change the product given that CIV V and CIV VII are still followed and played. Here we need to create a differentiated product that can attract other customers given that CIV VI is still purchased and played like V.

 

[Dale]

No, that is not true. Civilization's origins are in the Empire video game. Although it borrows some ideas from the board game of the same name, it is not based on it. The only video game adaptation of that board game is Avalon Hill's Advanced Civilization, which is completely different.

Sid Meier tells Civilization’s origin story, cites children’s history books

Lack of mod support was “horribly wrong;” responds to question about remaster.

arstechnica.com

The tech tree is effectively the core of the game. That is the mechanism of progress from start to finish. That's from Tresham. Yes there are elements from other games such as Empire, but the core of the game is the tech tree.

Note that Railroad Tycoon also comes from a Tresham board game.

But like I said it doesn't matter where the ideas come from, it's what you do with them.

 

[Marla_Singer]

The tech tree is effectively the core of the game. That is the mechanism of progress from start to finish. That's from Tresham. Yes there are elements from other games such as Empire, but the core of the game is the tech tree.

Note that Railroad Tycoon also comes from a Tresham board game.

But like I said it doesn't matter where the ideas come from, it's what you do with them.

I respectfully disagree. The core mechanics of Civilization franchise is a tile-based map played in a turn-based game with cities producing units, and that's exactly what "Empire" (1977) was. You can play Empire online, you'll immediately notice how the gameplay is similar.

Game mechanics are just too different to consider the video game as a direct adaptation of the board game. The board game mostly inspired the theming I think. Yes, there was the idea to make the game "evolving" with technologies, but with as target to end up with tanks and battleships, like in "Empire", whereas the board game ended in 250 BCE. In order to implement those technologies, Sid Meier didn't like the tech tree idea at first. His first idea was that it should be more unpredictable, yet it appeared that players hated it as it prevented them to anticipate. So he went back to the idea of a tech tree.

Also the game was first meant to be real-time, like railroad tycoon, it appeared in development that it didn't work, so he went back to the turn-based gameplay from Empire realizing it worked much better.

 

[wilcoxchar]

You know Sid stole the whole concept of Civ from Francis Tresham, right?

Francis Tresham designed and published the board game Civilization in 1980, and was credited with coming up with the technology tree concept for that game. Sid had stolen a previous game of Tresham's to come up with Railroad Tycoon. Now Franics, who used to be in the RAF, knew a pilot in the USAF by the name of Bill Stealey. Incidentally, Bill and Sid met in Las Vegas where Sid kept beating Bill at a fighter combat game, with Sid saying he could make a better game in a week. Boom, MicroProse was born.

Anyways, Bill and Tresham used to play the Civilization board game, and Sid got interested. He then made it into a computer game.

So yeah, Sid stole the whole idea of Civilization from a British board game.

Doesn't matter who "stole" what from where. It's what you do with those ideas that matters.

Have you actually played the Avalon Hill Civilization board game? Because I have, and other than the name that and Sid's game really aren't similar at all. For one, the Avalon Hill game covers exclusively the ancient era. And while it can claim to be the first game with a tech tree, that "tree" is just in the form of tech cards giving you discount on cards in the same color category with IIRC Democracy being the only one that actually requires you to have bought previous techs, it's nothing like the Sid Meier's Civ or other strategy game tech trees.

 

[Leyrann]

The board game mostly inspired the theming I think.

Is theming not what this entire discussion is about?

 

[Marla_Singer]

"Empire" is actually mentioned as the main source of inspiration in the article @Dale posted. Here's the quote:

Shelley recalled losing track of that particular conversation—"Sid always had half-a-dozen prototypes on his computer," he noted. But he remembered a conversation about the British PC war game Empire, which they were both fond of. Meier asked Shelley for "ten things he'd change" about that game, to which Shelley offered a list of a dozen. In May of 1990, Meier responded by dropping a single 5-1/4-inch disk on Shelley's desk: the first playable version of Civilization. "I saved it as a historical artifact," he told the crowd.

 

[itix]

View attachment 720317

Sid Meier tells Civilization’s origin story, cites children’s history books

Lack of mod support was “horribly wrong;” responds to question about remaster.

arstechnica.com

The tech tree is effectively the core of the game. That is the mechanism of progress from start to finish. That's from Tresham. Yes there are elements from other games such as Empire, but the core of the game is the tech tree.

Note that Railroad Tycoon also comes from a Tresham board game.

But like I said it doesn't matter where the ideas come from, it's what you do with them.

Railroad Tycoon is heavily influenced by the board game, this is even stated in the manual. But for example, Empire had the fog of war, randomly generated maps and cities, the core of all Civ games. Cities could produce only units and could not grow or improve. The tech tree idea was borrowed from the Civilization board game but game play is quite different.

 

[Dale]

And again, you all missed the point of not just my comments, but this entire thread.

Doesn't matter who "stole" what from where. It's what you do with those ideas that matters.

 

[The_J]

I think in today's CS industry more gets stolen than actually done new .
Design is a bit of a different thing, but there's TBH a limited amount of ideas which are sensible here, and probably all of them have been discussed here. You might as well say that Humankind stole from the mod Ryse And Fall. There's probably more instances around.

 

[tman2000]

I dunno, but there seems to be a narrative being pushed by some that this mechanic is doomed to failure and Civ "stealing" a failed "gimmick" is trotted out to support that ... opinion.

I watched the announce livestream for 7 on the official channel, and before any other details were revealed, people started spamming "It's just Humankind" and then right in the attention deficit surge of that, Buganda was announced as the modern successor to Egypt and that became "So they just copied Humankind and made it woke, damn this franchise is dead". And now that people realize what Ed Beach said in the OP quote that they wanted a distinctly different flow of gameplay to differentiate is in fact true, and this game isn't just Civ 6.5, the discourse is, "It just copied failed Humankind's worst mechanic to create a game that's not what I'm used to so I declare it automatically sucks and by the way they did it because they're woke crazies that hate gamers, yeah I'm out."

That's the energy right now.

It's really stoked by the bare bones documentation and UI, and exploitative-ish monetization plan. So, good job Firaxis. I think this could have been mitigated without Buganda and if the Abbasids were shown as the successors to Egypt.

The difference though, is if you show Africa in a game half the audience will be skeptical of it, but if you show Prussia and it's concluded the game appeals to "Nazis" (a risk with historical based games), then literal banks and credit cards will cancel you. Tough world.

I saw a video today of Ed Beach (a short of the official channel) explaining why Scouts don't have auto-explore. Really interesting because this is like feature 0 of gameplay in this game. He was arguing that because of the search button, exploration was more intimate and customized, and auto-exploring clashed with that concept. He said they just want to get a read on player feedback before committing to possibly adding back in auto-explore maybe modifying how it works.

I think this is his approach to the whole game. Over on reddit it's a sh**show. Players are genuinely flocking together in surprise about non-transparent mechanics and easily misunderstood ones. People are discovering AI tactical behavior that's surprising in a good way, but with plenty of doubts and complaints. One week in, most players barely understand the game and that includes many content creators still sorting things out. The people who argue that they are geniuses that played it for 10 hours, found it cripplingly easy and completely understood all its systems are just lying. They're part of the hater discourse.

Fact is a lot of people actually just did want Civ 6.5.

I have major issues with this "let the gamers find their pain points and then we'll fix that" approach. An argument, inadequate, in its favor is that we're all learning this new system completely from scratch so no one knows what they really want from it.

A lot of people complaining about some things in the game are just upset it feels different from previous games and they can't put that into words easily, so they fixate on one particular thing that feels very different and then claim that's the part they don't like. This is a problem too because Firaxis will implement features just as like a salve to make something feel more familiar even if it doesn't fit with the new game concept.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I can put words to it very easily. I wanted a civilization sequel, not three round board game in a trench coat masquerading as the series i love with a Civ swapping system that sees the Civ I picked become a completely different and unrelated group of people

It’s not that we all just hate changes and aren’t smart enough to articulate it, it’s that many hate these specific changes. Many of us, especially those sitting on the fence not buying, do want Firaxis to walk back some of their design choices

 

[AD1730]

A lot of people complaining about some things in the game are just upset it feels different from previous games and they can't put that into words easily, so they fixate on one particular thing that feels very different and then claim that's the part they don't like.

I'm sorry, this is a straw man. It's not that people aren't intelligent enough to state what they don't like. It isn't that they hate all change or anything that's different. There are very specific complaints about this game. The fact that many people share them or some don't take the time to write a treatise about them doesn't make the criticism any less valid.

I've heard several different ratios for what is ideal in a sequel. Some hold to 1/3rd same, 1/3rd improved, 1/3rd new. Others use the 70% same 30% new. I think however you put it, Firaxis has pushed (and perhaps exceeded) the boundaries of those ratios in a way they haven't in quite some time. For some, this isn't a problem. But, for many, it is. Remember, Civilization 7 is not a game in a vacuum. The very name "Civilization 7" tells us that this game should build upon its predecessors and utilizes goodwill earned by previous entries to sell this one. There is a point where the number and degree of changes causes the connection to past entries to become strained or break altogether.

The fact that these same sorts of debates have been raging for six months shows that for many the identity of what the franchise is has been challenged by this entry.

 

[UWHabs]

I'm sorry, this is a straw man. It's not that people aren't intelligent enough to state what they don't like. It isn't that they hate all change or anything that's different. There are very specific complaints about this game. The fact that many people share them or some don't take the time to write a treatise about them doesn't make the criticism any less valid.

I've heard several different ratios for what is ideal in a sequel. Some hold to 1/3rd same, 1/3rd improved, 1/3rd new. Others use the 70% same 30% new. I think however you put it, Firaxis has pushed (and perhaps exceeded) the boundaries of those ratios in a way they haven't in quite some time. For some, this isn't a problem. But, for many, it is. Remember, Civilization 7 is not a game in a vacuum. The very name "Civilization 7" tells us that this game should build upon its predecessors and utilizes goodwill earned by previous entries to sell this one. There is a point where the number and degree of changes causes the connection to past entries to become strained or break altogether.

The fact that these same sorts of debates have been raging for six months shows that for many the identity of what the franchise is has been challenged by this entry.

I do think they probably changed more this time than people expected. Honestly, I think a lot of people were expecting that they were going to not necessarily mail it in, but just make like a civ 6.5, that doesn't change a ton, but maybe just cleaned up a few systems. Like if they came out with the civ 7 influence system instead of the old diplo favour, re-did the World Congress, maybe did a cool new thing with religion, and did a couple of the other changes from 7 (navigable rivers, terrain biomes, etc...) I think a few people probably would have been happier with that on the whole, since it doesn't shake up as much. Sure, you'd have others that are upset that they aren't changing as much, but it might follow the more traditional changes in the other games in the series.

It will be curious to see how the game changes over time, if they can not necessarily roll back the most controversial new changes, but maybe find an alternate way to handle them, that willl satisfy the people who have trouble with the bigger changes, while still keeping them available for those whole like the variation and change.

 

[Leyrann]

I do think they probably changed more this time than people expected. Honestly, I think a lot of people were expecting that they were going to not necessarily mail it in, but just make like a civ 6.5, that doesn't change a ton, but maybe just cleaned up a few systems. Like if they came out with the civ 7 influence system instead of the old diplo favour, re-did the World Congress, maybe did a cool new thing with religion, and did a couple of the other changes from 7 (navigable rivers, terrain biomes, etc...) I think a few people probably would have been happier with that on the whole, since it doesn't shake up as much. Sure, you'd have others that are upset that they aren't changing as much, but it might follow the more traditional changes in the other games in the series.

Honestly that was basically what I was expecting, maybe even what I was hoping for.

I can't say I mind that they decided to go in a new direction though. It's definitely very interesting, and I guess we'll have to wait and see how the game develops from here before we can make a final verdict on whether it worked out or not. I feel like right now it's difficult to say one way or the other because it's difficult to properly assess the core mechanics through the blur of the terrible UI, too-fast pacing, and somewhat rough balance - all things that can (and likely will) be addressed in patches.

 

[tman2000]

I'm sorry, this is a straw man. It's not that people aren't intelligent enough to state what they don't like. It isn't that they hate all change or anything that's different. There are very specific complaints about this game. The fact that many people share them or some don't take the time to write a treatise about them doesn't make the criticism any less valid.

I've heard several different ratios for what is ideal in a sequel. Some hold to 1/3rd same, 1/3rd improved, 1/3rd new. Others use the 70% same 30% new. I think however you put it, Firaxis has pushed (and perhaps exceeded) the boundaries of those ratios in a way they haven't in quite some time. For some, this isn't a problem. But, for many, it is. Remember, Civilization 7 is not a game in a vacuum. The very name "Civilization 7" tells us that this game should build upon its predecessors and utilizes goodwill earned by previous entries to sell this one. There is a point where the number and degree of changes causes the connection to past entries to become strained or break altogether.

The fact that these same sorts of debates have been raging for six months shows that for many the identity of what the franchise is has been challenged by this entry.

What you're talking about isn't a straw man, I wouldn't say that, but it's definitely a kind of smokescreen. What I'm talking about isn't a strawman, people have complaints that fit within this categorization and meaningfully so. But there are other, qualitatively different complaints too. In social disagreements there's a tendency to assign sides and conflate all opinions with one or the other side depending on where they stand and that's just not accurate or precise.

Your very complaint in this case proves Firaxis's point. Disclaimer - they shipped an incomplete UI with a worse instruction manual. As far as the game goes, it mostly works IMO but some features are in need of major tweaking. But, IMO, nothing is fully broken, fully incomplete, or fully bad.

Civ 7 is qualitatively 33 33 33. It's just that qualitative change, though quantitatively balanced, can be disproportionately different due to the forest vs trees phenomenon. Civ 7 has the most excellent combat AI the series has ever had. The AI is not perfect or even ideal, but what it does is force you to make strategic choices and consider defensibility and make trade-offs. It retreats. It baits. It's hard to dislodge. No Civ game has ever had an AI like that. And we haven't yet seen the multiplayer meta when it comes to tactics. The game was clearly designed to emphasize tactics, since they have been broken in many previous games due to snowball. For me, 4 is the most specific example of a Civ game that leaned towards having to understand the meta to succeed. 3 is also very emphatic on understanding the optimized early game. 4 extends that past early. 5 is mixed, but through emphasis on tall and it's other major profound changes, it's own thing. 6 was loved in the end, but the midgame is a slog and late game is a joke. The entire point of 6 is to win before the late game.

I've noticed that 3 still has fanatics who disdain all that comes after it. Even though 4 stands as the sort of inflection point for an ideal Civ game, 3 has more loyal fanatics than 4. And then 5 has more loyal fanatics than 6. And ALL of them HATE 7, save a precious few who have engaged with it and get it.

7 is about big arrow strategy, then tactics. Add in the multi varied leaders and civs, and you have a framework for original choices for what the big arrows will be. It's a type of gameplay that no one has mastered, and very few have oriented to yet. And we assume adjustments will be made on the dev side too.

I will say it lacks a strong vibe that all civ games have, which is the fully open ended start where you conquer early game, then through experience optimize midgame, to snowball and be an uncontested god in the late game. This is a thing for a vast number of Civ fans. From a gameplay and game design perspective it's garbage, but that's what people show up for. This game prevents that cycle from ever being possible, which is why it will just not be for most.

However, a lot of people are not understanding basic mechanics and just rage quitting, sometimes from social pressure, and that's not right.

The AI, for example, is quite good in certain ways, at times. That's exciting. It means the concept is paying off. Still, it remains rare for the AI to properly employ their tactical options fully. Deity shouldn't just be about barb spam. It should just be about AI min/max genius. It should be the AI punishing you, humiliating you tactically and strategically. Right now the AI is "smarter" not "smart". There is a clever flow to 7's design. Air power is the final nail in the coffin which completely reorients the defensive and zerg rush strategies that apply to every era before. Ideally, the better air power will win. However, if air power is equally matched, here is where nukes are necessary. The AI is not forcing that outcome, so it's as of yet inadequate. But they could reasonably fix it. I don't imagine they will completely, but this iteration has come closest.

 

[Auraiz]

In my head I always imagined some one at firaxis played scenario generator mod for Civ5 and then was like let's streamline this age thing and get 7 going. I will continue to do so