Fireside chat with Andrew Frederiksen

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Interesting interview I've found with lead producer on Civ VII Andrew Frederiksen. I think this is from last October, but just found it uploaded on the GCAP channel yesterday.

Some highlights for me:

- At 14mins, talking about the consequences of the introduction of the ages mechanic "all of a sudden, the content need spiked cos now instead of making Civs that last the whole game, you're making Civs for every age and now you've got 3 ages you've just tripled the number you need"

Interesting, I thought we had the most Civs ever, but now we've got "triple the number you need", and I guess that means the number you need on launch is 10?

- At 38 mins, answering the first audience question (which is of course about ages) says the concern they had about ages and Civ switching was "how are you as the player going to remember who you're friends with or fighting ... When you're talking about who you are playing, you'll usually refer to the civ that you've chosen ... But when you talk about who you are playing against, you usually talk about the leader, and that was like ok cool this is going to work because I was friends with Hatshepsut, and I'm still friends with Hapshepsut."

Interesting that was the main and only thing he pulled out as a problem they needed to solve. It's like they completely glossed over the idea that the player identified as the civilization...

It's incredibly grating to hear this after all the spin they've tried to apply to make players think they've got a deal with Civ VII. They know they've shredded Civs into thirds, they know they needed to deliver triple, which based on previous civs would be 54, and for whatever reason they lowballed us. And now what they have is a mechanic that fundamentally changes the way the player experiences the game, by their own admission they need it was fundamental, and they exacerbated the problem by cheating out on more Civs that could've smoothed the disruption of the mechanic.

I can't understand the decision making that went into releasing this game. Someone please make it make sense.

 

[Bug Repellent]

I can't understand the decision making that went into releasing this game. Someone please make it make sense.

$$$. More content, more DLCs, more revenue.

 

[Wrenched]

all of a sudden, the content need spiked cos now instead of making Civs that last the whole game, you're making Civs for every age and now you've got 3 ages you've just tripled the number you need"

The content need spike/burden is worth noting as players are already clamouring for additional ages. Which will further strain the content pipeline.

 

[Gorbles]

I can't understand the decision making that went into releasing this game. Someone please make it make sense.

You disagree with it. It can't ever make sense to you, because the proposed objectives run counter to what you get out of a game of Civilisation.

It's a design / focus change. Just as with MUPT to 1UPT / squares-to-hexes. Some people simply won't like it, nor ever agree with any underlying rationale. And there's nothing wrong with you doing so.

 

[MutilationWave]

- At 14mins, talking about the consequences of the introduction of the ages mechanic "all of a sudden, the content need spiked cos now instead of making Civs that last the whole game, you're making Civs for every age and now you've got 3 ages you've just tripled the number you need"

Interesting, I thought we had the most Civs ever, but now we've got "triple the number you need", and I guess that means the number you need on launch is 10?

To be fair, I think you misunderstood this part. I think your criticisms are valid and I hate to see a longtime fan not enjoy what we have.

They are saying they've "tripled the number you need [to create for the game]"

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

To be fair, I think you misunderstood this part. I think your criticisms are valid and I hate to see a longtime fan not enjoy what we have.

They are saying they've "tripled the number you need [to create for the game]"

That's exactly my frustration though. They know they've tripled the need, and then they've delivered only half as much as in previous games they've judged they've needed.

The frustrating part is the acknowledgement of what we all know, and the antithetical sheer audacity to announce they are launching with the most Civs ever.

They know they're twisting words, and they are in my opinion lying to their fans. I think it shows that it's not hopeful optimism that fans will like the changes they've made, it's calculated strimming back on what they know is actually the minimum Civ requirements.

This is the smoking gun exposing their strategy to maximise how much of your wallet they grab by offering less than ever with smoke and mirrors to make you think you've got a good deal, all the whole they tacitly know they are delivering less and laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[kaspergm]

They know they're twisting words, and they are in my opinion lying to their fans. I think it shows that it's not hopeful optimism that fans will like the changes they've made, it's calculated strimming back on what they know is actually the minimum Civ requirements.

This is the smoking gun exposing their strategy to maximise how much of your wallet they grab by offering less than ever with smoke and mirrors to make you think you've got a good deal, all the whole they tacitly know they are delivering less and laughing all the way to the bank.

As much as I dislike what they’ve done with Civ7, I still don’t buy into the idea that it’s a cash grab. I honestly believe they made those changes because a) they felt they needed to do “something new” and b) they felt this was the best solution to the issues they saw with Civ6, such as late game fatigue and people not enjoying finishing games.

We can always discuss the premise of those changes. Like I’ve said before, I’m not the fan of doing something new just for doing something new, and I guess this is an inherent problem of having the same team in charge of multiple iterations of the game.

We can also discuss whether those perceived issues with Civ6 actually needed addressing (I think they did), whether they solved them (my impression is they didn’t), whether the era system was a good idea (I think it might have worked), whether it is implemented well (I think we can almost all agree it isn’t), whether civ changing was a good idea (I think it could have been), whether decoupling leaders was a good idea (I think it was the worst single thing of all the changes they did), whether all these changes ended up doing more bad than good (I think they did), whether the game has lost the core that defines a civ game (I think there are valid arguments for this case), etc. etc.

But I think THEY believed it was going to work out in the end. Maybe it will work out, a couple of years from now, who knows. I do believe someone should have foreseen the disaster and stopped some of those ideas, but that’s just my personal opinion. But I don’t believe they did all this just because, “hey, this way we can sell more DLC”.

 

[evonannoredars]

I think you're twisting their words by interpreting 'triple the number' to mean they should literally have three times as many civs as civ 6 did at launch. They're just acknowleding the fact they need much more overall as a consequence compared to what could otherwise be an acceptable minimum number. 11 more civs than civ 6 (or 1.67x as many) is still most civs at launch ever, and considering the depth each one has (from an ability + a unit + a building/district in 6 to, in 7, an ability + a civic tree + extra abilities in the tree + 3-5 traditions + two units + an improvement/two buildings and a quarter + a wonder) they definitely didn't cheap out on how many civs they could've had.

 

[Chiyo]

I am watching the video right now and after 14:00 he literally says you need three times "the number of Civs to ship the game". So yes, you get more Civs than ever, but it is less content as there is less to choose from. It is like saying this is the biggest box of chcolate ever, but you have only increased the box but with less chocolate in it. He basically admits that a Civ is now only worth 1/3 of what it used to be as you can only use it 1/3 of the game.
Sadly the guy interviewed was not there when the decision was made to make civ switching and even was not present when the idea was presented to the team so we do not get to know if there was any kind of discussion on how bad this might turn out. Then again he probably would not have told in an interview in October anyway as back then there was still much hope for a successful run.

By the way, why did whoever made the video cover more than 90% of the screen with the logo and only a very small part with the actual video?

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

I think you're twisting their words by interpreting 'triple the number' to mean they should literally have three times as many civs as civ 6 did at launch. They're just acknowleding the fact they need much more overall as a consequence compared to what could otherwise be an acceptable minimum number. 11 more civs than civ 6 (or 1.67x as many) is still most civs at launch ever

Yes by technicality. Everyone else realizes that when a civ is only played for 1/3rd of the game that simply having 11 more civs than civ 6 means in the end we end up with a devastingly and disappointingly low amount of Civ variety in each age.

We're not twisting words. Firaxis themselves awknowledged they would need 3x the civs to make this change work and we ended up with far less

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

"Triple the number" means 3 different civs to play across the game is what I interpret that quote to mean. That means you need an Antiquity Age civ, Exploration Age civ, and a Modern Age civ.
No one honestly expects them to launch with 60 civs, right?

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Anything less than 54 is by Firaxis' own logic a lowering of the bar. If you're happy with that, fine.

I personally didn't expect them to launch with 54, but only because I think 2K is pressuring them to monetise. If I had faith they were still a good company with a primary focus on delivering a quality game for their fans, I would have expected 54 Civs on launch.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Anything less than 54 is by Firaxis' own logic a lowering of the bar. If you're happy with that, fine.

I personally didn't expect them to launch with 54, but only because I think 2K is pressuring them to monetise. If I had faith they were still a good company with a primary focus on delivering a quality game for their fans, I would have expected 54 Civs on launch.

Where did you get 54 from? Civ 6 ended with 50 civs.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Where did you get 54 from? Civ 6 ended with 50 civs.

Triple the 18 it launched with

 

[evonannoredars]

Triple the 18 it launched with

He didn't say 'triple the number of what the previous game had'. He said 'triple the number you need to ship the game', ie. triple a minimum number. 10 is a small amount, but it is a logical minimum number of civs you'd need in a base civ game. And before you take that to mean 'oh so they did just do the bare minimum': no. They still made thirty civs, with far more to each one than in previous games. The fact they're divided into the ages doesn't change the total work required for civ 7 to launch with far more civs than any other previous game. Expecting more on launch than the previous game ended with is ridiculous.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

He didn't say 'triple the number of what the previous game had'. He said 'triple the number you need to ship the game', ie. triple a minimum number. 10 is a small amount, but it is a logical minimum number of civs you'd need in a base civ game. And before you take that to mean 'oh so they did just do the bare minimum': no. They still made thirty civs, with far more to each one than in previous games. The fact they're divided into the ages doesn't change the total work required for civ 7 to launch with far more civs than any other previous game. Expecting more on launch than the previous game ended with is ridiculous.

The logical minimum they've arrived at for the previous 2 iterations was 18.

So they have tacitly reduced what they've launched with by applying any consistency to the words they themselves use to describe their games and the changes they have made

It's not a consumer problem if they've made their job harder to release the same quality product, that's a design error.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The logical minimum they've arrived at for the previous 2 iterations was 18.

There are two different minimums - one for gameplay and one for historical representation. 18 is more or less minimum for historical representation, you need around 15 mandatory civs, plus some surprises. But the thing is - for historical representation you need to count all civs, not civs per age. And yes, Civ7 does a great job so far, with its 35 total civs already and 4 more coming in the next 3 months.

Civs per age are important for gameplay variety and I could say lower number of civs per age allowed them to be much more unique than in previous games, so 10 civs on launch was fine. We'll also get to 13 civs per per age pretty soon.

 

[evonannoredars]

The logical minimum they've arrived at for the previous 2 iterations was 18.

So they have tacitly reduced what they've launched with by applying any consistency to the words they themselves use to describe their games and the changes they have made

It's not a consumer problem if they've made their job harder to release the same quality product, that's a design error.

You're equating the number of civs a game launched with with the minimum number of civs a game could have launched with, with no basis for doing so besides a seeming desire to slander firaxis.

Judging by the statement civ 7 launched with, per age, around the minimum number of civs an ageless game could have launched with, it makes more sense that, in their mind, 10 civs is the baseline for how many civs a civ game should launch with. The minimum number always being 'what the previous game launched with' is silly, especially if they'd have to then triple that number.

Also I don't think they've got some plan for what specific words and language they should use in order to best decieve the buyers. This is just a guy speaking unscripted.

 

[GeneralZift]

How are people confused? In the past on launch, you could play 18 different Civs from start to end of the game.
In Civ7, you could play 10 different lineages from start to end.

Yes you could go France into China, if you want to freestyle, but in terms of raw variety, it's low.
FYI in a game with 8 players, you face most of the roster every single game.
However in previous games, you could at least split those 18 into 2 groups.

Every time they release a DLC with 1 new Civ, that fills 1/3 of a playthrough. If that Civ is not a descendent or ancestor of another Civ, then you don't properly fill a missing lineage, so the game feels even more flat (unless or until they fill all the current gaps)

At least I think it's understandable why it feels emptier at the start for some people.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

At least I think it's understandable why it feels emptier at the start for some people.

I'm not going to disagree with the fact that 10 civs per age does feel kind of empty when it comes to switching, especially when Humankind launched with 60, though to be fair civs are more in depth than the different cultures in Humankind.
But to say that Firaxis outright lied about the actual number of civs on launch seems disingenuous to me. They said they'd launch with 30 civs, and they did that.