IGN: "Civilization 7 Dev Firaxis Says 'There's Hope for Gandhi, Yet'"

[ombak]

"Its falsifying history at best" is a laughable criticism to apply selectively here. It's a game. The whole thing is falsifying things to various degrees.

 

[trev1972]

I'd be upset if every Civ game launched with Only the Vanillas. You just can't win with some people, id feel nickel n dimed if all the interesting leaders with fresh mechanics were the DLC I have to wait and or pay extra for.

I like what Ed said in the early Feb stream, About getting to spend all this time hashing out how VII plays, how it works, and getting to do Britain after they had all that practice.
We all understand from every previous release that the DLC civs and leaders are usually better cooked, more interesting and most of us see the value in them and go along with buying expansions.

Although i had heard of Ada myself (my first degree was in computer science) i have definitely looked up leaders and great people as a result of seeing them in the game. I also took the time to read up more about Ada as well when she was announced, so point taken on less well known leaders (although i still think having them great people would be better personally)

However i just do not believe the spiel about why Britain was left out, sorry but i think it was purely a marketing decision.

 

[sonicmyst]

"Its falsifying history at best" is a laughable criticism to apply selectively here. It's a game. The whole thing is falsifying things to various degrees.

Civ never is about historical accuracy or historical simulation, so yeah. Why not have a person who excels in their craft (philosophy, science, etc etc) be spotlighted as a playable leader?

By the way I think we are already past this back and forth about who needs to be a playable lead or not in this game.

Their issue is really the corporate greed. Because who will buy a DLC if an obscure civ or leader is just in it?

 

[fantsu]

"Its falsifying history at best" is a laughable criticism to apply selectively here. It's a game. The whole thing is falsifying things to various degrees.

Then why the answer is "not willing to learn history" and such? That is why I wrote it. Even a historian (in practice) is an uneducated knobhead if he thinks Lovelace isnt a good choice to lead United Kingdoms in the base game? Ignorant and without perspective? I am talking about the value of an $110 game here.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Unless the one isn't even a leader at all. But some overly privileged, blue booded white playing a scientist, now capable leading any nation and conquer the world. Its falsifying history at best.

Firaxis has changed their policy to include non-heads of state. Lovelace is qualified in this regard.

Ignorance to others opinions is what many cannot seek inside indeed.

Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. When someone state's their opinion that their personal ignorance should be the bar upon which all leader options are measured (eg, "I've never heard of her"), then I am compelled to disagree vehemently.

I know DLC will sell better when Sid's vision is followed later on.

Did he tell you his vision personally? No. Don't pretend your opinion is SId's vision.

Sadly this is just a way to make the milking happen. And its quite blatant.
I am strongly against saving series staples later to milk cash and giving some minor local the honors.

They could certainly "milk cash" just as easily with any number of English or British monarchs or Prime Ministers. Smearing Lovelace as a minor local gives the impression that you have a more specific and veiled opposition to her.

Its not about if you are willing to "teach history" or "willing to learn anything", its plain greed.

Greed would imply that they believe Lovelace will sell more units of DLC than other options like William the Conqueror, Alfred the Great, Henry V, Henry VIII, Elizbeth I, Victoria, or Winston Churchill. If avarice is the goal, then they would laden every sellable byte with high-demand choices.

 

[Siptah]

Their issue is really the corporate greed. Because who will buy a DLC if an obscure civ or leader is just in it?

Are the DLC packs even sold separately or only in the $30 bundles? If so, it's fine to bundle Britain with Bulgaria, and I can hardly criticize it, because I would do the same. Same thing if Britain was in the base game and Siam or Russia in the DLC with Bulgaria. Those are just top seller DLCs - the principle is the same. It isn't nice, but completely understandable.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Civ never is about historical accuracy or historical simulation, so yeah. Why not have a person who excels in their craft (philosophy, science, etc etc) be spotlighted as a playable leader?

because they're not leaders in the traditional sense that Civ. They're great people being masquering as leaders and faces of entire nations and peoples.

Then why the answer is "not willing to learn history" and such? That is why I wrote it. Even a historian (in practice) is an uneducated knobhead if he thinks Lovelace isnt a good choice to lead United Kingdoms in the base game? Ignorant and without perspective? I am talking about the value of an $110 game here.

I studied history and I know who Lovelace was and I still think she's a terrble choice. So this whole "you're just ignorant brute! why don't you love learning?" narrative is falling flat for me

 

[sonicmyst]

Are the DLC packs even sold separately or only in the $30 bundles? If so, it's fine to bundle Britain with Bulgaria, and I can hardly criticize it, because I would do the same. Same thing if Britain was in the base game and Siam or Russia in the DLC with Bulgaria. Those are just top seller DLCs - the principle is the same. It isn't nice, but completely understandable.

I agree. And I have yet to see a constructive suggestion how to monetize this game without someone accusing them of being greedy.

 

[Siptah]

leaders in the traditional sense that Civ

Fine. But how does that apply to civ 7? They won't go back to the traditional definition of leader with this rendition, obviously. So, any argumentation why Lovelace is a bad choice for civ 7 should drop the only-political-leaders-should-be-leaders, and argument within the game's context. There are many reasons to dislike the choice, but "she wasn't a real leader" doesn't qualify.

 

[ombak]

However i just do not believe the spiel about why Britain was left out, sorry but i think it was purely a marketing decision.

I don't know that there's any spiel to believe about it since there is no official statement about why they chose to put GB in the DLC. Ed Beach at best hinted at the reason, but didn't say it outright. The rest is speculation from us (including me) in these threads. And for the record, I don't think there will be any big new mechanic for them to benefit from, but I am hopeful they will have an interesting hook, if indeed they benefited from watching other devs implement and test ideas first.

I just think the amount of cynicism applied by a lot of fans and commenters goes beyond just a healthy cynicism.

I don't doubt that when the idea of letting GB be released in DLC was floated, someone in marketing got a little excited about it. But marketing would work with anything they're given. That's their role.

 

[queenpea]

I don't know that there's any spiel to believe about it since there is no official statement about why they chose to put GB in the DLC. Ed Beach at best hinted at the reason, but didn't say it outright. The rest is speculation from us (including me) in these threads. And for the record, I don't think there will be any big new mechanic for them to benefit from, but I am hopeful they will have an interesting hook, if indeed they benefited from watching other devs implement and test ideas first.

I just think the amount of cynicism applied by a lot of fans and commenters goes beyond just a healthy cynicism.

I don't doubt that when the idea of letting GB be released in DLC was floated, someone in marketing got a little excited about it. But marketing would work with anything they're given. That's their role.

During the most recent livestream, Beach said that GB was left out this time because they hadn't got it right in Civ VI, and because they got it wrong, they had to go back and change it. He said this time, they wanted to take the time to make sure they got GB "right," which meant they had to delay their inclusion. That was his explanation.

 

[Evie]

If they put only the top sellers in the base game, people will rightly accuse them of ignoring entire regions of the world (eg, no modern Africa), and later DLCs with secondary civs only will sell less well, fewer will be made, and we'll end up with fewer civs overall.

If they leave any of the top sellers for DLC, people will complain they should have been in the base game, but DLC sales will be better, more DLCs will be made, and more civs will end up in the game as a result.

People complain either way, but one of these is the clear better option for fans and devs alike.

 

[fantsu]

Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. When someone state's their opinion that their personal ignorance should be the bar upon which all leader options are measured (eg, "I've never heard of her"), then I am compelled to disagree vehemently.

Sorry sir. Didn't know this was an race of knowledge of historic people. You only learn about leaders in Civ-series, not great peopleor such? I know I could tell you about hundreds of historic people you havent heard of. Does that make you inferior? No. And nor does me.

Did he tell you his vision personally? No. Don't pretend your opinion is SId's vision.

Is this an attack towards my mental health?

Chill sir. I think this videogame is way overpriced how it came to be.
My critique is towards the nasty revenue chased.
Lets be friends. Civ-series is the best there is. Love so many of 'em. I want to get some worth my money. I want that it wont fail. I want it to take the throne and be great.
But I am against the practises to far. The quality isnt there with the asking price.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Are the DLC packs even sold separately or only in the $30 bundles? If so, it's fine to bundle Britain with Bulgaria, and I can hardly criticize it, because I would do the same. Same thing if Britain was in the base game and Siam or Russia in the DLC with Bulgaria. Those are just top seller DLCs - the principle is the same. It isn't nice, but completely understandable.

Steam only shows $30 for the whole pack. https://store.steampowered.com/dlc/1295660/

Fine. But how does that apply to civ 7? They won't go back to the traditional definition of leader with this rendition, obviously. So, any argumentation why Lovelace is a bad choice for civ 7 should drop the only-political-leaders-should-be-leaders, and argument within the game's context. There are many reasons to dislike the choice, but "she wasn't a real leader" doesn't qualify.

Yes, the only including "heads of state" ship has sailed. In that regard, Ada is no more a bad pick than Ibn Battuta, Confucius, or Machiavelli.

During the most recent livestream, Beach said that GB was left out this time because they hadn't got it right in Civ VI, and because they got it wrong, they had to go back and change it. He said this time, they wanted to take the time to make sure they got GB "right," which meant they had to delay their inclusion. That was his explanation.

Does that mean France and Prussia/Germany get to sit out of base game Civ 8?

 

[Siptah]

If they put only the top sellers in the base game, people will rightly accuse them of ignoring entire regions of the world (eg, no modern Africa), and later DLCs with secondary civs only will sell less well, fewer will be made, and we'll end up with fewer civs overall.

If they leave any of the top sellers for DLC, people will complain they should have been in the base game, but DLC sales will be better, more DLCs will be made, and more civs will end up in the game as a result.

People complain either way, but one of these is the clear better option for fans and devs alike.

I agree.

But to be fair, I think there are many 'top sellers' in 7 with its ages. Not all on the scale of the Ottomans and Britain, but who wouldn't like Babylon, Assyria, Aztecs, HRE, Byzantines, Norse, Brazil, Portugal, Netherlands, Goths, Vietnam, Austria and Morocco? And then all those with the potential to sell well on their own despite not being that famous with some good marketing?

 

[ombak]

During the most recent livestream, Beach said that GB was left out this time because they hadn't got it right in Civ VI, and because they got it wrong, they had to go back and change it. He said this time, they wanted to take the time to make sure they got GB "right," which meant they had to delay their inclusion. That was his explanation.

I stand corrected then, I did not recall such a direct statement, thank you for pointing it out.

With that said, I would amend my reply to @trev1972 to start with the point that I don't think there will be some big new mechanic, but I would add, since Ed was more direct, that there is no reason to disbelieve what he says. That's the kind of cynicism I reject outright.

 

[Evie]

I agree.

But to be fair, I think there are many 'top sellers' in 7 with its ages. Not all on the scale of the Ottomans and Britain, but who wouldn't like Babylon, Assyria, Aztecs, HRE, Byzantines, Norse, Brazil, Portugal, Netherlands, Goths, Vietnam, Austria and Morocco? And then all those with the potential to sell well on their own despite not being that famous with some good marketing?

Why roll the dice on marketing a less well known civ (which could work, but could fail) when you can spread out the better known civs and mix them with less known ones instead?

Civ has *always* (well, from Civ III) kept back major civs for later inclusion, even long before DLC culture was a thing. Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands are all ready examples of civs that have missed out on a lot of base games (and Portugal usually is only added late in the game cycle!) ; GB is in good company there.

 

[queenpea]

Does that mean France and Prussia/Germany get to sit out of base game Civ 8?

Yeah I thought it was a weird way to put it, and I don’t completely buy the explanation because it implies two things:

1) The civ designs in VII at launch are 100% perfect and no mistakes were made.
2) Civs won’t be changed or patched in the future on the civ level.

I haven’t played with Prussia yet (and probably won’t), but I agree that the France civ as currently designed isn’t wonderful. However, France is definitely more fleshed out than other, less flavorful designs.

 

[Evie]

Will those two civs specifically sit out Civ 8? Maybe, maybe not (of course, Prussia *has* sat out nearly every game to date - Germany was in, but Prussia is only Germany in the sense that Normans is England and if we accept that, then England was *not* left out of vanilla VII).

Will pretty much *every* civ get left out of the base game at least once at some point over the course of Civ development? Probably. (And, again, Normans)

 

[queenpea]

Will those two civs specifically sit out Civ 8? Maybe, maybe not.

Will pretty much *every* civ get left out of the base game at least once at some point over the course of Civ development? Probably. (Although it'S worth pointing out for the umpteenth time that the Normans exist and lean very heavily into English representation, so it's not like England got completely left out of vanilla VII)

Shhhh! Don’t say “Norman”…they will hear…they will come…