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

[The_J]

IGN has today published an article called "Civilization 7 Dev Firaxis Says 'There's Hope for Gandhi, Yet'".
I guess I do not need to explain what Ed Beach said. Have a look at the article though .

 

[sonicmyst]

From the article

Beach went on to explain a bit of Firaxis’ thinking when it came to which Civilizations to add for Civ 7. “One thing I always think about is, we've had the same situation where iconic civilizations haven't been in our base game before,” he said. “We had both Mongolia and Persia missing from the base game of either Civ 5 or Civ 6, and both of those were just massive conquerors who ruled huge chunks of Asia during their time period.

“So we always have to leave somebody out. There're just too many popular choices and we always want to have a few fresh ones that sound really new and exciting to people. So things are getting left behind, but we always are looking at the big picture, when we're going to bring leaders or civs into the fold. So there's hope for Gandhi, yet.”

 

[ThERat]

after Civ6/7, I simply have to conclude that Soren Johnson's ideas of Civ are just what I like way better than Ed Beach's. I would have wished, they don't pretend this game is civilization any longer.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

I think that with just the one “stack” at the moment, India should be good with two leaders, as it shall be after all the currently known DLC is released. There are regions of the world that are wanting more, especially once certain regions are fleshed out. I also am generally am fine with Gandhi being gone, though, so take that with a grain of salt…

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Perhaps, when you read again, you will realize the fallacy in that argument. It is a really poor argument, and self contradictory at that.

May I ask what fallacy specifically you speak of? The only “contradiction” I immediately see is the fact that they both want to include popular options that the fan base likes as well as new inclusions that people find exciting, but that’s not self contradictory, that’s just acknowledging that there are different things that different members of the fan base want and explaining that they try to balance the two as a result… hence the fact that not all fan favorite leaders are returning, but they are still willing to consider adding some of them in the future.

 

[Albertan Civfanatic]

I'm frankly peeved that they would lock classic leaders and civs behind a pay wall.

 

[Menocchio]

It's funny sometimes to see, year after year, people treating civilisations and leaders like the characters in a fighting game roster.

 

[Black Gate]

It's funny sometimes to see, year after year, people treating civilisations and leaders like the characters in a fighting game roster.

Surely this is the game Firaxis finally adds Waluigi to Smash.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Yes, I am so excited to play as #unknown leader# Ada Lovelace

This site is conspiring to gaslight me into thinking that nobody knows who Ada Lovelace is and I REFUSE to succumb!

 

[TheGrayFox]

This site is conspiring to gaslight me into thinking that nobody knows who Ada Lovelace is and I REFUSE to succumb!

She is a relatively obscure scientist who isn't even responsible for the thing she's most often cited as having accomplishing "being the first computer programmer" and only contribution to the field was completely theoretical and played no real part in the devolopment and creation of the field of computer programming later. Babbage deserves the spot more (which is beside the fact that neither should be leaders in a Civ game imo)

 

[Big J Money]

That's a very diplomatic reply, but what do you expect? For him to straight up admit that they're holding back some of the most popular leaders for future sales? But also: is that even a big deal? A bit of a disappointment, true, but people gotta make them paychecks.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

She is a relatively obscure scientist

You can say whatever you else you want, I know the non-heads of state are a topic that many will never budge on, but RELATIVELY OBSCURE? I refuse to believe that this is the public perception of Lovelace. If you asked me to name any 10 British people who aren't musicians, she'd come right after Churchill and Turing (and then would come Victoria, Elizebeth, and Anne Boleyn before I start counting Henrys to cinch a win with no further effort)

 

[ombak]

"Some pieces fit better in the long picture roadmap they do in the short picture one," suggests to me an expansion with new features. Say, for example, Nuclear Gandhi in the Atomic Age.

I may not be a fan of the idea of a fourth age, but it would be one of the possible reasons to hold on to some leader ideas for later.

 

[TheGrayFox]

You can say whatever you else you want, I know the non-heads of state are a topic that many will never budge on, but RELATIVELY OBSCURE? I refuse to believe that this is the public perception of Lovelace. If you asked me to name any 10 British people who aren't musicians, she'd come right after Churchill and Turing (and then would come Victoria, Elizebeth, and Anne Boleyn before I start counting Henrys to cinch a win with no further effort)

I'm sorry but that is absolutely not the perception most of the public have of Lovelace

 

[sonicmyst]

If a leader or civ is obscure to a player, why not give it a chance? Or is that because someone dont want to shell money for a civ/leader they do not know about?

Sigh.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Poor innocent Ada was my victim as the first leader in the alphabetical order...
I'm sure you can get the gist of the argument and, perhaps, some other leader could be your pick of choice.

I am exaggerating my reaction, but I honestly don't really care about how accomplished leaders are. If they had an interesting impact or story in their own right, they're a fun choice. My dream roster would swap out Augustus for Tarquinius Priscus, Catherine for Rasputin, Napoleon for Haussmann, and... well, Franklin and Tubman are already up my alley, aren't they? Exchanging Ben for W.E.B. DeBois would be tempting, though... I can safely that "new and exciting picks" are not just a way of holding series staples hostage and that they do indeed appeal to a section of the fanbase... because I am one of those fans.

As the article addresses and as the changes made in VII have made clear, a lot of us have very different ideas of what Civ should be. It may seem to you that a pack including Britain and Simon Bolivar along with Nepal and Lovelace is trying to draw out content, but I'm having an opposite experience, forced to buy the (in my view) overdone Genghis Khan to get the Qajars. Some people want to see Gandhi, Canada, or Venice added as soon as possible, while my dream DLC pack would have Tonga, Maori, Nazca, and Kilwa Kisiwani. To many, Europe is criminally underpopulated in the base game. Personally, I would have preferred to see Russia or Prussia or France cut out to get another continent closer to "complete." The developers have to balance the sects of the community that have these contradictory desires (as Mr. Beach is getting at in the article), so not everyone gets exactly what they want, but it's not like the sole purpose is to offend your sensibilities specifically, it's just what happens with such a wide playerbase. To someone with your preferences, the game might not be complete until it has Alexander the Great. To me, such an inclusion is just an unfortunate sacrifice of resources demanded by tradition. I feel kinda bad saying this, but I struggle to sympathize with your concerns because I know that if the developers lean into them, I'm less likely to see the content I like.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

I'm sorry but that is absolutely not the perception most of the public have of Lovelace

I'm just sat here trying to figure out why exactly I had that impression... I don't even remember when or where I first heard of her, she's been encoded in my brain as "famous person" as long as I can remember, I think even before I knew what she was known for. I tend to remember the specifics of how I've learned things, so I must have been pretty young...

 

[ThERat]

Frankly, the way they have dismantled the core concept of civ, which is to play a civ to stand the test of time, who still bothers about the leaders or civs. They turn into some formulaic thing in my mind.
I also don't comprehend the desire for another age. I have not seen many reviews of the modern age, but so far they all point to a quick finish or the same slog of end turn clickfest. Who needs another age after that....I would think the entire mechanisms need rework

 

[Ryansinbela]

It's funny sometimes to see, year after year, people treating civilisations and leaders like the characters in a fighting game roster.

I have a saying that Civ is just historical smash bros

 

[TheGrayFox]

I am exaggerating my reaction, but I honestly don't really care about how accomplished leaders are. If they had an interesting impact or story in their own right, they're a fun choice. My dream roster would swap out Augustus for Tarquinius Priscus, Catherine for Rasputin, Napoleon for Haussmann, and... well, Franklin and Tubman are already up my alley, aren't they? Exchanging Ben for W.E.B. DeBois would be tempting, though... I can safely that "new and exciting picks" are not just a way of holding series staples hostage and that they do indeed appeal to a section of the fanbase... because I am one of those fans.

As the article addresses and as the changes made in VII have made clear, a lot of us have very different ideas of what Civ should be. It may seem to you that a pack including Britain and Simon Bolivar along with Nepal and Lovelace is trying to draw out content, but I'm having an opposite experience, forced to buy the (in my view) overdone Genghis Khan to get the Qajars. Some people want to see Gandhi, Canada, or Venice added as soon as possible, while my dream DLC pack would have Tonga, Maori, Nazca, and Kilwa Kisiwani. To many, Europe is criminally underpopulated in the base game. Personally, I would have preferred to see Russia or Prussia or France cut out to get another continent closer to "complete." The developers have to balance the sects of the community that have these contradictory desires (as Mr. Beach is getting at in the article), so not everyone gets exactly what they want, but it's not like the sole purpose is to offend your sensibilities specifically, it's just what happens with such a wide playerbase. To someone with your preferences, the game might not be complete until it has Alexander the Great. To me, such an inclusion is just an unfortunate sacrifice of resources demanded by tradition. I feel kinda bad saying this, but I struggle to sympathize with your concerns because I know that if the developers lean into them, I'm less likely to see the content I like.

and this is exactly the reason why no one should be surprised that we on the other side of this argument struggle to sympathize with your want for more obscure civs and leaders that cut into time, resources, and devolopment required to give us the civs and leaders we actually want and which actually drive sales and excitement for the series.

You're totally entitled to your opinion but I don't think your position is the popular one among the fan base and the low playercounts and constant criticism of civ/leader choices and DLC model should make that obvious to Firaxis.