IGN: Civilization's Past and Future, As Told By Its Lead Designers

[BuchiTaton]

I'm sure it would be more like Lady Liberty leads America or Mother Russia leads, well Russia.

If they choose Marianne for France, there goes the E10+ rating.

There are many japanese media studios that have a lot of experiece adapting personifications in a more "interesting" tone.

 

[uhu]

where's the fun in interacting with Nameless Advisor #73 instead of Elizabeth I or Augustus?

Agree with you here completely! In principle. (Current Alexander does a great job for me in this respect. )

Still honestly I have a problem with the bellowing discrepancy between pretension and reality in the current incarnation. I mean, if the rest of the game mechanics (as actually implemented) aren't able to deliver even a small threat after the early game, then one of the animated 3D warmongers doing his best to threaten me face to face leads just to a seriously bored "Yeah, whatever you say ..." (or even worse feel pity for him).
That feels wrong. And in such a state I don't care much, whom the on-screen jumping jack is depicting (or would even prefer Nameless Advisor #73).



As far as I perceived through the wall of silence, Anton Strenger tried to introduce a bit more dynamic like Rise&Fall ( OMG, negative feedback, really? ), but those ideas barely survived internal QA.
I understand for the publisher it is fine, that the current parts are consumed, discussed and then with much wishful thinking comes hope, the next version might be better or even get it right ... again and again -- without much substantial progress.

Sorry, for me as an engineer it is more important, that it works good than that it looks good.
(and I haven't yet mentioned diplomacy )

 

[aieeegrunt]

The Civ2 advisors had more personality than all the leaders in the rest of the franchise combined, especially when you were in anarchy.

I think there was one that would literally be driven to drink if you screwed your game up enough, might have been the Diplomacy Girl

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If they choose Marianne for France, there goes the E10+ rating.

In that case the U.S. would probably go for Uncle Sam, due to the similarities.

There are plenty of depictions of her, besides the well-known painting, that would work. Though I could still picture the rating going up when they show Romulus and Remus with their adoptive mother.

 

[Zaarin]

Sorry, for me as an engineer it is more important, that it works good than that it looks good.

But I agree with you that Civ6 seriously drops the ball not just in the AI's capabilities but in the personality behind the presentation. In that respect, Civ5 did much better.

There are plenty of depictions of her, besides the well-known painting, that would work.

There are pictures of Marianne with her breasts covered, but being topless was kind of part of her identity as Marianne. The Germans made it sexual, but the actual idea behind it was supposed to be that she was the nourishing mother of the nation. (Also, this is just me speculating, but it may have also been a reference to Agnès Sorel, mistress of Charles VII, who appeared in court with her left breast bare to breastfeed her baby. It scandalized the French court but also brought décolletage into fashion.)

 

[Sync]

After the monstrosity that was Shafer 5, I can’t believe that he’s still being given a voice.

People have short memories, but I’ve still not forgotten the botched launch and the lies. “The most moddable civ ever” was a promise that was never even attempted to be fulfilled. Most of the guys ranting about Shafer 5 on release have probably left the forum for good, but I still remember what you did Shafer. I’ll never forgive you for ruining this franchise.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

After the monstrosity that was Shafer 5, I can’t believe that he’s still being given a voice.

People have short memories, but I’ve still not forgotten the botched launch and the lies. “The most moddable civ ever” was a promise that was never even attempted to be fulfilled. Most of the guys ranting about Shafer 5 on release have probably left the forum for good, but I still remember what you did Shafer. I’ll never forgive you for ruining this franchise.

The Franchise, which after all is a Commercial entity, is doing very well, making oodles of money for Somebody. What he (may have) wrecked was Civ as a Playable Game - without Mods, I found neither Civ 5 nor Civ 6 - to this day - worth playing.

 

[Gedemon]

After the monstrosity that was Shafer 5, I can’t believe that he’s still being given a voice.

People have short memories, but I’ve still not forgotten the botched launch and the lies. “The most moddable civ ever” was a promise that was never even attempted to be fulfilled. Most of the guys ranting about Shafer 5 on release have probably left the forum for good, but I still remember what you did Shafer. I’ll never forgive you for ruining this franchise.

releasing the DLL source was a very good attempt at making it "the most moddable", much more than what Firaxis did since civ6 release, introducing SQL for civ5 release was also a big improvement over civ4 framework, and even if, yes, civ4 is still the "most moddable" today, what civ5 lacked in the end was MP support for mods.

 

[LastSword]

The big issue with the late stages can be 2 cases a) what aieeegrunt points out: you have basically won already, and it'd be tedious to finish it b) the empires are so big that maximizing them to win would be too tedious.
Having different scenarios/setups for later games might indeed be something to consider, but would probably make the whole thing also a lot more complicated for the players, might break the flow, and would be hard to balance.
I'm thinking of the Civ5 scenario generator though, which tries to implement something like this.

A bit late, but I would like to add my thoughts about the late game issue. (I am a dev of scenario generator.)
The main issue is there is so many different types of civ players, impossible to please them all.

I personally never bothered with victories. With time spend playing it became clear that percentage of games I end in renaissance era or earlier was leaning to 95+% (going ahead civ6 is carrying the trend, I loose interest about ~150T). Thankfully, I kind of gathered some modding knowledge and by 2015 I could start making a civ game for myself. Obviously without resources and QA team it was slow and took me some time to make one playable era, but now I have civ-based game which I am able to play from antiquity to modernity with a slower pace (compared to standard speed) - "If you start jumping too fast through history, it doesn't feel like Civ, right?".

Reading the interview, I even believe I was/am ahead of time in some aspects.
Little about future though, more about the past.

Shafer - "I would love to just chop off the second half of the game."
Enough said he kind of stole this interview for me, like all of them are devs, but he also feels like a player.

Finally my thoughts about how to try to fix the late game boredom + some other random thoughts about how I would try to make civ-strategy (in opposed to Scenario Generator which is more civ-roleplay).
1. "Real Dark Ages" or excessive/unfair rubber-band mechanic would be indeed not fun. I believe some minor penalties could be applied. Using civ6 system of era-progression imagine something like that: scholars determined that ancient era was a golden era of your civilization which make your people spoiled, which result in some minor penalties in classical era. The narration of strong times, weak people, bad times, strong people... Though obviously this system would be more based about "power" comparision.
2. Remove barbarians and city-states from game. I believe "barbarian" would be a starting diplomatic relation (at war) before sending first emissaries and as tech progresses it would become obsolete (or be based on heavy tech difference). City-states could be also a form of diplomatic relation.
3. Increase a standard amount of players from 8 to 32/64. This is a key to cheat out more interesting late game. Basically slowly decrease amount of revelant players till 2-4 major powers are left for a final era. I believe with a proper game rules and AI it is achievable.
4. Mechanics that go from micro to macro as game progresses could help.

 

[Leucarum]

Basically slowly decrease amount of revelant players till 2-4 major powers are left for a final era.

Or slowly increase? Introduce new civs as you go through? First couple of ages are your continent, then nearby continents, then the whole world?

 

[SupremacyKing2]

3. Increase a standard amount of players from 8 to 32/64. This is a key to cheat out more interesting late game. Basically slowly decrease amount of revelant players till 2-4 major powers are left for a final era. I believe with a proper game rules and AI it is achievable.

Or slowly increase? Introduce new civs as you go through? First couple of ages are your continent, then nearby continents, then the whole world?

Personally, I think the game needs more NPC civs so that the player has more entities to interact with. I would get rid of barbarians and city states and have a bunch of tribes scattered around the map at the start of the game. Some tribes would be aggressive, some would be peaceful. Some tribes would conquer another tribe and evolve into a civ. Some tribes might grow into a single city and evolve into a city state. I would also like to see the number of "players" change throughout the game. I would like to see civs get wiped or get absorbed by other civs. And also, see big civs break up into smaller civs. So the number of civs could increase and decrease during the game.

 

[uhu]

releasing the DLL source was a very good attempt at making it "the most moddable"

Releasing the DLL source at all was a big boost for moddability itself, indeed. Releasing the DLL source _early_ is an even bigger advantage for the community, because it helps also in creating the modding API (reference for Python/Lua scripts), which is a blessing for "secondary modding".
Being able to do this swiftly signals a well organised development process, often correlating with high quality results: The 2nd expansion 'Beyond the Sword' was released less than 21 months after vanilla civ4. The customer made 'modding API reference' Civ4 Python Class Reference for complete civ4 was last updated on 2008-10-10, ie. was stable in less than 3 years after vanilla civ4 release.

much more than what Firaxis did since civ6 release

I believe, meanwhile they repent the initial heroic deed and the repetition in troubled waters ...

introducing SQL for civ5 release was also a big improvement

Looking forward, that seems expendable too ... I mean, in times of modes replacing mods and emphasis on consoles all you need is a compressed, ready-to-use data base.

 

[LastSword]

Or slowly increase? Introduce new civs as you go through? First couple of ages are your continent, then nearby continents, then the whole world?

I see you took more a roleplay approach.
Heavy map modifications through game, newly generated powers to challenge you, in general scripts to keep game interesting. Though multiplayer would probably had to be sacrificed for that.

 

[Leucarum]

I see you took more a roleplay approach.
Heavy map modifications through game, newly generated powers to challenge you, in general scripts to keep game interesting. Though multiplayer would probably had to be sacrificed for that.

Maybe not so much a roleplay approach as a "need to solve the late game being unchallenging" approach. More civs in play earlier probably just means an even bigger domination steamroller sadly...

I think the biggest strike against my suggestion is that it just wouldn't feel like civ any more

 

[Sync]

releasing the DLL source was a very good attempt at making it "the most moddable", much more than what Firaxis did since civ6 release, introducing SQL for civ5 release was also a big improvement over civ4 framework, and even if, yes, civ4 is still the "most moddable" today, what civ5 lacked in the end was MP support for mods.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the DLL source released only 2 years after the initial release, and also after Shafer’s involvement with the game had finished?

 

[Gedemon]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the DLL source released only 2 years after the initial release, and also after Shafer’s involvement with the game had finished?

I've the impression that the goalposts just moved, but, yes, the source was released too late, I agree with that.

but it's still better than "never", and I personally don't know why or who's decision is behind the late release.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Maybe not so much a roleplay approach as a "need to solve the late game being unchallenging" approach. More civs in play earlier probably just means an even bigger domination steamroller sadly...

I think the biggest strike against my suggestion is that it just wouldn't feel like civ any more

Generating more opponents early just means more opponents to steamroller later - if they last that long.

The answer, I have argued, is a Dynamic Game in which various 'minor powers' - City States, Barbarian Camps, even Tribal Huts if you make them permanent - can develop into Civs if All Goes Well for them. The other half of that, to avoid the Early Game Steamroller simply continuing to Roll, is Internal Disruption to Civs.

- And that may be historically accurate, but it will be an extremely Hard Sell to (most) gamers.

I can make a good case that the French Revolution and its immediate aftermath had more effect on the French Civilization than any other single event, and especially than any external threat or conquest. Likewise, with the exception of the Norman Conquest, the internal English Revolutions (Civil War, Glorious Revolution, Industrial Revolution) changed England/Britain far more than any external event.

BUT who wants to contend with cities and improvements and districts you have lovingly built up suddenly turning on you?

And especially in Civ, which has always given the gamer near-complete control over events and decisions, how do you suddenly include systems like Newly-Developing New Civs, Revolutionary Movements, Ideologies, even Religions that he cannot directly control and that may utterly disrupt his carefully-drafted Civ?

 

[Sync]

I've the impression that the goalposts just moved, but, yes, the source was released too late, I agree with that.

but it's still better than "never", and I personally don't know why or who's decision is behind the late release.

The goalposts weren’t moved. As I said in my original post, the launch was botched, and the initial period after launch surely saw the most amount of negativity on this forum. They even had to make a ‘Civ 5 rants’ thread.

Others attempted to clean up Shafer’s mess after he left, and deliver on his failed promises. That doesn’t excuse Shafer’s shortcomings though.

 

[Gedemon]

The goalposts weren’t moved. As I said in my original post, the launch was botched, and the initial period after launch surely saw the most amount of negativity on this forum. They even had to make a ‘Civ 5 rants’ thread.

Others attempted to clean up Shafer’s mess after he left, and deliver on his failed promises. That doesn’t excuse Shafer’s shortcomings though.

Sorry, misinterpretation on my side, I thought the "never attempted" was targeted at Firaxis. I would not agree on blaming one person for one aspect, but that's another matter.

 

[uhu]

that may be historically accurate, but it will be an extremely Hard Sell to (most) gamers. [...]
BUT who wants to contend with cities and improvements and districts you have lovingly built up suddenly turning on you?

Civ1 had possible schisms for large empires. It IS FUN if happening to others, but unbearable to the human player happening to himself.

Heavy map modifications through game, newly generated powers to challenge you, in general scripts to keep game interesting.

a "need to solve the late game being unchallenging" approach. More civs in play earlier probably just means an even bigger domination steamroller

For years I have cultivated similar ideas now. Within one game it is the best possible (or only) approximation, but the casual player doesn't understand that and intuitively refuses "being punished".

So we can have 1.) a short game design, which ends naturally before exponential growth results in boredom. E.g. civ1 was quite lean: no hitpoints/health -- every combat had one unit killed and the other uninjured (& promoted, to veteran; no other promotions/experience). 3 yields: food, production and trade (distributed per sliders into gold, science, luxury) etc etc. Civilization Revolution followed this concept too (?)
We can have also 2.) a long game design, in which exponential growth runs unrestricted into wellknown boredom, the player can continue and grumble or stop and begin a new game ... (special auto-stop versions of that are Jon Shafer's 'chopped-off-endgame' and smart designed OldWorld, which has such a curved space-time that we cannot see the event horizon of blasting powder yet )
And we can have 3.) a long game design, in which exponential growth runs and is attenuated with well dosed negative feedback. It is a good, well balanced game. But it is not the game most (casual) gamers want.
Caveat: the game most (casual) gamers want is long, full of details, wonderful exponential growth, no hurting negative feedback and impossible.


Maybe a chain of standalone games, which allow normalisation of powers in each stage, can help our Homo habilis on an epic voyage fly to the stars, finally.

but it's still better than "never", and I personally don't know why or who's decision is behind the late release.

I neither, just speculate someone wanted to improve civ5's reputation, after the STEAM "straitjacket" and vanilla development problems.

Btw, I seem to remember in the very beginning of civ6 an approach from CFC members(?) towards Firaxis in order to coordinate help/info for the modding environment, which was rejected ... anybody remembers details or pointers?