PC Power Play (Aus) interview with Ed Beach

[Siptah]

I wonder why Ed is giving two interviews to magazines right now. Is it to bridge the gap between DLCs and expansion? Is it just for advertising the base game? Or is it already the beginning of the expansion marketing? The latter would probably mean that an expansion could come as early as summer.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I wonder why Ed is giving two interviews to magazines right now. Is it to bridge the gap between DLCs and expansion? Is it just for advertising the base game? Or is it already the beginning of the expansion marketing? The latter would probably mean that an expansion could come as early as summer.

This article seemed to reference the latest DLC and patch quite a bit, so I think the message is: "See how much we have improved and what we have in store for the future. Try Civ 6 again."

And I bet there are more interviews that will be coming out this month. When Firaxis does media stuff, they tend to do them in bunches.

 

[Disgustipated]

I can't remember if empires split in Civ II or Civ III due to civil war, it seems to me that they didn't.

They could split in Civ2. I used that strategy on one of the scenarios in the expansion pack to win. Otherwise I'm not sure I could have won. Both sides were very evenly matched (I think it was like battle of the sexes or some weird idea like that- most likely in Fantastic Worlds). Conquered the capital, and the opposing empire split in two.

It was perhaps a little too easy in Civ2. As I'm not sure I could have held that capital to a counter attack, but with the empire split in two, I didn't have to worry about that so much. But perhaps it can only happen if there are only less than 7 civs in the game (which I believe is a hard coded limit). Since the empire is actually splitting into 2 civilizations.

 

[Art Morte]

Talking about expansions feels depressing to me when their patches to the original game keep breaking the game down in different ways. I just want a well functioning vanilla Civ6.

 

[trev1972]

If they want to improve endgame they should really re-consider the way district cost scales with techs, it kills late colonization

 

[trev1972]

This article seemed to reference the latest DLC and patch quite a bit, so I think the message is: "See how much we have improved and what we have in store for the future. Try Civ 6 again."

And I bet there are more interviews that will be coming out this month. When Firaxis does media stuff, they tend to do them in bunches.

I read on steam people have to some extent gone back to civ v, not sure how true it is?

If so they must worry it will hit expansion sales.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I read on steam people have to some extent gone back to civ v, not sure how true it is?

If so they must worry it will hit expansion sales.

It's true. More people still play V than VI. One of Firaxis' challenges is to draw those players to the new game. Because those players aren't going to splurge on expansions and DLC if they aren't playing.

 

[JacquesBquick]

I read on steam people have to some extent gone back to civ v, not sure how true it is?

If so they must worry it will hit expansion sales.

Entirely possible. Even just anecdotally examining today's usage here: http://store.steampowered.com/stats/ Civ 6 is way below Civ 5 in usage numbers, and even more worryingly for 2K and Firaxis execs, a few spots below Europa Universalis 4. I think they are quite aware they took a major public relations hit with the original fiasco of Digital Deluxe Edition, and further as a game its one that SEEMED excellent at first, but didn't age well over multiple playthroughs where particular design decisions seem poorly thought out, turning the most dedicated players back to Civ 5. It seems a lot of people have come to the conclusion of: this game makes some really smart choices, and comes with a lot compared to Civ 5 vanilla, but at the end this still feels like an incomplete product. I myself find the game more replayable with the community UI and ages of pace mods, but I still see the flaws in the fundamental design. They have a tough job on their hands coming up in terms of selling an expansion and convincing early hardcore adopters that they are deserving of more money and another chance which thus trickle down. a game like Civ sells on the word of mouth support from its players and a strong modding scene, which is why 5 (and 4!) seem to have stuck around so long. 6 hasn't done that. I get they NEED to do some major PR stuff, but I hope they also understand that's going to ring a little empty after the very impressive and hype inducing PR campaign they ran pre-launch. There will need to be some substance, and some additional 'free' work done on their end to improve various bugs and, from what i hear, improve the ability for modders to do what they do best which as I understand they cannot right now without access to specific core files.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy playing the game with my boyfriend, and it has some great systems and fun moments. I also give Firaxis and 2k much credit for fixing the DDE fiasco very properly. So they have definitely earned my attention moving forward (to be frank they had lost it entirely until i saw they were giving us DLC 5 and 6). I hope they can do it, but there's a hill to climb still, for sure.

 

[ltccone]

It matters to me

Why does it matter to you?

 

[ltccone]

I think that's more for the leader selection than the civ selection, like using Gitarja instead of Gajah Mada.

Come civs will have no female rulers, like the Zulus and Mongols. I would hate to not get them in civ 6 because of that.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Improving late-game:

“Anything we can do to introduce factors that cause empires to crumble, wars to break out, major coalitions to form - generally just increasing the level of mayhem in the world - those will all help retain players’ interest.”

This is welcome news. I do believe that the biggest reason for the late game being boring is that "nothing happens". Civs become big and fixed by the late game and the leader just coasts to victory. The late game needs stuff to shake things up. And, I am hoping that they will be bold with this idea. Don't be timid! If you are going to shake up the late game, then shake it good!

 

[JacquesBquick]

Come civs will have no female rulers, like the Zulus and Mongols. I would hate to get them in civ 6 because of that.

this feels like a false dichotomy. They didn't say they are looking to exclude old favorites because they don't have notable female leaders, that seems to just be what you are reading into things. They're saying that they want their final roster of leaders to have a hearty selection of interesting female characters, because that's clearly a value they have internalized, to be representative and to include women in the game. It makes ethical sense, it makes economic sense. If you don't like one of those reasons pick the other.

The Mongols were a major force and factor in human history, and I'm quite certain we will be seeing them again. They are not going to exclude mongolia just because they can't find a relevant female figure to assign as its ruler. It just means that whenever they choose to include Gengis Khan, they'll be looking at the other civs they're introducing around the same time and making sure they have good diverse representation coming from those other civs.

 

[liv]

Civ 6 is way below Civ 5 in usage numbers, and even more worryingly for 2K and Firaxis execs, a few spots below Europa Universalis 4.

Normally it above EU4 but EU just released an expansion so there is some excitement there.

 

[ltccone]

this feels like a false dichotomy. They didn't say they are looking to exclude old favorites because they don't have notable female leaders, that seems to just be what you are reading into things. They're saying that they want their final roster of leaders to have a hearty selection of interesting female characters, because that's clearly a value they have internalized, to be representative and to include women in the game. It makes ethical sense, it makes economic sense. If you don't like one of those reasons pick the other.

The Mongols were a major force and factor in human history, and I'm quite certain we will be seeing them again. They are not going to exclude mongolia just because they can't find a relevant female figure to assign as its ruler. It just means that whenever they choose to include Gengis Khan, they'll be looking at the other civs they're introducing around the same time and making sure they have good diverse representation coming from those other civs.

I just don't think the gender of a ruler should matter. To me a ruler's impotance to the civilization should be the deciding factor of who they use. Victoria was one of Britain's most important monarchs, along with Elizabeth I and Matilda; Catherine de' Medici wouldn't crack the top ten of France's important rulers.

 

[Alkaid]

I just don't think the gender of a ruler should matter. To me a ruler's impotance to the civilization should be the deciding factor of who they use. Victoria was one of Britain's most important monarchs, along with Elizabeth I and Matilda; Catherine de' Medici wouldn't crack the top ten of France's important rulers.

I agree. I have no problem with female rulers if they're historically the more relevant option. But picking less-known female rulers over clearly more prominent male ones just for the sake of being female rubs me the wrong way. I don't like if the roster focuses on filling quotas over historical relevance.

 

[leandrombraz]

It's true. More people still play V than VI. More people still play V than VI. One of Firaxis' challenges is to draw those players to the new game. Because those players aren't going to splurge on expansions and DLC if they aren't playing.

I think people give way too much importance to this. VI have more owners playing than V (you can see this on steamdb). As a popular game that kept selling well for 7 years, Civ V current players count isn't a surprise, around 10.000.000 people own it against 2.000.000 Civ VI owners. If anything, this show the strength of the franchise, with both games showing a respectable player base that most games don't get even close, it's a juggernaut. One game doesn't need to fall for the other to rise, the franchise is strong enough to sustain two player bases.

I don't think Firaxis is too worried to get Civ V Players to play Civ VI. The more, the better, of course but it's not like Civ VI doesn't have a strong playerbase that can justify by itself the support this game will get. It's doing well, despite all its flaws. X-com 2 is a success for Firaxis, it have around 1.700.000 on PC and have around 5.000 current players, which is a health playerbase, mostly for a SP game. Civ VI is doing a lot better than that.

 

[ltccone]

I agree. I have no problem with female rulers if they're historically the more relevant option. But picking less-known female rulers over clearly more prominent male ones just for the sake of being female rubs me the wrong way. I don't like if the roster focuses on filling quotas over historical relevance.

Joan of Arc is really the only viable female leader option as a ruler of France. She literally saved the country. She was also in an earlier iteration of Civ as a ruler.

 

[Ferocitus]

Joan of Arc is really the only viable female leader option as a ruler of France. She literally saved the country. She was also in an earlier iteration of France as a ruler.

Appalling choice: she was a loony who only lasted for a handful of years.

 

[ltccone]

Appalling choice: she was a loony who only lasted for a handful of years.

She might have been a 'looney,' but she did defeat the English armies occupying France. There was no other female French leader of note.

 

[CPWimmer]

I wonder why Ed is giving two interviews to magazines right now...

"Civilization VI - One year later" - The tile of the article pretty much says it all in terms of the timing.