Polygon: Civilization 7’s creative director on the new Ages, leaders, and cultures ‘without any written records’

[Civinator]

This doesn't work for me. I don't care if their icon stays the same; you can't form a relationship with an icon, but our brains are hardwired to react to even the crudest representation of a human face.

For me and many other players of CCM 3 it is working very well - and the "hardwired brains" even with leader switching can react to even the crudest representation of the human leader faces of the eraspecific leaders in that mod. In fact the leader faces in Civ 3 are much more dominant compared to later versions of the civ series.

 

[Zaarin]

For me and many other players of CCM 3 it is working very well - and the "hardwired brains" even with leader switching can react to even the crudest representation of the human leader faces of the eraspecific leaders in that mod.

Glad it works for them; it wouldn't for me. I'm primarily a narrative-driven player, not primarily a strategy player, and stories are about people. I'm not interested in seeing the focus of the franchise shift to pure empire building.

 

[Uberfrog]

I don’t think leader switching was ever viable - most civs simply don’t have options for all three eras (unless you are switching civs as well).

And it’s hardly more realistic - it would only work if you had a Crusader Kings or Old World style dynastic system, but then historical characters are limited to only the first couple of generations.

 

[Zaarin]

And it’s hardly more realistic - it would only work if you had a Crusader Kings or Old World style dynastic system, but then historical characters are limited to only the first couple of generations.

Not to mention many turns are longer than a human lifetime, especially in the early game; are you changing leader every turn?

 

[TheGrayFox]

Funny enough, while I am as adamantly against leader switching as some are against civ switching, I also thought that Ed failed to identify why leader switching doesn't work, namely that it's important for the player to create relationships with the leader and for the leader to have a consistent face.

I don't think thats nessecarily why leader swapping wouldn't work though. As Canuck pointed out and as poll after poll here have shown, many of us do not need that consistent face because we identify with the civs before their representitive/leaders and would be able to create relationships with civs we are facing even if their leader changed just fine (ala Old World or Stellaris)

I think more the reason why it wouldn't work in a Civilization series is because leaders have been the way that Firaxis has historically flavored and given personality to civs. That personality (which I guess you could view as a sort of "face) plays the largest part how civilizations behave and how we as players ultimately interact with them. Now of course that could be changed, just like how civs where in VII but how succesfully that would go is debatable.

 

[Sagax]

Ultimately, the most realistic blocker for leader switching is that it is a much bigger drain on budget than civ switching. They had no problem breaking the mold with civ switching, even though the “stand the test of time” motto has been with the franchise since forever. If FXS want to shake things up, they will - unless corporate bonk them on the head and point at the budget and ROI metrics.

 

[Zaarin]

I don't think thats nessecarily why leader swapping wouldn't work though. As Canuck pointed out and as poll after poll here have shown, many of us do not need that consistent face because we identify with the civs before their representitive/leaders and would be able to create relationships with civs we are facing even if their leader changed just fine (ala Old World or Stellaris)

I think more the reason why it wouldn't work in a Civilization series is because leaders have been the way that Firaxis has historically flavored and given personality to civs. That personality (which I guess you could view as a sort of "face) plays the largest part how civilizations behave and how we as players ultimately interact with them. Now of course that could be changed, just like how civs where in VII but how succesfully that would go is debatable.

You're right that it can work for other games. I enjoy Old World and CK3, but they're both very different from Civ (even Old World, which is closer). The personality of the leaders is a big part of Civ's appeal to me as a franchise. I love to hate Dom Pedro in Civ6; Jadwiga feels like a little sister; etc. It's not just about the relationship in the game but across games. I think leader switching would diminish that. It's worth noting that the games where it has worked are essentially dynasty management games (CK3), dynasty management minigames (Old World), or games where the leaders simply don't matter outside of a few numbers (Stellaris).

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Yes, I don't care about my leader, which is why I'm annoyed by the Mortal Kombat diplomacy.

You've never wanted to pull the spine out of another leaders body?

 

[Zaarin]

You've never wanted to pull the spine out of another leaders body?

Maybe Dom Pedro's, but I don't need to see the leader I'm playing as do it.

 

[TheGrayFox]

You're right that it can work for other games. I enjoy Old World and CK3, but they're both very different from Civ (even Old World, which is closer). The personality of the leaders is a big part of Civ's appeal to me as a franchise. I love to hate Dom Pedro in Civ6; Jadwiga feels like a little sister; etc. It's not just about the relationship in the game but across games. I think leader switching would diminish that. It's worth noting that the games where it has worked are essentially dynasty management games (CK3), dynasty management minigames (Old World), or games where the leaders simply don't matter outside of a few numbers (Stellaris).

You're right Old World puts dynastic management front and center, which probably isn't the best comparison. Stellaris gets away with leaders changing because it has removed all the personality typically found in Civ's leader caricatures and instead put them more behind the scenes of choices of civ, ideology, civics, government, etc.. This is something that Firaxis could've done to facilitate leaders changing and it arguably would work but I understand that this would be a dramatic departure from the established formula and a bridge too far for many.

Personally if I had to choose, I'd go with leader swapping over civs but I do sympathize with how you feel because its simply just the inverse of how I feel about civ swapping

 

[gdr_willter]

I also thought that Ed failed to identify why leader switching doesn't work, namely that it's important for the player to create relationships with the leader and for the leader to have a consistent face.

They already mentioned it at their official dev diary. I think this article is just really... failed to handle the topic, especially when it is an interview of the creative director.