Strategy Informer interview and preview

[Snoopaloop]

"Yeah, we were curious to see what it was going to be like. We actually thought it was going to be a positive to make a la carte civilizations that we could deliver. I mean it was an expansion pack’s worth of new civilizations that we released, when we were done. But people didn’t want to just buy Civs. They wanted Religion, for example. It was definitely a learning experience to see where our fans were going to go, and they LOVE expansion packs. Which is great, because our designers prefer designing gameplay mechanics more so than just doing new civs."

I think the problem was that the DLC was released before expansions. The game itself, at the time of the dlc, was incomplete and missing many features (such as religion) that were in Civ 4. People may have been unhappy because they were buying individual civs for a game that was somewhat lacking, incomplete.

I think a DLC run with civilizations made "a la carte" would be welcomed a little while after BnW.

Personally, I've bought every piece of DLC (even map scripts) almost immediately upon release. I do not prefer it over a full expansion, but I've enjoyed the fresh new civs/wonders dlc a whole lot. I'de be a bit bummed if they missed out on the potential Sumerian/Hittite early civ combination dlc pack!

EDIT: Same time, and very similar statement as Roguesaw

 

[Leugi]

This part is rather interesting, especially since I thought they said they weren't going to have more scenarios.

Hmn... So a Sci-fi scenario is still a possibility...

"but for any of you who enjoyed the scenarios from the last expansion, know that your needs are being looked after. "

I kind of relate this with the Steampunk scenario mostly, since those who enjoy odd things like that (namely myself) would also like another odd scenario

 

[poom3619]

I think we might gather “I’m a technology player, and I feel underserved” or “I’m a Domination player, I feel underserved” people and protest about it. In best case scenario we might got another expansion, thereby another bunch of Civ. YAYYY!

But I think war are pretty completed so as technology even I don't quite impressed with "near future" feels. There are very slim chance about another expansion, and I guess with BNW we would already have too many things to do.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

"Yeah, we were curious to see what it was going to be like. We actually thought it was going to be a positive to make a la carte civilizations that we could deliver. I mean it was an expansion pack’s worth of new civilizations that we released, when we were done. But people didn’t want to just buy Civs. They wanted Religion, for example. It was definitely a learning experience to see where our fans were going to go, and they LOVE expansion packs. Which is great, because our designers prefer designing gameplay mechanics more so than just doing new civs."

I think the problem was that the DLC was released before expansions. The game itself, at the time of the dlc, was incomplete and missing many features (such as religion) that were in Civ 4. People may have been unhappy because they were buying individual civs for a game that was somewhat lacking, incomplete.

I think a DLC run with civilizations made "a la carte" would be welcomed a little while after BnW.

Personally, I've bought every piece of DLC (even map scripts) almost immediately upon release. I do not prefer it over a full expansion, but I've enjoyed the fresh new civs/wonders dlc a whole lot. I'de be a bit bummed if they missed out on the potential Sumerian/Hittite early civ combination dlc pack!

EDIT: Same time, and very similar statement as Roguesaw

Part of it, to me (at least) it felt as if the first few DLC weren't additional material, but original material held back from the original release for the sake of charging five bucks for it a few months later.

 

[steveg700]

Well, the value proposition of a single civ for $5, or two for $7.50, simply pales when compared to that of the expansions.

 

[Laxley]

While expansions are indeed greatly preferred to DLC civs, if BNW does make the game seem 'complete' and another expansion looks unlikely, I totally wouldn't mind DLC civs being released again.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I deally what I would love to happen is to have the last expansion pack bring the Total number of Civ up to 50, (OCD reasons). And flesh out the Science victory a la Civ 4. And maybe evenf lesh out Information Era and add Future Era with some Sci-Fi stuff (Cure for Cancer, maybe Human Augmentation a la Deus EX, Terra-forming etc).

 

[Menzies]

I don't think people mind DLC's... they just mind the obvious money-grab rip-offs that EA likes to push.

Of course a lot of criticism was the Civ packs were a bit expensive (What was it, like 5 dollars each originally?) and I'd agree. Although given the choice I'd rather have expansions over DLC.

The number of posts that came through the forum about the evil of DLC and how they had "kept parts of the game locked" to "sell later" was ridiculous. Many talked about DLC as though it were the greatest evil that mankind had ever faced, and as I said at the time, people would ask for one when they stopped. Oh well...

 

[AriochIV]

Part of it, to me (at least) it felt as if the first few DLC weren't additional material, but original material held back from the original release for the sake of charging five bucks for it a few months later.

Which was additionally infuriating when the core game was such a mess.

Well, the value proposition of a single civ for $5, or two for $7.50, simply pales when compared to that of the expansions.

Right, $27.50 for six new civilizations, or $29.99 for nine new civs and and an expansion's worth of new gameplay systems... which is the better deal?

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

The number of posts that came through the forum about the evil of DLC and how they had "kept parts of the game locked" to "sell later" was ridiculous. Many talked about DLC as though it were the greatest evil that mankind had ever faced, and as I said at the time, people would ask for one when they stopped. Oh well...

That's just humanity. We'll complain about anything, even if it doesn't exist.

 

[ferretbacon]

I like DLC. I like getting any new content for a Civ game. I would like them to continue making DLC.

That said, I don't think DLC was handled properly in V. With VI, the way I'd like to see it implemented is:

Vanilla
Expansion
Expansion
Expansion?
DLC run between the last expansion and VII

That way you get new Civs, new gameplay mechanics, and updates to existing mechanics out of the way first, then some minor civ, scenario, and map packs to fill the time between games.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

The number of posts that came through the forum about the evil of DLC and how they had "kept parts of the game locked" to "sell later" was ridiculous. Many talked about DLC as though it were the greatest evil that mankind had ever faced, and as I said at the time, people would ask for one when they stopped. Oh well...

To be fair, the conditions are different now. The game's worth playing, for example.

 

[kingchris20]

Right, $27.50 for six new civilizations, or $29.99 for nine new civs and and an expansion's worth of new gameplay systems... which is the better deal?

DING DING DING, we have a winner

 

[kingchris20]

I like DLC. I like getting any new content for a Civ game. I would like them to continue making DLC.

That said, I don't think DLC was handled properly in V. With VI, the way I'd like to see it implemented is:

Vanilla
Expansion
Expansion
Expansion?
DLC run between the last expansion and VII

That way you get new Civs, new gameplay mechanics, and updates to existing mechanics out of the way first, then some minor civ, scenario, and map packs to fill the time between games.

That schedule is definitely the schedule to go with.

 

[Snoopaloop]

Part of it, to me (at least) it felt as if the first few DLC weren't additional material, but original material held back from the original release for the sake of charging five bucks for it a few months later.

Very good point. It didn't personally strike me that way at the time of the dlc releases, but I can understand why many people did feel so.

That said, I don't think DLC was handled properly in V. With VI, the way I'd like to see it implemented is:

Vanilla
Expansion
Expansion
Expansion?
DLC run between the last expansion and VII

That way you get new Civs, new gameplay mechanics, and updates to existing mechanics out of the way first, then some minor civ, scenario, and map packs to fill the time between games.

I think this schedule would have helped to eliminate possibility of the dlc being material that was potentially withheld from the original game.

I also like this schedule, because the DLC civs would then have UA/UU/UB/UI's that could have benefited from all expansion material as well. There wouldn't be as large of a outcry from us fanatics to "edit civ X's UA".

 

[Inhalaattori]

Dennis Shirk: We’re not so much targeting ‘late game’, but targeting the new mechanics. Take Portugal, for example, they’re really focusing on the new Trade mechanics. Pedro II of Brazil is one that focuses more on the late-game as he’s all about generating tourism. His Carnival trait means he gets tourism bonuses every time he goes into a Golden Age, for example. His unique unit is from the late game as well. Some of them … I’d say two-thirds of them focus on game-mechanics from the late game, and the other third is fan requests. Fan favourites of civs that they wanted to see in the game. Shaka (Zulu) is one such faction.

So this might mean that we get more modern civilizations? If this is true then there might be some surprises waiting for us. I hate the idea of Canada or Australia in the game, but it might be that they want to make the end game more interesting with civs that have their UUs UBs and UAs in the latter part of the game.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

I think a DLC run with civilizations made "a la carte" would be welcomed a little while after BnW.

Personally, I've bought every piece of DLC (even map scripts) almost immediately upon release. I do not prefer it over a full expansion, but I've enjoyed the fresh new civs/wonders dlc a whole lot. I'de be a bit bummed if they missed out on the potential Sumerian/Hittite early civ combination dlc pack!

Totally agree!

Hmn... So a Sci-fi scenario is still a possibility...

"but for any of you who enjoyed the scenarios from the last expansion, know that your needs are being looked after. "

Scenarios are not only another way of enjoying civ, but also a way of showing we modders a trick or two. Here's an example of what I mean. Let's say they brought out a double-civ DLC containing the Hittites and Sumeria and an updated version of the wonders scenario. This scenario would be able to detect which civs you have and which ancient wonders you have, and use those in the game (i.e. if you have Babylon, they're in the game; if you haven't then they're not; same with the three ancient wonders released separately). Going forward, modders would then be able to mod their games to match in with what content the player has.

I know that's going off at a tangent there and apologies; my point was that this type of pack would be useful DLC after BNW.

 

[Haig]

So from the article, it's like Dennis Shirk says "yeah we'll see what the fans think, if they think BNW is enough, no more expansions. if they wan't more, we'll make em!"

 

[JFD]

"There will be more scenarios added to the game than the ones that have already been talked about – The American Civil War and the Scramble for Africa."

Interesting, when Dennis Shirk explictedly said in the live Q&A there were only the two.

 

[cybrxkhan]

"There will be more scenarios added to the game than the ones that have already been talked about – The American Civil War and the Scramble for Africa."

Interesting, when Dennis Shirk explictedly said in the live Q&A there were only the two.

I'm also intrigued by this. This could mean that some of the civs added were also designed for these other scenarios as well.