Who picks which civs make it into the game?

[Stringer1313]

Regardless of which you are on in the euro debate (whether the civs are too euro-centric or not), I think everyone can agree that the decisions were made for marketing purposes. Does this mean that the marketers have a huge say in which civs to put in? Is there a situation where Ed Beach or some other developer thinks "hey it would be cool to put in more non-euro civs" and then marketing is like "no."

 

[ehecatzin]

I think it's a bit of both, I think sometimes Ed pushes a leader he wants to see included and make it a challeng for the marketing to, well, sell the idea. As in Catherine de Medici. Maybe other would eventually make it into the game, like Brazil, and marketing pressures to have them in vanilla because the Olympics. It's hard to tell about each civ TBH.

 

[Nightsong]

I think it's a mixture of which Civilizations have been featured in past games, the lead designer (in this case Ed Beach) and the marketing team. Keep in mind one of the biggest things that they went for was leaders with big personalities that fit into the overall theme that they wanted for the game. If I had to take a guess, they want a healthy mix of militaristic leaders (ex. Germany / Scythia), cultural leaders (ex. America), religious leaders (none that have been revealed has been overtly strong in this area) and diplomatic leaders (ex. France via their extra spies).

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I think a lot of it is up to Ed, but others probably have input as well. It's probably a collaborative effort.

 

[Acken]

I dont agree its made for marketing purposes. At least not solely.

 

[isau]

Part of it probably involves starting with a long list of possibles and cutting back, possibly with concept art drawn up for a number of possible contenders so they can see which artist interpretations they think work best.

They do tend to pick a number of female rulers because that makes the game more attractive to their market.

In the case of Brazil, it almost certainly got picked because of the Olympics and because anyone searching for "Brazil" on Google is likely to stumble across the game. Which is fine with me.

 

[Matthew.]

The base Civ game includes the same set of Civs since Civ 1. Additionally, the base game isn't going to have 50+ Civs from the start.

What this essentially means is that out of ALL the different choices, they really only have a handful of spots outside of the usual Civs (Germany, France, Russia, etc.).

How those are picked, I have no idea. However all this fretting over the base game is rather ridiculous. Civ 5 with expansions has the largest number of Civs out of any of the other games. The expansions is where there is more freedom to add in different Civs. I mean, does it really need to be explained why some obscure tribal Civ isn't taking the place over Rome or England in the base game?

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Im just saying this: All picks are arbitary in some way.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

Regardless of which you are on in the euro debate (whether the civs are too euro-centric or not), I think everyone can agree that the decisions were made for marketing purposes. Does this mean that the marketers have a huge say in which civs to put in? Is there a situation where Ed Beach or some other developer thinks "hey it would be cool to put in more non-euro civs" and then marketing is like "no."

It would never be a marketer. The game decisions are solely done by the devs. They may make a call that you say appears based on marketing, but it would still be with the devs. However, even those are going to be more game-based than pure dollar and cents kinda idea. Design choices and marketing choice aren't at odds. (Marketers make the call after the fact for things like Aztecs are a preorder bonus, not put the Aztecs in the game) For instance, Germany wasn't going to get cut. While there is an argument to say well it would hurt us in the German market the bigger argument is our players would be upset because they EXPECT to see Germany.

Further, you can't look at each civ in a vacuum. Personal preference has a huge thing to do with what does and doesn't make it. But even after that they have to be viewed in how they relate to the overall roster (especially for the launch). So things like militaristic leaders are a dime a dozen in history books so balancing out which ones make it based on their era can nullify other "great" leaders. After all its a game first and foremost.

 

[Aukhenaten]

America, Aztecs*, China, England, Egypt, France, Germany, Greeks, India, Japan, Romans, and Russia all have to be in the base game, which leaves little room for new and returning civs. Technically speaking, the Aztecs are still in the base game, just locked for 90 days unless you pre-order.

Another thing to note is that, with each civ having their own generic unit and architecture art in this game, it would be less work to include civs from a single corner of the globe because there will be more overlap in style. Naturally, with European civs taking the spotlight for a western audience (and an audience used to many European civs) that's where you'd want to start. I'm sure once we get our first indigenous N. American civ and S.E. Asian civ, they'll be able to add subsequent civs from those regions easier due to shared art assets.

 

[j51]

I think it's a tank full of manatees, right?

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

all have to be in the base game

No they don't. If I had the power to choose which civ that would be in the game I could very well remove them, it is just an arbitary choice.

 

[SJSerio]

Likely, early in development, they created a master list of Civs to include. They probably narrowed down the standards and as they developed the mechanics, looked at how they could incorporate the mechanics into the special abilities. As I am sure that there was much internal debate about what Civs to include, (and this is what I would do if I was had producer) they likely had each member make a list of there top 5, 10, or even 20 civs from the master list and tallied up the numbers.

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk

 

[King Jason]

I think everyone can agree that the decisions were made for marketing purposes.

I do not agree with this assessment.

 

[SJSerio]

Neither do I

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk

 

[m15a]

I think the publisher (2k), after getting input from the developers (Firaxis), decide on how many civs will be in the base game and how many civs (or leaders) will be in DLC - those decisions play into funding and sales, so I think that's reasonably likely.

I'm also guessing 2k plays some part in *what* goes in DLC and therefore has an effect on which civs go in the base game. It makes financial sense to balance the appeal of the base game to potential Civ VI players with the appeal of the DLC to current Civ VI players. Probably the developers aren't concerned so much with what is DLC versus base game since they are doing the same work and end up with the same product.

 

[MadDjinn]

I think you're giving 2K too much credit.

Firaxis mostly does their own thing and 2K makes tweaks here and there wrt marketing/budget/etc. They really do not affect the gameplay/choices side as much as some seem to think.

 

[anandus]

Regardless of which you are on in the euro debate (whether the civs are too euro-centric or not), I think everyone can agree that the decisions were made for marketing purposes. Does this mean that the marketers have a huge say in which civs to put in? Is there a situation where Ed Beach or some other developer thinks "hey it would be cool to put in more non-euro civs" and then marketing is like "no."

I don't agree with that at all.

You could even make the opposite argument, "some developer thinks "hey it would be cool to put in more euro civs" and then marketing is like "no, the fans like non-euro civs""

Personally I think that
A. There aren't too many euro civs, it's 8 out of 20.
B. Marketing hasn't that much to say about the the civs themselves, but mostly about the amount of civs in vanilla, the amount as DLC and the amount in expanion packs
C. There will still be 20 to 30 more civs (both Civ4 and Civ5 had 42 civs), so it's far to early to judge anyway.

 

[Liex]

anyone searching for "Brazil" on Google is likely to stumble across the game.

That seems far-fetched. And what's the impact of the Olympics, really?

Brazilians are more likely to hear about and buy the game if Brazil is included. IIRC, Brazil is the 5th or 4th largest Steam playerbase, but only the 10th or so Civ5 playerbase. So there's a gap to fill, and that may explain why Brazil is being included and why the game is finally being officially translated to Portuguese. And the Olympics have nothing to do with all that.

Now, if you are not Brazilian and wasn't sure if you should buy the game, did Brazil inclusion changed your mind? But it's hosting the Olympics, what about that? I can't imagine this going on: "-America, China, Rome... meh. Wait, Brazil? The host of the 2016 Summer Olympics? Where do I pre-order?"

If anything, Brazil's inclusion may help dissuading a few people from buying it.

 

[Acken]

I think you're giving 2K too much credit.

Firaxis mostly does their own thing and 2K makes tweaks here and there wrt marketing/budget/etc. They really do not affect the gameplay/choices side as much as some seem to think.

Its probably like most corporation. They give a budget, a deadline, look at result and cut you loose or decline your bonus if what you did in the year is bad.