Interview with the devs

[Many-Named]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNZ1SSacu_4

[Faelan]

I love Potato McWhiskey's stuff, but those weren't what I'd call "some hard questions".


What of the decision to add Denuvo malware, or no hot-seat mod, or the possibility of an option to not Civ switch as well as play through all ages instead of just remaining in one, what of all the non-western/non-euro-centric civilizations which didn't have any colonial/imperial phase to speak of, what of civilization change paths that are potentially offensive to the cultures in question, such as Native Americans/First Peoples having no direct path for their culture other than swapping into the shoes of their civilization's conquerors/destroyers who current rule the lands which were formerly theirs in the real world?

Those are "some hard questions" that so many in this and other Civilization-focused forums have been asking about. Should have gone with some of those instead, except then they wouldn't agree to the interview, would they? Perhaps the title of the video needs to be changed to something more honest and forthright. "I wanted to ask some hard questions but they nixxed that idea so I went with these anodyne softball questions instead and didn't follow up when I know there is massive disagreement out there among the fan base"... Does YouTube have a character length limit to titles?

[The Doctor]

Originally posted by Faelan:

I love Potato McWhiskey's stuff, but those weren't what I'd call "some hard questions".

For your average Steam poster who doesn't like the new direction, nothing less than verbal or physical abuse would pass for hard questioning. :D

I'll probably watch Potato's video over the weekend. I'm not expecting Jeremy Paxman though.

[SLG]

Is it just me or did the sound go out randomly during the last half of the video?

[Faelan]

Originally posted by The Doctor:

Originally posted by Faelan:

I love Potato McWhiskey's stuff, but those weren't what I'd call "some hard questions".

For your average Steam poster who doesn't like the new direction, nothing less than verbal or physical abuse would pass for hard questioning. :D

I'll probably watch Potato's video over the weekend. I'm not expecting Jeremy Paxman though.

There are probably a few which meet that description, to be sure. But I don't expect (nor desire) verbal abuse or recrimination, but rather provide an opportunity to address the key points of the disaffected Civ fan.

Example: "You say you went to great effort to reduce the micromanagement aspects of the game (worker usage, population tile placement to fine-tune city outputs for current needs, etc. What do you say to the player who tells you all of that stuff *is* the game for them and is what brings them the most enjoyment in playing the title?"

Negative example that some might want: "Your representation of the Fomunda Peoples as shown in your reveal videos was so *cheesy* that the only thing the video truly revealed was every last one of you being the worst kind of cultural bigot. Can you explain why you let your personal intolerant prejudices drive game design?"

The second is unhelpful and would almost certainly be interview-ending. The first example, however, allows the developers to not only discuss their design process, but also gives them the opportunity to elaborate further in showing they understand how a certain segment of the player base may really want to see that (or hot-swap multi-player, or be able to play a single incarnation of a given civilization throughout the entire full 3-age game, or whatever) and what things they may be willing to consider in future DLC and/or to provide as modding opportunities.

"While we have simplified city management and development in many ways from previous Civilization incarnations, we have left extensive code hooks for the Modder community to build very highly detailed city management mods for those players who desire such granularity."

[The Doctor]

Originally posted by Faelan:

Originally posted by The Doctor:

For your average Steam poster who doesn't like the new direction, nothing less than verbal or physical abuse would pass for hard questioning. :D

I'll probably watch Potato's video over the weekend. I'm not expecting Jeremy Paxman though.

There are probably a few which meet that description, to be sure. But I don't expect (nor desire) verbal abuse or recrimination, but rather provide an opportunity to address the key points of the disaffected Civ fan.

Example: "You say you went to great effort to reduce the micromanagement aspects of the game (worker usage, population tile placement to fine-tune city outputs for current needs, etc. What do you say to the player who tells you all of that stuff *is* the game for them and is what brings them the most enjoyment in playing the title?"

Negative example that some might want: "Your representation of the Fomunda Peoples as shown in your reveal videos was so *cheesy* that the only thing the video truly revealed was every last one of you being the worst kind of cultural bigot. Can you explain why you let your personal intolerant prejudices drive game design?"

The second is unhelpful and would almost certainly be interview-ending. The first example, however, allows the developers to not only discuss their design process, but also gives them the opportunity to elaborate further in showing they understand how a certain segment of the player base may really want to see that (or hot-swap multi-player, or be able to play a single incarnation of a given civilization throughout the entire full 3-age game, or whatever) and what things they may be willing to consider in future DLC and/or to provide as modding opportunities.

"While we have simplified city management and development in many ways from previous Civilization incarnations, we have left extensive code hooks for the Modder community to build very highly detailed city management mods for those players who desire such granularity."

I see what you mean but that's not really what i'd consider a hard question myself. I won't say why as that's a rabbit hole but rather provide an example of what I'd consider a hard question.

I'd go with why abandon the traditional playstyle where you build a civilization through the ages to stand the test of time for this already known to be unpopular culture shifting mechanism?

Otherwise, I think I can understand most of the changes they've gone with, the three ages being an attractive change to me. I don't expect them to justify every change they've made to the last iteration but I just don't understand the thinking behind that particular design decision. I'd guess they thought it was more representatiove of how civilzations rise and fall throughout history. Well, 'woop de doo'! We've all known that since we were children and it hasn't bothered your millions of customers before. It's a game and not a simulation.

[evolena]

Originally posted by Faelan:

or no hot-seat mod

This one was asked by Ursa Ryan.
Boesthius also has an interview video.

[SLG]

Originally posted by evolena:

Originally posted by Faelan:

or no hot-seat mod

This one was asked by Ursa Ryan.
Boesthius also has an interview video.

What was the answer?

[evolena]

Hotseat is "not a huge percentage of [their] player base", so it was "just a prioritization thing" with more focus on crossplay "for the console communitites [that] have grown during the course of Civ 6", but they "are hearing you" and they "are hoping to get everybody taken care of whenever that makes sense".

[oddball]

Originally posted by Faelan:

Originally posted by The Doctor:

For your average Steam poster who doesn't like the new direction, nothing less than verbal or physical abuse would pass for hard questioning. :D

I'll probably watch Potato's video over the weekend. I'm not expecting Jeremy Paxman though.

There are probably a few which meet that description, to be sure. But I don't expect (nor desire) verbal abuse or recrimination, but rather provide an opportunity to address the key points of the disaffected Civ fan.

Example: "You say you went to great effort to reduce the micromanagement aspects of the game (worker usage, population tile placement to fine-tune city outputs for current needs, etc. What do you say to the player who tells you all of that stuff *is* the game for them and is what brings them the most enjoyment in playing the title?"

Negative example that some might want: "Your representation of the Fomunda Peoples as shown in your reveal videos was so *cheesy* that the only thing the video truly revealed was every last one of you being the worst kind of cultural bigot. Can you explain why you let your personal intolerant prejudices drive game design?"

The second is unhelpful and would almost certainly be interview-ending. The first example, however, allows the developers to not only discuss their design process, but also gives them the opportunity to elaborate further in showing they understand how a certain segment of the player base may really want to see that (or hot-swap multi-player, or be able to play a single incarnation of a given civilization throughout the entire full 3-age game, or whatever) and what things they may be willing to consider in future DLC and/or to provide as modding opportunities.

"While we have simplified city management and development in many ways from previous Civilization incarnations, we have left extensive code hooks for the Modder community to build very highly detailed city management mods for those players who desire such granularity."

They’ve talked about why they changed city management, removed builders and added ages at length both times they showed the game. They even did a giant blog post that goes into extreme detail on the why of ages.

At this point if you don’t feel it’s been answered you never will and for the rest of us some new questions would be welcome