5 ms·

I would have preferred they partner with some UI experts.

smallmancontrov 2y ago
If they partnered with a modern UI expert, the buttons would be replaced by hieroglyphs even more cryptic than symbols from the Shawnee Tribe and organized into at least 3 separate hamburger menus.
- OvbiousError 2y ago
  They do have huge amounts of whitespace everywhere so I guess they did do some modern UI design.
prododev 2y ago
I don't think it was lack of experts. I suspect the UI people are professionals. I much more strongly suspect it was "we're going to hire one person to do the work of three" and the result was "get it working as quick as I can".
- LukaD 2y ago
  > get it working as quick as I can That’s certainly what it looks like. When I first tried the game, before getting a refund shortly after, my first thought was “wtf, did they accidentally ship an old build?”. The UI feels so u finished, lacking feedback and visual clarity.
somenameforme 2y ago
I'd go for AI! The problem I have with Civ is that they create these really sort of interesting and elaborate systems, but they've clearly long surpassed the capabilities of their AI systems to the point that the only way to create the illusion of competitiveness is with giving the AI ever more massive cheat bonuses (200% faster research, 200% more resources per tile, etc type stuff). That really ruins the 'real' game and creates this sort of meta layer where you're specifically aiming to compete against these cheat bonuses rather than actually playing the game. It'd be analogous to a really weak chess AI trying to create the facade of challenge by randomly giving itself a new pawn every 2 turns, a a knight every 5 turns, and a rook every 20.
- ben_w 2y ago
  That's essentially what they were doing at least as far back as Civ2 (I think there was a cheat menu for creating custom maps?) — the shields the AI needed for a unit or building, the bushels needed for city growth, were reduced on higher difficulty settings. (I've not seen the original game, dunno what they did for that).
  - davedx 2y ago
    Original game was the same IIRC. You’d see it when you spied on enemy cities - ludicrously spaced out shields in their build bar
- ainiriand 2y ago
  That is also my main problem with the game. Playing deity difficulty is finding a way to game the game in order to overcome the bonuses your rivals get, it is not about creating brilliant strategies because your rivals are cunning. In fact the AI is rather dumb.
- caseyy 2y ago
  Firaxis’s team is quite skilled, and many of its designers also code, which helps them build features more intentionally than at many other studios. I’m pretty sure they considered doing more autonomous AI for Civ VII, but there are really good reasons not to. In most strategy games, rule-based AI is easier to author, contextualize, and theme. Players usually prefer AI agents with memorable and varied traits instead of excellent high autonomy (complex utility, HTN, ML) AI. They like evident strategy more than complex strategy. Smarter and harder AI sounds appealing on paper, but it’s often less fun for most players who want a predictable, beatable opponent. High-fidelity human-level opponent AI is only really appreciated in eSports, where it serves a training purpose. However, eSports people have fun in an aim trainer—they are not the “normal” gamer. Most people want “really weak chess” and wouldn't enjoy hard or complex chess. They like game AI opponents acting in simple and vulnerable patterns they can outsmart and feel clever. And the more they dominate the agents by learning them, the more they like the game. Even if they say they don't, the user testing shows they do. The cheat bonuses that are super easy to win against are probably intentional :) There is also another reason for building simple game AI — the illusion of intelligence is not created by complexity but rather by anthropomorphization/personification. It's the same as with LLMs — the big breakthrough was when they started speaking like humans, and all further complications aren't adding much to the broad and intuitive feeling of their intelligence. Similarly, a game AI agent that tells you what they are thinking achieves more perceived intelligence than an AI agent that is actually more intelligent. With this in mind, game developers don't waste much time on deep intelligence. This time is better used making agents bark, animate, display human reactions, show context awareness, etc. It is very much about the agents being showhorses, not workhorses. I say this from pretty long AAA game AI design and architecting experience. It’s wiser to do what Firaxis did.
thrance 2y ago
I don't think they are mutually exclusive but yeah... The UI is pretty terrible. The icons feel cheap, everything's inconsistent and grey and ugly.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

If they partnered with a modern UI expert, the buttons would be replaced by hieroglyphs even more cryptic than symbols from the Shawnee Tribe and organized into at least 3 separate hamburger menus.

OvbiousError 2y ago
They do have huge amounts of whitespace everywhere so I guess they did do some modern UI design.

prododev 2y ago

I don't think it was lack of experts. I suspect the UI people are professionals. I much more strongly suspect it was "we're going to hire one person to do the work of three" and the result was "get it working as quick as I can".

LukaD 2y ago
> get it working as quick as I can That’s certainly what it looks like. When I first tried the game, before getting a refund shortly after, my first thought was “wtf, did they accidentally ship an old build?”. The UI feels so u finished, lacking feedback and visual clarity.

somenameforme 2y ago

I'd go for AI! The problem I have with Civ is that they create these really sort of interesting and elaborate systems, but they've clearly long surpassed the capabilities of their AI systems to the point that the only way to create the illusion of competitiveness is with giving the AI ever more massive cheat bonuses (200% faster research, 200% more resources per tile, etc type stuff). That really ruins the 'real' game and creates this sort of meta layer where you're specifically aiming to compete against these cheat bonuses rather than actually playing the game. It'd be analogous to a really weak chess AI trying to create the facade of challenge by randomly giving itself a new pawn every 2 turns, a a knight every 5 turns, and a rook every 20.

ben_w 2y ago
That's essentially what they were doing at least as far back as Civ2 (I think there was a cheat menu for creating custom maps?) — the shields the AI needed for a unit or building, the bushels needed for city growth, were reduced on higher difficulty settings. (I've not seen the original game, dunno what they did for that).
- davedx 2y ago
  Original game was the same IIRC. You’d see it when you spied on enemy cities - ludicrously spaced out shields in their build bar
ainiriand 2y ago
That is also my main problem with the game. Playing deity difficulty is finding a way to game the game in order to overcome the bonuses your rivals get, it is not about creating brilliant strategies because your rivals are cunning. In fact the AI is rather dumb.
caseyy 2y ago
Firaxis’s team is quite skilled, and many of its designers also code, which helps them build features more intentionally than at many other studios. I’m pretty sure they considered doing more autonomous AI for Civ VII, but there are really good reasons not to. In most strategy games, rule-based AI is easier to author, contextualize, and theme. Players usually prefer AI agents with memorable and varied traits instead of excellent high autonomy (complex utility, HTN, ML) AI. They like evident strategy more than complex strategy. Smarter and harder AI sounds appealing on paper, but it’s often less fun for most players who want a predictable, beatable opponent. High-fidelity human-level opponent AI is only really appreciated in eSports, where it serves a training purpose. However, eSports people have fun in an aim trainer—they are not the “normal” gamer. Most people want “really weak chess” and wouldn't enjoy hard or complex chess. They like game AI opponents acting in simple and vulnerable patterns they can outsmart and feel clever. And the more they dominate the agents by learning them, the more they like the game. Even if they say they don't, the user testing shows they do. The cheat bonuses that are super easy to win against are probably intentional :) There is also another reason for building simple game AI — the illusion of intelligence is not created by complexity but rather by anthropomorphization/personification. It's the same as with LLMs — the big breakthrough was when they started speaking like humans, and all further complications aren't adding much to the broad and intuitive feeling of their intelligence. Similarly, a game AI agent that tells you what they are thinking achieves more perceived intelligence than an AI agent that is actually more intelligent. With this in mind, game developers don't waste much time on deep intelligence. This time is better used making agents bark, animate, display human reactions, show context awareness, etc. It is very much about the agents being showhorses, not workhorses. I say this from pretty long AAA game AI design and architecting experience. It’s wiser to do what Firaxis did.

thrance 2y ago

I don't think they are mutually exclusive but yeah... The UI is pretty terrible. The icons feel cheap, everything's inconsistent and grey and ugly.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]