Sid Meier is shaking things up. The veteran Civilization designer this week announced his latest project, Sid Meier's Starships, which he's making with a small team at Firaxis Games in Maryland. The announcement of the game doesn't mean Firaxis is shifting away from big-budget, large-scale projects like Civilization and XCOM. Instead, Meier and his team are using the new studio make-up to build potentially riskier projects that might not otherwise get greenlit.

We caught up with Meier recently, and picked his brain about the new studio structure. He talks about wearing numerous development hats (programmer, designer, etc.) and the benefits (and challenges, too) of working under conditions that allow him to rapidly prototype ideas and iterate on them.

Meier also talks about why games like Civilization and XCOM are becoming more and more rare, how digital distribution has changed gaming, why he thinks the industry is facing some level of "conservatism," and why he's not likely to make an Early Access-style game anytime soon (Hint: it has to do with dinosaurs).

You can read our full interview with Meier below. For more on Starships, check out GameSpot's previous coverage, including the first details about the game and another interview with Meier about the genesis of the project.

GameSpot: What's the circumstance you're working in right now and how is that affecting output?

Sid Meier: We have a team that's a bit smaller than some of our other projects. The idea is to have a little more flexibility and freedom; perhaps try out some ideas that might be hard to get approved with a large team but with a smaller team might be able to take a few more chances and try some newer things. Also, in this case, we're partnering with Beyond Earth and leveraging some of the ideas that they have and building on them. Making two games at the same time, there's a lot of synergies and efficiences that we can recognize. So we're trying to take advantage of that as well. So gameplay is key for us, and that's what we focus on a lot. And these games have tons of gameplay. But with a smaller team we can take on some maybe a little more adventurous topics.

Now that you're getting some games out there that don't have long development cycles, what does this mean for you as a creator? Does it feel good now to be creating more things that we're getting to play? And does this structure let you do that more than you were able to before?

"What I wanted to get back to was a method of making games that really focused in on game design" -- Sid Meier

It does. On a purely selfish level, it's more about game design. When I did Pirates and Civilization and Railroads, we spent about a year on a game. And about two thirds of that time was actively designing the game; changing it, playing it every day. These days, we might spend two or three years on a game, but there's kind of always the same amount of actual game design time. So what I wanted to get back to was a method of making games that really focused in on game design. It allowed us to spend most of our time designing and maybe a little less of our time on all the other stuff needed to make games. So we can do games on a shorter schedule, but there's still about the same amount of game design, same amount of time spent iterating and evolving the game as with other games. So, for me, the fun part is the design and watching it grow and iterating. And this approach gives us the ability to focus most of our time and energy on that part of what we're making.

Has that approach surprised anybody that you're working with? Designing things that quickly…has that thrown any roadblocks at the folks you're working with?

With our team, it's not a problem. We enjoy working this way. The industry as a whole, things have to fit into a niche or a genre or fit into some existing paradigm. And we haven't really established this paradigm yet. So I think one of the challenges is trying to figure out what genre, what niche, what is this thing that's going on? I think it's good to break new ground, but I think we're still trying to figure out what to call this and how to categorize it, and what does it mean for the future?

Is there any potential for franchises such as Starships to splinter off into their own brand that could spawn a Civilization or XCOM-sized experience?

Well, it's hard to say. I think franchises develop organically after the fact. When I did Civilization, it wasn't like, 'OK, I'm going to do six of these.' It was, let's make a fun game and see how people like it. Then they liked it and we made another one. So I think the question of whether it becomes a brand or a franchise is one that gets answered down the road, when we see how people like it; are they asking for more? Do they want this? What's the reaction? Are people generating more ideas based on this game? That's a decision that gets made later in the product's lifetime.

Do you think it would be possible to do what you're doing, working on a smaller team on a smaller game, without the likes of digital distribution like Steam and iTunes?

I think it'd be more difficult. Definitely, digital distribution works for teams like ours, for indie games, for a lot of Kickstarter games. It reduces some of the friction that occurs between the designer and the team, and the marketplace. So it's definitely opened up the market for a broader variety of games. Anywhere from the AAA titles to indie games and smaller games. And certainly iOS is another place where there's an extremely broad range of games and prices and things like that. So yes, the market is much broader these days than it might have been in the CD-ROM-in-a-box days.

The way you're developing games these days, does this hearken back to the way you started out all those years ago?

Definitely in terms of the dynamics of the team and the development time. The balance, the ratio of game design versus technology and graphics and that. It's kind of similar to the way things worked then back in the good old days. But we have incredibly better tools these days. There's a lot of changes as well that … we've learned a lot! We're a lot smarter than we were. But we're also able to take advantage of tons of mid-level tools. Technology that we developed for earlier games; resources from Beyond Earth that we're able to use. So there are a lot of similarities, but there are also some reasons why it's good to be here in the 21st century. But the fun is still the same of making games. Some of the challenges, especially around game design, are very similar to what we experienced back in the early days.

Another thing that struck me about this structure is that your job title, as I think I've heard, is director of creative development, which sounds like you can pretty much do whatever you want. So can you explain what it's like working with that much creative freedom?

"From a publisher's point of view, games have gotten pretty expensive. So that's going to lead to some conservatism" -- Sid Meier

It's good. It's a good thing. I don't take it for granted. There's still an obligation to make the best game that you can make. It's not really a license to make that goofy game that you've always wanted to make. I think we've established a relationship over the years with our game players. They kind of put their trust in us that when we bring out a new game, they're willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and try it out. And I think they feel also that we listen to what they have to say, and we share a lot of the same ideas about games; what's cool in games, what's fun in games, and that's a trust that we don't want to betray. Yes, I have a lot of freedom. But I still think what I need to do is make the best game that I can make to reach those people and hopefully give them another good gaming experience. But it does allow things like Starships, which might not have been approved if it had a huge budget. Because it's new, different. But because of the way we approached it, and my creative director title, we got to make this game. And that was great.

What you're doing here sounds a lot like what Ken Levine is doing over there in Boston with his new iteration of Irrational. So do you think something like this where smaller teams, incubating, and prototyping, and iterating really quickly is something we're going to see a lot more of from big-name studios?

I think so. From a publisher's point of view, games have gotten pretty expensive. So that's going to lead to some conservatism in terms of game topics and things like that. And it's only natural. It's nothing against publishers. They're the ones that are investing all this money, so they want to have some certainty that the product is going to be good. And so, doing something risky is just going to be harder in a large-team environment. So I think that's what's led some designers to take this kind of approach. The other thing that's true, certainly here at Firaxis, is we've got some great game designers that want to bring new ideas to Civilization, that want to grab XCOM and take it; it's really not that I need to have every good idea that there is. I'm kind of freed by all these other great designers to do something that I would like to do and not have to worry about what's happening with our existing titles. So that combination has really allowed us to do a bunch of great games, whether it's Civ or XCOM or something new.

I understand that you wear many hats in this new development setup; you design, you program, etc. Can you talk about why you're drawn to this multi-facteted approach to game development?

I enjoy programming and I really think it's the most efficient way to get my ideas implemented. I could try to explain to somebody else what I would like to happen and hope that it turned out the way I thought it was going to turn out. But I just find that if I have an idea that I'm not so sure about, I'd be reluctant to ask somebody else to implement it, knowing there's probably a 50 percent chance that I'd have to say, 'Oops, that didn't work, take it out.' If it's only my time that I'm wasting, I'm willing to spend that time to explore an idea.

So I find that programming--the game rules, the AI, and those key elements for me is fun, but it's also probably the most effective way to get a bunch of ideas tented out. Because we're in the iteration phase, we are trying to explore as many possibilities as we can, and narrow them down to the best ideas. And by being both programmer and designer, I can really explore those ideas really efficiently. So it just makes sense for us. And a lot of our designers here at Firaxis are also involved in the programming side of things, so that's a way that works for us. That being said, I have great support in terms of graphics technology, UI stuff.

There's a team that gets together to make the game, but there's a few elements, like the game rules and the AI and things like that, that for me makes the most sense to do that personally. And it's really the first thing that kind of gets done. And half the time it doesn't work [laughs]. So we put that away and try something else. So again, I don't want to waste other people's time exploring an idea that may or may not pan out. So it's a system and a process that works for us.

You've talked about the benefits of working in this way, but what about the risks? What kind of challenges have you encountered so far?

I think the challenges are you need to find the right people, because in a small team, you can't have extreme specialists. Because probably 20 different things need to be done. And if you have five people to do them, the math says everybody's got to be able to do four different things. So you need a team that you can really rely on to take all these different aspects and do them. We run fairly loose in terms of some of the methodology of design and programming. You have to trust the people and turn them loose to do what they do best. I think also bringing everybody into the vision is important. We have a small number of people doing a number of different things, and they need to understand how the pieces fit together. So it's not like you give somebody a tiny piece of the pie and say 'You do that and don't worry about anything else.'

It's kind of different; it's more of a team approach, and kind of understanding what people's strengths and weaknesses are and putting that all together. I guess I'm wearing a bunch of hats as well in terms of the programming side of things, but also design, and talking with the artists, understanding what's possible and what's not possible in terms of art, and integrating that into the overall vision of the game. And then every now and then trying to step back and say 'OK, are we on track?' Is this going where we want it to go? What should be anticipating in terms of issues? If we solve them now, we're going to save ourselves a lot of headaches down the road. Luckily, I've done quite a few games. Sometimes I'm able to kind of anticipate--that sounds like an issue that we've had trouble with before, so let's figure that out now before we kind of … go into that same black hole as we ran into the last time [laughs].

You say that finding the right people for smaller teams like this is really important; have you had people come aboard that want to back out later?

We haven't really had that problem. In general, anyone who works in this business likes to finish a product, likes to see it completed. Likes to see that progress. And we're able to show that a little more quickly in this team than perhaps on a larger product with a larger team. Also, having more responsibilities. Being able to take on three or four of those areas feels good to most people who are working. So you feel like you've made a bigger contribution to the game, and you see the results more quickly. Those aspects do make it rewarding for people who enjoy making games. So we haven't really had issues with anybody not liking the way we do things or not feeling this is the kind of project they wanted to work on.

Obviously, you've been involved with game development in pretty much every form. AAA, small-scale, things in the middle. So how has the way you think about game development changed over the years?

I really enjoy it all. It really depends on the game you're tying to make. A certain game/topic might justify a AAA approach, another game/topic or game design might be better with a mid-sized approach. I enjoy them all, I think the game design approach is the most fun for me. The more of that there is in a project , the more appealing it is. The more new ground we're breaking or problems we're solving that we hadn't dealt with before; those are the interesting things, especially when it works out [laughs]. It's not the size of the project so much as 'what's the new ground that we're breaking here?' And those are the parts of the project that are the most fun for me.

It seems like a trend we're seeing today is games are developed out in the open, very transparently, through things like Steam Early Access and other avenues. Is this a goal for you going forward? Do you want to develop more out in the open?

I think that's an interesting model. I can certainly see some advantages to that. I was kind of burned in weird way, quite a few years ago. I was working on a dinosaur game. Early on we put up this developer blog and we were talking every week about what we had done this week with our dinosaur game and how it was getting cooler and cooler. And we ended up canceling that game because it wasn't enough fun [laughs]. And we kind of laid ourselves out there, week after week, explaining why our game was so cool. I guess I got a little bit shy about revealing too much, too early about what was going on. Because there's always a chance that it's just not going to work out.

That being said, I think there certainly are some interesting aspects to opening up your game to the community as it's being developed. I think it's alsmost essential in MMOs or games that are really focused around large groups of players playing together. For a single-player experience, it's a little less essential. Here, I've got a play-test group playing [Starships], I've got everybody else on the team playing it. So it's not like I'm in a total isolation vaccum, but opening up to the community is an interesting approach. I can see it having advantages and disadvantages. I think as designers, we want to get as much feedback as we can--especially good feedback [laughs]. But I think there are other issues, in terms of, again, if it doesn't work out, you've kind of exposed yourself to a lot of second-guessing. I don't know, I'm not sure how I feel about that.

What do you think it says about our industry that games can find success if they're made by 3 people or 3,000?

I think it's definitely one of the big changes over the last couple of years. There's been some really interesting things happen. You look at tools like Unity and Unreal. It's really democratized the world of game design. The barrier of entry to game design has been lowered quite a bit because the technology to get started is readily available. You don't have to have a tech team or don't have to be part of a big company. That's really allowed a lot of people with good ideas to make games. And we're seeing lots and lots of very creative, very unique games being made. At the same time, these avenues for digital distribution--iTunes, Steam--have complemented the tools to solve the other half of the problem--getting games out there. So we're looking at so many games that the problem has almost become filtering them or finding them. It's almost like the dynamic of gameplay has changed where I might have gotten a game and spent the next week playing it. Now, you're more likely to spend five minutes on a game and say what else is out there? [laughs]. It's become a different landscape out there.

And games like Civ and XCOM that invite you to have a seat, let's spend some time together, are becoming more and more rare. It's a lot more of a instant gratification short-term experience with a lot of these games. So there's room for everything, but there's definitely almost this consumable mentality to games at a certain level, and that's brought in a lot of new gamers who might not be ready to spend 30 or 40 hours playing Civilization. So I think we're just expanding the audience for games by addressing people with a variety of timescales that they're willing to invest and a variety of interests.

Whatever you're interested in, you can probably find a game about that out there somewhere. So I think that's hopefully broadened the audience for games while still allowing the more invested gamers to find gamers that will challenge them and then can spend more time with. Because the expeiriences that I remember in terms of gaming are those in-depth experiences. Those games that I spent hours and hours playing, and gradually unfolded and found these cool strategies and cool moments that stuck with me. So hopefully we're still making those kinds of games as well all the other games that are out there.

Is there anything else you'd like to share about your new approach to game development that you want people to know about?

In my mind it allows us to be innovative, creative, and still make really cool games. It's not really so much about the team size. It's about the game experience. At the end of the day, does this game engage you? Does it give you interesting things to think about? [Does it give you] interesting decisions to make and put you in a world that you want to explore more? And I think, regardless of team size, that's our goal and we hope we've done that with Starships.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com