I think I agree with that assessment, that the concept of "Pangaea map" does not exist in the game as we currently understand it to be. The notion of a "full map of civ slots" and a "single large continent covering the maximal map space" simply doesn't exist. Either it's part of a map with a single continent and some of the civs, or it's the whole map with all of the civs but no single continent.
But what we kind of don't have confirmation on is whether, for a single era game, you can remove those restrictions and play with all of the civs, on the whole map, on a single continent. And part of that is due to him not giving us every specific detail to accurately convey that information, so we still don't know what restrictions are maintained in single era games. But part of it is just the kind of fuzzy semantics of what the expectations of a "Pangaea map" are and how they relate to Civ VII's limitations. Is "what players want/expect" a huge, single continent map, or just any sized-single continent map, and what number of civs does it need to feel "Pangaea-y?" Is the antiquity or exploration era civ count enough? And in which eras will be satisfied by those limitations if it's not "max size" continent and "max number" civs? We don't even know if Shirk's idea of Pangaea, or what he thinks player's expectations of Pangaea are, actually align with what players want/expect from a Pangaea map.
I don't think the question of Pangaea is fully answered, and any conclusions are kind of inferring things we haven't actually been told yet.
store.steampowered.com
