I'm sorry that you think I was being dismissive but the thing you read as sarcastic was me actually trying to make a point. Though I understand in hindsight how what i wrote may be interpreted as trying to be dismissive and I apologize. The point is simply an extension of the question in the original comment that you quoted. Where are we drawing the line and why?
You're alluding to some metaphysical conception of "exploration" ex: exploration of sciences but by that logic why wouldn't the Modern Era be more deserving of the title "Age of Exploration"? What about the continents and peoples who didn't have scientific establishments? This period from 400-1600 is also defined by conquest and the establishment of empires. Why isn't the second age called the "Age of Empires"? Where is the line drawn when trying to define such wide periods global trends? This is the actual conversation being had and I'm sincerly not trying to dismiss you even when I poke holes in reasoning.
So again, I don't want to be dismissive but I'm going to go based on what Firaxis has advertised and repeatedly showcased and stated as their intent for the Age vs. baseless speculating their intent. The map quite literally expands during the era, the tech tree extends into atleast 1600s and the repeatedly stated theme of the era is about finding new commodities in far off lands. Until stated otherwise the Exploration being refered to is physical.
See the funny thing is, My issue with ages is entirely on the unnecessarity of splitting the game into three seperate game rounds and then justifying a purely gameplay decision afterwards in flimsily historical justification. These changes serve gameplay first and foremost and the "existential historical examination" you seem to believe Firaxis is trying to create really doesn't seem to exist. I'd argue that it seems that Firaxis seems more concerned with forcing arbitrary narrative and railroaded structure into their inherently sandbox 4x game than I am concerned with expecting a "traditional historical narrative" from Civilization, whatever that means .
First, you have a tendency to pepper your responses with dismissive phrase and quips that are completely unnecessary. You are obviously unaware of this so I will give you an example.
You: “… I am concerned with expecting a “traditional historical narrative” from Civilization, whatever that means.”
“Whatever that means” is dismissive and unnecessary. If you are not a native English speaker, I understand, but otherwise it’s rude.
Also, “unnecessarity”, “flimsy”, “forcing”, “railroaded” just in the last paragraph.
Traditional Historical Narrative of WW2 in Europe: WW1, Treaty, Political Violence, Hitler in Power, Appeasement, Invasion of Poland, WAR, France Falls, Germany invade Russia, D-Day, VE-Day. Obviously abbreviated. Examine the political and economic events, causes and results.
Existential Historical Examination: Facts(Above), how the causes resulted in war, how the human condition worsened or improved as a result, an examination of human evil and the complexities and consequences of conflicting ideologies at the human level. etc...
I have watched the same Civ VII promotional content as you and have seen, especially through the insights shared by Dr. Johnson, a clear shift in their approach to this iteration of Civilization. Is it incredibly deep? No, it can't be, nor has it ever been from a Traditional Historical Narrative approach. It's a video game.
Evidence for my claim. Simple. I will give you three off the top of my head.
1: Eliminating linear progression through Ages and periodic Crisis. Crisis that cannot be avoided but mitigated through game play decision making is representative of the ever present "existential threat" to humanity. You can prepare for the unexpected, but the unexpected will happen none the less. Your decisions prior to the event will not only determine if you survive or perish, but is also, in many cases, the catalyst for the event occurring in the first place. Ages set you up to play as historical people groups during their peak, confronting their self-made or natural crisis, trying to survive and recover, born anew in the next age. In the next age, you again rise and fall, caring on traits, the threads, connecting you to the people before you. An existential examination of human progression, where ancient societies never really collapse, they only transform. Your existence is the result of many layers(copies, admixtures, and mutations) of DNA. Exactly like the game. You will see remnants, some functional and some expired, of the previous Civ you chose, and the lasting bonuses from the previous ages.
2. Dr. Johnson made it very clear that the entire map is considered inhabited from the very beginning of the game. when you place your capital, you are in essence representing the people of that tile, forming a civilization. Every tile you take through border expansion, settlement, or conflict is considered to be, by the design team, the assimilation, subjugation, or displacement of the people currently inhabiting that tile. In essence, every tile you control is an examination into our basic human desires and the consequences of how we chose to act on those desires. Eliminating the barbarians, turning them into independent people who will eventually form city states. This game system will explore how humanity interacts with other organized, but less establish/advanced, societies. How will you handle them? They are a temptation ripe for conquest or manipulation.
3. The soft settlement cap implies a moral or ethical meter. Will you stay under, or go over that threshold and what will it mean for the people of your civilization? It has a happiness impact. That's incredibly interesting. Probably has lasting consequences as well as crisis implications.
The teams new approach is refreshing to me. Some of these existential questions have been in Civ this entire time, but it is clear to me that they have shifted focus to bring these questions out of the shadows, giving them a little more depth and consequence.
but a lot of the time, I'm genuinely not trying to insult or dismiss and I am sincerly addressing points being made but I will apologize for the misunderstanding and try to explain myself further after the fact.
