Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 12,955
For me, the evidence in the livestream tells against a fourth age.
Very early on Ed says he's excited about this live stream because it allows them to show how they've designed for the game to end. I'll go get the exact quote, but it references the three-age model and Modern is the end of the three-age model on which this civ is designed. "This is the end of our story. We have a three-chapter story that we've been telling. This is the big conclusion."
I combine with that a way he phrases things around 19:20ish that our RL modern age has the kinds of things in it that make for a good game ending, e.g. world war, launching a crewed space mission. I unpack that to mean. We're designing a historically-themed empire-builder. We of course have to figure out what will make for the ending of our game, RL to 1950ish has good elements in it that can be used as a dramatic and decisive-feeling game-ender. Not "our game has to end around 2025 because RL history has only reached that date, so we don't know what would make up the content of anything after that," but, "we know that our game needs to have an end point: this spot in RL allows for a dramatic one." It's kind of a fine distinction, but I think it's a real one.
The victories here are called final (or total) victories. Yes, of course, you could move the events that count as final victories into a fourth age, but he said they didn't want them to feel like filling up buckets, so they've made them projects you have to complete. What would count as such projects would all have to be redesigned and all of these present projects dumped. (And with fewer dramatic things to draw on in post-1950 RL history to constitute such projects).
I know there was that one comment about how you can only move troops 20 tiles on a railroad "in this particular age," but the preponderance of evidence (for me) is that Civ 7 will always have just three ages.
Very early on Ed says he's excited about this live stream because it allows them to show how they've designed for the game to end. I'll go get the exact quote, but it references the three-age model and Modern is the end of the three-age model on which this civ is designed. "This is the end of our story. We have a three-chapter story that we've been telling. This is the big conclusion."
I combine with that a way he phrases things around 19:20ish that our RL modern age has the kinds of things in it that make for a good game ending, e.g. world war, launching a crewed space mission. I unpack that to mean. We're designing a historically-themed empire-builder. We of course have to figure out what will make for the ending of our game, RL to 1950ish has good elements in it that can be used as a dramatic and decisive-feeling game-ender. Not "our game has to end around 2025 because RL history has only reached that date, so we don't know what would make up the content of anything after that," but, "we know that our game needs to have an end point: this spot in RL allows for a dramatic one." It's kind of a fine distinction, but I think it's a real one.
The victories here are called final (or total) victories. Yes, of course, you could move the events that count as final victories into a fourth age, but he said they didn't want them to feel like filling up buckets, so they've made them projects you have to complete. What would count as such projects would all have to be redesigned and all of these present projects dumped. (And with fewer dramatic things to draw on in post-1950 RL history to constitute such projects).
I know there was that one comment about how you can only move troops 20 tiles on a railroad "in this particular age," but the preponderance of evidence (for me) is that Civ 7 will always have just three ages.
Last edited: