This proves that there are eras in the game!!!

Tommy1234567890

Warlord
Joined
Jul 17, 2005
Messages
298
Location
Argentina
Latley there has been a lot of discuscion if there are scientific eras in the game.

I think this pic proves it does.

let's hear your comments!!!
 
I've seen the picture. When I saw it I thought, this civilization has probably researched some key technology that allows the change in era. This probably effects the look of your cities and maybe the look of some of the terrain improvements. There are probably a few of these key technologies that allow you to change to the next era. The change era screen is probably only there for flavour.
 
Roland Johansen said:
I've seen the picture. When I saw it I thought, this civilization has probably researched some key technology that allows the change in era. This probably effects the look of your cities and maybe the look of some of the terrain improvements. There are probably a few of these key technologies that allow you to change to the next era. The change era screen is probably only there for flavour.
Exactly what I was thinking.
 
I agree with Roland Johansen in that the eras as in Civ3 won't be there anymore, which is just a good decision.
 
C3CFanatic0014 said:
But if the eras are there, and they are triggered by techs... Wouldn't that mean they are divided into eras?
The game is divided into eras for 'flavor' reasons.

The Tech Tree is not divided into eras ala Civ3.

Two different concepts.

The first is cosmetic, the second is a game play issue. I too am glad the tech tree is not limited by era's this time aroundd.
 
It'd be kind of prejudice to name an era 'reinaisance era' since that only happened in Western Europe...
 
Nyvin said:
It'd be kind of prejudice to name an era 'reinaisance era' since that only happened in Western Europe...

You can apply the word "renaissance" to several cultures as you please, but I generally agree with you that "renaissance" as it is typically used is very eurocentric, but unfortunately they feel like since most of their consumers are of the West, that they must be really stupid and too closed-minded to consider other historical perspectives.
 
Nyvin said:
It'd be kind of prejudice to name an era 'reinaisance era' since that only happened in Western Europe...
I know what you mean, and I was thinking the same thing. Hopefully there will be other, more effective eras in the game. I wouldn't mind the four different eras in Civ3, as long as they don't split up the tech tree, which they haven't.
 
The changes during the renaissance led to important scientific discoveries and eventually to the european revolutions and the modern times. Then the revolutions spread all over the world.

It makes more sense to me having renaissance and modern times as the last two eras rather than industrial and modern times. The industrial era is a part of the modern times. But because of our perspective, we tend to see our own time as completely different from the recent past.
 
I think if you research any (or maybe a couple) next era tech, you move to that era and your cities change looks. You dont have to finish an era tech-wise before moving on.

I doubt that they renamed golden age and mixed it with a the concept of eras.
 
Roland Johansen said:
This probably effects the look of your cities and maybe the look of some of the terrain improvements.

Music will quite definitely change as well, and the look of great people.

Maybe the leaderheads too. *crosses fingers*
 
oldStatesman said:
The game is divided into eras for 'flavor' reasons.

The Tech Tree is not divided into eras ala Civ3.

Two different concepts.

The first is cosmetic, the second is a game play issue. I too am glad the tech tree is not limited by era's this time aroundd.

To add to this, this is exactly how Civ2 was.
 
Lucky The Fox said:
Music will quite definitely change as well, and the look of great people.

Maybe the leaderheads too. *crosses fingers*

I'm betting the leaderheads will change. They put a lot of effort into gfx and leaderheads, the presentation is clearly very important to them. :)
 
minger said:
You can apply the word "renaissance" to several cultures as you please, but I generally agree with you that "renaissance" as it is typically used is very eurocentric, but unfortunately they feel like since most of their consumers are of the West, that they must be really stupid and too closed-minded to consider other historical perspectives.
Uh huh. I would much rather the game informed me, with great pomp and circumstance, that I had entered the "Era Where All Exploration and Most Theoretical Research Ends by Imperial Decree." :rolleyes:

Look, the Civ series is undeniably Euro- and America-centric. It would be bizarre if it were not. The entire game is about power and domination -- militarily, diplomatically, scientifically, and culturally. Non-Occidental nations have had great scientific breakthroughs, eras of military domination, and rich cultural histories and futures, of course. But the story of the past 500 years (a significant period, even in Civ terms) is one where Europe and North America gradually achieved near-complete domination in each of the first three categories I named. Even in culture, the Occidental culture has far more influence on geopolitical power than other forms of culture. For example, kids tore down the Berlin Wall while wearing blue jeans and listening to rock music, not kimonos and Kabuki.

Even leaving aside the fact that Civ is largely made and marketed to Westerners, the very fact that the game inherently focuses on material and scientific power tends to favor the West, at least over the last few centuries. I'll grant that there are plenty of areas where this tendency is exacerbated (like the fact that gunpowder could previously only be researched after feudalism, unlike China's experience), but I don't think you can be completely even-handed and still have a game that resembles Civ. Quick: come up with a sub-Saharan African Great Wonder of the Modern Age.

Anyway, I, at least, am not too "stupid... to consider other historical perspectives." Perhaps, as you suggest, I am "too close-minded" to do so, but I prefer to think I've considered those perspectives and rejected them.

Back to the topic at hand: I like the cosmetic effect of the age screen. But wouldn't it be nice if, rather than just announcing that we've reached the new age, we got a little blurb about the events of the time or even a movie? C'mon, Soren, you haven't gone gold yet -- whip us up a few 60-second age-advance movies! ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom