Well as the developers said, the main reason for them to go to this periodization model is to try to solve the late game problem that happens in 4X type games. And although they decided to have a division in 3 parts only, this amount sounds better for "immersion" issues, if you can say so; I recommend you take a look at Humankind, another 4X game that has the same idea but with 6 divisions (technically 7 because of the Neolithic actually) but due to the quantity it ends up having pacing problems for being too quick
- Ages seem to be a game design concept more than historical context. => each has start, setup and goal on its own. - I think the best way to think about year in civ would be; we shift all the calendar year of each civ => so it has potential to peak at the same time => but not all of them will peak because of the game interaction, and only few will win the condition (of what is meant by peak) in that age.
I honestly wouldn't make too much about Civ 7's three-age choice appearing to support any particular theory of history. As you said Paisley, the three-age format is a narrative framework for compartmentalizing the gameplay and keeping it interesting throughout rather. Contrary to what many people believe, Civ doesn't simulate history, but rather it has always emulated it with very broad brushstrokes. Even Civ 6's title screen has a disclaimer: "The content of this videogame is fictional and is not intended to represent or depict an actual record of the events, persons or entities in the game’s historical setting." Everything in Civ is fictionalized, from 4000BC Teddy Roosevelt to Gandhi dropping nukes (yes, I know it's a myth). The three-age system is no different.
I learn much of history from civ, but I love that they priortized gameplay with this bold move. Similar problem happens in racing games. If you get far ahead the rest of the game would be boring. If you don't then it also feels bad because you think you did something wrong. Ages seems to be a great solution, and being divided into 3 makes the most sense for the gameplay.
Eras are like generations. There aren't "real" eras of history just like there isn't a "real" division between boomers and millennials We draw the lines based on function.
Generation are very real and not arbitrary or made up. Technology have advanced so much in the last century that every generation is like a separate era. Greatest = Radio Boomers = TV Millennial = Internet Beta = Tik Tok and AI Silent, X, Zoomers and Alpha are transitional generations.
Great video. I love hearing your thoughts on the Age system. The idea that Exploration centers around the 11th century was revelatory to me and I'm going to be thinking more about it.
While I understand, and agree with, that most civ games get stale in the later ages I don't think it's because a lack of content. I find that it's the lack of a challenge with the difficulty, all my games either end up with me losing early - or it's ridiculously easy in the late game. The difficulty in civ sets up the Ai with lots of bonuses at the start (and some % bonuses throughout the game). In the first ages I struggle to get ahead, in the middle you've caught up but the computer still puts up a fun fight, and in the end you're mostly steamrolling the computer - which often feels like a chore. Pair this with the civ-ai:s unability to challenge you on the oceans or by air (land combat is fine). The struggle to find aluminium for the vital planes, or uranium, could've been the next stage in late game civ - but with the ai:s inability to use them it's not that interesting in the lategame.
Yes curious if in civ 7 the will AI make better decisions, or they will mostly use the ages as a method of slowing the player down and having AI catch up!
I know Europa Universalis is the Paradox game everyone recommended but if u also wana play another paradox game that also features the byzantines and ottomans but is more intuitive and allows for more 'roleplay' Id recommend Crusader kings 3. its early on in the history but its really fun compared to other grand stratagy games because its based around the "Kings" themselves rather than the country, in other words ur playing as the dynasty of the king rather than the nation itself. I think you too could have alotta fun with it.
Thanks! It looks like it takes a more unique approach to the genre, I’ll definitely give it a shot! I think I’m spending the next 6 months playing all these alternative civ games and figuring out how they all compare :)
Early modern still be modern to the people living in that span of time. Tne flag post keeps moving. It's certainly doesn't appear accurate to have a block of events congealed into one convenient mass. However, the blob of history does allow for fun to exist in spite of recorded events, a disclaimer on accurate representation would be nice
You two baited me with the agist title, i was ready to throw down (I'm an old Civ1 player) 😂 I am no historian but I am with Dr Crow on this one, ages give us non-academics and easy way to think about when stuff happened.
I think there should have been at least 4 ages instead of 3. From what I saw from antiquity there was a bit too much classical representation but no bronze age which lasted for a very long time. Those should be split in two. It was weird to see -400 BCE Roman soliders being trained in -2000 BCE. I assumed that exploration era would start maybe around year 600 or so and encompass the medieval era and up until maybe the 1700's. But I'm very pleased to learn that the exploration era will focus more in depth on late iron age/early medieval and the high middle ages, and renaissance period only. And that the 1600's and the age of enlightenment (the early modern period) is acutally more represented in the "modern" era. As I feared that I would see norman knights in shining armour next to a 1600's spanish galleon. I only hope that there will be enough tehcnological and visual upgrades to both cities, units, buildings etc troughout the modern era to portray the changes and advancements. And not a single leap in units, gameplay and visuals from 1700's line battle to ww2 radiotowers, destroyers and paratroopers on the map.
All excellent points and I totally agree. Exploration and modern are maybe the more controversial ages, but antiquity is really the more loosely defined and spans such a large period of time that it doesn’t really match the other two. I was really hoping to see the Hittites and that time period represented since it’s so fascinating to me, and even though we still might, I don’t think it works as well in the way they’ve thematized antiquity!
Hello, Paisly!! Let's start off with that I have seen the Antiquity Age Stream that was here two days ago (from today). 400 A.D. to 1700 A.D. being Exploration age... I heard in that stream that RELIGION mechanic will be very important... To motivate exploration and such... Guess what champion 😂, I am someone who already put my SCUBA gear religion in 11 different games (including Civ5, Civ6, Humankind™ and Millennia and UnCiv and so more!) So, imagine my SCUBA religion inspiring people to Explore the Civ7's equivalent of the Americas.😅😅😅😅
All I know is that they've cut back so much on having different eras to only having 3 and the worst thing is that every player and AI will automatically jump into whatever era you manage to unlock and they'll automatically unlock all the technologies leading up to that era even if you were ahead by a lot! It's so stupid. Can't wait to play ARA History Untold in 10 days from now and I'll probably not even wanna play Civ VII.
It is very difficult to please everyone needs. Simple as that. Do not buy Civ VII, play ARA or you can even try to create your own game. Nobody is forcing you or me or anyone. Video games community are getting so childish. Civ developers have a vision on how they want to create their game, ARA have theirs, Humankind theirs. These games are very complex to make. Please mature a bit.
There are several Civ 6 eras in one Civ 7 age... The Middle Ages haven't disappeared, they're the first phase of the Age of Exploration. About whether having been in advance in one age is really lost in the next, I suggest you wait to hear more about the legacy bonuses.
Dr Crow is extremely intelligent and has a good sense of humor.
It's basically Iron - Niter - Oil ages now.
Well as the developers said, the main reason for them to go to this periodization model is to try to solve the late game problem that happens in 4X type games. And although they decided to have a division in 3 parts only, this amount sounds better for "immersion" issues, if you can say so; I recommend you take a look at Humankind, another 4X game that has the same idea but with 6 divisions (technically 7 because of the Neolithic actually) but due to the quantity it ends up having pacing problems for being too quick
Let's be honest. The real reason for the Ages system and Civ switching is to sell more DLC down the line.
- Ages seem to be a game design concept more than historical context. => each has start, setup and goal on its own.
- I think the best way to think about year in civ would be; we shift all the calendar year of each civ => so it has potential to peak at the same time => but not all of them will peak because of the game interaction, and only few will win the condition (of what is meant by peak) in that age.
I honestly wouldn't make too much about Civ 7's three-age choice appearing to support any particular theory of history. As you said Paisley, the three-age format is a narrative framework for compartmentalizing the gameplay and keeping it interesting throughout rather.
Contrary to what many people believe, Civ doesn't simulate history, but rather it has always emulated it with very broad brushstrokes. Even Civ 6's title screen has a disclaimer: "The content of this videogame is fictional and is not intended to represent or depict
an actual record of the events, persons or entities in the game’s historical setting." Everything in Civ is fictionalized, from 4000BC Teddy Roosevelt to Gandhi dropping nukes (yes, I know it's a myth). The three-age system is no different.
I learn much of history from civ, but I love that they priortized gameplay with this bold move. Similar problem happens in racing games. If you get far ahead the rest of the game would be boring. If you don't then it also feels bad because you think you did something wrong. Ages seems to be a great solution, and being divided into 3 makes the most sense for the gameplay.
Eras are like generations. There aren't "real" eras of history just like there isn't a "real" division between boomers and millennials
We draw the lines based on function.
Generation are very real and not arbitrary or made up. Technology have advanced so much in the last century that every generation is like a separate era.
Greatest = Radio
Boomers = TV
Millennial = Internet
Beta = Tik Tok and AI
Silent, X, Zoomers and Alpha are transitional generations.
Hi I just found your channel and I love your combination of expertise and game review
Thank you!!
Great video. I love hearing your thoughts on the Age system. The idea that Exploration centers around the 11th century was revelatory to me and I'm going to be thinking more about it.
While I understand, and agree with, that most civ games get stale in the later ages I don't think it's because a lack of content. I find that it's the lack of a challenge with the difficulty, all my games either end up with me losing early - or it's ridiculously easy in the late game. The difficulty in civ sets up the Ai with lots of bonuses at the start (and some % bonuses throughout the game). In the first ages I struggle to get ahead, in the middle you've caught up but the computer still puts up a fun fight, and in the end you're mostly steamrolling the computer - which often feels like a chore. Pair this with the civ-ai:s unability to challenge you on the oceans or by air (land combat is fine).
The struggle to find aluminium for the vital planes, or uranium, could've been the next stage in late game civ - but with the ai:s inability to use them it's not that interesting in the lategame.
Yes curious if in civ 7 the will AI make better decisions, or they will mostly use the ages as a method of slowing the player down and having AI catch up!
I just want to play the civilisation that I chose instead of Keep on searching civilisations. This is the system I Disliked on humankind.
Yeah I just played humankind for the first time this week and oh boy did it suck lol
I know Europa Universalis is the Paradox game everyone recommended but if u also wana play another paradox game that also features the byzantines and ottomans but is more intuitive and allows for more 'roleplay' Id recommend Crusader kings 3. its early on in the history but its really fun compared to other grand stratagy games because its based around the "Kings" themselves rather than the country, in other words ur playing as the dynasty of the king rather than the nation itself. I think you too could have alotta fun with it.
Thanks! It looks like it takes a more unique approach to the genre, I’ll definitely give it a shot! I think I’m spending the next 6 months playing all these alternative civ games and figuring out how they all compare :)
@@Paisley_Trees This one will definately be a unique experiance amongs the bunch. Enjoy!
"Early Modern = Modern" isn't a very hot take... It's literally in the name "early modern"
Early modern still be modern to the people living in that span of time. Tne flag post keeps moving. It's certainly doesn't appear accurate to have a block of events congealed into one convenient mass. However, the blob of history does allow for fun to exist in spite of recorded events, a disclaimer on accurate representation would be nice
You two baited me with the agist title, i was ready to throw down (I'm an old Civ1 player) 😂
I am no historian but I am with Dr Crow on this one, ages give us non-academics and easy way to think about when stuff happened.
Sorry about the bait, it’s my awful sense of humour lol! I think I slowly convinced myself to get on board during this conversation too!
I think there should have been at least 4 ages instead of 3. From what I saw from antiquity there was a bit too much classical representation but no bronze age which lasted for a very long time. Those should be split in two. It was weird to see -400 BCE Roman soliders being trained in -2000 BCE.
I assumed that exploration era would start maybe around year 600 or so and encompass the medieval era and up until maybe the 1700's. But I'm very pleased to learn that the exploration era will focus more in depth on late iron age/early medieval and the high middle ages, and renaissance period only. And that the 1600's and the age of enlightenment (the early modern period) is acutally more represented in the "modern" era. As I feared that I would see norman knights in shining armour next to a 1600's spanish galleon.
I only hope that there will be enough tehcnological and visual upgrades to both cities, units, buildings etc troughout the modern era to portray the changes and advancements. And not a single leap in units, gameplay and visuals from 1700's line battle to ww2 radiotowers, destroyers and paratroopers on the map.
All excellent points and I totally agree. Exploration and modern are maybe the more controversial ages, but antiquity is really the more loosely defined and spans such a large period of time that it doesn’t really match the other two. I was really hoping to see the Hittites and that time period represented since it’s so fascinating to me, and even though we still might, I don’t think it works as well in the way they’ve thematized antiquity!
Hello, Paisly!! Let's start off with that I have seen the Antiquity Age Stream that was here two days ago (from today).
400 A.D. to 1700 A.D. being Exploration age... I heard in that stream that RELIGION mechanic will be very important... To motivate exploration and such...
Guess what champion 😂, I am someone who already put my SCUBA gear religion in 11 different games (including Civ5, Civ6, Humankind™ and Millennia and UnCiv and so more!)
So, imagine my SCUBA religion inspiring people to Explore the Civ7's equivalent of the Americas.😅😅😅😅
lol all fear the SCUBA gear! 😅
All I know is that they've cut back so much on having different eras to only having 3 and the worst thing is that every player and AI will automatically jump into whatever era you manage to unlock and they'll automatically unlock all the technologies leading up to that era even if you were ahead by a lot! It's so stupid. Can't wait to play ARA History Untold in 10 days from now and I'll probably not even wanna play Civ VII.
I haven’t been keeping up with Ara info releases but I’ll definitely play it when it’s out!
It is very difficult to please everyone needs. Simple as that. Do not buy Civ VII, play ARA or you can even try to create your own game. Nobody is forcing you or me or anyone. Video games community are getting so childish. Civ developers have a vision on how they want to create their game, ARA have theirs, Humankind theirs. These games are very complex to make. Please mature a bit.
@@hutch333playeri absolutely agree!
There are several Civ 6 eras in one Civ 7 age... The Middle Ages haven't disappeared, they're the first phase of the Age of Exploration.
About whether having been in advance in one age is really lost in the next, I suggest you wait to hear more about the legacy bonuses.