I’m sure I’ll move on at some point, but I’m currently running maybe 30 mods on civ 6, and they are mostly QoL. Parts of both gameplay and UI are just poorly thought out even to this day. So I was expecting the new game to be released in a state I’d dislike. It might take longer to improve than I thought, though.
… Civ 7 is the Civ series shitty attempt at copying Humankind, Humankind is currently $12.50 USD, $25 for all DLC + base game, and is a way better deal than Civ 7 at $70, if not just actually a better game than Civ 5 or Civ 6 + all their existing DLC/expansions.
Haven’t played Humankind yet, but Amplitude’s previous Civ/4X-like “Endless Legend” was amazing and very fresh take on the genre. And it looked like Firaxis were already trying to copy some of it in Civ 6, so I’m not surprised this trend continues.
Civ peaked at Civ 4 and all its expansions for me.
Yes, doomstacks were a problem, but hard pivoting all the way over to Civ 5’s only one unit per tile led to a whole bunch of other bullshit in the opposite direction.
Humankind … just has better inter game system synergy, and those individual systems seem better thought out, more engaging and less… cheesable, exploitable, to a great extent due to how everything meshes together.
The first few months after launch absolutely were rough, with some pretty significant bugs in specific, but often crucial scenarios… but they got ironed out, and the result is great.
Also a lot of the initial backlash was from the pollution / global warming mechanic… they quickly added an option to just turn most of its effects off, but to me the entire thing read as a bunch of people being used to massively colonizing, industrializing and war mongering and then being angry that … that has consequences.
Guess those people have trouble grasping the concept of an externality.
Oh well, they’ve all been filtered, recent steam reviews are ‘very positive.’
Err… well, without any mentions of specific gripes or difficulties you are having… entirely seriously, actually play through with the tutorial enabled.
There are 3 different tutorial settings:
No tutorial
Moderate tutorial (ie, you’ve played some Civ games and want to mainly focus on what is different in Humankind)
Full tutorial (baby step you through everything like you’ve never played any kind of turn based 4x before)
The middle of the road tutorial does a pretty good job of highlighting and explaining systems and actions that work differently from Civ, or are just entirely not present in Civ, but doesn’t hold your hand through every single basic concept that you would already be familiar with as an experienced Civ player.
EDIT: Beyond that, I guess uh… a lot of the game sub systems kind of work… similarly to a lot of Civ game mechanics, but not quite the same, in some cases, significantly differently.
For starters, your civ progresses as you unlock new ages, but your leader stays the same. NPC leaders have a set of traits that affect their demeanor in diplomacy, as well as give them varying kinds of buffs for their gameplay.
These NPCs and their traits are actually classed by the total score of their cumulative traits, basically just a few minor traits are ‘easy’, up to a whole lot of powerful traits as ‘hard’. You can pick to play against easier or harder NPCs as you like.
You can also unlock traits for your own leader by basically doing in game achievements.
But uh yeah, get used to the idea of swapping civs situationally as your progress through ages… or you can sort of ‘prestige’ a civ beyond its roughly historically accurate age, if you want a buff to … i think its your renown or fame score generation the purple one lol. In some situations, it might make more sense to continue with the unique units, buildings, and sometimes civ specific gameplay mechanics through an age.
Other stuff uh…
City planning is pretty important, Humankind uses a multi tile approach to cities, where you can plop down varying kinds of districts and unique buildings according to the terrain around the actual city center. You may have to balance between urban design/zoning that is super efficient in the short run, but actually inefficient in the medium or longer run, as well as defensive structures, which you’ll may want to place on a choke point tile, even if it would be highly productive with a non military structure on it.
Human kind uses a heigh layered terrain approach, with I think 7 different heights. A height 6 tile right adjacent to a height 1 tile will have an impassable cliff on that border. I like to play with more extreme height variations so as to both make the world feel larger in that land traversal takes longer, things like mountain passes and terrain chokepoints become as relevant as they often are in the real world, and it offers more interesting battles.
Rivers are in tiles, not borders between them. This makes crossing rivers more time consuming and annoying… but plays well into the rest of the games combat systems… also, if you embark on a river tile early game, this is basically the representation of building small makeshift boats… and now you can move much faster up or down a river, which is very much in line with how many real world civilizations used rivers as basically logistics highways.
There’s also a system of regions, basically. You can assign a few cities to be connected to the same major city, and then basically micromanage the entire region of cities to coordinate their production to subsidize each other, in various ways. If you do this well, you can benefit greatly, but if you either screw it up or don’t take advantage of it, you can be at a comparative disadvantage to other players.
… theres a whole lot of stuff that is different than Civ games, I could type for hours lol.
That’s a huge reply! Thanks so much for the write up, but I meant it’s not civ /s ofc
I did play with the tutorial and on my last run I actually did the prestige thing too! I think that I got lost in the urban planning and just really screwed that up, I didn’t think when placing let alone ahead of time. I got some stellaris vibes from the difficulty level, harsh when making stupid decisions. I got slapped a few times early game for getting baited into attacking and then immediately overrun.
Your write up inspired me to try again, I think I just made the same bogus mistakes I made with stellaris first time. Play it too casual and get bitten in the ass for it.
Aw, been a while since someone’s complimented me, thank you!
Yes, I too fucked up the city planning stuff a good deal until eventually… it clicked.
It isn’t the same game as Civ, a lot of the sort of ingrained ideas you don’t even realize are baked into your subconcious from playing Civ a lot… will lead you to knee jerk, make the kind of ‘well obviously i do this in this situation’ decisions…
and yeah, then get slapped with ‘nope, no workey’.
But… if you stick with it… just like you probably did, many moons ago, with Civ, you can absolutely get much more skilled.
You must empty your mind of false notions you didn’t even realize you had, before you can begin to fill it with correct ones, haha.
Its funny you bring up stellaris… i spent like a month just utterly failing until that ‘click’ moment.
Then, a few months of ‘i am actually decent at this’ and then a few more months till ‘actually this is boring because i win by stupid margins every time on anything but the most absurd difficulties, and in those games its pretty much a completely random dice roll of surviving early game or not due to the absurd early game ai bonuses… and then by mid to late game, the AI is just literally too stupid to engage in 80% of the micromanagement strategies i am using to snowball’.
I played the Humankind demo and found it to be genuinely awful and borderline unplayable. I’m surprised it’s caused this much panic amongst 2K, unless Humankind has gotten a lot better since the demo.
I never played the demo, started with the full game… maybe a couple weeks after launch.
As I said in another reply, yeah, it absolutely was rough on a technical level for the first few months, a good number of actually fairly common edge cases where the game’s systems would break, things wouldn’t actually work as intended, as described by the game itself.
But, after about 6 months, they fixed basically all of these… and didn’t really even have to do like major tweaks to the balancing of the game… the problems were technical implentations of the designed game, and once they got those ironed out, the game as envisioned was now actually the game as it performed.
Go pull up the steam store page right now: Overall score is still ‘Mixed’ it did indeed have a rough launch… but Recent Reviews are ‘Very Positive’.
The people that bothered to stick with it… well they seem to very much like where the game is now.
So, I’d say yes, the general consensus of people still playing it is that it did indeed improve significantly.
Also, its pretty undeniable that 2K, Civ 7, very much did try to ape some, but not all, of the changes that Humankind put on what is basically the Civ formula, that just never occured to them.
The entire concept of you and other players basicslly just having the avatar of your civilization remain the same for all time, but the civilizations themselves change, with historical eras?
Thats one of the most obviously visible differences between Humankind and any Civ game that existed … prior to Civ 7.
It is also, somewhat ironically, one of the main reasons those initial reviews of Humankind were ‘Mixed’: a whole lot of Civ fans just thought the whole idea was stupid, and were vocal about it.
… And then Civ 7 does the same idea, but more watered down, with only 3 eras, 3 different civs per playthrough, as opposed to Humankind’s … well basically 6 + 1, where that + 1 represents your pre-civilization nomadic tribe/culture, basically playing a fairly different kind of game, prior to building your first real city and thus advancing to your first choice of civilization.
Also, worth throwing in here I guess: Advancing through eras works with a similar mechanic as to racing to build wonders in Civ: You can only have one player as each civ at a time, so if you really want to have first dibs and the full range of civs to choose from, you have to be the first to era advance, otherwise another player may beat you to it and pick the one you were planning on.
But, it also works differently than wonders: Wonders are just built by a city in Civ. Eras in Humankind are advanced by earning points for completing basically era specific mini objectives… and you have a range of different options to choose from, maybe you go for numerous easier objectives, or focus on a few, more difficult ones.
It may have not caused that much panic, but Amplitude consistently put out interesting ideas and enhancements to the Civ-likes in their games, so no wonder Firaxis might use these as templates and negate any unique features their competition might have over them. Plus, the Civ genre has to move in some way, anyway.
Has there even been a Civ release that was great at the start? I had the old Civ 2 “Multiplayer Gold Edition,” which my friend, who had the original, said had a much better AI. Give it a little while and see what they can do to make Civ 7 better, then it’ll sell well.
You should replay it. It is imho the highlight of the series because of a few changes compared to other civ games:
Focusing on the terraforming and colonisation of alpha Centauri allowed them to have an actual story where you uncovered stuff about the planet and its indigenous lifeforms while you played. It’s from the 90s, so there is no branching storylines, alternative endings or stuff like that, but even after repeated playthroughs it’s nice to have some progression that’s more than a tech tree.
Having only seven leaders (and having them all in every game, no smaller or larger games) might seem weird and tbh, larger maps feel a bit empty. However, each technology, city improvement or wonder gives you some (well narrated) text bits of one of them, giving them so much more character than the leaders in your average game of civ. The hatred for Miriam has become a meme, which wouldn’t have happened if these characters weren’t extremely well written. Ironically this is imho of of the reasons why the add on didn’t work as well - the few bits that were added for each of the new factions just weren’t enough.
Although there are more differences, like eg a unit design workshop, the game loop feels quite similar to civ. It’s like they took civ 4, polished it and just decided to make it… Dunno, meaningful. And while that’s not per se relevant for in game decisions such as “where to settle” or “what to build”, it just makes the whole experience so much better. It’s still my comfort game that I boot up for another play on my deck every now and then.
I did just hunt through my old CDs, and I’ve still got it! Along with Diablo 1 and some weird burned copy of Roller Coaster Tycoon 2 that has a black bottom, like it’s a PlayStation CD. Anyway, I’ll try to check it out; thanks for the recommendation!
Civilization 4 was good at launch. Naturally it got even better over time.
Worth a mention that 4 is the most recent of these games released primary on physical hardware. That meant patching was a more difficult process so they actually had to hire a bunch of play testers to test stuff (and fix the problems they found). Contrast that to the approach of the most recent three games, which had their customers pay $70 for the privilege of being beta testers.
This is a shitty way to develop games. We should be mad about it because we deserve better.
Same with Paradox games. 4X in general is just really hard to get right on release because of how many interlinking systems there are, so waiting for balance updates at a minimum is never a bad idea.
I think a lot of people are waiting for the first Civ7 expansion pack to be released, whenever that may be.
Civ 6 without R+F, GS feels like a completely different game. As an example, in vanilla you can expand anywhere right up to someone’s borders whereas with the expansion straying too far from your territory you could just lose it to influential pressure from neighbouring cities.
They do make changes throughout the series, but every new game is a complete reset to a basic game so they can sell you all the DLC and expansions to make it into a full game.
ign.com
Aktywne