As others notes, it‘s an awkward question. HK was a legitimate game from the start and still is. I can imagine that some people will try it again now or until civ 7 comes out. And I wish them a ton of fun with it if/when they do!
Has Civ 7 Legitimized Humankind?
- Thread starter Albertan Civfanatic
- Start date
Lord Lakely
Idea Fountain
I gave HK my first serious playthrough yesterday (I have it, but never came around to play it :X), and the Civ Switching is like... the least of its problems?
Sure it's very weird and immersion breaking to have an empire that settles Memphis, Thebes, Rome, Capua, Zürich and Buenos Aires, in that order (???), but I think Fame as the only win condition is its real problem. Collecting Fame, at all costs, is all that matters longterm, unless you're playing on a map small enough to conquer everyone.
Also a gazillion of buildings and not nearly enough time to build all of them, vast swaths of territory but a teeny settlement limit (even on huge maps???) so you're stuck with 4-5 massive cities that you need to keep developing or they'll succumb to panic.
Switching Civs is the LEAST of HK's problems, and is hardly a problem at all beyond that the switches happen fairly quickly. Three ages and three tangentially related Civs across one game, into four different Victory conditions, which is what Civ 7 appears to have, amends several of HK's problem.
I don't think HK is a bad game, but it's also not a *good* game either. Age of Wonders and Old World remain the only good Civ-likes that I've played beyond Civ itself.
Civ7 might be HK2, but right now I'd hazard a guess that it will be a much better game.
Last edited:
Humankind had a lot of interesting ideas but the problem was with the execution and how it failis to fits together to make a cohesive game. If Civ takes those ideas and implements them in a better way it does not make Humankind better in anyway so I don't think it legitimizes Humankind in that sense.
On the other hand does Humankind need any kind of legitmizing because the problems it was addressing were already legitimate but it was just not a good game.
On the other hand does Humankind need any kind of legitmizing because the problems it was addressing were already legitimate but it was just not a good game.
Great game, though I'm among the few who enjoyed the sequel more. I liked the addition of turn-based combat, and I appreciated that PoE2 evened out the tone a bit--everything in PoE1 was so grim. Plus PoE2 had better companions and kept the best companion from the first game (Edér). Still, if Josh Sawyer makes it I'll play it; I hope someday Obsidian will greenlight PoE3.
I admire ARA for not trying to be a Civ game and doing its own thing, but I didn't particularly enjoy it in any of the three alphas I played. The emphasis on crafting simply isn't fun for me.
ehecatzin
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,854
Yeah I don't think it will legitimize it, Humankind does have great ideas and concepts, the map is gorgeous the music is top notch, combat is cool, and the concept of culture switching is good. I used to come back once in a while to give a try, and I've got the say, the game up to mid game is so good, cities are decent sizes you can still build stuff around and you get good sense of growth, you are having fun.
Then you hit your head against some stupid nonsensical diplomatic choice, you get peaced out out of nowehere on a war that just started, or some coalition of cultures half a world apart makes a demand of you, but you are the one who has to invade them on a time limit to not get peaced out, districts start to become unbuildable, the religion game becomes an absolute steamroll in either direction, and well it just goes off the rails.
and then I wonder why I tried it, again...
and It's the good ideas it has, and Im so happy Firaxis wants to give it a go and do them justice. But legitimized? nah, Amplitude has to do Humankind 2 for that to happen.
tbh ara is already better than civ 7 for people who dont want to keep changing civ very few turns,only thing i am unconvinced about so far is the combat.Humankind was ok but not balanced very well and I hated the Civ switching. I usually played the Harappan Civ and stayed with them. That would have been ok but the AI kept swapping Civs like mad.Kills the immersion.
Still, some interesting ideas in Humankind and the combat was done pretty well.
I am looking forward to Ara: History Untold, though. It may be the best challenger to Civ yet. Not saying it'll be better than Civ but certainly better than Humankind or Millennia.
waiting for civ 8 to correct it is probably a 10 year wait ,so ARA it is.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2017
- Messages
- 914
I'm completely unphased by ARA, but because, from what I saw, there's nothing particularly new with this game. There's no new things that challenge how "historical" 4X are done. It doesn't have the dynastic/eventful mechanics of Old World, nor the civ switching of Humankind, nor the fantasy and storytelling elements of Age of Wonders 4. There is the non-linear tech tree that might be interesting, but that's not enough.
And I think here comes the gulf between me and players who don't like Civ VII for now. When I want to play a new game, I want a new game, not an old game I liked with slightly change graphics. Why would I play this new game if the old one is already there? That's why I wouldn't really care for a Stellaris 2. That's why I stopped caring about Cities Skylines because they're too focus on the grid, and switched to Foundation and Manor Lords who, despite their own flaws, at least changed the gameplay enough going off grid and with other elements that it was enchanting for me to try. I tried Mind Over Magic despite having played a lot at Spellcaster University because, despite both being a game about building your school of magic, one was a deck-building game while the other is a base-survival game. And so on.
So I'm enthralled by what is announced about Civ VII because it's new. It takes old elements but with enough twists on them that it will seem like a new game, unlike ARA who, for now, hasn't showed me a thing that would seem such a change. But for players who just want to play again Civ 6, I can understand why such a new game is jarring for them, and why ARA (who always stood to me, from the moment I heard about it until today where I quickly checked its progress, as merely a cosmetic upgrade of the most basic and safe and secure elements of traditional 4X without really taking any risk) might appeal more people. And that's a distance that we can't really fill as it's so personal.
But it's funny how I never heard more about ARA: History Untold since the Civ VII preview video. As if, before that, nobody really cared, but since it keeps the "same civ" gimmick, people are coming back to it just for that. Interesting.
And I think here comes the gulf between me and players who don't like Civ VII for now. When I want to play a new game, I want a new game, not an old game I liked with slightly change graphics. Why would I play this new game if the old one is already there? That's why I wouldn't really care for a Stellaris 2. That's why I stopped caring about Cities Skylines because they're too focus on the grid, and switched to Foundation and Manor Lords who, despite their own flaws, at least changed the gameplay enough going off grid and with other elements that it was enchanting for me to try. I tried Mind Over Magic despite having played a lot at Spellcaster University because, despite both being a game about building your school of magic, one was a deck-building game while the other is a base-survival game. And so on.
So I'm enthralled by what is announced about Civ VII because it's new. It takes old elements but with enough twists on them that it will seem like a new game, unlike ARA who, for now, hasn't showed me a thing that would seem such a change. But for players who just want to play again Civ 6, I can understand why such a new game is jarring for them, and why ARA (who always stood to me, from the moment I heard about it until today where I quickly checked its progress, as merely a cosmetic upgrade of the most basic and safe and secure elements of traditional 4X without really taking any risk) might appeal more people. And that's a distance that we can't really fill as it's so personal.
But it's funny how I never heard more about ARA: History Untold since the Civ VII preview video. As if, before that, nobody really cared, but since it keeps the "same civ" gimmick, people are coming back to it just for that. Interesting.
This is kind of random, but I'll post it here.
When I first saw early previews of Humankind gameplay, I was really excited when I saw that there was a nomadic hunter-gatherer phase. Partly because I'm interested in that era, and partly because that's one of the things that has always been missing in Civilization's portrayal of nomadic cultures... it would be nice to have proper nomadic mechanics instead of hammering the square peg of nomadic cultures into the round hole of a city builder.
And I was disappointed that apparently the nomadic phase in Humankind only lasts a few turns and really isn't much of a deal.
Anyhow, that's still something I'd like to see addressed in Civilization at some point, especially since they keep on adding nomadic civilizations to the game.
As for the neolithic hunter-gatherer thing, I think that would make a really cool Colonization type spinoff.
When I first saw early previews of Humankind gameplay, I was really excited when I saw that there was a nomadic hunter-gatherer phase. Partly because I'm interested in that era, and partly because that's one of the things that has always been missing in Civilization's portrayal of nomadic cultures... it would be nice to have proper nomadic mechanics instead of hammering the square peg of nomadic cultures into the round hole of a city builder.
And I was disappointed that apparently the nomadic phase in Humankind only lasts a few turns and really isn't much of a deal.
Anyhow, that's still something I'd like to see addressed in Civilization at some point, especially since they keep on adding nomadic civilizations to the game.
As for the neolithic hunter-gatherer thing, I think that would make a really cool Colonization type spinoff.
New for the sake of new is not always better.
There is a reason the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" exists.
Plus what ARA is doing is giving control of an actual world with scale to the player,most other 4x games are more like animated versions of a board game . So they are doing something diffferent and ambitious already ,especially for a new developer. Maybe its not something you consider new or interesting but neverthless it is something new for 4x genre.
wether it works or not depends on the gameplay though,so we ll find out soon enough.
Last edited:
If you're not going to add something new, there's no reason to even make a sequel.
Professor Phobo
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 289
Navigable rivers and hat based DLC microtransactions. That's the dark timeline for Civilization VII. One major new feature, some UI cleanup, better graphics, and monetization until the end of days. The series stagnates mechanically, we all die old and unmourned in the burned out husks of cities after Civilization 11 gains sentience and takes over the national missile defense program.
not all that is new is great. I dont find the civ changing mechanic interesting or fun,and many agree.
They could have tried something different ,but it is what it is.
Professor Phobo
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 289
I think it's super interesting, but whether or not it'll be fun? No way to tell. Probably not? Blue shell mechanics tend to not be that great.
But it'll definitely make Civilization 8 a contentious topic and now I have something to look forward to!
Having played three Ara alphas, I wish them the best--they are genuinely trying to do their own thing, which I admire--but I found them middling to miserable experiences. Ara is a crafting game masquerading as a 4X game, and that is not something I want.
I agree the crafting is a bit too tiresome,they need to make it less central to the gameplay experince,maybe find a way to make it more automated or just not feel like a drag.
KayAU
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2014
- Messages
- 1,498
I fully understand that not everyone will like the same games, but I disagree with this statement. Ara is a Civ-style 4X game with a crafting system. I do think the crafting system could use some streamlining, or some UI improvements, but didn't find it too bothersome. I would also say that while crafting is important, it is just one game mechanic out of many. It is important, but so is city development, exploration, combat, research, diplomacy and so on.
I personally loved the game, there is a great amount of depth here, and it seems really well put together.
I think Ara offers a few things which are "particularly new", and plenty which are dealt with differently, or combined in a different way. Having played most games in the genre, to me Ara felt vaguely familiar to many other games, but yet not. Some examples of things I find makes Ara stand out:
- It does away with regularly shaped tiles. This is a pretty big change in my opinion.
- Victory conditions replaced with a "prestige" system, and nations being "lost to history" at act transitions.
- Yeah, act transitions. Civ 7 also has these, but Ara is due out 5 months earlier, and the transitions are handled very differently.
- Non-linear tech tree
- Combat and military deployment is handled differently
- Giant maps with up to 36 players doing their turns simultaneously
- It combines a grand strategy/simulation style game with a civ game
- Visually extremely detailed
Civ 8? No, no!
After the "controversial" civ 7, there will be a "civ classic spin-off," basically civ IV with civ 7 graphics and a few UI and QoL improvements.
That will make everyone happy for sure!
Until you require to have certain achievements in civ 7/paid content to unlock civs in the classic spin-off and vice versa.
And until they sell basic stuff from civ IV as DLC. $1 per wonder movie? Such a bargain! Oh, and they haven't even restored the quality to fit modern monitors and resolutions. How nostalgic! I need to buy more of these.
And of course you can't start the game if you aren't online and logged into your 2k account.
Not sure Ara will be better than 7 but I hope so. Firaxis could use the competition.
Ironically, Ara's staff consists of many ex-Firaxis staff including the art director for 5. While, I wasn't a huge fan of the 5 art style, we'll see what this one will be like. It's hard to judge so far.
We'll see how it goes. I may just pre-order it. Give them a chance.
Similar threads
