Has Civ 7 Legitimized Humankind?

[Albertan Civfanatic]

In Civ 7 you can change civs just like in Humankind. There are other similarities and feels to Humankind. Could it be that Civs embracing of mechanics in Humankind has legitimized and made mainstream Humankind, a game that was widely criticized for unpopular mechanics?

 

[Zaarin]

No. Whether Civ7 turns out to be good or bad, it won't change the fact that Humankind was plainly and simply a bad game.

 

[Professor Phobo]

No there's design/feature crossovers between games in shared genres, that's not unusual.

It'd be like saying that because a first person shooter with realistic magazines was unpopular, no first person shooter should use realistic magazines.

 

[Albertan Civfanatic]

I gave Humankind a bad shake in the past but now that I'm playing it after 3 years, it's not that bad. Sure the civ changing ability is gamey, but it's a fun gamey.

 

[Ondolindë]

I don't know about legitimizing Humankind, but I was very, very surprised that Firaxis used ideas from it especially civ switching for which Humankind received a lot of negative feedback. I just couldn't believe my ears when Ed Beach announced it. But, of course, I don't think we know everything about how it will work, so I'm still crossing my fingers.

 

[AriochIV]

Humankind borrowed a lot of features from Civilization. That doesn't say anything about how well they were implemented and whether they added up to a fun game.

(Disclaimer: I haven't played Humankind. Because I heard it kinda sucked.)

I gave Humankind a bad shake in the past but now that I'm playing it after 3 years, it's not that bad. Sure the civ changing ability is gamey, but it's a fun gamey.

Heh. "It's not that bad." Glowing praise.

 

[Zaarin]

(Disclaimer: I haven't played Humankind. Because I heard it kinda sucked.)

I wanted to love it. Endless Space 2 remains one of my favorite 4X games. I couldn't believe how dull, soulless, and poorly designed Humankind was. All of the quirky charm and interesting mechanics that characterize other Amplitude games were absent.

 

[TheGrayFox]

 

[Deer]

Personally, I've enjoyed playing Humankind, despite some of the design flaws. I am not sure if I would bring up the topic of legitimization: For I don't really grasp what it means. I do, however, think that some of the game's critics might benefit from revisiting the game, now knowing that some of the mechanics they disliked are being implemented in the Civ franchise too. Perhaps it would let them enjoy it a little more.

 

[Krikkit1]

I don't know about legitimizing Humankind, but I was very, very surprised that Firaxis used ideas from it especially civ switching for which Humankind received a lot of negative feedback. I just couldn't believe my ears when Ed Beach announced it. But, of course, I don't think we know everything about how it will work, so I'm still crossing my fingers.

I think Civ7 seems to be doing it in a way that addresses some of the criticisms

-civs seem forgettable
Solution: only 3/game instead of 7 (more time with each)

-civs are first come first serve: hard to strategize/plan for a later one you want without rushing
Solution: everyone picks at the same time, and you need to be able to unlock them

-the permanent leader is forgettable
Solution: permanent leader is historical..and you can “customize level them up”.


I think it’s a good idea that can go badly, and it’s worth a second try. (and many things in humankind were messed up)

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

Humankind isn't a complete disaster. Has some good ideas. The combat is one of it's shining features. It's kind of cool to get new uniques every era. The prehistoric beginning makes map exploration interesting.

 

[Disgustipated]

I do plan on replaying Humankind at some point before Civ 7 launch. As for legitimizing it, it's a strange choice of words. Is it some terrorist organization or other nefarious thing? It already was a legitimate game that some people like. I didn't care for it, but I always planned to give it another shake after patches and whatnot, I just haven't gotten around to it.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I do plan on replaying Humankind at some point before Civ 7 launch. As for legitimizing it, it's a strange choice of words. Is it some terrorist organization or other nefarious thing? It already was a legitimate game that some people like. I didn't care for it, but I always planned to give it another shake after patches and whatnot, I just haven't gotten around to it.

"Legitimate game that Some people like" with "some people" being the 1000 players who still happen to play the game less than 3 years after its launch....


It averages less players than Civilization 3 does today

 

[Disgustipated]

Who cares about player count? I'm playing an old game at the moment (pillars of eternity), I doubt that game has high player count.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Who cares about player count? I'm playing an old game at the moment (pillars of eternity), I doubt that game has high player count.

This isn't the best comparison.

Pillars of Eternity is a strictly singleplayer CRPG released a decade ago

Humankind is a mediocre 4x game that was designed to be replayed for hundreds, if not thousands of hours, which lost the vast majority of its playerbase in only three years (despite recieving DLC not even a year ago)

 

[Xandinho]

I don't think HK is that bad, I still play it sometimes. The change of civs per age in HK has been its trademark since the beginning, so I already knew what I would find when I bought the game. However, I didn't expect this in Civ, so it shocked me.

That said, in Civ7 there will only be two civ changes during a game, while in HK there are five. The model of the second one is a much bigger immersion break because, besides the changes being many and this makes you less attached to each civ, the civ choices have no criteria and you can easly go for things like Ming > France. In Civ7, besides there being fewer civ changes, which allows for a greater attachment to each civ, there will be criteria for choosing civs.

Overall, while I'm still not a fan of the civ changes, apparently the Civ7 model will work better than HK.

 

[bbbt]

Humankind was already legitimized and mainstream. Before it launched, people were convinced it would be a solid competitor for civ. It had a huge launch, and sold very well. It had no staying power. I found it devoid of personality, and made it through only a few games.

I am worried from what I've seen that Civ 7 will have a lot of the 'sameness' in play and design that I found in Humankind and made it uninteresting, but we don't know a lot yet.

 

[Gedemon]

It was surprising to see them justifying HK decision for almost 20 minutes, but only spending a few minutes on what they will do differently.

I mean, I get that the feature was already planned and implemented in civ7 before HK was released, yet they should have known how people would react, then spent less time justifying the choice itself and more on the way they think it will work this time.

 

[bite]

It was surprising to see them justifying HK decision for almost 20 minutes, but only spending a few minutes on what they will do differently.

I mean, I get that the feature was already planned and implemented in civ7 before HK was released, yet they should have known how people would react, then spent less time justifying the choice itself and more on the way they think it will work this time.

I hope this is the focus of their presentation at PAX West

 

[Thormodr]

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.