HUMANKIND a Civ VI killer?

[Zaarin]

I dunno. Having Old World, which is only going to get better, and the promise of Humankind, sure makes a $40 NFP 2 with carnival games or whatever xtra-light content they want to add look like not a very amazing value proposition.

It's like I can either get more poorly thought out fluff at AAA prices from the Civ 6 people, or I can get solid new content potentially at AA prices - one from the man who designed the greatest game in Civ history, and the other from a studio that has developed the industry-leading reputation for improving and supporting their game years after launch.

I agree that Civ6 has overextended itself. I regret buying NFP, and I wouldn't buy additional content for Civ6. But I'm still very interested in Civ7, despite enjoying both Old World and what I've seen so far of Humankind. Old World is a great game. Focusing on a narrower era and bringing in some Paradox-style elements works for it, but it doesn't feel like it belongs in the same category. There's room for all three.

 

[Zegangani]

Civ and Humankind are two different Games IMO. One is more Culture oriented (not really - but they try ), the other is a dynamic Game that makes every Game different, even with the same Civ. The Unit combat is very different, Border expansion, Diplomacy...etc. And we don't even know if what we saw so far from Humankind was just a glimpse of what it's going to be, or if they just gonna focus on Balance and UI from now on. I think Most of the Civ Players would get Humankind and play both Games, just switching from Time to Time from one to the other.

I dunno. Having Old World, which is only going to get better, and the promise of Humankind, sure makes a $40 NFP 2 with carnival games or whatever xtra-light content they want to add look like not a very amazing value proposition.

It's like I can either get more poorly thought out fluff at AAA prices from the Civ 6 people, or I can get solid new content potentially at AA prices - one from the man who designed the greatest game in Civ history, and the other from a studio that has developed the industry-leading reputation for improving and supporting their game years after launch.

I haven't played OldWorld yet, but from what I saw, I really like it's Mechanisms, especially the Action Limits per Turn and the Leader Familiy Tree with the political relationships. Unfortunately, the Game only plays from the ancient to Meddieval/(Early Rennaissance?) Era. I wouldn't hesitate to get it if it could be played till the Information/Future Era (and modding friendly - if it is not already).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I agree that Civ6 has overextended itself. I regret buying NFP, and I wouldn't buy additional content for Civ6.

You regret buying Maya, Ethiopia and Gaul.

I mean I can agree that not all of the game modes are stellar, but I've been enjoying the new civs and the other content and look forward to what's in the other packs.

I like the idea behind the game modes but I wish some were more fleshed out, particularly the historical based ones. Hoping the corporation/industrial economic one lives up to everybody's expectations.

 

[The Civs 6]

I agree that Civ6 has overextended itself. I regret buying NFP, and I wouldn't buy additional content for Civ6. But I'm still very interested in Civ7, despite enjoying both Old World and what I've seen so far of Humankind. Old World is a great game. Focusing on a narrower era and bringing in some Paradox-style elements works for it, but it doesn't feel like it belongs in the same category. There's room for all three.

Civ 7 would change my opinion, agreed on that. Also agreed that Old World doesn't feel like a pure replacement of Civ, for the obvious reason that you can't have tanks fighting knights.

You regret buying Maya, Ethiopia and Gaul.

I mean I can agree that not all of the game modes are stellar, but I've been enjoying the new civs and the other content and look forward to what's in the other packs.

I like the idea behind the game modes but I wish some were more fleshed out, particularly the historical based ones. Hoping the corporation/industrial economic one lives up to everybody's expectations.

The more I think about it, the more to me it goes beyond whether you think a particular game mode is good or not. Having optional game modes is basically admitting that the game concepts aren't good enough to be fully introduced into the game. And to me that is correct - the only game modes I think are worth playing with are apocalypse and secret societies. That's just a super wishy washy approach to game design - if you aren't confident enough to release it as a full-game, why should I front the money for you to keep designing these things? NFP just leaves a bad taste in my mouth, despite the rational part of me saying that it is good value for money and that the game modes are at least marginally interesting.

 

[Chekko]

Two outcomes:

1) Humankind is a big success and the hard core fanbase moves to that franchise leaving Civ to casuals
2) Firaxis takes notice and gets their act together (sort of like what AMD did for Intel)

I'm planning on scenario 1 but hoping for 2. How likely to you think it is that Firaxis will change their stripes and put out a quality product?

If #1 was to happen its not like Firaxis would twiddle their thumbs and give up. I'd guess even more developers would see the value in developing these games that more competition come knocking.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The more I think about it, the more to me it goes beyond whether you think a particular game mode is good or not. Having optional game modes is basically admitting that the game concepts aren't good enough to be fully introduced into the game. And to me that is correct - the only game modes I think are worth playing with are apocalypse and secret societies. That's just a super wishy washy approach to game design - if you aren't confident enough to release it as a full-game, why should I front the money for you to keep designing these things? NFP just leaves a bad taste in my mouth, despite the rational part of me saying that it is good value for money and that the game modes are at least marginally interesting.

They said they made them optional because another full fledged expansion with a whole bunch of features would bloat the game too much, in their opinion.
If the developers themselves thought the game concepts weren't good they wouldn't have implemented them at all.

That being said a majority of the current game modes aren't wholly historical in nature either. If those weren't optional there might have been more people outraged.

 

[Zaarin]

You regret buying Maya, Ethiopia and Gaul.

I mean I can agree that not all of the game modes are stellar, but I've been enjoying the new civs and the other content and look forward to what's in the other packs.

I like the idea behind the game modes but I wish some were more fleshed out, particularly the historical based ones. Hoping the corporation/industrial economic one lives up to everybody's expectations.

NFP has added a lot of civilizations that I really wanted--but overall I've found the designs bland. I think the Maya are the only ones I've really enjoyed playing--and I've actually only finished games as Maya, Gran Colombia, and Ethiopia. As for the game modes, some are good ideas and some aren't, but they're just compounding Civ6's biggest problem: the mechanics feel disjointed and disconnected. As someone who really appreciates the game's visuals on an artistic level, NFP has also been a very mixed bag on that front: even disregarding the reused animations, Bolivar, Menelik, Basil, and Hammurabi just aren't up to Firaxis' usual standards and even Ambiorix is kind of middle of the pack in terms of quality. Six Sky is the only leader who really stands out visually. Then there are the in game assets: of the new districts, none matches the standard set by Gathering Storm (and the Oppidum looks downright bland and generic); only the Rock-Hewn Church is genuinely impressive. From an artistic standpoint, really only the outstanding soundtrack and most of the voice acting (minus Lady Six Sky) has really impressed (and kudos to Firaxis for finally getting a decent Akkadian speaker...for the historical figure for whom Akkadian was actually a second language ). ETA: Oh, almost forgot Babylon's palace. Babylon's palace is gorgeous.

They said they made them optional because another full fledged expansion with a whole bunch of features would bloat the game too much, in their opinion.

They're not wrong.

 

[The Civs 6]

They said they made them optional because another full fledged expansion with a whole bunch of features would bloat the game too much, in their opinion.
If the developers themselves thought the game concepts weren't good they wouldn't have implemented them at all.

That being said a majority of the current game modes aren't wholly historical in nature either. If those weren't optional there might have been more people outraged.

If they didn't want to add more features to a game to risk bloating it, why did they you know, add more features to a bloated game? They might have been right but sort of missing the bigger picture a bit. I mean, if the game devs themselves are concerned about game bloating, and we are at the traditional 2 expansion limit, it sort of seems like nature's way of saying that it's time for 7. I don't want to be too harsh on them considering that this occurred during the pandemic, but I sort of feel like I am paying them to make really slick professional mods rather than new gameplay stuff.

But the other side of it is that there are lot of little things I like in the game modes, and I wonder if they are sort of beta testing stuff for 7. I would feel much better about it that way.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Then there are the in game assets: of the new districts, none matches the standard set by Gathering Storm (and the Oppidum looks downright bland and generic); only the Rock-Hewn Church is genuinely impressive.

Well I think the Hippodrome is right up there with the Rock-Hewn Church too.
The buildings don't match up but at least it's more visually different than the Street Carnival is to the regular EC.

If they didn't want to add more features to a game to risk bloating it, why did they you know, add more features to a bloated game? They might have been right but sort of missing the bigger picture a bit. I mean, if the game devs themselves are concerned about game bloating, and we are at the traditional 2 expansion limit, it sort of seems like nature's way of saying that it's time for 7. I don't want to be too harsh on them considering that this occurred during the pandemic, but I sort of feel like I am paying them to make really slick professional mods rather than new gameplay stuff.

But the other side of it is that there are lot of little things I like in the game modes, and I wonder if they are sort of beta testing stuff for 7. I would feel much better about it that way.

I'm pretty sure this is a test run for games going forward. I'd be surprised if this isn't the way they go for the future instead of ending the games at just two expansions.

 

[kaspergm]

The more I think about it, the more to me it goes beyond whether you think a particular game mode is good or not. Having optional game modes is basically admitting that the game concepts aren't good enough to be fully introduced into the game. And to me that is correct - the only game modes I think are worth playing with are apocalypse and secret societies. That's just a super wishy washy approach to game design - if you aren't confident enough to release it as a full-game, why should I front the money for you to keep designing these things?

As disappointed as I am with NFP, I don’t think this analysis is entirely true or fair. I think the game mode idea also is based on the correct analysis that not every fan wants the same. For instance, Apocalypse mode is one of the game modes I have not tried one single time, and most likely will never try.

In contrast with you, I would argue that game modes is theoretically a great idea, because it allows the player to customize the game to his desires, and allows variation between games. Sort of like build-in mods. The problem comes from the facts that the game modes themselves are not very good and/or extremely poorly balanced, and then then inherent problem that the game modes idea is likely to make very shallow features that are not fully integrated in the rest of the game, which shows that this idea is probably bound to be better in theory than practice (maybe it could have been avoided, but it would probably take a lot of work).

 

[bbbt]

Civ 6 feels bloated because there are a ton of mechanics that don't have much impact, or have early impact but are irrelevant by mid-game. But still need to be managed or considered. Some buckets could definitely be streamlined in 7, but I think there ways to have a lot of mechanics to expand gameplay without overwhelming:

• Game modes such as dramatic ages and the randomized tech tree have potential in that respect. Instead of piling on new mechanics, you replace them creating alternate versions. Is 'Dramatic Ages' for everyone? No. Are more people playing with 'Dramatic Ages' regularly than play any of the scenarios that likely take more development resources? I'd bet yes, calling that a win.
• Tying unique Civ abilities to specific mechanics - like they just did with Bull Moose Teddy and Appeal - is a great option as well to liven up gameplay.
• I really think they need to start 'era limiting' mechanics. Not just have ones appear later - but have mechanics disappear and change across the game. Individual trades and trade routes make sense early game. Replace them with a different approach (passive trade, a common market, etc) by mid game. Etc.

Frankly I've only played Endless Legend, which I also found had a number of mechanics that didn't matter much, so I dunno that Humankind is going to blow me away in that regard. But here's hoping.

 

[EscapedGoat]

As a long term 4x player, I played and enjoyed Endless Legend a LOT - but one thing i disliked was the slightly "weird" setting and "lore", didn't really click with me.

If Humankind basically is a refined and improved Endless Legend in a more familiar Earth setting, it's hard to think it will be anything but a wild sucess.

Let's face it, Firaxis and the Civilization series, is now a little like a decadent ruling dynasty that has ruled for too long, has become... lazy and bloated. CIV6 in it's end state is a bloated mess in my opinion (note that I do still like the game, maybe 7/10 ). Even old champions need to work out! maybe humankind will force CIV7 to be a little more refined than CIV6? I think the high point of the series so far was CIV2 and CIV4. CIV5 = in the end better than CIV6 in my book.

 

[Gedemon]

I haven't played OldWorld yet, but from what I saw, I really like it's Mechanisms, especially the Action Limits per Turn and the Leader Familiy Tree with the political relationships. Unfortunately, the Game only plays from the ancient to Meddieval/(Early Rennaissance?) Era. I wouldn't hesitate to get it if it could be played till the Information/Future Era (and modding friendly - if it is not already).

Oldworld assets are not easily moddable ATM, but tools should be added later, while the DLL source is already available, so you can change the gameplay has much as you want, and you can create multiple compatible DLL mods thanks to Harmony.

My issue is the same as you: the limited scope of the game make it something very different than Humankind or Civilization, it would be a lot of work to expand that scope with a total conversion mod (but doable from what I can see)

Modding is the main factor for me, I'm afraid that Humankind will be the less moddable of the 3 at release, but who know, maybe we'll be surprised by Amplitude and their post-release plans.

 

[Zegangani]

Oldworld assets are not easily moddable ATM, but tools should be added later, while the DLL source is already available, so you can change the gameplay has much as you want, and you can create multiple compatible DLL mods thanks to Harmony.

If that's the case then I might give it a try sometime (when the Tools are added). Nice that it is really modding friendly, a great opportunity for modders to mod to their heart's content.

My issue is the same as you: the limited scope of the game make it something very different than Humankind or Civilization, it would be a lot of work to expand that scope with a total conversion mod (but doable from what I can see)

That was their intention, I guess. Wouldn't a Total conversion Mod make the Game suffer from the weight of the Mod, like being really slow? Since It would be like if you're gonna copypasting the whole Game but making the copy from rennaissance to future era. So Tons of New mechanisms, Assets and Database stuff.
Once I get to try the Game and its modding capabilities, and if I like it, I would gladly contribute to help to make the Overhaul Mod (with Art or whatever I'm capable of). because it's the only thing that would make Old World (might better get another Name with the Mod) stand over Civ.

Modding is the main factor for me, I'm afraid that Humankind will be the less moddable of the 3 at release, but who know, maybe we'll be surprised by Amplitude and their post-release plans.

That would be too bad. Humankind looks really exciting, especially because of the wonderful Art and Visuals, just like the Mechanics and combat systeme, and it would be too bad not to have the opportunity to change stuff in the Game (even if they made the Game lack nothing at all and Bug free, there is always something to add and customise).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That was their intention, I guess. Wouldn't a Total conversion Mod make the Game suffer from the weight of the Mod, like being really slow? Since It would be like if you're gonna copypasting the whole Game but making the copy from rennaissance to future era. So Tons of New mechanisms, Assets and Database stuff.
Once I get to try the Game and its modding capabilities, and if I like it, I would gladly contribute to help to make the Overhaul Mod (with Art or whatever I'm capable of). because it's the only thing that would make Old World (might better get another Name with the Mod) stand over Civ.

Maybe you should just wait for the sequel, New World, to play from the Renaissance to the Future.
At least that's what I would do after releasing a game called Old World.

 

[Zegangani]

Maybe you should just wait for the sequel, New World, to play from the Renaissance to the Future.
At least that's what I would do after releasing a game called Old World.

If we could use the the Savefile of a Completed Old World Game to continue the game in New World with it, sure .

 

[ThunderLizard2]

As a long term 4x player, I played and enjoyed Endless Legend a LOT - but one thing i disliked was the slightly "weird" setting and "lore", didn't really click with me.

If Humankind basically is a refined and improved Endless Legend in a more familiar Earth setting, it's hard to think it will be anything but a wild sucess.

Let's face it, Firaxis and the Civilization series, is now a little like a decadent ruling dynasty that has ruled for too long, has become... lazy and bloated. CIV6 in it's end state is a bloated mess in my opinion (note that I do still like the game, maybe 7/10 ). Even old champions need to work out! maybe humankind will force CIV7 to be a little more refined than CIV6? I think the high point of the series so far was CIV2 and CIV4. CIV5 = in the end better than CIV6 in my book.

That's what I'm hoping for with Humankind. EL-type solid game design and AI in a more familiar earth setting. Amplitude see it as their magnums opus. Although I am concerned that Maxence Voleau just decamped to Paradox months before launch. Civ series never recovered after Soren Johnson left.

 

[8housesofelixir]

I think the high point of the series so far was CIV2 and CIV4.

Although I am concerned that Maxence Voleau just decamped to Paradox months before launch. Civ series never recovered after Soren Johnson left.

I always thought the difference between Civ IV and V/VI was about the taste of the popular public. IV seems to have a lot of complex, very "realistic", sometimes even "hardcore" mechanisms, instead of being heavily evolved around city building/planning while having other mechanisms mostly as backdrops. However, the later games both sold very well despite being looked down upon by older hardcore players.

The same evolution shown up in other "simulation" games as well - I'm not an old player of Civs so I cannot really comment on the mismatch between old Civ players and new Civ games, but I'm an old player of SimCity and other city/traffic simulation games, which also has a huge gap in terms of game mechanic complexity between older and newer games in the genre.

For instance: SimCity 4 had very realistic, sometimes punitive, economic mechanisms; and neither SimCity 2013 (which is TBH a bad game) nor Cities:Skylines (which is a good game, but in difference direction from SC4) having the same level of complexity. Even Transport Fever 2 cannot really reach the same level of complexity as OpenTTD - which is not even a 3D game.

Guess the general public is being less likely to solve complex problems/hardships in simulation type of games, the developers moved along with them, and left the older, hardcore players in the past. (e.g. Soren Johnson left the larger studios and opened a studio on his own, developing smaller-scale games with more unique and complex mechanics for a much smaller audience.)

 

[James_Champagne]

I hate to say it, but I almost kind of wish CIV VI had stopped with GATHERING STORM. I was excited by the idea of new Civs at first, but I almost kind of see them as being "fake" or imposters (what with the recycled animations: in theory it doesn't seem like a big deal, but was kind of distracted in a recent game where I kept refriending Brazil and Gran Columbia every 30 turns or whatever and having to hear that same goofy laugh).

As for the game modes, I don't know: I like Apocalypse in theory because it gives a bit of Gotterdammerung bang to the end game but I don't like how it also sets disaster intensity to 4. Secret Societies is okay but the AI doesn't seem to know how to utilize it all that well (see especially the Voidsinger cultists). Don't care for Tech Shuffle tbh. Dramatic Ages, I don't like how it's just golden ages or dark ages, though I will say that unlike the AI Civs the AI free states sure can put up a fight when they want to. As for Heroes and Legends, I just can't really figure that one out: a lot of different heroes and each one has their own different way of playing, but they also have limited lifespans so you also have to be careful as to when to acquire them, I find myself just not bothering (maybe it's just me but I don't really see the Ai making use of them either).

But my biggest complaint is that now I find the eras just go by so fast, even in marathon games I've been reaching the Medieval era in the BC period, and while I'm aware the game isn't meant to be seen as an accurate depiction of history I just find that annoying.

Still, there's a few more expansions and patches to go, so maybe they can end on a high note. If they introduce a fix to the fast eras, maybe throw in pandemics, and introduce a true Earth map that can support more than 7 civs or whatever, I might get interested again. But as it is now I think I might just be suffering from a bit of Civ VI fatigue.

 

[Zaarin]

I hate to say it, but I almost kind of wish CIV VI had stopped with GATHERING STORM. I was excited by the idea of new Civs at first, but I almost kind of see them as being "fake" or imposters (what with the recycled animations: in theory it doesn't seem like a big deal, but was kind of distracted in a recent game where I kept refriending Brazil and Gran Columbia every 30 turns or whatever and having to hear that same goofy laugh).

This is exactly how I feel as well.