HUMANKIND a Civ VI killer?

[8housesofelixir]

But here's my point: in a game that bills itself as Historical 4X, the Vampires should be Vlad Tepes the Impaler, not B. Stoker and company.

IIRC Civ series didn't bill themselves as "Historical 4x" games since Civ IV, at least in promotional materials on major platforms such as Steam and various consoles. Both Civ V and VI just define itself as "a turn-based strategy game" with "historical leaders" in the advertisements.
For instance, below is the promotional slogan of Civ V:

Therefore I feel like adding fantasy elements in a game that doesn't promote itself as very "historical" is fine; not to say that these fantasy elements are largely historical fantasies.



On the other hand, Humankind does advertise itself as so:

They even capitalized the words "Historical Strategy" for emphasis.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

IIRC Civ series didn't bill themselves as "Historical 4x" games since Civ IV, at least in promotional materials on major platforms such as Steam and various consoles. Both Civ V and VI just define itself as "a turn-based strategy game" with "historical leaders" in the advertisements.
For instance, below is the promotional slogan of Civ V:
View attachment 582853
Therefore I feel like adding fantasy elements in a game that doesn't promote itself as very "historical" is fine; not to say that these fantasy elements are largely historical fantasies. . . .

I'm sorry, here their Promotional Language does not match their continued basis for the game design.

Historical Civs
Historical City States
Historical Leaders - largely, and when they depart from a 'historical model' as in Gilgamesh and Kupe, they get lots of feedback on it here and elsewhere (and not, by the way, only from me!)
Historical Units, Buildings, Unique Buildings and Units
Largely historical terrain types and conditions - and again, there is no debate on map terrain not being Fantastic enough, quite the opposite, the debates are on Tundra and what it means or how much gain various 'historical' types of terrain had IRL.

Finally, IF the game is not historical, why hire a professional historian (@Andrew Johnson (FXS)) and not a professional Fantasist like Joe Abercrombie or Harry Turtledove?

So, if it waddles like a Duck and is covered in duck feathers, one can reasonably expect it to quack like a Duck and not break into a rousing chorus of "Singing in the Rain" - as entertaining as that might be (cue Aflak) it departs from the basic duckiness, and Vampiric Fantasy departs from the basic historicity of the game.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I'm sorry, here their Promotional Language does not match their continued basis for the game design.

Historical Civs
Historical City States
Historical Leaders - largely, and when they depart from a 'historical model' as in Gilgamesh and Kupe, they get lots of feedback on it here and elsewhere (and not, by the way, only from me!)
Historical Units, Buildings, Unique Buildings and Units
Largely historical terrain types and conditions - and again, there is no debate on map terrain not being Fantastic enough, quite the opposite, the debates are on Tundra and what it means or how much gain various 'historical' types of terrain had IRL.

Finally, IF the game is not historical, why hire a professional historian (@Andrew Johnson (FXS)) and not a professional Fantasist like Joe Abercrombie or Harry Turtledove?

So, if it waddles like a Duck and is covered in duck feathers, one can reasonably expect it to quack like a Duck and not break into a rousing chorus of "Singing in the Rain" - as entertaining as that might be (cue Aflak) it departs from the basic duckiness, and Vampiric Fantasy departs from the basic historicity of the game.

I think you @ted the wrong person, Gudenuf.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think you @ted the wrong person, Gudenuf.

What I get for trying to Post from Memory this early in the morning . . .
Meant @Andrew Johnson [FXS] - used wrong style of bracket, I think.

 

[8housesofelixir]

I'm sorry, here their Promotional Language does not match their continued basis for the game design.

Historical Civs
Historical City States
Historical Leaders - largely, and when they depart from a 'historical model' as in Gilgamesh and Kupe, they get lots of feedback on it here and elsewhere (and not, by the way, only from me!)
Historical Units, Buildings, Unique Buildings and Units
Largely historical terrain types and conditions - and again, there is no debate on map terrain not being Fantastic enough, quite the opposite, the debates are on Tundra and what it means or how much gain various 'historical' types of terrain had IRL.

Finally, IF the game is not historical, why hire a professional historian (@Andrew Johnson (FXS)) and not a professional Fantasist like Joe Abercrombie or Harry Turtledove?

So, if it waddles like a Duck and is covered in duck feathers, one can reasonably expect it to quack like a Duck and not break into a rousing chorus of "Singing in the Rain" - as entertaining as that might be (cue Aflak) it departs from the basic duckiness, and Vampiric Fantasy departs from the basic historicity of the game.

Never said the game design is "not historical", all I did is point out that the Civ series simply didn't "bill" themselves as historical. "Having 'historical' elements" and "Doesn't promote itself as 'historical'" can definitely co-exist.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Never said the game design is "not historical", all I did is point out that the Civ series simply didn't "bill" themselves as historical. "Having 'historical' elements" and "Doesn't promote itself as 'historical'" can definitely co-exist.

As stated earlier, Historical and Fantasy are by no means mutually exclusive, given the nature of the 'historical' (Greek: istoriya = To Learn by Study) information available for any game design purpose. My complaint is the apparent 'default' option in Civ VI to Fantasy for, apparently, purely marketing purposes when historical options of equal interest (well, to me, anyway) and equivalent effect are available.

You want a Sinbad Hero effect in the game? Just from Greek Classical History, you could use Hippalus, Pytheas, or Scylax of Caryanda, from Islamic history Ahmad ibn Majid or Ibn Batutta, or go for the 'Gold Grabbing' aspect with "Calico Jack" Rackham or Ching Shih. Leave the legendary to the legends, and let the gamer create his/her own legends in the game . . .

 

[The Civs 6]

Who else loves definitional arguments? No one? Oh.

Civ is so obviously a terrible platform for playing with vampires and legendary heroes, whether it is or is not a fantasy game.

 

[Kwami]

Who else loves definitional arguments? No one? Oh.

Civ is so obviously a terrible platform for playing with vampires and legendary heroes, whether it is or is not a fantasy game.

Is it, though? Because I quite enjoy the secret societies and heroes. It doesn't seem to terrible to me.

 

[The Civs 6]

Is it, though? Because I quite enjoy the secret societies and heroes. It doesn't seem to terrible to me.

I agree that I enjoy the secret societies mode from a pure gameplay perspective. And maybe the civ 6 vision of secret societies is a better fit for the civ game style. But to me Hercules is just totally out of place in a Civ game, maybe in a way that a semi-fantastical civ (like Xia dynasty China, or Illiad-era Troy) wouldn't be.

 

[ThunderLizard2]

I'm sorry, here their Promotional Language does not match their continued basis for the game design.

Historical Civs
Historical City States
Historical Leaders - largely, and when they depart from a 'historical model' as in Gilgamesh and Kupe, they get lots of feedback on it here and elsewhere (and not, by the way, only from me!)
Historical Units, Buildings, Unique Buildings and Units
Largely historical terrain types and conditions - and again, there is no debate on map terrain not being Fantastic enough, quite the opposite, the debates are on Tundra and what it means or how much gain various 'historical' types of terrain had IRL.

Finally, IF the game is not historical, why hire a professional historian (@Andrew Johnson (FXS)) and not a professional Fantasist like Joe Abercrombie or Harry Turtledove?

So, if it waddles like a Duck and is covered in duck feathers, one can reasonably expect it to quack like a Duck and not break into a rousing chorus of "Singing in the Rain" - as entertaining as that might be (cue Aflak) it departs from the basic duckiness, and Vampiric Fantasy departs from the basic historicity of the game.

One of the reasons I never got into Endless Legend, even though it's a solid game, was the fantasy setting. HumanKind addresses that. Seems like Civ VI is moving in the fantasy direction.

As stated earlier, Historical and Fantasy are by no means mutually exclusive, given the nature of the 'historical' (Greek: istoriya = To Learn by Study) information available for any game design purpose. My complaint is the apparent 'default' option in Civ VI to Fantasy for, apparently, purely marketing purposes when historical options of equal interest (well, to me, anyway) and equivalent effect are available.

You want a Sinbad Hero effect in the game? Just from Greek Classical History, you could use Hippalus, Pytheas, or Scylax of Caryanda, from Islamic history Ahmad ibn Majid or Ibn Batutta, or go for the 'Gold Grabbing' aspect with "Calico Jack" Rackham or Ching Shih. Leave the legendary to the legends, and let the gamer create his/her own legends in the game . . .

Agreed - the fantasy stuff covers up or distracts from the poor game design.

 

[Evie]

Or I could just have Sinbad which I find way more fun personally.

 

[Blutark]

Humankind looks great imo, but hardly a Civ killer. It's going to be a 'Civ-Lite' for when I want to relax and look at pretty scenery.

Even if they could get it on par with the complexity of Civ, it will take them a long LONG time. Dont expect it to kill anything. Id wager that most Diety level players would feel like Humankind is only half a game.

 

[mitsho]

Sure, on the other hand I think a lot of casual players are however turned off by Civs overcomplex min-max micromanaging playstyle. And in the one are where content matters the most to those (representation), Humankind actually has more content than civ (60 „civs“ to 50 now).

I get your point that deity players will not like Humankind at first. There will be imbalances and optimal ways to play the game will lead to extreme snowballing, see Lucy Open Dev for that. But those deity players specialized on how Civilization sets up the game. All those axioms that civs sets are called in question and allows for fresh ideas - and those are pretty needed. Civ has grown too old and too reliant on old memes.

I do believe Humankind will make a bigger splash with casual players at first, it has to evolve then to keep that newfound playerbase.

 

[Kwami]

Sure, on the other hand I think a lot of casual players are however turned off by Civs overcomplex min-max micromanaging playstyle. And in the one are where content matters the most to those (representation), Humankind actually has more content than civ (60 „civs“ to 50 now).

Well, 54 leaders and 50 civilizations by the end of NFP. But the "civilizations" in Humankind seem much simpler than the ones in Civilization VI. They're not really comparable.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Well, 54 leaders and 50 civilizations by the end of NFP. But the "civilizations" in Humankind seem much simpler than the ones in Civilization VI. They're not really comparable.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the Factions in Humankind are more Focused than the ones in Civ: each is designed to cover a single Era, after all, and doesn't have the potentially-messy interaction between Leader and Civ attributes.

On the other hand, I think people are going to be surprised at how differently the Humankind Factions play based on the variations in preceding Eras: the combinations of Legacy Traits from previous Factions can, I strongly suspect, radically change the attributes of the Faction you play later in the game, and that makes the real potential combinations several orders of magnitude greater than they appear to be . . .

 

[Kwami]

I think it would be more accurate to say that the Factions in Humankind are more Focused than the ones in Civ: each is designed to cover a single Era, after all, and doesn't have the potentially-messy interaction between Leader and Civ attributes.

On the other hand, I think people are going to be surprised at how differently the Humankind Factions play based on the variations in preceding Eras: the combinations of Legacy Traits from previous Factions can, I strongly suspect, radically change the attributes of the Faction you play later in the game, and that makes the real potential combinations several orders of magnitude greater than they appear to be . . .

I wasn't really saying anything about the gameplay. I was just pointing out that it's probably a fair bit easier to make a faction in Humankind than a leader and civilization in Civ VI. We'll see on the gameplay points, though. In past games, Amplitude made an effort to differentiate the factions so that playing each one really felt different. But, each game usually had a dozen or fewer factions. With 60 factions, it'll be harder to make them all feel special.

 

[mitsho]

That doesn't matter though as I wasn't talking about gameplay.

But even so, it's an easier task than you might think. As they are divided into eras, you can have some repetition without it feeling stale. Actually you need it for gameplay purposes. Aside from that, each humankind faction has a unique/emblematic unit, an emblematic quarter, an affinity/trait and a special/lefgaycy trait. That's as special as in civ which only has the leader trait on top of it. But is there really (most of the times) a difference between leader and civ traits? Can you tell which bonuses belong where with say Mali? The leader animations don't count since those are moved in Humankind from the civ to the player him/herself. So what's so special about those Civ civs?

 

[pokiehl]

That doesn't matter though as I wasn't talking about gameplay.

But even so, it's an easier task than you might think. As they are divided into eras, you can have some repetition without it feeling stale. Actually you need it for gameplay purposes. Aside from that, each humankind faction has a unique/emblematic unit, an emblematic quarter, an affinity/trait and a special/lefgaycy trait. That's as special as in civ which only has the leader trait on top of it. But is there really (most of the times) a difference between leader and civ traits? Can you tell which bonuses belong where with say Mali? The leader animations don't count since those are moved in Humankind from the civ to the player him/herself. So what's so special about those Civ civs?

He was referring to the fact that all Humankind culture abilities are pretty simple modifiers while Civ designs for Civ 6 are more complex and asymmetrical in many cases.

also, discounting the leader art out of hand is disingenuous because it’s absolutely relevant to the comparison. The aesthetics play a huge part in making civs feel distinct in Civ 6.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That doesn't matter though as I wasn't talking about gameplay.

But even so, it's an easier task than you might think. As they are divided into eras, you can have some repetition without it feeling stale. Actually you need it for gameplay purposes. Aside from that, each humankind faction has a unique/emblematic unit, an emblematic quarter, an affinity/trait and a special/lefgaycy trait. That's as special as in civ which only has the leader trait on top of it. But is there really (most of the times) a difference between leader and civ traits? Can you tell which bonuses belong where with say Mali? The leader animations don't count since those are moved in Humankind from the civ to the player him/herself. So what's so special about those Civ civs?

Considering there is a separate English faction and British faction in Humankind, which are available only in a certain era, it makes sense that they divided it that way.
When there are also three different "Chinese" (Zhou, Ming, PRC) and presumably "Indian" factions, as well as two "French" (Franks, French) and "German" (Teutons, Germans) I also think it's easier to make it up to 60, but that doesn't also necessarily make each one of them feel more special.

Oh and Mansa Musa has the ability to get another trading capacity if he reaches a golden age. His traders also gain gold from international trade routes based on the number of flat desert tiles in the origin city.

Mali's ability is you get faith and gold for every desert tile surrounding your city center. Mines provide +4 gold but -1 production and you can purchase Commercial Hub buildings with faith. You also get a penalty when building units and buildings.

Definitely seems a little more complex upon first glance at least. You're welcome.

 

[Kwami]

That doesn't matter though as I wasn't talking about gameplay.

But even so, it's an easier task than you might think. As they are divided into eras, you can have some repetition without it feeling stale. Actually you need it for gameplay purposes. Aside from that, each humankind faction has a unique/emblematic unit, an emblematic quarter, an affinity/trait and a special/lefgaycy trait. That's as special as in civ which only has the leader trait on top of it. But is there really (most of the times) a difference between leader and civ traits? Can you tell which bonuses belong where with say Mali? The leader animations don't count since those are moved in Humankind from the civ to the player him/herself. So what's so special about those Civ civs?

Well, OK, but each civilization also has multiple unique music tracks and leader animations and dialogue lines that are recorded in "native" languages. Does Humankind have any of that for the 60 factions? That's a lot of work. I don't think the avatars in Humankind quite compare (though they are really neat and I quite like them!).