HUMANKIND a Civ VI killer?

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yes, actually. It is quite normal and common for humans to be averse to animal violence but less phased by violence towards humans.

But I guess fishing for whales and sea turtles and acquiring deer, fur and ivory is okay to be put in the game.

Because chasing an elephant with fur with two units for around 5 turns isn't exactly enjoyable. Is it more difficult than combat with A.I. in Civ 6? Yes. Is it more enjoyable to chase wooly elephants? No. And besides, we can just assume that the people at the settlement are doing this. It would be irrational to chase these animals around the map just for some extra food.

I think the point, at least in Humankind, is that there is no permanent settlement yet and the way to reach the next era of urban settlement is basically to gather enough food. Foraging for plants is okay and safer but to reach it quicker you take the risk and go kill a mammoth. From gathering enough food I guess your people realize there's a way to acquire it elsewhere, and that's through farming.

I think it's cool and would be interested to see it in Civ personally, but I know it's not for everyone which is why it would make a great optional game mode.

 

[Kwami]

That seems morally inverted but okay.

Not really. Humans fighting other humans is a fair match. But, animals don't have human brains, don't reason, and generally just want us to go away. We use horses and dogs for our own benefit. They don't care who wins the battle or the war. They shouldn't be killed for being on the wrong side.

But I guess fishing for whales and sea turtles and acquiring deer, fur and ivory is okay to be put in the game.

Well, no. I wish that they'd stop doing that, too. But, at least those are more abstract concepts and we don't have to actually see the animals dying.

Anyway, it's all kind of off topic. Back to Humankind or whatever.

 

[pokiehl]

But I guess fishing for whales and sea turtles and acquiring deer, fur and ivory is okay to be put in the game.

Despite your intentional obtuseness, yup. Very different. If you cannot intrinsically comprehend that the depiction of exploitation of animals in the game (which does not depict violence whatsoever) is entirely different than smashing a random tiger or whatever you'd find on the map or killing a scout's dog companion, I really don't know what to tell you.

 

[Zaarin]

Not really. Humans fighting other humans is a fair match. But, animals don't have human brains, don't reason, and generally just want us to go away. We use horses and dogs for our own benefit. They don't care who wins the battle or the war. They shouldn't be killed for being on the wrong side.

Agree to disagree. Personally the valuing of animal life over human life is one of the fundamental problems with Western society.

 

[8housesofelixir]

But I guess fishing for whales and sea turtles and acquiring deer, fur and ivory is okay to be put in the game.

Well, no. I wish that they'd stop doing that, too.

The whales, upon improved, will give +1 production. I assume it is indicating the obtaining of whale oil, an important raw material for early industries. And by obtaining the whale oil you obviously killed the whales.

Whaling industry was dominant around the Industrial Revolution for a reason, and I don't think remove it is a good idea in a game focused on human progression throughout the ages.

Edit: I think the point of diversion here is whether there is a depiction of violence or not, which is a reasonable question to ask and/or concern. But I cannot say that can mean a game is better than another game or vise versa.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Back to topic please.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Moderator Action: Off topic part of the post deleted. Please heed moderator warnings. leif

Anyway to get back on topic that Neolithic Era, before the actual start of the Ancient Era, is one of the major things I like in Humankind compared to Civ.

 

[CivLuvah]

Btw, this expectation that Humankind will replace Civ and deliver what Civ VI couldn't will end up hurting Humankind, because there are a lot of people with unrealistic expectations about what this game will be, that just can't be matched by the real thing. The hype train has a tendency to crash at disappointment station, and Humankind is building up to take that route, not because the game will be bad, but because it can't possibly reach the perfection that people are imagining by now.

Humankind has been so hyped that it cannot possibly meet expectations.

This hype train is probably going to hurt Humankind instead of helping it, anyway.

Having played all OpenDev scenarios I think I can say that what they are trying to achieve here deserves the hype it's getting. Of course, I have to realistic and say that there is as much of a chance that this would derail as much as it would succeed, anything can happen. But what Amplitude is doing just feels like a breath of fresh air in the genre. Not merely because it has systems that are different from Civ so far, but also because of how much effort they actually do to dedicate themselves to the game and try to improve it. At least that deserves some acknowledgement.

Who would want to spend 5 turns and use 3 archers to kill a BLOODY ELEPHANT WITH FUR??!!

Well, you can always not kill the mammoths, I did that sometimes at OpenDev. It's not like you have to kill them.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Having played all OpenDev scenarios I think I can say that what they are trying to achieve here deserves the hype it's getting. Of course, I have to realistic and say that there is as much of a chance that this would derail as much as it would succeed, anything can happen. But what Amplitude is doing just feels like a breath of fresh air in the genre. Not merely because it has systems that are different from Civ so far, but also because of how much effort they actually do to dedicate themselves to the game and try to improve it. At least that deserves some acknowledgement.



Well, you can always not kill the mammoths, I did that sometimes at OpenDev. It's not like you have to kill them.

Yeah, I can acknowledge that. I just don't want a potentially good game to be overhyped that people who believe it will replace Civ will start having unrealistic wet dreams. Look at Cyberpunk 2077, for example. I mean, for a game that's been so hyped, the game is quite lacking in various aspects, if you watched the gameplay so far. I don't intend on playing Cyberpunk, those types of games are not my interest. Yeah, I know, you don't have to kill them. It's just not my fresh cup of tea. There are people who will like this mechanic, and I can respect them. Overall, I hope Humankind is successful enough for Firaxis to start either putting vast improvements into Civ 6 or start creating a great Civ 7. Sorry if I appear to be rambling.

Anyway to get back on topic that Neolithic Era, before the actual start of the Ancient Era, is one of the major things I like in Humankind compared to Civ.

Yeah, Civ needs a Neolithic Era. We need time to lay the foundations of our empire as humble people. We were not always a great civilization, but we will become one. All we need to do is stand the test of time. Empires are like grains of sande. Every so often, they are carried away by the wind and replaced by new ones. It is an endless cycle of time.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Humankind was announced with a 'Neolithic Era", but that's not really what it is, it is a Pre-Era: no cities, no real technological or social development, just a chance to find a better First City location, explore the map, possibly meet some other Factions.

This is not a bad concept, but it's too limited. There were cities in the Neolithic - lots of them. But no, contrary to nationalist legends no later Civilization started in the Neolithic, despite some pretty substantial 'cultures' that did exist then. There simply is no direct relationship between, say, the Cucuteni-Trypillians and anybody living and building in the Ukraine/Rumania later, no connection between the Peiligang or Xinle cultures and the first Chinese Dynasties except a shared taste for millet and/or rice.

That means that Humankind's disconnect between Neolithic and 'Ancient' or First Era is not incorrect, and not choosing which Civ you are playing until the end of the Neolithic would not be a bad mechanism for Civ VII.

The trick is to make the actions in the Neolithic more meaningful than they are now (at least in the latest glimpses) in Humankind.)

IRL, during the Neolithic they were making pottery, domesticating horses, cattle, sheep, goats, and water buffalo, exploiting coastal fishing and whaling, traveling to islands by boat complete with their domestic animals, working with low-temp metals like copper, silver, gold, and lead, and trading with relatively distant people for sea shells, metal, obsidian, and possibly 'manufactured' goods (pottery, jewelry, wool cloth). That means, at a minimum, the Technologies of Pottery, Animal Domestication, Agriculture, (primitive) Metal-Working, and (primitive) Boating should all be at least possible to achieve in the Neolithic.

On the other hand, many of the Neolithic cities collapsed and disappeared for various reasons, so starting your first cities in the Neolithic should be a chancy proposition - with some kind of mechanism to keep a Failed First City from being a Game Breaking Disaster. I suspect that one way to do this would be to make the Nomadic Civ or Pre-Civ a reasonable strategy, capable of some Tech development as well as population increase, so that having a city fail and your people go back to being nomads/pastoralists does not set you back to Turn One. That woild make the choice to found a City early jus that: a choice between equally-viable strategies, not a Requirement for any further progress in the game, as it has been in the Civ games since Civ I

 

[Joij21]

I don't think Mankind is gonna be that great. I keep getting Spore vibes about it.

Back in the day Spore promised so many things about being an evolutionary universe sim, only to find out the final version was much less than that. What we got instead was a half assed cartoony game with missing stages and shallow gameplay that forced you into limiting your creative abilities. Same could be said for Mankind, it just seems too good to be true.

I also believe in a sort of personal superstition of mine, that God himself damns videogames that dare to be too ambitious. A sort of Tower of Babylon thing where God can not bare to see mortal humans coding a game that aught to exist in Heaven alone. Would honestly explain why a lot of promising videogames fall to the wayside or get cancelled. Yes it sounds crazy, but come on! Are we just going to say the more rational answer is that there have been many incompetent people in the video game industry? I think not! It's too common of an occurrence for it to be a coincidence, at least for me. Must be an act of the Almighty, or at least Satan.

 

[8housesofelixir]

On the other hand, many of the Neolithic cities collapsed and disappeared for various reasons, so starting your first cities in the Neolithic should be a chancy proposition - with some kind of mechanism to keep a Failed First City from being a Game Breaking Disaster. I suspect that one way to do this would be to make the Nomadic Civ or Pre-Civ a reasonable strategy, capable of some Tech development as well as population increase, so that having a city fail and your people go back to being nomads/pastoralists does not set you back to Turn One.

A lot of civilizations abandoned their cities and returned to a semi-primitive state even after having them fully developed for hundreds of years. Mayans and whoever lived in Teotihuacán are good examples of this situation. Shang is another example - although relatively unknown - they abandoned large fortified cities and tightly controlled territories in around 1500 BCE, and re-established several smaller unfortified settlements as their capital around 1300 BCE; only after that did they begin to use Oracle Bone Scripts. Many steppe nomads will return to the steppe-style social structure after their vast empire being overthrown (cf. Mongols), and a lot of Native American tribes will change their social structure between seasons in order to survive in the winter.

Civilizations will not always follow the tribe-chiefdom-state process, sometimes this process can go "backwards" in order to adapt the environment. However I am not entirely sure 4x games are able to incorporate this situation into good gameplay mechanics.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I don't think Mankind is gonna be that great. I keep getting Spore vibes about it.

Back in the day Spore promised so many things about being an evolutionary universe sim, only to find out the final version was much less than that. What we got instead was a half assed cartoony game with missing stages and shallow gameplay that forced you into limiting your creative abilities. Same could be said for Mankind, it just seems too good to be true.

I also believe in a sort of personal superstition of mine, that God himself damns videogames that dare to be too ambitious. A sort of Tower of Babylon thing where God can not bare to see mortal humans coding a game that aught to exist in Heaven alone. Would honestly explain why a lot of promising videogames fall to the wayside or get cancelled. Yes it sounds crazy, but come on! Are we just going to say the more rational answer is that there have been many incompetent people in the video game industry? I think not! It's too common of an occurrence for it to be a coincidence, at least for me. Must be an act of the Almighty, or at least Satan.

It's called Humankind, but you are right. Over-hype can kill games, as I have been saying all this time.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Humankind was announced with a 'Neolithic Era", but that's not really what it is, it is a Pre-Era: no cities, no real technological or social development, just a chance to find a better First City location, explore the map, possibly meet some other Factions.

This is not a bad concept, but it's too limited. There were cities in the Neolithic - lots of them. But no, contrary to nationalist legends no later Civilization started in the Neolithic, despite some pretty substantial 'cultures' that did exist then. There simply is no direct relationship between, say, the Cucuteni-Trypillians and anybody living and building in the Ukraine/Rumania later, no connection between the Peiligang or Xinle cultures and the first Chinese Dynasties except a shared taste for millet and/or rice.

That means that Humankind's disconnect between Neolithic and 'Ancient' or First Era is not incorrect, and not choosing which Civ you are playing until the end of the Neolithic would not be a bad mechanism for Civ VII.

Instead of the name "Neolithic" I think the name "Prehistoric" would be easier considering the ideas and advancements of the Neolithic Era, like you said, would be a part of the Ancient Era.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Instead of the name "Neolithic" I think the name "Prehistoric" would be easier considering the ideas and advancements of the Neolithic Era, like you said, would be a part of the Ancient Era.

I second this. An entire era dedicated to getting your settlements started. Maybe we should have no access to the Civ abilities until after we reach the Ancient Era.

 

[CivLuvah]

I also believe in a sort of personal superstition of mine, that God himself damns videogames that dare to be too ambitious. A sort of Tower of Babylon thing where God can not bare to see mortal humans coding a game that aught to exist in Heaven alone. Would honestly explain why a lot of promising videogames fall to the wayside or get cancelled. Yes it sounds crazy, but come on! Are we just going to say the more rational answer is that there have been many incompetent people in the video game industry? I think not! It's too common of an occurrence for it to be a coincidence, at least for me. Must be an act of the Almighty, or at least Satan.

As a Christian, I don't think Humankind is defying God in some way (which was the point of the Tower of Babel; it wasn't ambition that caused it to fall, but the presupposition people made that they could defy God by thinking they could be above God). And even then that theory is a bit of a stretch. Almost all the time humans are victims of their own hubris.

But I digress. If it's your theory then what am I going to do about it.

 

[glider1]

I also believe in a sort of personal superstition of mine, that God himself damns videogames that dare to be too ambitious. A sort of Tower of Babylon thing where God can not bare to see mortal humans coding a game that aught to exist in Heaven alone. Would honestly explain why a lot of promising videogames fall to the wayside or get cancelled. Yes it sounds crazy, but come on! Are we just going to say the more rational answer is that there have been many incompetent people in the video game industry? I think not! It's too common of an occurrence for it to be a coincidence, at least for me. Must be an act of the Almighty, or at least Satan.

The devil is exponential complexity. As the game is developed with even the tiniest flaw in the design the complexity starts becoming exponentially expensive to develop. The workers love what they are doing but are swamped. They need to get the product out and so they cut corners. The market department hides the problems in hype. To avoid this, developers try to lock down the design criterion before problems start but when the final product is finished it is overly rigid and the vision they had is gone.

Not saying this will happen with Humankind, just saying that making original games is really hard work. That's why Humankind is the first game I've pre-ordered ever, since competitors to Firaxis have it extra hard trying to break into the market and they need support.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

As a Christian, I don't think Humankind is defying God in some way (which was the point of the Tower of Babel; it wasn't ambition that caused it to fall, but the presupposition people made that they could defy God by thinking they could be above God). And even then that theory is a bit of a stretch. Almost all the time humans are victims of their own hubris.

But I digress. If it's your theory then what am I going to do about it.

As a Christian as well, Humankind doesn't seem to defy God. I mean, God wouldn't get made at us for wanting to build our own empires in a video game, right? This isn't Total War. But if it's your opinion, I shall respect it.

 

[CivLuvah]

As a Christian as well, Humankind doesn't seem to defy God. I mean, God wouldn't get made at us for wanting to build our own empires in a video game, right? This isn't Total War. But if it's your opinion, I shall respect it.

Wait, why are you quoting my post when we basically agree and have the same sentiment? haha No bad faith meant.

I was questioning his comparison between game development and the Tower of Babel on the side.

The devil is exponential complexity. As the game is developed with even the tiniest flaw in the design the complexity starts becoming exponentially expensive to develop. The workers love what they are doing but are swamped. They need to get the product out and so they cut corners. The market department hides the problems in hype. To avoid this, developers try to lock down the design criterion before problems start but when the final product is finished it is overly rigid and the vision they had is gone.

Not saying this will happen with Humankind, just saying that making original games is really hard work. That's why Humankind is the first game I've pre-ordered ever, since competitors to Firaxis have it extra hard trying to break into the market and they need support.

I think the transparency of Amplitude in what they're doing with development via OpenDev and community engagement makes up for that, in my opinion.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Wait, why are you quoting my post when we basically agree and have the same sentiment? haha No bad faith meant.

I was questioning his comparison between game development and the Tower of Babel on the side.

Oh, yeah. I was trying to state I agreed with you, haha... Oops. Yeah, I don't really understand the correlation between the Tower of Babel and Humankind as well. Maybe they should add the Tower of Babel as a wonder you can build. You could get free Settlers.