B-29_Bomber
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2016
- Messages
- 119
Bought the game at launch played it for a couple of hours and never touched it again. Found it a bit dull honestly. Has this changed?
Without Any DLC, is Humankind Worth Playing?
- Thread starter B-29_Bomber
- Start date
The game improved a lot since launch, and in many different areas. The free patches slowly reworked and rebalanced the base game‘s mechanics, and so far, DLCs are optional (although the new cultures are great). I can claim that it is an objectively better game now. However, I can‘t even guess if you personally would like it more now.
Revolutionist_8
King
While the game is objectively better thanks to the updates, it's still fall short from being great imo. Earlier I experimented with and tried some good mods which makes it suprisingly better and balanced, but the spine, the skeleton of the game still feels just empty and hollow...
From what I've read about the new expansion, while it's nice and all, still doesn't solve most of the underlying issues. Maybe some more expansions and / or mods will help eventually.
But ofc that's just one opinion.
From what I've read about the new expansion, while it's nice and all, still doesn't solve most of the underlying issues. Maybe some more expansions and / or mods will help eventually.
But ofc that's just one opinion.
I found the game very shallow after the excitement of first game ran out.
The replayability is very low in my opinion, and many features that look goodnon paper arent very good when playing.
This morning I checked and it had 690 people playing it on Steam, while Civ VI had over 40 000. That tells something about its staying power..
Civ and Old World are much better.
The replayability is very low in my opinion, and many features that look goodnon paper arent very good when playing.
This morning I checked and it had 690 people playing it on Steam, while Civ VI had over 40 000. That tells something about its staying power..
Civ and Old World are much better.
Socrates99
Bottoms up!
Been enjoying it for "free" on the Xbox PC game pass. Just the base game, no expansions or DLC. Right now I'm still working my way up in difficulties. One thing that might kill replayability is that I already find myself sticking to two or three specific cultures each era and find many of them really useful while others are really underwhelming. There's no real motivation to try them all like in Civ. Right now I'm having a lot of fun though.
I still feel it is worth to try out all the cultures at some point, even when some are/seem objectively better.
I remember having a lot of fun with the Goths pre-buff, despite them being maybe the weakest culture of the era at that time. But the unit was so fun and had a cool power spike as well... same for the Byzantines and their Varangian Guards, even if I just had 3 horses. And that Assyrians-Aztec combo that lets you blitz around the map. That's fun to do, even if both cultures may be suboptimal choices. And the average Spanish is probably my most-often chosen culture in the early modern, just because I like to play with their unit and LT. On the other hand, I think I only had one game were the British really shone, and I feel no interest in choosing them again in 'normal' games. It's also a matter of difficulty though. On Empire, I can compete with whatever I choose, on Civilization and Humankind, I need to stick to stronger ones and do nice combos (and move up through the ages to actually get a culture that I want when I play with many players - but the DLCs alleviated that pressure).
And I still feel that the strength depends on the previous choices to some extent - the British can be a solid medieval choice, but if you already chose the Celts in classical, less so. A-H can be quite strong, but if you already chose Ming, there is less point to them. Of course, with production being too important still, this doesn't apply to production focused cultures.
Socrates99
Bottoms up!
Oh yeah previous eras massively impact later choices. It's also your immediate needs too. Like if I'm near the beginning of a war or losing a war I'll take a militarist culture, or if I'm having food or production trouble it'll impact my choices. Still, it often boils down to one of two or three choices in any given era.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2012
- Messages
- 952
I doubt I'll pick it up again. Although my time with it was well worth it. Has some good ideas other 4X games should take to heart,
I just think a) the stars system is fundamentally flawed and b) there's little incentive to try different paths because each civ only fulfills a specific need
I just think a) the stars system is fundamentally flawed and b) there's little incentive to try different paths because each civ only fulfills a specific need
Lazy sweeper
Warlord
- Joined
- May 7, 2009
- Messages
- 260
The Hell who's buying DLC for this game???
The game base has fixed some issues, so yeah, it's playable.
The game base has fixed some issues, so yeah, it's playable.
I was about to post my opinion on this subject in the thread about the DLC. I have played a game with the DLC and a game without it and I prefer the game without the DLC. IMHO, the game is very good, if not more than that, without the DLC and is an awful nightmare with it. Don't expect the game to be like Civ 5 or 6 though, it is its own beast and your empire must be managed very differently. It takes some time to get used to it. But as always, all is a matter of preferences and there is only one way to know wether you will like the game or not.
To sum up what I think: the core game is fully playable and far better in its current state without the DLC.
To sum up what I think: the core game is fully playable and far better in its current state without the DLC.
@Auberon I think the two smaller DLCs only add positive things, and I wouldn‘t want to go back to playing without them. I can understand that people are on the fence about together we rule. I think it is a net positive but I still play a game without it sometimes. It adds cool things but it also clutters the game sometimes. It seems
optional to me (unlike, say, the civ V expansions where I would never want to play without).
optional to me (unlike, say, the civ V expansions where I would never want to play without).
Forster
Prince
I'm not happy about the latest addition. A religious ai is declaring no war zones all over the place. What the heck are we supposed to do with that? He basically encircling my territory with them and I am not strong enough to go after him yet.
@Siptah I agree that the smaller DLCs are cool and I am playing with them. My comments are only targeted at Together we Rule. Whether someone likes this DLC or not is indeed a matter of preferences. Something that has not helped me is that the mechanisms are very badly explained, if explained at all as far as I know.
There are too many events and mandatory decisions on which I have no agency and no possibility to reject, even at a cost, be it dire or not. A very bad move to my eyes and a great disappointment. I can still play the core game which is great, IMO again of course.
My answer to the initial poster is that the game is great without any DLC. The smaller DLCs are a good addition to the overall experience but they are not required at all.
There are too many events and mandatory decisions on which I have no agency and no possibility to reject, even at a cost, be it dire or not. A very bad move to my eyes and a great disappointment. I can still play the core game which is great, IMO again of course.
My answer to the initial poster is that the game is great without any DLC. The smaller DLCs are a good addition to the overall experience but they are not required at all.
Last edited:
Similar threads
