Your biggest fears regarding Humankind

[Elhoim]

At some point the game just stopped cared about gravitas and any pretext and now is a saturday cartoon for reddit teenagers, with empire - conquering rock bands, laser robots, Settlers of Catan economic system utterly disconnected from any sort of real world (all world's best universities are in mountains), Roman air conditioning and laughing from irrational mysticism tech quotes, lack of crabs being main source of human suffering in history, characters being Pixar movie-like caricatures of themselves, international politics being based around "me angry viking like many ships", tourism being strategic resource empires fight for, tornados being imperial scale events and blizzards making snow more productive etc. A whole mountain of dizzying, colourful stupidity.

My only additional comment, besides 'Amen!' would be that Civ VI feels to me like a game that the designers have stopped taking seriously as a game. It has become an eclectic mass of trivia dripped over a core game with all the gravitas of a Road Runner/Wiley Coyote Bloopers Reel, but not as well-written or as well drawn.

Yeah, this is what's driving me towards Humankind and Old World. One thing is the tone, and another is the mechanics instead of being abstraction to represent a facet of reality, they became an abstract object by themselves. Culture no longer represents the cultural achievements of a civilization, or how it's spread, but a currency that fills buckets and can come from practically anything. Resources magically appearing from abilities, no drawbacks or costs for actions, everything has a positive effect instead of being a balance... Anyway, I'm preaching to the choir here. The worst thing is that you can't criticize the mechanics without being swarmed with "Then don't use it!" or with the new modular expansion "Then don't buy it!".

So going back on topic, my biggest fear would be Humankind following this path. I want a game that doesn't forget the roots of what it's trying to represent, and gives me coherent mechanics to play around with.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

. . . So going back on topic, my biggest fear would be Humankind following this path. I want a game that doesn't forget the roots of what it's trying to represent, and gives me coherent mechanics to play around with.

Agreed. I want a serious Historical 4X that doesn't become Mind-numbingly Trivial (I can get that in my own military history research and writing, thankyouverymuch) but retains a feel of actually Creating Alternative History and not participating in a badly-plotted fantasy novel.

The Positive Point is that so far, the Factions and the terrain graphics revealed from Humankind appear to be at least trying for the appearance of 'realism' - the feel that you are maneuvering your units over a real countryside, and not through an episode from a Bugs Bunny cartoon (don't get me wrong, that would be entertaining, but NOT 'historical 4x'!).
Mind you, that's only an impression, because we have yet to see how all their actual Game Mechanisms interact In playing, but I think their First Impression is, so far, good.

 

[pineappledan]

My biggest fear is eurocentrism, or rather, mechanics and representation of cultures that reflect european fixations.

As an example, the first era of the game has 2 nilotic cultures (Egyptian, Nubian), 2 anatolian cultures (Mycenean, Hittite), and 3 Mesopotamian/Levantine cultures (Assyria, Babylon, Phoenicia). Some of these peoples are only a few hundred kilometers from each other geographically, and had very similar languages/religions/cultures. The inclusion of a "Mycenean" culture is especially egregious to me; so we will have both Proto-Greeks and Greeks as distinct entities?

The remaining 3 spots are 1 Chinese, Indus, and Mesoamerican culture each. Meanwhile, there isn't a single Andean culture represented in that era, no Caral or Chavin, etc. An entire cradle of civilization is dark.

From what has been released about the classical era, this trend continues. 1 mesoamerican culture (Mayan). 1 civilization to represent 2 entire continents while there are 4 distinct European cultures represented (Huns, Goths, Greeks, Romans). Still no Australian/Austronesian/Melanesian/Polynesian culture. Sill no sub-saharan Africa. No North American culture. No Andean/Amazonian/Patagonian culture.

This is precisely the crowding out I feared would happen. There is token representation of non-European cultures and then 2 or even 3 European or near-east cultures stacked on top of each other. It's a bit of a joke as far as I'm concerned.

EDIT: I don't think my post stressed this enough; I do want to emphasize that Europe does not have a monopoly on the concept of civilization. I think that these design choices can do some real damage, not only to the interest and replayability that more diversity would grant, but can actively mis-educate players. These narrow design choices feed into a myopic view of the world which sees Europe at the centre of history, which is both ignorant and dangerous.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

My biggest fear is eurocentrism, or rather, mechanics and representation of cultures that reflect european fixations.

As an example, the first era of the game has 2 nilotic cultures (Egyptian, Nubian), 2 anatolian cultures (Mycenean, Hittite), and 3 Mesopotamian/Levantine cultures (Assyria, Babylon, Phoenicia). Some of these peoples are only a few hundred kilometers from each other geographically, and had very similar languages/religions/cultures. The inclusion of a "Mycenean" culture is especially egregious to me; so we will have both Proto-Greeks and Greeks as distinct entities?

The remaining 3 spots are 1 Chinese, Indus, and Mesoamerican culture each. Meanwhile, there isn't a single Andean culture represented in that era, no Caral or Chavin, etc. An entire cradle of civilization is dark.

From what has been released about the classical era, this trend continues. 1 mesoamerican culture (Mayan). 1 civilization to represent 2 entire continents while there are 4 distinct European cultures represented (Huns, Goths, Greeks, Romans). Still no Australian/Austronesian/Melanesian/Polynesian culture. Sill no sub-saharan Africa. No North American culture. No Andean/Amazonian/Patagonian culture.

This is precisely the crowding out I feared would happen. There is token representation of non-European cultures and then 2 or even 3 European or near-east cultures stacked on top of each other. It's a bit of a joke as far as I'm concerned.

EDIT: I don't think my post stressed this enough; I do want to emphasize that Europe does not have a monopoly on the concept of civilization. I think that these design choices can do some real damage, not only to the interest and replayability that more diversity would grant, but can actively mis-educate players. These narrow design choices feed into a myopic view of the world which sees Europe at the centre of history, which is both ignorant and dangerous.

My new biggest fear is that PineappleDan gets the game he wants, because what he's looking for and what I'm looking for sound like they're mutually exclusive. I want a game that's not as occidentophobic as Civilization VI or other historical 4x games.

There's a difference between the Past (what happened) and History (the written record of what happened). I'm personally more interest in History, and classical history at that, focused as it is on Great Works. Much as I enjoy the writings of Dan Jones and Tom Holland, I've still yet to come across a modern work which surpasses Edward Gibbon's History of the Decline and fall of the Roman Empire.

 

[pineappledan]

I want a game that's not as occidentophobic as Civilization VI or other historical 4x games.

were talking about civ vi? The game with 2 separate leaders for Greece, a separate Macedonian option, with Egypt led by a Greek? The one with england (also with 2 leaders), Scotland, the US, Australia, and Canada as separate entities? Occidentophobic? Ok.

The written record of what happened in other continents often were written down, but are now lost or indecipherable because of genocide. The Mayan codices were destroyed, except for 3. The Quipu of the Andeans pre-dates the Inca, but no one can read them because the literate class were killed. This is a distortion of history, even by your own definition.

further, what is the point of having a progressive cultural eras when 1/2 of the options are just 90% similar white people?

 

[Atlas627]

There are other sources of history that are still untapped, but there is also much that is lost. There is also some that is *extremely* detailed and *verifiable by extraneous sources*. Thus it is impossible to be "fair" about historical representation. The sources themselves are biased even without counting the developer's bias in selecting the sources. And applying modern-day progressive biases is no different from taking historical biases at face value. They are all just biases, and thus can only be recognized and possibly mitigated, never completely removed.

I think whichever cultures provide the best gameplay inspirations are the most important to me. Having cultures from all over the world represented is important to the theme of the game, but ultimately it is just that: theme.

I want a game that happens to have a historical theme. If you want a history thesis that happens to be in game form, no matter how you want it to represent history, I think that would be a big "fear" for me.

 

[conorbebe]

My new biggest fear is that Amplitude are going to choose to include less noteworthy or significant cultures and civilisations from history that supersede more important or famous ones, e.g. the Ghanaians over the Mali.

I’m all for highlighting obscure cultures, such as the Harappans, but not when they take the place or fulfil the same role as another which was more renown.

 

[Siptah]

The axiom of Mali > Ghana (would anyone even dare to do this with China and India?) that is so predominant in this forum aside, isn‘t it nice to have a pre-Muslim (at least in its first centuries) culture instead of a Muslim one (of which we will have quite a few in the game anyway)?

 

[Siptah]

EDIT: I don't think my post stressed this enough; I do want to emphasize that Europe does not have a monopoly on the concept of civilization. I think that these design choices can do some real damage, not only to the interest and replayability that more diversity would grant, but can actively mis-educate players. These narrow design choices feed into a myopic view of the world which sees Europe at the centre of history, which is both ignorant and dangerous.

It's a very valid concern that you have. Yet, I think with 10 slots per era, it's clear that choices have to be made and that equal representation should not be first priority - if you interpret from that the Amplitude puts Europe in the center of history, that's kind of an assumption - possibly coming from a well-trained reflex (an assumption of my part). I'm sure Amplitude is very aware of the big nothing from South and North America in vanilla HK for the first eras. Call me an optimist, but I think if this stays unrepresented or drastically underrepresented, we might see an expansion with some features catering specifically to these cultures: for example prolonging the nomadic part of the game or cultures with fix settlements but no cities - although it is quite a nut to crack what to do when people want to switch between city-based or nomadic cultures.
I do agree that an Andean civ in vanilla for the classical era (Moche, Tiwanaku) would have been very nice. Let's hope we get the Inka in medieval or early modern. And at least theoretically, it's still possible to have Tiwanaku in Medieval and Inka in Early Modern, for example.

further, what is the point of having a progressive cultural eras when 1/2 of the options are just 90% similar white people?

Uh... gameplay? fun? roleplaying? the 90% similarity is a subjective perception that 90% of the players don't share? really lot's of points to that.

 

[mitsho]

My new biggest fear is that Amplitude are going to choose to include less noteworthy or significant cultures and civilisations from history that supersede more important or famous ones, e.g. the Ghanaians over the Mali.

I’m all for highlighting obscure cultures, such as the Harappans, but not when they take the place or fulfil the same role as another which was more renown.

You seem to be under the impression that there is a perfect roster of cultures and that they are ranked with the ranking determining whether the culture should appear in Vanilla or Expansion 1 or 2 and so on. And one probably can find that perfect roster with debate.

I don't think so. There is no definition of a culture, we have fuzzy borders all the time and even inside the eras, there's a large span of time over which these cultures changed. There will be cultures that don't suit you and that were chosen for other reasons. I know that I want the roster to be as progressive as possible as well, but this is certainly not my biggest fear for a computer game. But yes, my axiom of "gameplay over simulation" is also just an opinion, I know.

 

[Gwydden]

Just because games tend to collapse diverse non-Western cultures into one amorphous blob (e.g. China, India, and Arabia in CIV) let's not turn around and do likewise with Western cultures. Hyperbole in the other direction helps no one. Take Mycenaeans, for example. Between them and Classical Greece there are hundreds of years, and culturally they do not appear to have been all that similar. To say they are just "proto-Greeks" is like saying that Harappans are just "proto-Indians". Even if one's upset about the preponderance of "white" cultures in the roster, focusing on the one European culture of the Ancient Era strikes me as an odd angle from which to launch that criticism. Humankind is looking a tad more eurocentric than I would like, but I still give them credit for breaking down the aforementioned blobs.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Taking as your Data Base all Human Cultures from about 4000 BCE to the present day, there are literally thousands to choose from, especially if you include all the predecessors, successors, and variations as separate 'cultures' as Humankind is doing.
Therefore any discussion of Which Cultures to include in a game that initially only has room for 60 of them, including predecessors, successors, etc is a waste of time. Each of us, I am certain, has a different set of criteria for inclusion, a different set of cultures we are familiar with, and a (possibly different) set of Cultures with peculiarities we'd like to see in a Game.
I applaud, by the way, any effort to expose gamers to Something Different in history. I personally firmly believe that Historical and Cultural Illiteracy and Ignorance is disastrous for any modern State and its people, and I know for a fact that games can teach as well as entertain (we home-schooled my step-son, and I taught him about ancient Egypt by having him play Pharaoh, which showed him quickly both how different and how similar Egyptians from 4000 years ago were to him and his friends).
On the other hand, as by avocation a Historian, there is a point at which Diversity for the sake of diversity should (personal opinion) be second to Importance and Influence in history. It's a fine balance, and none of us will agree on where the balance point lies, and therein lies another point of Diversity in gaming and game design.

 

[notNamed]

On the other hand, as by avocation a Historian, there is a point at which Diversity for the sake of diversity should (personal opinion) be second to Importance and Influence in history. It's a fine balance, and none of us will agree on where the balance point lies, and therein lies another point of Diversity in gaming and game design.

Well, we do have Goths and English whom are neither a high point of historical importance/influence (in the era they occupy), nor diverse in showing off different parts of the world at the time (since the Goths are similar to Celts and Vikings, even have a Celtic structure as their city center and English are indistinguishable from the Franks as depicted, and we're also going to have Teutons/HRE to dabble in that very same niche).

 

[BuchiTaton]

The axiom of Mali > Ghana (would anyone even dare to do this with China and India?) that is so predominant in this forum aside, isn‘t it nice to have a pre-Muslim (at least in its first centuries) culture instead of a Muslim one (of which we will have quite a few in the game anyway)?

I think many (if not most) people see Mali > Ghana because we know way more about Mali that about Ghana, making easier to design and relate with Mali, also the size of their empires.
Now there are design limitations from the historical base. While Songhai or Kenembu could be medieval or early modern, both Ghana and Mali should be Medieval on game, so they certainly would compete for the limited slots (yes 60 cultures sound like a lot, but this number is still really limited), there are many cultures to add just for sub-sahara Africa for Medieval and Early Modern (Akan, Yoruba, Swahili, Zimbabwe, Kongo and Somalia). For a early west Africa culture Nok is the best option, because they could be Classical or even Ancient.

A simplified line for western Sahel could be: Nok > Mande > Songhai > Hausa

Mande could represent both Ghana and Mali including the muslim and non-muslim parts.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

It's already been confirmed that Minor Factions will be in the game. This mechanic seems to me the best means of implementing those cultures whose impact on History is markedly less than the more clearly iconic and identifiable cultures which we all anticipate finding inclusion.

That the Quipu (as mentioned by @pinappledan) have not left their mark on History is not a judgement. It does not infer that their culture is inferior to that of - for instance - the Huns or the Mongols, per se. But flavor is an essential aspect of Historical 4x strategy games. It is their primary appeal. Players of the genre expect that the steppe nomads should focus on horseback units and be warmongers. Mechanics that did not reflect that would not "taste" right. Even were the novel mechanics informed by evidence of what those past peoples were actually like, there'd be an insurmountable discontinuity between expectations and delivery. It'd be like biting into a warm steak and it tasting like cold ice cream; whatever the merits of the latter, it was neither wanted nor anticipated.

But at least with the major civilizations and cultures from History there is an expectation. Having eaten innumerable steaks, I could tell how and why the porterhouse at one restaurant was superior or inferior to any other. But I've had French cuisine less than a handful of times, and never while growing up. My palate lacks the necessary refinement for its subtleties, and as a result I am ill equipped to discern the nuances of foie gras or truffle shavings. And I would imagine that I am hardly alone in being more familiar with sirloins than French fare. None of which is by any means to cast any aspersions on haute cuisine. Analogously, were a culture like the Quipu implemented into Humankind, 99.9% of players would lack the historical palate to discern whether they were implemented well, or interestingly, or appropriately.

Finally, we are not lacking for diversity. Just as my diet can and does consist of American steaks and Spanish tapas and exotic game like kangaroo and python and wild boar, all without resorting to balut, so too can Civilization and Humankind have diverse offering like Amerindians and the British and Greeks, all without resorting to Quipu.

 

[pineappledan]

It's already been confirmed that Minor Factions will be in the game. This mechanic seems to me the best means of implementing those cultures whose impact on History is markedly less than the more clearly iconic and identifiable cultures which we all anticipate finding inclusion.

That the Quipu (as mentioned by @pinappledan) have not left their mark on History is not a judgement. It does not infer that their culture is inferior to that of - for instance - the Huns or the Mongols, per se. But flavor is an essential aspect of Historical 4x strategy games. It is their primary appeal. Players of the genre expect that the steppe nomads should focus on horseback units and be warmongers. Mechanics that did not reflect that would not "taste" right. Even were the novel mechanics informed by evidence of what those past peoples were actually like, there'd be an insurmountable discontinuity between expectations and delivery. It'd be like biting into a warm steak and it tasting like cold ice cream; whatever the merits of the latter, it was neither wanted nor anticipated.

But at least with the major civilizations and cultures from History there is an expectation. Having eaten innumerable steaks, I could tell how and why the porterhouse at one restaurant was superior or inferior to any other. But I've had French cuisine less than a handful of times, and never while growing up. My palate lacks the necessary refinement for its subtleties, and as a result I am ill equipped to discern the nuances of foie gras or truffle shavings. And I would imagine that I am hardly alone in being more familiar with sirloins than French fare. None of which is by any means to cast any aspersions on haute cuisine. Analogously, were a culture like the Quipu implemented into Humankind, 99.9% of players would lack the historical palate to discern whether they were implemented well, or interestingly, or appropriately.

Finally, we are not lacking for diversity. Just as my diet can and does consist of American steaks and Spanish tapas and exotic game like kangaroo and python and wild boar, all without resorting to balut, so too can Civilization and Humankind have diverse offering like Amerindians and the British and Greeks, all without resorting to Quipu.

... do we tell him, guys? Do we tell him what a quipu is?

 

[Atlas627]

... do we tell him, guys? Do we tell him what a quipu is?

His point stands anyway.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

... do we tell him, guys? Do we tell him what a quipu is?

Admittedly, I was under the mistaken impression from the context of your post that they were an obscure tribe indigenous to South America. Obviously I just looked up the actual meaning.

However, given the propensity of posters on this forum to flout their xenophilia by referencing genuinely obscure peoples of the kind I assumed "Quipi" to be, feel free to substitute any of those in its stead.

 

[pineappledan]

I’m not sure what to do with the allegation that non-European people didn’t “contribute to history”, as if East Asians or whoever weren’t “pulling their weight” somehow. Or that certain things like Polynesians colonizing the Pacific thousands of years before the compass somehow isn’t a contribution that counts. This is post-hoc rationalizations for why there are 4 European cultures announced for every 1 from other regions. I don’t buy it. It’s lazy and incurious. Writing 4 paragraphs about the historical irrelevance of “the Quipu people” makes that point better than I ever could.

It’s surprising and disappointing that people feel this way. If a game is going to call itself “Humankind”, then I would have thought aiming to reflect a broad swathe of humanity would implicitly be the aim. There are already 20 games released about Rome for every one with even a single Filipino character, for example. I don’t take issue with a game like Ryse being about Rome, but I would take issue with a game called Humankind concentrating half of its scope on a single subcontinent to the detriment of the dozens of other regions of the world that it could also devote attention to.

maybe there are real budgetary constraints which limit how many diverse cultures can actually be presented in the base game. Maybe someone has done the math and demonstrated that you need to have 5 Greek factions or else your game won’t sell. I’m not convinced that a lack of curiosity or interest in cultures that I rarely get to see in games isn’t just as likely a culprit, however

 

[Atlas627]

I’m not sure what to do with the allegation that non-European people didn’t “contribute to history”, as if East Asians or whoever weren’t “pulling their weight” somehow.

Who said this? Did anyone agree with it when it was said? I honestly did not see such a statement and would have refuted it if I did.

Or that certain things like Polynesians colonizing the Pacific thousands of years before the compass somehow isn’t a contribution that counts.

In the sense that it is an incredible accomplishment, certainly it "counts". It is worth studying and discussing. In the sense that it influenced the overall course of human history, well, we can so far say that it hasn't. However, since we are creating alternate history with the game anyway, then I think it would be entirely appropriate to put such a culture into the game and say "what if".

But I don't think someone who does not want that is being unreasonable.

This is post-hoc rationalizations for why there are 4 European cultures announced for every 1 from other regions. I don’t buy it. It’s lazy and incurious. Writing 4 paragraphs about the historical irrelevance of “the Quipu people” makes that point better than I ever could.

Honestly, I also would not have bothered to look up what you were talking about, simply because the tone you have been using implies a certain amount of zealotry which means I cannot trust your claims enough to assume they are worth investigating on my own. As an example, your claim of 4 European cultures for every 1 from other regions. Are you just defining Europe as everything the Europeans regularly interacted with? I would not have considered any of the Levantine, Mesopotamian, or North African cultures as European.

Keep in mind that 'historical significance' is about affecting the overall course of human history, which usually requires some amount of interaction with cultures outside your own, else you are only influencing your own history, not everyone's. So regular interaction is a pretty important component of that. Furthermore, we need surviving (aka written and interpretable) records of some sort as well. The most comprehensive, verifiable, and interpretable (by a French game developer and French historian) are European in origin.

That being said, I wouldn't call Civ6 "occidentophobic" and I love learning about new cultures and history through Civ, so I am not opposed to including "less historically significant" civilizations. As I mentioned already, the gameplay is the important part to me, and many obscure cultures can provide very interesting gameplay motifs.

The ancient era could include something from the Americas as well as the Polynesians, to spice things up. I look forward to seeing both of those in an expansion. I would've enjoyed them in the base game too, but they appear not to have gone for that.