Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Worse than Civ: Optimization, stability, leader graphics (though Humankind's aren't bad by any means, I just prefer Civ's style), game rules customization, pollution mechanics.
In all other cases, I feel they're roughly equivalent (assuming I didn't overlook something with this fairly quick answer).
Agreed, the only other thing civ 6 has on it is content, but that's because it's been out for years. but if you compare to vanilla day one civ 6, this game is on a whole different level.
TBH, in my opinion, what's telling isn't Humankind versus Civ 6. It's Humankind versus Endless Space 2 and Endless Legend.
I actually think base game Civ 6 and base game Humankind without the bugs are actually on about the same level, in fact, I actually think Humankind is better. That being said, considering that Humankind has about half a decade on Civ 6, better isn't really saying a lot.
What's worse is the fact that I just don't think Humankind measures up to Endless Space 2 as a singleplayer game. It seems almost like Amplitude has taken steps back and dropped a lot of what made their games so damn good, though I can't really speak as much on the Endless Legend front since I didn't play it.
It's a pretty decent step forward from Endless Legend, from my perspective, but I disagree that it should be compared to Endless Space 2. Space 4X games are rather different beasts to traditional 4X games. Enough to be their own genre, really. I've played a lot of them (Endless Space, Stellaris, Galactic Civilizations, Master of Orion...) and I notice they all share a lot of mechanics and conventions in common that land-bound 4X games lack.
What this game lacks that Endless Space 2 had is:
-Diverse, unique factions that radically alter your gameplay experience
-Narrative choices that make you feel like you're actually changing the path of your civilization/species
These two things, in my opinion, were extremely well executed and were what really set Endless Space 2 apart from other 4x games in general. I don't think there's another game in a relatively similar genre that even comes close except for maybe the Total War: Warhammer trilogy.
This game, in no way shape or form, achieves either of those two things in any more capacity than Civ 6. In my opinion, if Amplitude had tried to implement those things, this game could have been legendary. Instead, this game is just alright, failing to really accomplish anything or push any boundaries that games before haven't already done.
Quests: didn't read them more than a couple times, meta involved memorizing the triggers (and paths in ES2) and speedrunning them regardless of gamestate.
Heroes: meta involved funnelling exp into them at all costs early on, changing the incentive for exploration. Lategame managing dozens of them (so many level-ups) was tedious.
Unit outfitting: usually mindless, and you didn't get to see it in action in fair fights too often. The HK system is more than enough for a game that isn't even focusing on the fights too much.
Factions: the culture system is meant to let you pivot instead of being locked into a playstyle from turn 1. While less interesting thematically it's brilliant from a pvp standpoint, though it's probably going to need more work to realise that potential.
@ OP: If polish is important to you, give this a pass for 6 months. Depending on how you feel about the controversial changes it makes, it may well surpass Civ 6 soon enough.
The fights are better. I also like the units better. I like the way building units removed population from a city, and disbanding them puts it back. That is amazing. That, and the fact that the AI is way better then the AI was for Civ VI launch, makes me think this game is way better then Civ VI was at launch.
The worse:
Everything else to be honest.
Civ 4 did religion better then Humankind, which is kinda sad.
Extremely basic diplomatic options are just plain missing.
Conquest is far worse.
Casus belli is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar worse. There is no reason to force the player to individually acknowledge or ignore hundreds or thousands of provocations.
Pollution, like faith, is another example of a mechanic that only exists to check box. It is also asinine. Adding an entire mechanic to do one thing on one turn is already an extremely odd choice. Adding a mechanic that only exists to force the player to stop playing a game in the "one more turn..." genre is just fruit loops.
I have no clue how that even made it through beta.
I would actually more or less agree with you that those are problems that Endless Space 2 faces that Humankind dropped, though I do personally think that heroes desperately needed a rework EDIT: and probably could have been fixed without just getting cut.
That being said, I really strongly feel that dropping unique racial/civ mechanics and making it so that progression is effectively score based and not player driven was a huge mistake. It makes the game drastically better for MP, but my experience on these forums has told me basically nobody plays 4x games for MP. I don't think there's a 4x game that has over 300 concurrent people playing multiplayer. I just feel like this game dropped what I thought was best about Amplitude's games.
I dunno, I just feel like this game would be drastically better if instead of every civ just being a bunch of stat boosts, instead you got a new mechanic with every civ, and instead of being able to advance by simply reaching a certain "score" you advanced both by reaching that score but also achieving certain tasks or fulfilling certain requirements.
I also think that the civics system in this game is basically a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. The laws systems in ES2 was, in my opinion, leagues better.
if you prefer Humankind , you're far more likely to say so here on its own boards. It's not like everyone is in love with Civ 6 on their boards but have you taken a look at theese boards since launch? it's a cesspit of negativity with folks demanding refunds or that core features are just stripped out altogether.
On balance, I prefer Humankind to Civ 6 at the moment because it's still fresh and I'm learning new things which is always fun for me. I've pretty much done all there is to do with Civ 6 now and am waiting for Civ 7 to be announced.
However, Civ 6 is a far better game overall if you're able to launch it from the launcher. I can and have never had a problem with it but there are folks who just can't. Neither does it crash for me when I play it which it does for some. But why should that surprise anyone since it's at the very end of its development cycle?
The REAL question is how Civ 7 on launch will stack up with Humankind after a year maybe of development. Tose of us who love Humankind will probably think Civ 7 is a bit weak but otherwise, I think Civ will always end up being the more popular and more played game of the two because it's an established franchise. Plus Humankind does have some pretty 'stinky' systems for your average Civ player - culture swapping, forced surrender etc. (yes, I know that counter-arguments but that's not the point because I'm not a 'normal' civver)
Worse: late game, balance, victory conditions,
Equally bad in different ways: pollution, AI
A bit early to compare.
Choosing between Humankind and Civs 1 and 2 though - now that would be a very difficult decision because I loved both of the first two Civ games. I think it would be pretty equal.