Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
Old World has a much larger emphasis on your lineage and diplomacy as you're playing within a specific timeframe.
Humankind lacks characters - apart from the avatars, there are no characters at all in Humankind. Civ has Great people and Governors. Endless Legend also has leaders which make a difference but Humankind is devoid of them all.
Old World has far more than you can dream of and they matter, playing a major role in how your game plays out. They have their own archetypes, likes/dislikes so it's more like CK3 in this respect but nowhere near as detailed.
Old World has Families - each faction in the game has a pool of four families and when you settle a new city, you have to assign it to one of these families. You can only choose three of the four and so there is some variation to each playthrough with each faction. And again, the families matter - they prefer their own units to protect their cities and if they're pee'd off at you, their units will perfom poorly, even going into revolt if they don't like you.
Managing your families is an important aspect but it's not the entire game. There are only a few factions in Old World but they have real character - I find I am more successful playing as Rome or Egypt than I am with Carthage whose strength is their ability to recruit from local tribes. Assyria gets free orders when killing a unit - Persia gets a boost to its gathering economy - Babylon gets extra science - Greece is both militarily and culturaly strong.
Old World uses a highly innovative Orders system where units can move several times during each turn. the number of orders you have to spend depends on your ruler's legitimacy, the improvements you have built in your cities and your specialists.
Old World has another unique systemn for naval transportation. Some love it, some hate it and some are 'meh' but it's elegant and allows for rapid movement of units acrosas bodies of water unlike the turgid pace of other games where crossing bodies of water can take ages with units needing to lose a turn embarking and diembarking. Old World has none of that.
Old World is strictly Turn Based - each AI talkes its own turn so you don't have to worry about the AI stuffing up your turns. Humankind has simultaneous turns so the AI can act while you are executing your turn and can attack your units as you move to attack them so that they have the initiative and get to ravage your units.
Combat in all these games is similar - it takes place on the game map and has 1UPT. Unfortunately, unlike EL, there is no initaitive and Humankind's combat is strictly IGoUGo. That's why it's a pain when the AI gets the jump on you during your turn. Some like this, others not so much. Humankind's maps have more elevations but otherwise, terrain matters in all these games.
I'd have to say that, IMO, Old World's AI appears to be a better opponent as well. Not just for combat but for managing everything about the game.
Old World has worker units who build imporvements on the map like Civ. It also has religious units that can spread the religion and build religious improvements or develop your religion. Religion is much more impactful and menaoing ful in Old World than in is in Humankind.
Old World has probably the best way to manage world wonders in any of these games - when you have the resources to build them, you assign a worker to build it and then nobody else can build it. It's an incredibly simple system.
Artwork - this is going to be subjective but I think Old World looks better overall but Humankind has far more artwork. Humankind's map feels more alive than Old World's but the overall look is better IMO. YMMV.
Music - Humankind wins this one hands down. Nothing wrong with Old World's sound at all but it's clear that music was a major focus of this title and it really shows. the music here is gorgeous and there's so much of it to enjoy.
Events - both games have events but I prefer Old World' s rich variety of events over Humankind's.
Narration - there is no political messaging, social commentary or agendas being pushed in Old World. I have disabled Humankind's narrator because I find his comments, spoken and written to be an annoyance - whatever humour they have is lost after the 5th time you hear it. And since Humankind will not notify you when a city is starving except after a pop has died, I find the narrator's snark particularly annoying.
If you haven't guessed, I'd have to say that Old World is the better game but Humankind is good too. You will likely be happy with whichever one you buy because they're both good games.
As well as what's mentioned above, I will add:
- You grow your characters in Old World, they have different personalities, and they ALL matter. You will find emotional attachment in their individual stories and events.
- The AI in Old World is hands down the best AI I've seen in a 4x game (and I've played 4x games since the early 90's). Humankind/Civ's AI has nothing on Old World's. But don't be worried, the Old World AI at easy difficulties is good for easy play, but ramps up quickly as you go up the difficulties. No one has beaten the highest level of AI play yet (The Great, with Play to Win and Huge AI Advantage)
- Old World has GREAT tutorials. It teaches you how to play the game. Humankind's holds your hand to a win, but doesn't really help to teach you HOW to play the game. Just how to win the tutorial (if that makes sense).
- Yes, the music in Humankind is better than Old World's, but it's still good.
- Old World has over 3000 events, and they are tied to how the game is going, and who your characters are. They provide so much to the game, and there are even event chains which tell mini-stories/quests. Humankind has about 160 I think, and they aren't really linked to what's happening in the game, just appearing at certain times.
- Old World is limited to the ancient era though, and only has 7 nations to choose from. But those 7 do provide enough differences to have different styles of play.
- Both have pretty good graphics, but Old World's event art is better. I prefer Old World's UI as I feel Humankind UI popups have a lot of wasted space. And Old World has fantastic tooltips for everything, which even nest so you can dive really deep into explanations and info easily.
- Old World's MP works. Humankind's still doesn't really work from what I understand.
I think you'll not be disappointed with Old World. But Humankind seems to have disappointed quite a lot of people. Expectations/hype over reality though? Probably.
Is there any reason I enjoy Old World knowing what I wrote above? Perhaps it feels more classic 4X and more open? I doubt it but I wonder.
I would wait for humankind if i were you they might eventually fix it during the year.
Myself I'm worried by Steam de facto monopoly but I'll still wait the Steam release.
And again, it looks like some Victoria/Heart of Iron at a different time of history, and with an approach similar to Crusader Kings, so on a larger time scale than the first two.
So ok great surprise but how much you enjoyed, Victoria, Heart of Iron, Crusader Kings?
That said from myself it's a pointless question as Old World is on Mac so I'll buy it as I did for those last three. Sigh.
I would say Old World is a mix of classic 4x Civ, with CK dynasties, families and events overlaid.
There's nothing HoI about Old World. Except maybe Generals.
What are you unclear on? Classic 4x as in a hex map you build cities-improvements-wonders and move units around on, and instead of an eternal leader you have families and bloodlines where characters are born, grow, develop, scheme, die. Plus thousands of events connecting it all together into a fantastic game.
Hey Dale I think you are a QA/Designer for Old World? I've seen your posts on civfanatics XD.
You make good points but some slight bias there surely? (Big fan of Old World though!)
As for my opinion I think Old World is the better polished game in terms of mechanics its systems feel better tuned but it has been out longer. In a way Old World feels like a sequel to Civ IV and V.
If you enjoyed Endless Legend I think you'll like Humankind if you enjoy a historical setting. The visuals and audio of Humankind set a new standard, watching the cities develop and grow across the map is satsifying and the combat is the most fun out of the three big 4X of CivVI, Old World and Humankind.
Yes, I am. But I am still a gamer of 4x games too, with my opinion. :)
I did say both games bring things to the 4x table, but I prefer Old World due to the emotional attachments and stories that form in Old World. Humankind with it's constantly changing civs (one era you're Egypt, next era you're English, next era you're China) and lack of story telling events, just mean there's no attachment or identification with your civ and a complete lack of "story", unlike Old World. "In My Opinion" of course. I also really dislike the forced surrender and war resolution, but there's hoping that will change in the road map Amplitude released.
CK is based on history, which means strict lineages based on real history, at each play it's same context, same people. How can you find this like a 4X game?
For example, it's CK like but you can skip ever build Rome, or even erase it?
I did not say CK is a 4x game. Here's what I said:
"I would say Old World is a mix of classic 4x Civ, with CK dynasties, families and events overlaid."
Note the use of the word 'overlaid'.
How does this happen and why is it necessary for anyone to explain the absolute bleeding obvious that anyone can find just by doing the most basic research before posting?
Old World is a 4X game where the player chooses to play one of seven historical factions on a randomly generated map just like the player does in the Civ franchise. Both games have the option to play on True World maps where the players can start in their historical locations (it's fun to play like this in Old World too) but the random maps are just fine.
Unlike the Civ franchise, one of the chief features in 'Old World' is that it has a character system which I clearly described as being "not as detailed" as CK3's character system. But it's detailed enough for the character interactions to be compared honestly to that of that franchise.
BTW, it's both strange and rather disappointing to see that nobody has actually taken up the mantle of arguing in favour of Humankind here. So I'll add that I see a great potential in Humankind which I don't see in Old World in the long-term. Old World is very focused on one particular era and that allows it to go into a lot of depth but it's confined to that era. Whereas Humankind has a much broader scope and if the developers do their jobs, it has the potential to become something truly great in the genre.