Pros: Best combat in a civlike
Cons: Everything else
Marketing that seemed to piss off Gankertards and /misc/ by design meaning that's who talks about it
Pollution as a system is vastly inferior to pollution in Civ VI Gathering Storm
Leaders feel incredibly soulless and act like schizophrenic cosplayers switching from Ancient Roman garb to Zulu loincloths and everything inbetween
Science culture meta, negating the point of having the culture switch system in the first place
Why don't your cities get renamed automatically into a translated, culture appropriate form whenever you switch cultures or conquer a city from another culture? It's a nitpick, sure, but if a bored autist with Google Translate can whip up plausible names for every one of EU4's 3137 provinces, Amplitude has no excuse aside from being owned by SEGA
Cities can spawn twice with the same name, I got Moskva as both Russians and Soviets
Contemporary feels too condensed of an era, you wind up having digital billboards in your districts before you've even invented computers
Nuke range is opaque and unexplained
Seriously, why did Amplitude make a generic civlike with generic humans instead of something sovlful like Endless Legend 2?
>Seriously, why did Amplitude make a generic civlike with generic humans instead of something sovlful like Endless Legend 2?
You can make perfection twice.
Sad to say since back when it was in development I was hopeful for it, but it was doomed from almost the start. >let's make a civ-like where instead of being a static civ like AoE2 for the whole game, it's like evolution of real human civilizations and it changes every era giving you new bonus and letting you pivot your playstyle depending on the circumstances
Very cool! >let's have the culture selection be selecting a real-life civilization with its own distinctions and history and cram it into being a fashion and modifier for a single era >also only one player gets to select each of these per era so if you're behind and want to pivot your strategy you're shit out of luck cause you'll be late to the next era and the good ones will have been selected >also let's do our usual Amplitude thing of having all resources scale like mad throughout the game, throwing balance to the wind, and leading to a few buildings that provide resource multipliers being the absolute most important things in the game (seriously the Khmer farm building will 10x your food yields for no cost) but it fits so much worse due to the 'historical/real civs' setting
It's clear the team at Amplitude has the skill to have made this game incredible. They are a very, very rare case where, I believe, they 'game design' behind it, more 'idea guys' writing up design documents. Usually games fall short in the execution but I feel like Humankind is very well-executed bad ideas.
>Pollution as a system is vastly inferior to pollution in Civ VI Gathering Storm
Yeah, devs need to realise that mechanics should punishing in a fun way, not a tedious way. Pollution in Civ was fun. You can take advantage of it and flood people's tiles or get lucky with natural disasters. Humankind's pollution was just "Number go down". It was tedious. Punish me, but do it in a fun way that I can maybe use to my advantage.
>t. never played the game
Ultra-pollution is the easiest way to win the match, especially in MP. You would know, if you at least fricking once played long enough to reach modern times.
Then again, I don't blame you for not enduring the game long enough, its genuinely bad and has barely anything worth talking about, not to mention playing
I played 3 campaigns to completion on release. Has pollution changed or am I misremembering? I just remember it making happiness like -1000 which made all cities produce nothing.
Hitting "die-back pollution" level is an instant game-over. Top score wins.
So despite it being the "bad end", it's still the end, and you won if you were leading. Which is super-easy if you have maxed-out production output and just keep shitting stuff up, while being Industrial civ.
>Seriously, why did Amplitude make a generic civlike with generic humans instead of something sovlful like Endless Legend 2?
In a livestream a couple of years ago they said they weren't ready yet. They still wanted to try new things so they could learn. They said they felt like they hadn't learned enough to make a true Endless Legend 2 that is different enough from 1. Thanks for your short summary on what you think of the game. I'll still keep my eye on it in case they improve some parts of it with dlc or patches but since most of the dlc up till now has been more cultures I'm a bit worried about that.
Old World is like a better, more detailed civ mixed with some crusader kings under a magnifying glass of the bronze-iron and classical age. End game has medieval technology but the game is usually over by then. I got like 80 hours out of it at launch, will probably grab the small, cheap DLC and play 20 more at some point. I would describe it as good.
>Old World
A budget Civ 5.5 with bunch of unique mechanics, all of which are broken.
So instead of Soren making a new good Civ, he delivered a clusterfrick that's barely worth playing. It's marginally better than Humankind, but fails in various own regards, so it's hardly a success or something worth celebration.
>Game everyone forget about >But people who are overinvested in mocking it keep bringing it back
At this point, you frickers are essentially equal with shills. Let it fricking go, the game is 2 yo and it's a giant turd, so why dwelling on it, rather than burring it deep?
>make shit clone game with obvious left wing agenda, diversity is great, all cultures equal and interchangeable, see we are all same! >be surprised when predominantly white male gamers think its not only a shit clone game but resent the shoehorned politics.
Now if they had made the game with an emphasis on anti-war, anti-capitalism, more interbreeding, bonuses for destroying the patriarchy and welcoming refugees, then they might have reached the right target audience.
If you like roleplaying its awful if you like MP its great. Its pretty much entirely designed around an MP style environment where you view yourself and the other nations as "players" in a game, not some pseudo-historical alt history.
I wish games would go the more alpha-centauri route, but multiplayer is more likely to get whales to buy things, and it's easier to lean on versus with simpler mechanics than everything it takes to make an interesting single player game
They should have limited what civs you could branch to. So instead of Rome suddenly randomly starting to build step pyramids and cut out hearts, limit to them becoming the Byzantines, the Italians, or the (heh) HRE instead. Likewise, the same civs could be formed by different civs, such as France formable as both the Germanics and Gauls, with different bonuses depending on which one you are. Therefore it would have been more historically accurate than Civ when it comes to capturing the dynamism of history, which could have been used as a selling point for schools.
To make up for the disparity between regions, you could have the option to start as a generic tribal, like the Latins, Greeks, Celts, Amerindians, etc. or just go the vanilla route and play as the Sumerians, Chinese, or Egyptians, who would be more powerful at the start but more limited in civ choice in the later game. This would make the strategic calculus more involved than just picking the best civ every age, and play into Amplitude's strengths which is diverse gameplay depending on civ choice.
>It was supposed to be more humane
And it is. A tool that can swiftly and reliably behead a convict is far fricking more humane than just about any other method of execution. There is literallu nothing even remotely close to reliability and swiftness of guillotine. For frick's sake, they were still hanging in my country all the way till mid 90s, and despite best, most scientific take on it feasible, every 10th execution ended up botched one way or another, while people were lobbying not as much to suspend or remove the death penalty, but simply to replace hanging with beheading with guillotine.
It's like you can't even grasp the point of it, but have to shitpost anyway.
I'm genuinely excited for the culture switching mechanic when it was announced. It sounded crazy and gamey and fun. I dont really care about muh historical progression that somehow keeps getting sounded everywhere I go, but maybe I should, because apparently thats where a lot of vocal people draw the line.
And as more infos and reception about the game came out, it just felt cursed as the complains keep piling up.
Yeah, cursed is the word I'll choose to explain this game. It's like there's always something they did thats wrong, and just no matter how big the marketing budget is, that curse will still follow them.
Look chaps, lets be reasonable here. The only people who play Humankind and enjoy it are also bug chasers. That means they actively go out into the gay community and try to get pozzed with every STD known to mankind. Collecting STDs is a badge of honor to them. Getting AIDS is their crowning achievement. Once they have AIDS they will throw a massive party and invite all their friends for a drug fueled rampant orgy which can run for weeks. Needless to say, all sexual contact will be unprotected. Then they all go home and bang any random stranger they can get.
So we should not be surprised if they write glowing reviews about Humankind since it is full of Gonorrhea, Syphilis, and AIDS.
So are Qajar dynasty Persians, yet I can't remember anyone getting their panties in a twist about that. Even if they are THE Industry culture of that era.
But I guess expecting from Americans getting angry at anything else than their moronic Culture War is expecting a bit too much.
Pros: Best combat in a civlike
Cons: Everything else
Marketing that seemed to piss off Gankertards and /misc/ by design meaning that's who talks about it
Pollution as a system is vastly inferior to pollution in Civ VI Gathering Storm
Leaders feel incredibly soulless and act like schizophrenic cosplayers switching from Ancient Roman garb to Zulu loincloths and everything inbetween
Science culture meta, negating the point of having the culture switch system in the first place
Why don't your cities get renamed automatically into a translated, culture appropriate form whenever you switch cultures or conquer a city from another culture? It's a nitpick, sure, but if a bored autist with Google Translate can whip up plausible names for every one of EU4's 3137 provinces, Amplitude has no excuse aside from being owned by SEGA
Cities can spawn twice with the same name, I got Moskva as both Russians and Soviets
Contemporary feels too condensed of an era, you wind up having digital billboards in your districts before you've even invented computers
Nuke range is opaque and unexplained
Seriously, why did Amplitude make a generic civlike with generic humans instead of something sovlful like Endless Legend 2?
>Seriously, why did Amplitude make a generic civlike with generic humans instead of something sovlful like Endless Legend 2?
You can make perfection twice.
Sad to say since back when it was in development I was hopeful for it, but it was doomed from almost the start.
>let's make a civ-like where instead of being a static civ like AoE2 for the whole game, it's like evolution of real human civilizations and it changes every era giving you new bonus and letting you pivot your playstyle depending on the circumstances
Very cool!
>let's have the culture selection be selecting a real-life civilization with its own distinctions and history and cram it into being a fashion and modifier for a single era
>also only one player gets to select each of these per era so if you're behind and want to pivot your strategy you're shit out of luck cause you'll be late to the next era and the good ones will have been selected
>also let's do our usual Amplitude thing of having all resources scale like mad throughout the game, throwing balance to the wind, and leading to a few buildings that provide resource multipliers being the absolute most important things in the game (seriously the Khmer farm building will 10x your food yields for no cost) but it fits so much worse due to the 'historical/real civs' setting
It's clear the team at Amplitude has the skill to have made this game incredible. They are a very, very rare case where, I believe, they 'game design' behind it, more 'idea guys' writing up design documents. Usually games fall short in the execution but I feel like Humankind is very well-executed bad ideas.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the entirety of Humankind reeks of executive meddling from ~~*Sega*~~.
>Pollution as a system is vastly inferior to pollution in Civ VI Gathering Storm
Yeah, devs need to realise that mechanics should punishing in a fun way, not a tedious way. Pollution in Civ was fun. You can take advantage of it and flood people's tiles or get lucky with natural disasters. Humankind's pollution was just "Number go down". It was tedious. Punish me, but do it in a fun way that I can maybe use to my advantage.
>t. never played the game
Ultra-pollution is the easiest way to win the match, especially in MP. You would know, if you at least fricking once played long enough to reach modern times.
Then again, I don't blame you for not enduring the game long enough, its genuinely bad and has barely anything worth talking about, not to mention playing
I played 3 campaigns to completion on release. Has pollution changed or am I misremembering? I just remember it making happiness like -1000 which made all cities produce nothing.
Hitting "die-back pollution" level is an instant game-over. Top score wins.
So despite it being the "bad end", it's still the end, and you won if you were leading. Which is super-easy if you have maxed-out production output and just keep shitting stuff up, while being Industrial civ.
Agreed, trying to make another civ was a waste of time. There is no reason to be tied down by human history, we need more fantasy 4x.
>Seriously, why did Amplitude make a generic civlike with generic humans instead of something sovlful like Endless Legend 2?
In a livestream a couple of years ago they said they weren't ready yet. They still wanted to try new things so they could learn. They said they felt like they hadn't learned enough to make a true Endless Legend 2 that is different enough from 1. Thanks for your short summary on what you think of the game. I'll still keep my eye on it in case they improve some parts of it with dlc or patches but since most of the dlc up till now has been more cultures I'm a bit worried about that.
Ok, so Humankind is not worth to play.
But what can you tell about Old World?
Shouldn't that be a completely new thead? Old World is a very different game from Humankind.
I don't want to create a new thread and this one looks fine.
What's the issue with Old World?
Is it better / worse than Humankind or CivV?
my first impression of old world was that it's 50% civ 5 and 50% marriage sim
>Is it better / worse than Humankind or CivV?
Same shit, different title.
old world is pretty well made and well designed, it fixes some 4x issues but it is lacking in content.
Old World is like a better, more detailed civ mixed with some crusader kings under a magnifying glass of the bronze-iron and classical age. End game has medieval technology but the game is usually over by then. I got like 80 hours out of it at launch, will probably grab the small, cheap DLC and play 20 more at some point. I would describe it as good.
>Old World
A budget Civ 5.5 with bunch of unique mechanics, all of which are broken.
So instead of Soren making a new good Civ, he delivered a clusterfrick that's barely worth playing. It's marginally better than Humankind, but fails in various own regards, so it's hardly a success or something worth celebration.
>game about humans
>it's shit
To absolutely nobody's surprise.
THIS POST WAS MADE BY THE VIRTUAL SAINTS GANG
It's a French civ clone with all the bad design decisions from civ games included. It would have been surprising if it didn't fail.
It failed because it wasn't Stellaris on Earth instead of just another Civ clone.
>Game everyone forget about
>But people who are overinvested in mocking it keep bringing it back
At this point, you frickers are essentially equal with shills. Let it fricking go, the game is 2 yo and it's a giant turd, so why dwelling on it, rather than burring it deep?
>make shit clone game with obvious left wing agenda, diversity is great, all cultures equal and interchangeable, see we are all same!
>be surprised when predominantly white male gamers think its not only a shit clone game but resent the shoehorned politics.
Now if they had made the game with an emphasis on anti-war, anti-capitalism, more interbreeding, bonuses for destroying the patriarchy and welcoming refugees, then they might have reached the right target audience.
Rent free
Sure homosexual, that's the difference between us, you actually pay the rent.
Everyday I'm astroturfing on 4chins that I represent an opinion of a group bigger than minuscule.
>predominantly white male gamers
Based brvdder btfoing out soros troony shills! Top kek! Hold the line lads.
Seething israelite 🙂
If you like roleplaying its awful if you like MP its great. Its pretty much entirely designed around an MP style environment where you view yourself and the other nations as "players" in a game, not some pseudo-historical alt history.
MP is, as usual, a cancer eating away at vidya.
I wish games would go the more alpha-centauri route, but multiplayer is more likely to get whales to buy things, and it's easier to lean on versus with simpler mechanics than everything it takes to make an interesting single player game
They should have limited what civs you could branch to. So instead of Rome suddenly randomly starting to build step pyramids and cut out hearts, limit to them becoming the Byzantines, the Italians, or the (heh) HRE instead. Likewise, the same civs could be formed by different civs, such as France formable as both the Germanics and Gauls, with different bonuses depending on which one you are. Therefore it would have been more historically accurate than Civ when it comes to capturing the dynamism of history, which could have been used as a selling point for schools.
To make up for the disparity between regions, you could have the option to start as a generic tribal, like the Latins, Greeks, Celts, Amerindians, etc. or just go the vanilla route and play as the Sumerians, Chinese, or Egyptians, who would be more powerful at the start but more limited in civ choice in the later game. This would make the strategic calculus more involved than just picking the best civ every age, and play into Amplitude's strengths which is diverse gameplay depending on civ choice.
>I think they should done THIS and done THAT and oh! I dont know! Maybe this as well! Oh! Oh!
Listen to this asshat with the cucumber stuck up his butt.
shut the frick up or my giant cucumber will be stuck up your butt, gay. I bet you'd like that wouldn't you
get back to your desk and work on the next sega-mandated dlc, pierre
It's the French. Every time they come up with something it ends up being excellent concept with shit execution. Guillotine being an exception.
Even the guillotine is an example of "excellent concept shit execution". It was supposed to be more humane, but it just industrialized mass murder.
God you are a fricking moron. Just shut the frick up, you drooling moron.
But it's objectively the best and most humane method of execution
>It was supposed to be more humane
And it is. A tool that can swiftly and reliably behead a convict is far fricking more humane than just about any other method of execution. There is literallu nothing even remotely close to reliability and swiftness of guillotine. For frick's sake, they were still hanging in my country all the way till mid 90s, and despite best, most scientific take on it feasible, every 10th execution ended up botched one way or another, while people were lobbying not as much to suspend or remove the death penalty, but simply to replace hanging with beheading with guillotine.
It's like you can't even grasp the point of it, but have to shitpost anyway.
I'm genuinely excited for the culture switching mechanic when it was announced. It sounded crazy and gamey and fun. I dont really care about muh historical progression that somehow keeps getting sounded everywhere I go, but maybe I should, because apparently thats where a lot of vocal people draw the line.
And as more infos and reception about the game came out, it just felt cursed as the complains keep piling up.
Yeah, cursed is the word I'll choose to explain this game. It's like there's always something they did thats wrong, and just no matter how big the marketing budget is, that curse will still follow them.
Look chaps, lets be reasonable here. The only people who play Humankind and enjoy it are also bug chasers. That means they actively go out into the gay community and try to get pozzed with every STD known to mankind. Collecting STDs is a badge of honor to them. Getting AIDS is their crowning achievement. Once they have AIDS they will throw a massive party and invite all their friends for a drug fueled rampant orgy which can run for weeks. Needless to say, all sexual contact will be unprotected. Then they all go home and bang any random stranger they can get.
So we should not be surprised if they write glowing reviews about Humankind since it is full of Gonorrhea, Syphilis, and AIDS.
Trying too hard.
Not as hard as the festering wiener that is up your anus.
Are the Zulus still industrial era culture?
So are Qajar dynasty Persians, yet I can't remember anyone getting their panties in a twist about that. Even if they are THE Industry culture of that era.
But I guess expecting from Americans getting angry at anything else than their moronic Culture War is expecting a bit too much.