A very well put comparison/critique of the two games. There is still lots of room to grow for Humankind, but also in future games in the Endless Universe our studio releases! Thanks for being a positive part of the community.

@fifthcolumn388

2 жыл бұрын

You might try to make non-specific starting archetypes that can be selected freely (nomadic, agrarian, urban, maritime, plundering, etc.), which when combined with your geography and climate, help direct you into a tree of potential cultures, which as they branch others are locked. A desert nomadic culture won’t lead you to having “Japanese” as a later culture choice because there’s no overlap, but it will likely lead to “Arabian” culture because it’s got a double overlap and could lead “Mongolian” culture because it has a single overlap.

@Fredreegz

2 жыл бұрын

@@fifthcolumn388 Although, to play devil’s advocate, ethnic groups have changed their ‘type’. Think about how the nomads of Arabia transitioned to a settled agrarian culture with all the trappings of imperial bureaucracy. Or the nomadic Turks from landlocked Central Asia, who, after moving into Anatolia and supplanting the Byzantines, developed a formidable maritime culture which rivaled the Venetians. So yeah, culture is shaped by geography, but is also fluid and can change when an ethnic group moves into a new area.

@tnttiger3079

2 жыл бұрын

If I were to change it, I'd add unique features- units, buildings, districts, policies, and wonders- to the research tree or it's cultural equivalent. When a nation researches an (unclaimed) unique for the first time, they get the option to claim it as their own. Each nation gets to, thusly, claim one unique per era. This allows for truly organic growth and variation, imo.

@Tata-ps4gy

5 ай бұрын

​@@fifthcolumn388 Hey, good idea. I would do the opposite tho. I would make a culture of each type for each era for each region/continent. For example, the Assyrians would be the militaristic while Israelite would be the spiritual both being Iron Age middle eastern cultures. As any of those you can become Persian or Greek, but not Han or Incan.

I feel like it would be better if you picked traits for your culture to gain over the course of the game rather than switching. instead of "The Greeks", its "Philosophically Minded" and so by the end you've made a completely original culture. someone should make that game.

@happyswedme

5 ай бұрын

also, instead of just making "farms" or "pastures" preferably on bonus resources you should have to domesticate local recourses to unlock different resourse plantations and allowing you to trade for seeds or gatekeep monopolies of certain products

@edgarallenjoe6494

2 күн бұрын

Yeah I am really turned off by the prescriptive cultures. It's really jarring to swap from existing historical cultures because, to me, that simply isn't representative of how culture evolves.

@waldothewalrus294

Күн бұрын

Do you think interest would exist in such a game if it were a board game? I might consider designing one

@Oooze3424

Күн бұрын

@@waldothewalrus294 hmm, maybe. I'd be interested at least.

The cultural shifting thing is what wound up turning me off of Humankind in the end. I play games like these for the narratives that they can create, and swapping between disparate cultures kinda shattered any potential for that.

@Rosencreutzzz

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, it kinda...shatterers the narratives where a game like Civ just doesn't super approach one (there's no transformative goals really) but where paradox titles with tag switches and a sandier....box...? have managed to keep me hooked on my own runs.

@pac1841

11 ай бұрын

Yeah it's not like Civ is historical(playing as a static culture for all of history) but swapping between completely separate cultures just took me out of things.

@swagmund_freud6669

3 ай бұрын

I feel like it could work but the culture shifts would have to be to a related culture. Like going from Roman > Byzantine, that's a reasonable shift, or Sumer > Babylon, Ming > Qing, etc. The drastic shifts could come with combination cultures perhaps, due to conquest or cultural influence. Spanish and Aztec > Mexico, Germanic/Celtic and Roman > French, English/Dutch and Zulu > South African. Another idea I had was that cultures don't shift but instead branch into new cultures, like the Indo-European language family for example.

I feel they should let historical paths go in related directions of culture shift, but not total radical cultural shifts. Instead of going Sumeria > Rome > Aztecs > Australia, it followed a path of multiple divergent branches, based in historicity and the decisions you make. Furthermore, cultures would be determined just as much by the cultures influencing you as the choices you make, leading to combination cultures e.g. Spanish + Mayan = Mexican. Here's my idea: The game starts out with you playing as the very first humans, playing a ice age hunter gatherer culture. Every time you move your tribe, only some of the tribe moves, with the rest staying in that same original place and moving to another location. When splits occur, there are cultural traits gained through your experiences that those cultures inherit, so the band that splits off on turn 1 will be much more different from the two bands that split off on turn 10. At one point you encounter neanderthals or Denisovans, maybe one of the split off tribes, and you have the choice of integrate with some of them or fight them. By turn 30 or so the game has split the human groups into 6-12 tribes, all on different continents, and the sea level falls. By this point, tribes have gained a cultural identity based off of Proto-Cultures, like Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Algonquian, Proto-Niger-Congo, Proto-Austronesia, etc. You can choose by this point where to go from here. You don't even have to abandon being a hunter gatherer if you wish, allowing for complex hunter gatherer societies such as Native Americans in the Great Plains like the Sioux or Blackfoot. Once you choose to adopt agriculture, you split with a hunter gatherer group continuing on. At some point you may decide to integrate them into your population. I think over time this would require some fictionalization. It would be very whiplashy to go from Proto-Algonquian > Cree > Canada, despite being in the same region, Canadian culture is a continuum of France and Britain aesthetically, so it would require you to integrate a European culture to unlock that cultural grouping. But a culture with Cree aesthetics but modernized technology would make much more sense. This could be generative. Say Cree morphs with a nearby Chinese culture, leading to a Sino-Cree Creole culture. Some mixed cultures would have historically generative names (Aztec + Spain = Mexican, Maori + British = New Zealand, Mongols + Indian = Mughals). Others could be fictionalized (Cree creolizing with China would be something like Kan-Ta as in a Sinicization of the original source of the name for Canada). Since you'll be nearby early game splinter groups, your fusions that naturally happen will be most often historical until the late game (if you're going Indo-European > Corded Ware > Celtic, you'll be next to Rome and the Norse, and you end up becoming Normans). This could also bring in a challenge to the game of trying specifically to unlock certain late game civilizations. Canada would be a combination of Native American + French + English, but if you never merged with English you aren't Canada, you're Quebec. And if you never merged with Native Americans, you end up becoming alternate Universe Franco-English Union that won the 100 years war. To get Brazil you need a specific combination of Portuguese + A south American indigenous Nation + a West African nation, but to get Portuguese in the first place you need to combine Roman and Arabic culture in the middle ages, but you had to avoid whatever it was that distinguishes Portugal from Spain (Probably just a basic split happening at some point), lest you end up becoming Colombia or Argentina instead by the end game. Wiggle room would be needed. Say you merge Roman and Chinese culture in the Classical era, creating a Sino-Romance culture, but in the medieval era you merge with Slavic. Slavic and Roman = Romanian, so you would still become Romanian, but Romanian with Chinese characteristics.

The one thing I would actually do it to not have set cultures at all. At least from the player's perspective in play. You make your own culture and may adopt those ideas (and aesthetics) as that culture had. How is sort of played in Civ 2, but the only thing you pick there is your aesthetic really. I would however have the computer adopt certain cultural archetypes. I figure people would find it more fun to actually fight the Egyptians in a game based off history when fight the Aelurians. Even if a lot of use would love to create our own Aelurian culture.

Both Humankind and Civilization have the problem of meeting player's expectations that they can "win" with any civ, so gameplay is standardized to ensure an equal playing field. Further, most of the win conditions require a certain type of building (culture, science, military), but there's no player involvement beyond managing a construction queue. There's not much for the player to do beyond making war and re-ordering the build queue, and there's no real internal mechanics of politics or economics to manage, so both feel a bit lifeless.

@zagreus1249

2 жыл бұрын

True true, it feels as though the player is detached from the game itself.

@vaiyt

5 ай бұрын

Civ is essentially an adaptation of older board games, so internal politics aren't as core to it as managing tokens and moving pieces across the map, and why the player isn't very involved.

It took me a while to really understand what they were most likely aiming for with the culture-switching mechanic, and once I did, I realized it might have been better implemented if culture was less of a packaged deal, so to speak. I think it might have worked better if Emblematic Units, Emblematic Quarters, and Affinities were each earned separately, perhaps similarly to how Wonders are claimed. Alternatively, if not bought with Influence and/or Science, they could be earned by reaching certain milestones with their generic counterparts. For instance, getting your first generic Spearman with a minimum number of Veterancy stars could unlock the opportunity to claim an Emblematic Unit in the polearm/anti-cavalry class, while building your first Farmer's Quarter with a certain minimum adjacency bonus could unlock the opportunity to claim an Emblematic version. You don't have to be Egyptian to build the Pyramid of Giza, so why should you have to be Greek to recruit Hoplites or Harappan to build Canal Networks? This would allow for some truly unique cultures to emerge even within an individual era and free up the actual names of the various cultures to function essentially as they do in Civ 6, thus providing a consistent label for an empire's core identity, which I, for one, find sorely lacking. Also, yeah, the tying of ethnicity to culture and the resulting shifts from era to era is indeed somewhat jarring. It's weird, because while I'm no expert, it seems like it would be fairly easy to extend certain key choices made in the avatar creator/editor (e.g. skin tone) into an overlay or "skin" on unit icons and other relevant graphical features.

11:00 My favorite version of this is in Alpha Centauri - 'The drones need you. They look up to you!'

@mikaruyami

3 ай бұрын

The fact that Surviving Mars uses that quote when exiting that game shows how much influence Alpha Centauri has l.

I'd like a game like this where you just get to make your own culture. Maybe you get to grab elements from different cultures. That way you can be whoever you want: whether that's a real world culture or one you make up.

@austinschwartz7424

5 ай бұрын

You ever hear of a little game called Crusader Kings 3?

@kakkakapwppwow

5 ай бұрын

​@@austinschwartz7424he probably means a game that starts from the ancient and neolithic eras

It is astonishing that you can somehow make the most detailed and beautiful videos I have ever seen about historical video games and have less then 1000 subscribers. I hope that you may receive a great deal of success and subscribers from the hard arduous works that you have produced.

The Neolithic was *the* transition into farming in every region significantly enough populated by humans to even found semi-permanent hybrid gathering settlements. The mesolithic is the time of significant expansion and classic, popular hunter gatherers, as well as the dispersion of art and techniques, laying ultimately the foundation for the neolithic expansion. Humankind is a weird hybrid of this and upper paleolithic, fully nomadic humans. It's more accurate in form than Civ thoughever.

"Sweden doesn't have some post-industrial culture shift or societal change like the Soviets..." Except we kind of did. The Swedish Bread Riots of 1917 were arguably one of the most important moments in the history of both democratization and organized labour, and while it didn't change Sweden's name or flag, it was what turned the country from an autocratic monarchy with a laissez-faire economy to the Nordic model social democracy it came to be known as for the coming century. Although that would make the case that Sweden's emblematic district should actually be a labour union or something similar (alluding to the country's exceptionally high unionisation rate), but then again, how do you even simulate organized labour in a game like this? Maybe the research institute could allude to how the expansion of the welfare state was what primarily contributed to the academic boom you mentioned, although it's not like something similar didn't happen in other countries

Excellent video with everything I needed to know, and subtitles to go along with it. Great job!

100% agree with your ideas on the culture shifting. Its truly what broke the game for me. I know you can hold on to your culture but if you do you will be left behind badly.

I won't delve deep into all of Your vid, it's good, full of accurate data and thoughts. As it goes for contemporary era civs - I guess they've tried to go with relevancy based on being a member of G7 group, BRIC, OPEC and so go on. The lack of few 'civs' like France, Germany or so on gives them probably a potentially DLC content. Same goes with previous eras. No Macedonia in Classical era - either they assume their Greek civ is based after Alexander united them (unlikely, since we have hoplites but no hypaspist. They gonna probably add them with DLC. There were many they've passed on - Incas, early modern Portugese, XVII century Swedish Empire (famous deluge on Poland) and list go on. I am 100% sure we gonna see DLC. It's after all sega, and they love constant flood of DLC.

@Rosencreutzzz

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah that’s my take, as well, more or less. There’s just a few too many confounding gaps, so to speak.

please don't take this seriously, I know this video is old and I still loved it but you can hear your mouse click when you start recording audio and that's just adorable ( in a non condesending way)

It's also interesting to see Australia with a strip miner when the machine is uniquely German has been, even recently, in the spotlight rather negatively.

You’re the only channel I’ll turn on notifications for

The civ shifting feels weird to me. If Civ civs are like Pokémon that can't evolve (or adapt in any way), then Humankind civs sound like you are playing with a randomizer that changes the species of your Pokémon whenever it levels up. That is a challenge that some people play and it can be fun, but in the end it is not a very stable basis. Something where you can adapt the culture but still keep clear traces of the culture in the past eras would make it nicer, probably? (Essentially aim for Eevee and/or Tyrogue.) I don't have Humankind, only going off what you tell us. Maybe take inspiration from Spore? Even if you radically change direction in a new era (which is harder than remaining similar), you still have some unique skill representing the past era and some visual representation of it, and some of the options might also be limited (like mouths in the creature stage being limited by your diet in the micro stage). Honestly this would likely be a lot easier if they had a Earth-adjacent fantasy history rather than actual history. With the actual history, you will somehow have to represent a Ancient Chinese -- Classical Greek -- Khmer culture, which is practically impossible unless you radically simplify the representations of each culture.

Very interesting and informative

To me it seems like the remedy for arbitrary modern cultures would be making them broader. Like to leave Chinese, Indian, American, Soviet, but for the other make something like Western Europe, Modern Arabs. Modern Subsaharian Africa (Maybe with more fancy names like European Union, Pan-Arabic League or what not). Like compared to differences between many historical cultures, modern European cultures are really similar to each other. And about it being not related too strictly - so were Greeks and many other cultures

@hedgehog3180

Жыл бұрын

I think you could definitely make them more distinct just as they are. Sweden should instead have a public university as it's speciality building referencing it's nationalized education. The Swedish unit could also easily have been something more distinctly Swedish like an S-tank or a Gripen fighter, these are fairly famous Swedish vehicles that are very unique in appearance. The Visby class corvette was a poor choice since only a few of them were made and Sweden hasn't really focused on it's navy, if they wanted a more naval focused nordic country they should have picked Denmark since the STANFLEX frigates are fairly unique but I'm assuming they wanted to have Denmark in a different era. Really the naval country should have been the US with a unique Nuclear Carrier unit that can carry more planes. The Congress for China also feels a bit rushed, the whole aesthetic they give China is focused on big business so it's weird that they just made the unique district the Chinese parliament building, why not have a skyscraper filled district with iconicly Chinese skyscrapers called something like “Shanghai Business District”? For Turkey the game was made before the world learned about the TB2 but I think making a drone the unique Turkish unit would have made sense. Really the missile should have been the Chinese unique units since their anti-ship ballistic missiles get so much press all the time. Also a suggestion I would make is to remove Sweden and replace it with Denmark as an agricultural culture and the special district is the super hospital, then you can make a non-western country like Iran the other science culture. In general I feel like the lack of variety in the contemporary era is more due to it perhaps being a bit rushed rather than there not being enough variety in our times. There are definitely unique government structures and policies that result in unique looking cities that could have been implemented better. Like if you just look and compare US, European and Chinese cities they look vastly different with US cities being defined by sprawling suburbs while European cities are defined by denser medium rise walkable neighborhoods and Chinese cities having huge towering apartment high rises. I think it's just a question of translating that into districts in the game, like making the Swedish unique building a public university instead that resemble the universities that often take up a lot of space in Nordic cities.

Humankind is a needed challenger for Civ. Competition is needed for invention. Humankind has many interesting ideas and concepts that ironing out, but it is already there at least. It does have I think a lot of promise in the long run if the time and effort is put into it. I hope when the game is fully done with all DLC and expansions it will be great. After all civ 5 and 6 where at there best when fully completed with all there expansions.

@chieuleyang6768

2 жыл бұрын

No! Civ Forever. Humankind SUCKS its just trying to steal the genre from civ

@Historyfan476AD

2 жыл бұрын

@@chieuleyang6768 CIV does not have any right to own the genre. If someone better comes along and contests them for it, then be it.

@michaellewis9462

2 жыл бұрын

Both games need change, honestly. Someone above mentioned there being no real political aspect to either, and I think that's the next step for both titles to remain viable going forward. I also think both should work harder to keep contemporary era play relevant. Around the industrial age both games become "mouse click simulators" as you grudge toward your end goal

@Historyfan476AD

2 жыл бұрын

@@michaellewis9462 Oh yeah total agreement there most games like this once you get to industrial age become slogs or boring really. Early game just seems more fun and your not yet the steamroller. Both games will benefit from rivalry now, and hopeful innervation will emerge from this. Because like you said Civ, Humankind and other 4xs really needs that push to do better. I think both games could do with more work in forming your nations internally as well, give the players a better handle on the internal matters of your nation.

@Lightwolf234

2 жыл бұрын

This is kind of an dumb idea to suggest that competition=progress and innovation when it doesn’t and there’s clear evidence to suggest that competition actually stifles innovation. Either way, Humankind does a lot of cool stuff but it also does a lot of stuff very badly and does thing I just fucking hate to see in games like this. Like the province system and how it limits how many cities can be built in them. It’s the most egregious thing for a 4X game to do and I don’t understand why on God’s green earth do certain games still think land was divided up into neat little provinces or big swaths of land with boundaries is beyond me. It’s a far more terrible representation of what actually happened in history then in Civs case. Cities and nations developed more organically and geography plays a bigger role then people or even leaders. Some places are choked with cities and others are just vast swaths of sparsely populated land. Something you can’t really emulate with these horrible mechanics that games like Humankind do or even Civilization does. Or how it represents a people’s ideology being just sliders on a chart. A binary with one extreme on one end and one on another with little to no nuance. Like what is the actual downsides of being say Monoculture over say Multicultural, especially over time? Or despite the fact you can change your culture between eras, they are still a limited amount of preset civilizations and that you can’t just continue as one. You have to choose the more “advance cultures” in each new era to even stand a chance against others. Like the “Ottomans” didn’t just appear and disappear after the Early Modern era. The Turks and Ottomans aren’t separate cultures separated by several eras. They show the continuation of people but very poorly. Even after that, it still borrows alot from Civilization despite it being this “bold new” take on the genre. Down to its hexagons and district placements. It’s a nice take, but that’s really all that it is. It’s not the bold new thing that will compete with civilization like a lot of people assume it is.

I always found that Civ 5 looked better than Civ 6

Humandkind is super fun i love how the studio experiments with the genre

i really wanted to like Beyond Earth, i had been playing Alpha Centauri and rediscovering that old gem when BE came out. but the factions were so flat and bland in comparison. BE's development tree leading you down paths to tame, conquer, or assimilate to the new world was a cool idea, but without strong faction identity, even that fell pretty flat for me

One of my favourite things about this game was how at the end the many different cultures I had played left marks on my cities and documented the history of my nation. It was nice to see that visual representation of how my society developed and it was cool how you could see which cities were the oldest and also which cities I had conquered later in the game.

Humankind marketed itself as "the Civ-killer", so while its faults are its own it also suffers from expectations that it would be "Civ, but better" when it turned out that it most certainly was not.

@Hell_O7

14 күн бұрын

I thought that's just something people call them, did they themselves say that?

the amount of culture / identity shifting in Humankind is completely ridiculous. if it happened subtly 1 or 2 times in a whole game between cultures that actually have a relation between each other it might have worked, but the current version is just impossible to take seriously. instantly turns me off from the game too.

I just got this game not that long ago and I do find it interesting how different it is from Civ, I mostly like it; but do agree it would be more interesting if you didn't just become a completely new thing. Being able to be an amalgamation of previous cultures instead of just magically becoming a completely different one would be a lot more unique and interesting. I do still prefer that then "You've been America since the dawn of Civilization and that's all you'll ever be."

Both My favorite 4X and has about a 1/3 the play time I have on civ 6 if only bc I have _everything_ for one but not the other.

In Civ VI my fav civ is Australia and for very modern nation it has culture and iconic stuff A Digger unit is cool, unique hat and historic context of fighting in Gallipoli etc. far away. They get bonus on fighting on enemy territory on coast so again the small neat historic allusion Outback Station is unique tile improvement that gains bonus from nearby cattle and turns useless desert into tile of very nice value again a nice unique Australian thing with mechanics nicely reflecting their role in real life A unique Civ bonuis "Land Down Under", the name itself is a way we jokingly call Australia and the bonus gives you better tiles and population if you settle on coast again nicely reflecting Australia irl where vast majority of population lives in the coast And lastly their leader John Curtin, important politician from WW2 his ability makes his economy much much stronger for few turns after someone declares war to them nicely reflecting their fast mobilization to aid the crown(Bri*ish) in the war effort I like Civ 6, most of civs are not as much map dependent and some like Australia have it all nice + if you have the coast or desert you are going to be better off not really worse if you don't have something I like challenges player is facing when the starting location ain't great. in Civ 6 i love being imperialist when i see that i got no X resource and i wage war to get iron for example, everyone gets mad and i'm like: "well... they hate me but... now i have iron sooo..." and i go on a counquest of the whole world. I enjoy playing as a single civ from the beginning to the end i think that it's unfortunate that our real life civs that we could turn into a single civ that evolves over time as in history is kinda impossible with exception of idk.. china like having Medieval polish with wooden castles and unique childbearing warriors then in earl modern period they get hussars and in industrial era they get Scythemen and in modern era... well, you can't go this far without unique tech or english getting longbowmen, then ship of the line and redcoats and later on idk... Valentine Tank. Truth is that to not get Eurocentric we have to accept limitations that many cultures do not have unique units and buildings. As Age of Empires player(mostly 3 an 4) i see this while discussing possible new civs in AoE4 AoE4 has less civs but with much much more unique features than in for example AoE2 so i always mention that a good civ should have a lot of importance and uniqueness I for example propose Spanish because mediewal/early Renaissance was great for unique stuff for the Spanish Caravels, Rodelero, Tercio, Conquistadors, Haciendas. You can mix them with Portugese and pack organ guns and Feitorias etc. Civ games love unique stuff and it's great if a civ can give us more unique stuff. i'm not eurocentric here, i think that Ethiopia is in my opinion amazing African civ with lots of unique buildings, units and they simply were very imporant in the history of africa for example they never got colonized i' rambling tbh idk how to finish this comment so

Chúc thầy lộc nhanh giàu để vk con và gd bất khổ nhé❤❤

Stridsvagn - 103

@stalwort1692

5 ай бұрын

I love and hate that I'm not the only person whose mind jumped to that as an iconic Swedish unit.

You sold me on humankind

game looks really interesting the way it handles culture seems neat but it's unfortunate that shifting is handled the way it is

16:17 Turkey owns a very big part of the drone industry The cruise missile is a refernece to bayraktar Thats why

13:20 I admit, I was thinking of the Stridsvagn 103, but that's because I was primed with 'unique contemporary Swedish military unit.' ... wait they went with stealth corvettes? But... their picture doesn't even look like a Visby, which is at least *Kinda* distinctive in appearance. I dunno if I'd call it super iconic, though. The first thing I thought of when I heard 'stealth corvette' was the Sea Shadow, which is American... The fundamental problem with any modern Modern/Contemporary military unit is that there's only one thing that's relevant in endgame conflict, and that's nukes. You can't win a 'conquest victory' in the modern era because the enemy can just make everyone lose.

i thought this was a meme video, seems ok tho

simple comparison: civ5 and civ6 are UTTER CRAP, because rhe following "strategy" is way too simple and way too strong (and way too repetitive): JUST BUILD ARCHERS and the bare minimum of 3 meleee city capturing units and absolutely nothing else, no builders, no settlers, no city improvements, AT ALL. That is all folks, this is the whole dame, and THE dominant approach to it, because it could not care less for balancing. Aarchers in those games are just WAY too strong compared to anything else. This breaks and degenerates the whole game down to something that is much dumber than ANY ZergVEzerg match. this is a low bar to jump that humankind easily gets over, by making terrain more important, that mostly blocks offensive archers.

:» D

I think my ideal system for a game like this would be that there is a tree with certain traits that can be adopted, like say "elephant breeders" and "phalangites", and you get points from here and then to advance in these. Unlike in a tech tree, you'd have quite limited points and only be able to get a small subset of the traits, requiring you to specialize, and thus shape your unique culture. AoW4 does something likewise with it's magic books, just a mundane variant of that, and with stronger requirements. [While I only listed unit related things in my example, this would also include special buildings et cetera, everything which in Civ or Humankind would be culture uniques.] Appearance would be a pure cosmetic thing one can change over time. No named real world cultures - I find this concept kinda weird, and play games that have these only because the gameplay is good. You end up with your tropical island nation being Norway or something, which is maybe funny one time, and then only weird. The tropical island dudes should surely not wear heavy fur, and the guys in the tundra not run around with only a loincloth.

It's insanely sad how Humankind turned out. Game is dead. They actually managed to greatly innovate on Civ 6, just like they had prior done with Endless Legend (an absolute gem of a 4X) and Civ 5. But at the same time, completely fumble the bag on the implementation of every major aspect except combat. This game deserved better. In hindsight it's mindboggling how they decided to release this game in such a sorry state.

I don't get why CIV being Euro Centric is bad? It's a game made for the Western Audience, sure people from other continents can and do play the game, but the main market is the Western one...

@darmocat

5 ай бұрын

Because for many in that primary western market it is their first or only exposure to history, and it is presenting an inaccurate view of that history that can lead to damaging real world consequences (in Victoria II, Africa is empty; so colonialism was good because there was no civilization there that was displaced/conquered because africans are lazy) etc.

@vaiyt

5 ай бұрын

It's a game that wants to represent the breadth of human history, it would be nice if it tried

13:07 The Swedish state of the 1900s was absolutely nothing like the ones from 1523 and the 1700s. The modern swedish state was born in the 1800s and 1917 after the napoleonic wars and after the monarchy lost its power. Also yes i am aware that this is a 2 year old video.