On the one hand, it seems bad to talk too much about another game in one game. It seems that an atmosphere has been formed in which humankind must have all the mature systems of civilization and solve all the unpleasant problems of civilization. I firmly believe that human is a brand new game. He can learn from the existing games, but not be bound by the old framework. On the other hand, the introduction of several concepts of civilization series can be a good discussion, closely around the game. It's kind of upsetting to me.

I'm uncertain if the best way to see a reduction in the 'talk about civilisation' is to start a conversation about Civilisation. Seems counter-intuitive to me. 

Sorry, no.

The Civilization series is the defining entry for this game type. You might as well ask FPS gamers to ignore Battlefield and Call of Duty, or MOBA gamers to ignore DOTA when developing a new game. Even if HK has it's own formula for success, this game and its systems will always be weighed against its main competitor.

Aye_Avast wrote:

Sorry, no.

The Civilization series is the defining entry for this game type. You might as well ask FPS gamers to ignore Battlefield and Call of Duty, or MOBA gamers to ignore DOTA when developing a new game. Even if HK has it's own formula for success, this game and its systems will always be weighed against its main competitor.

I can't help but feel you're both right and wrong. People being smart consumers are going to compare similar products on the market but they could equally be making the wrong comparison. For example if one were to compare quake, planetside, call of duty and PUBG. These are all FPS games but the resultant game experience is totally different. I would make the argument that if you're doing this then you're doing it wrong.

Amplitude may be trying to distance themselves from comparing their game to CIV unlike Old World because they believe the game experience to be significantly different (A closer comparrison could be the cooperative gameplay of Catan vs Risk where people are constantly in conflict but these are board games so you're just gonna have to do a bit of imagination) and people will be disappointed if they think they're getting another CIV game.

Who know really what will happen. It's up to the devs to make something fresh and despite all the efforts we could make to not make that comparrison and give the game a clean perspective, chances are the masses will here about this game from journelistic pieces like 'New hot CIV killer' because it looks like you places cities on tiles.

Just what exactly would this accomplish?

It's kind of upsetting to me.

Seriously?

itcouldbeaboat wrote:chances are the masses will here about this game from journelistic pieces like 'New hot CIV killer' because it looks like you places cities on tiles.

This is my mega point: Most of the players who would like HK are also people who like Civ. They are going to be generally the same, so it's worthwhile to compare the different systems and improve where Civ has failed.

Aye_Avast wrote:

itcouldbeaboat wrote:chances are the masses will here about this game from journelistic pieces like 'New hot CIV killer' because it looks like you places cities on tiles.

This is my mega point: Most of the players who would like HK are also people who like Civ. They are going to be generally the same, so it's worthwhile to compare the different systems and improve where Civ has failed.

You have wholely and totally misplace what I have said while making the exact mistake I have warned against. It is not a fair assumtion at this time to say the games are going to be generally the same (I'll refer you to my previous comment where I explained why).

So are you saying not to compare two games of the same genre who will obviously be competing for the same player base? Like I really don't see what you're getting at. If anything I think the comparison is a must. While the meat of these games may end up being very different, the skeleton will be nearly identical. If you want to take down or even compete with a titan in the industry you need to compare and show how you're going to do things differently and how it'll be better than the competitor. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

Paka wrote:

So are you saying not to compare two games of the same genre who will obviously be competing for the same player base? Like I really don't see what you're getting at. If anything I think the comparison is a must. While the meat of these games may end up being very different, the skeleton will be nearly identical. If you want to take down or even compete with a titan in the industry you need to compare and show how you're going to do things differently and how it'll be better than the competitor. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

'obviously competing for the same player base'. Are they? Look at my FPS comparison, are any of those games competing for the same player base? If you seriously think that a game like bioshock competes with TF2 or quake champions then thats a good basis for more discussion despite how absurd it means to me. This is what I was talking about, resultant gameplay. Through the smaller design choices gameplay is significantly different.

If you wanna talk about placing cities on hexagonal tile, look at settlers of CATAN. The game is mainly making good trade deals with other players to complement a tactical use of resources. This makes the game very social and extrinsic, where you are paying attention to the other players. In CIV you can make trade deals with people but this is not so significant, as the game focuses management of ones own resources more. This makes its gameplay very intrinsic. Regardless of preference these games have similar skeletons

I don't know if it's going to be similar to civ or if they are infact competing , I don't have that information, but neither do you and you are still making that assumption 'because it looks like you places cities on tiles'.

The problem isn't talking about Civilization.

It's that so many people already consider Humankind to be the new Civ-killer. And the vast majority of this people will obviously be disappointed (and a minority will just become fanboys because that's how hating civ for some reason will do to them). Humankind will have interesting features, but it just won't be able to be on the level of a giant like Civ6, let's be honest.

It can be interesting to make comparisons, and obviously the devs had to take Civ into account when making Humankind. It would be stupid to have the "we're making something brand new approach" when making what is so clearly a civ-like.

And for players, it doesn't have to mean either one or the other. Most strategy players don't care about stupid groupie-thinking. They played Civ, Paradox games, Amplitude games and others. That's the general tendency even for people who aren't hardcore strategy players. Yes, they are going to compare the games with each other. But it doesn't mean that they will just pick one, unless Humanking is really terrible. And especially since Civ6 is reaching the end of its dev cycle (with what's probably its last expansion as a season pass).

There's room for other games than giants. In fact, there's probably a lot of demand for that, as long as something fresh is brought on the table. Humankind seems to have interesting features, but there are also things to be worried about (like the apparent lack of diversity in gameplay or the fact that it's reusing the EL system for building cities - meaning generic buildings spam all over the place, which is objectively bad compared to the ability to specialize cities, and something Amplitude should definitely be working on).

When I think of Civilization, I look back to 10 games, developed by different people. I don't simply regard the earlier 9 games as inferior versions. They had different takes on different systems and certainly different design philosophies.

So why not talking about Civilization? Just call it Historical 4x maybe, and maybe lets discuss concepts, features, mechanics, philosophies, rather than how to improve Civ6.

Btw... Let's not forget.. Firaxis sure learned from Endless Legend as well!

Ezumiyr wrote:
meaning generic buildings spam all over the place, which is objectively bad compared to the ability to specialize cities

What do you mean? 

Nevertheless wrote:

Btw... Let's not forget.. Firaxis sure learned from Endless Legend as well!

This. Civ 6 took many cues from EL.

I mean, while it is true that the forums could be saturated with civilization talk, It is, in my opinion, important to mention it as the civilization series have been a key player in the field of Historical 4X games since the release of civilization in 1991, thus setting a standard through which other titles would be judged.

Garithosthefirst wrote:

As someone who has played all the Civ games since 2, as well as the branch off games like Beyond Earth and Alpha Centauri, as well as every Endless Game I could lay my hands on, I would have to say that I think it is definitely necessary to look at what Civ is currently doing wrong and right when making a historical 4x game just as it is important to look at other titles like Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis. These games are the industry leaders for a reason. I am so hyped for this title because of how different from Civ it is looking, and because of how intricate the Amplitude worlds are, but it would be silly to think this game cannot be influenced by the ages-old king of 4x strategy. From what I have seen so far though, they are.

^ I second this point exactly. Civ is the game that's always talked about in historical 4x games and the standard that a lot of people set other historical 4x games to. Once one game sets the standard it's kind of hard for it not to be brought up, but I have good faith that Humankind will add its own unique touches that only Amplitude can. After playing a game like Endless Space 2-- which is absolutely phenomenal, I'm certain they'll produce something even better and something far different than Civ. That's definitely a good thing. I'm looking forward to it.