Just for some fun, I decided to load up Civ VI after spending a few hundred hours on Humankind.

I literally cannot play it anymore. There are so many annoying things right off the bat that Humankind has solved so I can say with confidence, Humankind has ruined Civ for me (Civ Vi...).

Firstly, you have to found a city right away without knowing whether it's an ideal spot or not. Or you restart a dozen times until you get a good looking map.

Then, you have your units which only move 1 space at a time, whereas in Humankind you have 4 moves.

Then, because of that barbarians ransack your improvements before you can get your troops back in time (they're off exploring because you need to see where to build a second city).

I've said from the beginning that Humankind solved most of Civ's pet peeves that I had. But until playing Civ again, I never realized how annoying that game gets. i know not everyone will agree with me, but I'm just sharing my feeling. And I really hope the devs continue to improve and expand on this game because it's so fun.

Humankind has not ruined anything for anyone.

Firaxis has ruined Civ. Let's say it straight.

Humankind has taken the place of quality historical 4X. And I love it.

Yes, i had the exact same experience as you did. I also tried playing Civ and found it impossible to to enjoy, another thing i would add is how long it takes for anything to get build in Civ. Like build times on fast speed in Civ feel like Slow Speed in Humankind. Also the fact that you only get 1 special unit for each playthrough and you can essentially use it in only one ear, really sucks. 

Aristos wrote:

Humankind has not ruined anything for anyone.

Firaxis has ruined Civ. Let's say it straight.

Humankind has taken the place of quality historical 4X. And I love it.

Actually good point. :) Firaxis has had 30 years to make Civ a better, more enjoyable game, but they don't always move in the right direction. So it's like a few steps forward, then a few steps back, or sideways. More competition in the genre is a good thing. Monopolies are not good (even though my preferred play style is resource hog).

I know it's a good point. I am a veteran of the 91 masterpiece. Firaxis has dropped the ball in the last two iterations and catered to the mass causal market, forgetting that it was the hardcore fans that gave them their name, reputation and seed money in the first place. Not one franchise has survived after turning its back on its core fanbase. Time will tell if Failaxis is the rule or, by some miracle, becomes the exception.

Amplitude has made it very unlikely that Failaxis becomes the exception to the rule.

Well I'm different then..I've played just over 70 hours of Humankind and am now waiting patiently for a patch and some good changes as I can't motivate myself to start another game. So many little things I have gripes with, some will never be changed as they are part of the game eg culture swaps..hate it!!  Other things I am  not liking include War score, pacing of game, religion, and final eras are not balanced or something. I have won games so easily at times that I am just clicking to finish. 

I do love the first few eras until everyone changes cultures and then everything seems messy.

I did go back and play a full game of Civ VI (2000hrs) and enjoyed it. I do believe this game will get better with patching and the many DLC's which will come but at present I am a little disappointed.

I guess many people who switches back to civ in fact do not bother to show up in this forum. I have played 200 hours humankind and switched back to civ6 2 weeks ago. I would not come back unless I see some patches that changes some important mechanics, for example war mechanics (war support and force surrender) and districts mechanics (spawning markers quarters like a no brainer). Surely these are my personal opinions, but I guess it generally matches the reviews from steam.

It is the exact opposite question on the Civ Fanatics forums - people are asking why it has been so quiet and whether there are still as many people playing Civ 5 and 6 after Humankind's launch and the confirmation that Civ 6 is done.

These games are not exclusive - each has something different to offer. If you players want a more structured gameplay, recognizable civilizations and simplfied war and combat mechanics they can opt for any of the Civ games. If on the other hand you want are more open experience, both in terms of exploration and expansion, Humankind is great.

I actually started playing Civ 6 again a week after Humankind Released, as I decided I wanted to wait for Humankind to get more polished before playing it more, but still wanted to play a civ game.   Civ6 is really solid in my opinion.  The only real beef I have with it is there is a huge amount of peripheral depth and information that gets buried and is hard to really assess and manage during the game.

Aristos wrote:

I know it's a good point. I am a veteran of the 91 masterpiece. Firaxis has dropped the ball in the last two iterations and catered to the mass causal market, forgetting that it was the hardcore fans that gave them their name, reputation and seed money in the first place. Not one franchise has survived after turning its back on its core fanbase. Time will tell if Failaxis is the rule or, by some miracle, becomes the exception.

Amplitude has made it very unlikely that Failaxis becomes the exception to the rule.

What is your idea of a "hardcore" civ fan?  I've played every single iteration of the civilization series and I don't think a single one of them has drifted from the core concepts and feeling of the game.    If anything, I would say civ6 is the most "hardcore" of the series in that it's addition of district placement adds a whole other layer of strategic depth and planning on top of everything else.

Civ and humankind, while having similarties such as both using a historical theme and being turn based games have still a lot of differences which make it have fun with both. Humankind don't replace Civ or vice versa but are both games you can enjoy simultaneously.

I quit civ over two years ago due to the lack of any threat from AI and I won't ever be looking back unless they tout with a new game in the series that it's a main focus of improvement.

PeaceWeaver wrote:

Aristos wrote:

I know it's a good point. I am a veteran of the 91 masterpiece. Firaxis has dropped the ball in the last two iterations and catered to the mass causal market, forgetting that it was the hardcore fans that gave them their name, reputation and seed money in the first place. Not one franchise has survived after turning its back on its core fanbase. Time will tell if Failaxis is the rule or, by some miracle, becomes the exception.

Amplitude has made it very unlikely that Failaxis becomes the exception to the rule.

What is your idea of a "hardcore" civ fan?  I've played every single iteration of the civilization series and I don't think a single one of them has drifted from the core concepts and feeling of the game.    If anything, I would say civ6 is the most "hardcore" of the series in that it's addition of district placement adds a whole other layer of strategic depth and planning on top of everything else.

Civ 6 has no depth. The pinnacle of deep civ experience was Civ 4. Civ 6 has irrelevant microdecisions that do not change the outcome of the game at all, just gives you the illusion of it, and this before even counting the non existent AI.

As for the sales stats, yes, Civ 6 is a big seller because it aimed at the casual, instant gratification market... we shall see if that market returns for the next iteration after easily beating "Deity", like the core fanbase used to return for more when the franchise had more strategic depth. Maybe it will, I don't know. That will be the test of time.

I will not, that's for sure. Civ has lost appeal to me because I am just not the casual, instant gratification-driven target. I want true depth, not bells and whistles disguising as such...

Identical.  Played every Civ since the very first one.  Tried play a couple weeks ago, and quit after about 50 turns.  HK improved on so much, BUT, they have a ways to go also.  3 of my friends have been waiting for the "ok" from me to buy it, and I just can't bring myself to give the thumbs up to them, yet.  Especially since multiplayer is half of what they want the game for.  More patches, bug fixes, and MP improvement before I give them the go ahead.

Aristos wrote:
Civ 6 has no depth. The pinnacle of deep civ experience was Civ 4. Civ 6 has irrelevant microdecisions that do not change the outcome of the game at all, just gives you the illusion of it, and this before even counting the non existent AI.

That sums up my feelings well. I played the Civs from the beginning and was very active on CivFanatics in the III/IV years... knew the mechanics inside out, played high level succession games, wrote a War Academy article (under a different handle). V began a shift towards everything-is-a-minigame at the expense of any kind of meaningful historical modeling and VI only took that even further. VI is nothing but a constant stream of little dopamine hits masquerading as strategy.

HK needs some real balancing work for sure, but it's fundamentally a more interesting - and I'd argue more historical - set of systems than Civ V/VI had. 

Haven't played Civ after humankind, but picked up civ 2 somewhat recently (in the past few years) and was playing Moo2 this summer.  Comparisons:

1.  Less micromanagement.  Holy, holy, holy jesus is this a big improvement, going through tons and tons of planets to build new things is boring.

2.  Armies also reduce micromanagement.

3.  Combat screen is fun, both in Moo2 and in Humankind.  Civ' 2's combat is fine, but not as interesting.

4.  MoO2 has the same problem humankind has, that population growth + food + science are too powerful unless you specifically play a rushing game.  (maybe not in humankind multiplayer from what I've heard)  

5.  Humankind needs more work/[polish:  I notice this with MoO2, which does feel like a complete game.  (civ does as well, but 

6.  Diplomacy needs work in all these games, though humankind has a better foundation here.

7.  The Civ 2 tech tree somehow better captures the feel of society advancing through the ages better than later civ games or humankind.  It's hard to explain why this is, probably some mix of more technologies, the descriptions, possibly the Civ 2 technology is less "gamelike" and possibly nostalgia. 

6.  Compared to Civ 2, humankind has more interesting mechanics, compared to Civ 4 humankind feels like I can actually enjoy and use all the mechanics more.

Have also been playing Old World recently, and for that game:

1.  Old world fells more complete.  

2.  It did take longer to figure out old world.  The combined effect is that Old world now that I understand it is about equally fun to the humankind opendevs.  (The current game less so) 

3.  Old world avoids the "production is king" through lots of resources, many of which can act as production.  This does seem to improve the game, if only by stopping one resource from being a snowball.

4.  Families and people are interesting when I learn how to use them, but are a fine mechanic to leave out in other games.

Have also been playing Old World recently, and for that game:

1.  Old world fells more complete.  

2.  It did take longer to figure out old world.  The combined effect is that Old world now that I understand it is about equally fun to the humankind opendevs.  (The current game less so) 

3.  Old world avoids the "production is king" through lots of resources, many of which can act as production.  This does seem to improve the game, if only by stopping one resource from being a snowball.

4.  Families and people are interesting when I learn how to use them, but are a fine mechanic to leave out in other games.

I'm glad you brought up Old World. I'm sinking a ton of hours into that game as well.
I think as the devs improve Humandkind, they shouldn't only look to Civ series, because they can get alot of good ideas from Old World.

The key standout is the different types of production. instead of just having "gears" which build everything from units to buildings - you have food that produces people, military production which produces military and civis which produce government related things. It's a way to make all production valuable and forces you to specialize your cities depending on what's around them. Obviously this contrasts with Humankind, where all cities basically look have the same FIMS distribution. Even if some tiles give a bit more science, it's a drop in the bucket compared to overall science production. So in the end, cities don't really specialize.

Civ6 is boring as hell, I will never touch that one again. Rather I would reinstall Civ5. Civ6 is the worst of all Civilization titles. It has just too much of everything and nothing of interest. If you wage war against an opponent that cannot build even a single unit, not even after being declared. The cities are constantly growth limited or unhappy or whatever. The trade caravans constantly have to be reassigned. You constantly need to build builders to build well... tile improvements. And there's dozens of religious units that I just don't care about.

The problem with HK is that it has a very competitive and challenging starting phase. But eventually, you may just fly through the eras. And the events, it's just so easy to always do the right thing. Why would you ever want to choose the "wait" option when you're dealing with the flu event? Or the climate event, you even get several hundred science points for choosing "Act". Seriously? Why not -30% industry for the rest of the game or cripple coal plants or whatever. But, I mean, that's still way more fun than Civ6.