Amplitude does a good job of finding niche hybrid ES2 and EL were more foundational 4Xs but I really hesitate to call this a strategy game. It takes the worst presumption about history in 4X games though and makes the experience at least contextually broader with a selection of different cultures in each Era. But I've been struck by a nagging question. Does my empire ever take an action that's distinctly and uniquely cultural. I think the answer is no. The game's focus on constant growth actually makes the game easy to play but hard to analyze in a historical context. The presumption of inevitable human progress - rather than - problem solving takes the player through a lot of the familiar genre stables but Amplitude has trimmed a lot of the 'fat' from the progress so that again, it makes the game easy to play. Unfortunately as a bit of an economist the macro scaling has always appealed to me and I liked that we were making what felt like broad decisions with a lot of impact through economic optimization. But I've come to feel like I was tricked. Putting aside that constant growth is possibly a modern insanity - it's also a harbinger of one of the most dangerous ideas; constant innovation and increased efficiency which doesn't accept scaling back production of commercial goods because commerce drives 'the economy' and 'the economy' is the method by which efficient outcomes are realized. Once they nerfed the punishment of pollution in an effort to support easier Contemporary 'game-play' they basically had nothing to fall back on to model decline or collapse. Collapse and decline was not included in the design and while it's the most glaring thing I totally get why it'll never be part of Humankind.

In some ways it reminds me of Lost Arc this MMO my friends are playing. There's most of the familiar stuff - fetch quests, etc. But basically no level grinding in the combat. Any fetch quest is almost always collect/kill no more than 3 objects or 3 mobs. All the combat gets you is 2xp unless it's a specific boss. So you can practice your rotations on mobs - unstructured play - and then test it against bosses - structured play - and then if you enjoy the game-play you can refine it - analytic progression and more and more structured play. Luckily the boss fights so far have been pretty good. Compare that with Path of Exile which only recently tried to finally remove some of the lingering rng of map drops from their end game progression.

Endless Legend will probably always be the best 4X I don't really play anymore because it included collapse and decline - winters were usually hard and eventually even harder. Once I realized that this was not a part of most 4Xs I mostly stopped playing the genre. There was a suggestion on the mod.io to make it so changing into a new Era included a period of turmoil and even though it interests me it wouldn't be part of the 'architecture' and would be another patch job. Realistically the decline should have been built into population growth and the Lucy model of food could have potentially created that artificial/abstract plateau. The 'bonuses' from tech like Feudalism and other Contemporary tech were an interesting take on 'innovation' but Humankind has a certain hollowness to it. By excluding any and all historical figures from the game - both specific to the cultures, and, those who may have had made their discoveries in any comparable cultural of their own time – the game returns again and again to two goals - increase yields and increase your army. That's not a narrative.

I find this ultimately to be an unsatisfying and shallow approximation of human culture. Which is strange because they've actually included a lot of amazing cultures and recognized some of their achievements. But their achievements don't feel like they serve, the people in the game. The 'population' only exists as units or means of production. And while some of the events are evocative of significant human crisis they ultimately don't resonate in their abstraction. By not recalling the achievements of persons they lend themselves again, to a further abstraction of the 'the people' or population. I don't exactly fault the design decisions because the game may be one of the easiest 4Xs to play. But if I hadn't been here in the discord learning along the way about the cultures and peoples of those cultures I might make the mistake while playing the game of not appreciating the cultures as being rich in history and connections.

One of the players in the discord has gone to great effort to show just how interrelated so many cultures are is absolutely what was missing - so many players seem to be completely taken aback by the idea that a Ming culture could become or adopt Western ideas. But things like the stirrup really did spread throughout Europe and impacted so many Empires. While previous 4Xs games could sublimate human progress behind a veneer of technological innovation that was inherent and almost unavoidable - again harking back to that conceit of inevitable human progress - at least in some regards this sort of suggested that humankind would make these innovations. Unfortunately, and I don't know why it's quite so troubling to me and maybe a few other people, in humankind there seems to be a weird dichotomy of innovation.

Cultural adaptations were not always exclusive. In fact part of what fosters peace is trade and a sharing of innovations, better crop rotations, etc. Although sometimes these innovations are not suited to the environment (in one example different weather and climate actually require very different farming techniques) and here we see perhaps the greatest flaw in Humankind's design. While the quarters allow for an excellent game-play device - they ignore the environment and they can also ignore the culture that you've chosen. Again this preconception of inevitable human progress rears it's head. Any player of any culture can build the industry or research with enough districts. While this does in some regard attempt to make the population important it ultimately make industry amorphous. When playing a game of Civilization 4 different cities take on different roles for a variety of different reasons and sometimes it comes down to the people in the city. The 'great people' was one of those wonderful hybrid mechanics that expanded upon the depth of your civilization and in a way actually kind of did create a culture of your own.

In Humankind you co-op innovation... you ride it's coat tails.

That might not be the best phrasing. In Humankind your journey to the end of the game can sometimes seem impersonal. The avatars are posturing clowns - military conflicts are an inevitable result of progress and expansion. Alliances don't yield you innovations - cultural osmosis is passive - and you'll have more flexibility if you remain at peace with the other players or AI. So long as you sustain a military force and just make stuff you'll get fame. It requires a little planning to maximize gains but if you're willing to optimize the means of production by maximizing population growth at all times if your more willing to fiddle with the population you have - eventually every city will be a production center of all things. Even without population cities produce rather well. When progression happens as a matter of course it can seem like innovation really doesn't seem to factor into it. The different cultures over time (game play) can start to blur together - in stead of significant cultural differences or unique historical figures there's just the question of which innovation can your Empire best co-op or exploit. While the game and it's mod community have gone out of their way to recognize so many of these cultures I struggle with the feeling that the game doesn't exactly celebrate or revel in how rich and diverse cultures are. Because I don't know that I make a lot of distinct choices based on the cultures I'm playing - but perhaps that's just the limited diplomacy. But ultimately I'm just unsure how many times choosing a different culture has really dictated radically different game play styles.

Interesting read. I have just finished my first game (150 turns), but your post describe quite well what I fear I might discover in further playthroughs. Limits to empire expansion, both horizontally and vertically will be easily overcome by "more yields", which you can achieve by more lands/buildings/pop/techs, or probably a mix of both.

Except for Aesthete stars, the era stars don't seem to call for different approaches neither, since more territories will just bring you more of everything. The game seems to be about snowballing or going into oblivion.

Civics are another part of the game that don't really change much, since you can be an "open liberal progressist" and just invade other empire you want with no repercussion whatsoever.

P.S.: Shouldn't this post go in the "Game design and ideas" forums?

I do plan to try At the Gates at some point. Frost-haven is probably too depressing for me to enjoy all that much.
Depressing may be the wrong word, uh, distressing.