I love Humankind. With the upcoming launch of Civ VII, I see they copied several successful ideas from Humankind, but I'm not excited about how they plan to implement it - specifically the changing cultures, but they separate cultures from rulers and you change rulers, too. I'm not very excited about it.

But it appears alot of Civ players don't like the changing cultures thing. You'll never be able to win them over. I don't agree with their criticisms, but it is what it is. If there is a Humankind 2, you can count on NOT getting those consumers. You can't convert them. They love to play Abraham Lincoln from the ancient age to the atomic age and they feel it's more realistic?

Anyone else have any thoughts on this topic?

​

Dayvit78 wrote:

But it appears alot of Civ players don't like the changing cultures thing.

Humankind was better than CIV VI, that was hard for a lot of players to admit. Gamers generally hate everything, so long as Sid doesn't go full Blizzard CIV VI will sell. I still have the CIV I tech tree memorized, but Humankind was a breath of fresh air, I hope they release a full and likely last expansion soon so I can throw some money at them. They appear to have also taken the district placement style and level designs from Humankind as well. Changing cultures in Humankind is fun, Sid agrees. 

I'm just glad that a juggernaut like Civ is also joining the camp of modular empires, IMO, that's the best thing to appear on Historical 4Xs horizon lately. I do wonder about their execution, it's very much different from what HK does and still sets up players on mostly their own paths, while HK system is more of a global race to get the culture you need or even just block someone else from getting one fitting them. I think both can work well, fingers crossed Civ VII will have at least one wacky one hid behind some extremely specific in-game feat.

I do not think that you can swap leaders throughout the game, just that you can choose your leader and starting civ separate from each other. They definitely at least try to address some of the complaints against HK system, providing some context for changes (leader choice, previous culture, in-game achievements), and it won't be as jarring with fewer ages. People who hate the guts of a whole concept won't be swayed, but those who just prefer the 'old' civ style or were expecting something more grounded in Earth reality (or rather geography) should be happier with that than with HK.

I find it a bit funny that people complain that they should just improve what they had, when Firaxis was reinventing the wheel with virtually every Civ title they published (yes, even III->IV).

I'm just disappointed that after 8 years, the best innovations Firaxis could come up with are just ripped straight from Humankind.

okay, if you have civ4, boot it up and look at the prepackaged mods (it’s in the scenarios menu). You’ll see Rhyse and Fall. This mod plays on a historical map of earth, adds a mechanic called stability which causes civilizations to collapse, and gives players the ability to switch civilizations. It is a gameplay experience that is truly unique, especially since every civ has a historical victory condition. 

And then there is a committed community still adding to the mod, which has now released an even bigger map! Dawn of Civilization, link below. 

One of the best things about this mod was the dynamic names. If you captured a city, it could change names to reflect your civilization’s name. This wasn’t just limited to Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul; with the mod even having a mongol name for Rome. 

Honestly, it’s worth a try. 

Wiki article on Rhyse and Fall: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhye%27s_and_Fall_of_Civilization

Dawn of Civilization: https://forums.civfanatics.com/forums/rhyes-and-fall-dawn-of-civilization.452/

I think that player just want to feel that their culture is evolving. 

In civ VI you see your civilization architecture, units and other evolving. It's a good feeling, and you are happy to lead your Egyptian or Inca from ancient ages to modern age. It's coherent but causes problems such as having modern leaders or cultures that exist in ancient age (it's still funny and those strange situation is a reason to play civ VI for a lot of people because it's fun).

Humankind decided to change this and have a more historical approach (at first glance). But the fact that you can change your culture from Japaneses to Americans just make no sens. It's less historical, and you loose the feeling of leading a civilization from the ancient age to modern age. Also the fact that you change a lot of time of cultures is distubing even more and you lose the root of your civilisation easily. That's so strange. You can't event remember how your allies are.

Humankind is made by a company that i love but... there is too many gameplay problems to say that it's a better game than civ VI

Civ VII seems to address these problems in a more "historical" way. You can make evolved your culture to other that are "similar". And you will change few times. It may be a good way to solves Humankind's problems. I hope for them that it will work and lead the genre in a good way.
(my dream is that humankind do a big change to the game like Paradox did with stellaris and make it the best 4x game in the world. Graphics are insane, interfaces are clear, ideas are good. But there is a need to get rid of certain things or change them truly).

​

Dayvit78 wrote:

I love Humankind. With the upcoming launch of Civ VII, I see they copied several successful ideas from Humankind, but I'm not excited about how they plan to implement it - specifically the changing cultures, but they separate cultures from rulers and you change rulers, too. I'm not very excited about it.

But it appears alot of Civ players don't like the changing cultures thing. You'll never be able to win them over. I don't agree with their criticisms, but it is what it is. If there is a Humankind 2, you can count on NOT getting those consumers. You can't convert them. They love to play Abraham Lincoln from the ancient age to the atomic age and they feel it's more realistic?

Anyone else have any thoughts on this topic?

You feel it's more realistic that Babylon transforms to Sweden?

​

Whitelight25 wrote:

​

Dayvit78 wrote:

But it appears alot of Civ players don't like the changing cultures thing.

Humankind was better than CIV VI, that was hard for a lot of players to admit. Gamers generally hate everything, so long as Sid doesn't go full Blizzard CIV VI will sell. I still have the CIV I tech tree memorized, but Humankind was a breath of fresh air, I hope they release a full and likely last expansion soon so I can throw some money at them. They appear to have also taken the district placement style and level designs from Humankind as well. Changing cultures in Humankind is fun, Sid agrees. 

​Changing cultures in Humankind is boring, Steam charts agrees. Even Civilization III have more players than Humankind.

https://steamcharts.com/app/1124300

https://steamcharts.com/search/?q=Sid+Meier%27s+Civilization

​

Loboc wrote:
​Changing cultures in Humankind is boring

Bet you buy Civ VII anyway...

​

Whitelight25 wrote:

​

Loboc wrote:
​Changing cultures in Humankind is boring

Bet you buy Civ VII anyway...

Probably not, at least not if it is exactly as in Humankind...

Probably yes then

​

Sublustris wrote:

Probably yes then

Why would I buy a game that is a copy of a game that I stopped playing after few hours? You can buy it if you like...

​

Dayvit78 wrote:

I love Humankind. With the upcoming launch of Civ VII, I see they copied several successful ideas from Humankind, but I'm not excited about how they plan to implement it - specifically the changing cultures, but they separate cultures from rulers and you change rulers, too. I'm not very excited about it.

But it appears alot of Civ players don't like the changing cultures thing. You'll never be able to win them over. I don't agree with their criticisms, but it is what it is. If there is a Humankind 2, you can count on NOT getting those consumers. You can't convert them. They love to play Abraham Lincoln from the ancient age to the atomic age and they feel it's more realistic?

Anyone else have any thoughts on this topic?

honestly i trust friaxis more than i trust humankind at this point. hk has essentially died and they're doing nothing about it so i see this as civ stealing back from hk since hk took a ton of stuff from civ ie (monoploies, pollution, district system, ect) dunno if there is that many people really that made sense now civ is once again alone in the 4x genre 

​

Thimoclesse wrote:
Civ VII seems to address these problems in a more "historical" way. You can make evolved your culture to other that are "similar"

Though I'm afraid what Firaxis considers to be "historical", many things shown in trailers just feel wrong (Why are Hatshepsut and Amina recommended for playing a historical Aksum? and so on...)

If you want grand strategy games that are strictly historical, Paradox's games are probably the only possible choice (CK3 -> EU4 -> Vic3).

To expect an X4 type of game to be 'historical' when the non-modded world maps are randomised is a bit silly.