Poll of the Day > Is human kind a good game? it came out recently right?

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humankind_(video_game)

I heard its like civ. Worth getting?

---

Haven't played it... but I know it cannot gain anything without first giving something in return.

To obtain, something of equal value must be lost.

---

only just started it and it will take a while to get an accurate feel of the whole thing

so far basically it's Endless Legend + Civilization. it's very good so far.

(I guess I could say, game mechanics "spoilers" from here)

I like how they changed the start, where you don't pick a civ when you start playing, you just pick a persona. once you get out of the first era, then you get to pick a civ (though you pick one after each era), except that they are first-come-first-served so you will have less to choose from if you take your time and there are a lot of players.

(they are called "cultures", and picking one gives you an "affinity" (militarist, economic, scientific, etc), 1 empire passive, 1 unique building, and 1 unique unit. similar to choosing a civ in Civ, except I think you pick something like 6-7 of them throughout the game, from something like 10 options at each era.)

also, that first era you play as hunter-gatherers. where in Civ you would normally press B to build your first city on turn 1 (unless you wanted to move slightly to find a better spot, but maybe sacrificing a turn or two to do so), in this, that whole first era is devoted to "moving my settler around exploring the map and finding things". depending what you gather and hunt, you accumulate more resources for later when you do establish a city.

note that it's like Endless Legend where you can't just place a city anywhere. the map is split into regions where you can only have one city per region, and building a city in a region claims the entire region.

also like Endless Legend, the map is a bit more complex than Civ, with varying elevation and cliffs.

but I've only played a tiny bit so far so don't know how this will all add up yet and there's a lot more left to learn.

---

Is it one of those games that only super high end PCs can play?

---

Mead posted...

Is it one of those games that only super high end PCs can play?

I have a 10 year old computer with a relatively new graphics card (GTX 1060). it runs ok on normal settings, though there are a few rare short freezes, and the cinematics sometimes freeze up while they're playing. I haven't fiddled with the graphics settings yet.

---

Sahuagin posted...

only just started it and it will take a while to get an accurate feel of the whole thing

so far basically it's Endless Legend + Civilization. it's very good so far.

(I guess I could say, game mechanics "spoilers" from here)

I like how they changed the start, where you don't pick a civ when you start playing, you just pick a persona. once you get out of the first era, then you get to pick a civ (though you pick one after each era), except that they are first-come-first-served so you will have less to choose from if you take your time and there are a lot of players.

(they are called "cultures", and picking one gives you an "affinity" (militarist, economic, scientific, etc), 1 empire passive, 1 unique building, and 1 unique unit. similar to choosing a civ in Civ, except I think you pick something like 6-7 of them throughout the game, from something like 10 options at each era.)

also, that first era you play as hunter-gatherers. where in Civ you would normally press B to build your first city on turn 1 (unless you wanted to move slightly to find a better spot, but maybe sacrificing a turn or two to do so), in this, that whole first era is devoted to "moving my settler around exploring the map and finding things". depending what you gather and hunt, you accumulate more resources for later when you do establish a city.

note that it's like Endless Legend where you can't just place a city anywhere. the map is split into regions where you can only have one city per region, and building a city in a region claims the entire region.

also like Endless Legend, the map is a bit more complex than Civ, with varying elevation and cliffs.

but I've only played a tiny bit so far so don't know how this will all add up yet and there's a lot more left to learn.

Interesting. Thanks for the sum up.

---

there's a slight hint of liberal politics in the game (which I guess is noticeable just from the title of the game). (and that's normal to some degree for Civ games anyway).

I'm not sure if I like the game being political in a real-world way, although maybe it's unavoidable anyway. and it's not that bad so far either.

but one instance in particular made me smile. so, there are "civics", which maybe would be better termed "ethics", where you make a two-pronged ethical choice. (there are 40 in total).

one I just made is on the decision of slavery. you might think the question would be: slavery, good or bad? but no. the decision is: should we get our slaves from warfare? or should we enslave our own criminals? no third option. (getting slaves from warfare is considered a "homeland", or I guess nationalist/isolationist, ethic, whereas getting them from our criminals is considered a "world" or I guess globalist, ethic.)

(to be clear, I don't think this is actually a game mechanic (where you get your slaves). it's a symbolic decision that amounts to choosing one of two passive effects. it also tilts your ethical meters one way or the other, which themselves are a set of 4 sliding passive effects. world/globalist means more food, and homeland/nationalist means more combat strength. neutrality is more stability, which is the starting position. homeland/world is one of the four ethics scales. each ethics decision tilts one of the scales in one direction or the other. there are also random events with decisions that can do this.)

upon choosing criminal slavery, the narrator chimes in with something like: "Interesting. I hope this won't mean biasing your criminal system in order to maintain your bottom line".

---