HUMANKIND™

Отличное переосмысление Цивилизации. Намного интереснее битвы, ОСМЫСЛЕННАЯ дипломатия, супер полезная мировая торговля. Мирное существование часто лучше без остановочной войны. Гибкость твоей собственной цивилизации развивающейся во время партии. всегда полезные уникальные юниты каждой эпохи и уникальные постройки. 99% вещей которые бесят в циве - здесь решены. Единственный большой минус, в отличии от цивилизации - мало расширяемого контента, длц очень мало. Ну и боты временами кажутся слабоваты, недавно закончил партию с Эксперт ботами на предпоследней сложности. Вышла очень чиловая катка практически без сопротивления. В сетевой наверное очень будет напрягать Сноуболл. количество бонусов лидирующей цивилизации может сделать игрока просто неубиваемым. Хотелось бы больше контента и больше промежуточных юнитов

HUMANKIND to bardzo ciekawa alternatywa dla klasycznych strategii 4X. Rozwijanie własnej cywilizacji przez kolejne epoki, zmienianie kultur i łączenie ich różnych cech daje dużą swobodę i sprawia, że każda rozgrywka może potoczyć się inaczej. Na plus zasługuje również oprawa, rozbudowa miast i system bitew, który wymaga trochę więcej zaangażowania niż zwykłe wysłanie jednostek do ataku. Gra ma swoje niedoskonałości i momentami balans potrafi być nierówny, ale całościowo spędziłem przy niej sporo dobrego czasu. Nie zdetronizowała najlepszych przedstawicieli gatunku, ale zdecydowanie warto dać jej szansę. Polecam fanom strategii 4X.

[h1]Wavering Benefit of the Doubt[/h1] I can't really make up my mind about Humankind to be honest. On the one hand, Humankind offers a very fresh perspective on the "Civilization" type game. It feels deep, extensive and unique. Yet, from my second playthrough onwards, I started longing for better mechanics. From my second playthrough on, I noticed something superficial setting in and I couldn't get rid of it. [b]How it works [/b] Humankind focusses on the narrative you set for your tribe from the neolithic era on. You start with one nomadic tribe and gather food to produce more tribes. Further, you need to gather science and aesthetics to progress to the ancient era. Once you have unlocked the ancient era, you can choose a culture from the ancient era—for example, Egyptians, Myceneans etc. Each culture has its own unique bonusses and focusses, yet all is still possible. From this moment on, you gather "era stars" by building, growing and progressing—or fighting and conquering. Once enough era stars are unlocked, you can progress to the next era and the cycle repeats. You can change your culture to an era-specific culture, or you can keep your old one with a minor upgrade. [b]What I loved [/b] I definitely loved the shake up in the genre. The way cities are viewed; the narrative of how your people progressed through the ages; the extensive, slightly satirical, world. It felt like I wrote my own epic of a people whilst playing it. I enjoyed playing a grand strategy that jumped right in the gap of something between paradox games and recycled Total War and Sid Meiers formulas. [b]Where I hooked off[/b] After that first playthrough the cracks became visible. The diplomacy is terribly superficial. I absolutely hate the war diplomacy. It's like they went for Civilization style diplomacy, but with the execution of Total War style. The battle system is extremely slow and buggy. Battles become a real nuisance after your first five. The cultures and era stars feel unbalanced. Certain era stars will be easier to achieve, no matter your cultural focus and certain focusses are plain better than the others. The AI gets cheating bonusses on higher difficulties. While this is not something I find disturbing, if this means that the AI snowballs ahead of me by choosing the better cultures sooner and sooner, my fun becomes less and less. Sure there's a "git gud" element here, but the imbalance goes the other way too. If I defeat the AI soon enough, the game becomes easier and easier. No new challenges arise because of this. [b]So why recommend? [/b] I feel like I owe the game a recommendation, because of the shake up it gave to the genre. I mean, Civilization VII copied their city grid style (from what I can tell from its store page at least). I also can't call it a bad game. I played it; I liked it; I replay it sometimes. That's exactly where it hurts: it's not great, but it's not bad.

I really enjoy Humankind... For some reason, I keep coming back to it every now and then, even after all these years. Especially trying to make each run even more broken than the last while pushing all the systems is just super fun.

Interesting game concepts that are executed quite well.

Decent game. Worth it's price. MUCH better than CIV 6 & 7. Hard to compare to Civ 5 since both game have different mechanics.

I've got over 1000 hours between Civilization V, VI and VII and loved all of those games, but this game is better. The fact that you claim wonders upfront instead of racing to get them and getting refunded production if and when you lose a race is instantly a reason for me to always play this game instead of Civ. It does a lot of other stuff right too, but that one reason stands out to me as the reason to play this game instead every time.