HUMANKIND™

As a big Amplitude fan, I naturally got this on launch and I'm sure glad I played this instead of Civ VI...or VII. wish it had more content though because it can get kinda samey. also the world congress is ass, don't bother with the DLC new zealand is busted

Glad I came back to this game after all this time. It's an interesting game which seems to have been improved a lot by its updates

Can't play multiplayer - every 20 turns you get desynced or you get an error that says you dont have an internet connection. I didn't buy it for singleplayer.

I tried to like this game, participated in Early access and sunk in a few hours recently. I cant recommend it due to simple gameplay loop that i find dissatisfying. There is not much going on, some nation mechanics and diplomacy is not interesting, not enough interactions and some strategies conflict with each other. I also noticed the game isnt really balanced much, but whatever. The ending/victory conditions are quite stale too. My main issue - its rather boring. There are simply better options in the market right now, even from the same developer.

This is one of those cases I would really like to vote "Meh". Humankind is the 4X that challenged Civ, and failed. It has several unique mini-mechanics here and there (example: all ships can traverse the ocean, but the earlier ones got damaged for staying there), but let's be honest: it is essentially a carbon copy of its famous competitor. The main selling point of Humankind, which is the fact that you can switch culture during the game, only contribute to destroy the immersiveness of the experience and to create confusion, while not actually adding anything to the game. "Confusion" is, in general, what you feel when interacting with this game. For example, the combat system could have been good, but there are so many factors in deciding how the "battlefield" is defined, who can shot who and so on, that you cannot really build a strategy around that. Oh, and by the way, the turns are simultaneous, so you will not actually know if that enemy army you are looking at is going to reach you this turn or not. The graphics compart of the game is stunning but unpractical, while the soundtrack is very shallow and repetitive. The only thing that I 100% liked is the victory condition, that is purely based around points and reasonably well-balanced. All in all, Humankind it is not a bad game, but it is suboptimal in every respect when compared to Civilization (or even Millennia), while not actually innovating anything.

Игре уже 5 лет, для 5 лет багов неимоверное количество. Исправлять, видимо не будут. В целом цива на минималках, играть хотелось бы, но тупые баги всё портят...

A bit abstract and unintuitive at time as a massive fan of the 4x genre I think Humankind is the best 4x at creating plausible alt history. All of the civ choices are addative so it doesn't feel like my past 60 turns of history have been swept aside. the combat is great allowing you to be incredibly strategic even if the AI cannot keep up with that concept. And the graphics are phenominal In the later stages watching a train travel between your cities is the closest a game has ever made me feel to having a real civilisation I built over 2000 years.

Wow what a bargain! This game gave me nearly everything I had hoped to obtain from Civilization VII but was heartbroken not to receive there. It is like they anticipated Civ VII's intended outcome, and actually got there without ruining the game. Okay, so for much less money, it is not quite as beautifully rendered. But it remains a terrific sandbox game, as well as a solid 4X. There is only one win condition: fame. There are several end-of-game triggers, but the triggering player is not necessarily the winner. How one accumulates more fame than the opponents is up to the player. There are some subtleties to the game, even for veteran 4X players, so I would recommend watching at least a couple of videos from among the many out there, either before playing, or maybe after giving it a go on your own one time. For the price, the game provides a surprising variety and customization. Some aspects of the game, like the four ideological axes, are interesting but more relevant at lower difficulty levels. When playing against humans or the highest difficulty computer opponents, a player is more likely to min-max rather than seek an ideal ideological outcome. The UI could be a little more polished. I would like to see higher contrast, so it is easier to tell unexplored from merely unilluminated territory, for instance. Also, the eye-straining snipe hunt for diplomatic leverage is tedious, not fun. If my unit can collect leverage, then leverage points should appear high-contrast on the screen and maybe even have those helpful pointers on the edges of the map if I am not looking in the right part of the world. Likewise, sometimes things happen with little/no explanation, leaving a player puzzled. For instance, I make a narrative choice that grants a certain benefit, then a notice pops up telling me it is cancelled immediately, with no explanation of cause, no reason why. It makes one nervous committing to benefits to have them ripped away immediately for unknown cause. For the money though, this is a solid choice. Yes, the designers could iron out a few more things, and I am sure a sequel would take the game even higher. But even right now as it is, plenty of hours of entertainment can be had on your own or with friends.

I've played this type of game since the 90's but I like this one better than any version of Civilization I've ever played. Definitely worth purchasing.

A la base, je suis un joueur de civ5/6. J'ai toujours trouvé que civ était un peu trop "facile" car il suffit de lever beaucoup de prod, une armée, et de rouler sur le monde sans que qui que ce soit puisse s'y opposer (surtout en partie full solo). En plus de ça la diplomatie n'y est pas vraiment utile et le commerce ne sert qu'à avoir de l'argent (ce dernier point semble étrange, mais quand on y pense, dans la réalité les états se servent des échanges commerciaux de manière bien plus profondes). Humankind prend une bonne partie des idées de civilsation 5/6 et y ajoute sa touche personnelle. 1) Faire la guerre y est beaucoup plus fun. C'est franchement un excellent système de combat, le meilleur et de loin. Chaque bataille est en soit unique, et demande une vraie stratégie. balancer les unités de manière random ne suffira souvent pas. Quand vous lancez un combat, votre unité ne va pas fracasser la tronche à l'unité ennemie. Elle engage une bataille qui s'étend sur une zone qui augmente avec l'ère et va vous demandez de positionner vos unités PUIS la bataille ou on se fracasse sur la gueule commence. Un peu comme une sorte de partie d'échec si vous voulez. 2) Faire la guerre demande plus de préparation. La mécanique de soutient à la guerre et de pression diplomatique permette de pénaliser un joueur déclarant une guerre au mauvais timing ou bien sans raison. Vous pouvez forcer votre ennemi à se rendre si son soutient est de 0 et ainsi imposer vos conditions selon votre score de guerre. En bref les deux points du dessus font de humankind un jeu ou vous devez réellement planifier vos actions et qui vous empêche de bêtement lever une armée pour gagner la partie. 3) La diplomatie à ici toute son importance. Le congrès de l'humanité ne sert pas qu'à donner des bonus randoms mais aussi à gérer des conflits entre deux civ voir même imposer l'issu du conflit à son adversaire (ou l'inverse si vous avez mal développé votre diplomatie) 4) Echanger des ressources à un réel intérêt. Chaque type de ressource de luxe apporte un bonus spécifique à votre civilisation et de l'argent à votre adversaire. Si votre route commercial est interrompu par votre guerre ou celle de quelqu'un d'autre voir un désaccord diplomatique, l'économie des 2 parties peuvent vraiment le sentir passer. En bref le jeu est bien plus complexe qu'un civ6 et le jeu vous pousse à être intelligent dans vos décisions concernant les autres civilisations. Bien sûr il a des défauts: le snowball est un peu trop fort. A moins de jouer en difficulté max (je n'y suis pas encore), au bout de l'ère 3 ou 4, vous savez généralement un peu d'avance que vous allez gagner la partie. La religion est une mécanique bien moins importantes que dans civ 6 et c'est bien dommage. On ne peut pas faire de victoire religieuse. De même pour la culture, bien que cette dernière soit une ressource clé pour s'étendre. Le end-game à l'air incroyable. Mais à cause du soucis de snowball évoqué précédemment, il est dur de vraiment en profiter. Je terminerai avec deux bons points que j'ai oublié de cité: le jeu est moddable et permets facilement l'intégration de mods. L'UI est vraiment clean. Les autres jeux du genre ont généralement une DA vraiment pas terrible et même si ce n'est pas ce qu'on attend d'eux, ça fait plaisir de ne pas avoir une interface aussi agréable. Franchement jouez-y. Personnellement je découvre le studio avec cette licence et j'espère de tout coeur qu'ils sortiront un deuxième opus qui s'appuiera sur les fondations jetées par celui-ci