HUMANKIND™

Aside from the "revolutionary" idea of switching civilizations mid-game - the one that was infamously adopted by Civ 7 and buried it - Humankind looks and feels like off-brand Civ 6. It does have a few interesting elements, but they are few and far between and do not give enough reason to play it. On the other hand, it's terribly balanced, has an extremely boring endgame, poor AI, and a awkward combat system. Thumbs down, thank you for your time. However, since we have the second installment coming out soon, it would be useful to look back at recent developments in the genre and reflect on what works, what doesn't, and what should never be tried again for the greater good. Let this be my very short and very subjective wish list of features for all future "Civ-killers": First and foremost: get rid of the district system with adjacency bonuses. It's boring. It doesn't add any depth to the game (positioning three Makers Quarters in a triangle is not a strategic breakthrough). And, worst of all, it makes maps look ridiculous - with cities that sprawl across entire continents. Look at the Earth map, dear developers. There's a lot of space between cities. It's not a tabletop game where…

you can make thermonuclear weapons and those are fun

good game good diplomacy

A strong contender for the best Civ game ever made

Such a fun game. You needn't worry about the era system in this game because not only do you not lose progress between eras (like you do in Civ VII), but you can choose to keep the same civilisation throughout the entire game, playing it like civ VI. And it even rewards you for doing so by giving you a fame boost (fame being the score used to determine the winner of the game). I much prefer this game to both Civ VII and Endless Legend 2. I much prefer real-world or sci-fi units to fantasy ones, so I enjoy the units much more in this game than the ones in Endless Legend 2. And there's so much more to do in this game than in Civ VII. So much more to build and research. I never run out of things to do in this game like I did in Civ VII. I also really like the fame system. You can choose how you want to specialise and how you want to obtain fame, but regardless of your speciality, all of the ways of obtaining it are open to you. I like the war score and war support system too, where what you can demand from the defeated nation depends on your final score and you have to manage your populace's enthusiasm or lack thereof for the war. It adds a layer of political manoeuvring that doe…

Don't be fooled by all the negative reviews! This game, especially in 2026 after updates and patches, is very worth playing. In fact, I don't know if I've ever been so absorbed by a 4x game, ever. I think part of what makes this game so good is the divisive nature. If you like the culture advancement aspect, and picking a new culture each era, you'll really like it. If you don't, you will really dislike it. Same for other aspects of the game. The way they designed it didn't really leave room for middle ground opinions. Which, for me is a big win, because I happen to love all of it. It feels like the best historical, 4X puzzle I've ever been able to jump in to. I recommend this game as a 10/10. If you like amplitude games, like historical 4x, and are willing to push outside the box, check it out. It isn't for everyone - I have many 4x friends that can't stand this game haha - but for those that enjoy it, it will be a big hit. Amplitude did an amazing job.