Social History and Humankind (The Game) 

A refreshingly well put together analysis of the genre and the strengths and limitations of Humankind as a game. Keep up the good work!

Rosencreutz: "Could you tell the “story” of Revolutionary France without mentioning Napoleon?" Me: "Yes, obviously." Rosencreutz: "But what if I told you there is a way?" Me: :o

This is a incredibly interesting video that i didn’t even know i needed! i’m really hoping you get picked up soon by more people so they can see your good work!

I think Endless Space 2 is the closest 4X game that tries to make your individual population matter for the direction of your empire. As population in that game each have a political leaning, which then dictates how they vote in an election (dictatorship makes them not matter, of course). And whichever party wins the election (the game certainly allows for surprize election results), the major laws and general focus of your empire shifts towards the ideology of that party... maybe not fully, but it certainly tries to. Though, unfortunately, population in that game isn't used to fill up a ship; that's the one thing I find Humankind does well in making population matter--having them be burned to produce units, though I acknowledge that may not mesh well with how Endless Space 2 is set up currently. Stellaris also has population with individual political leaning, however: I do not receive the feeling of them mattering that much when it comes to the greater mechanisms of an empire. ...man, this video makes me want to find up an old essay I did on how individual games portrays politics lol. edit: But, yes, a game that wants to make elections significantly-completely matter to the player will need to treat the player as an individual who stands to lose significant amount of power if their people pick another party/ruler... which is something that is sort of an unspoken tabu in 4X games; as it's likely the player will more often than not dislike such a mechanic. Still: I do look forward to seeing 4X games make population and the empire's cultural/political switches matter more. edit2: 4X games in general almost, if not, always will have the problem of innately being games where the numbers must go up. Meaning that every player will always need to make a near utopian empire in order to not be crippled in their ability to expand, advance technologically, and grow a healthy production base for the eventual Military Industrial Complex. When, in reality, the mortality of leaders and the population have always had a significant hand in making leaders shy away from caring for the populous, and the "greater good", in order to focus on their own self prosperity... which, usually, comes at the cost of the functionality of their empire. I'm not sure if there's a romantic way to naturally portray that in a game... as least at greater hieghts that HUMANKIND portrays trade dependency and the consequences of it in a natural way that does not feel unfair to the player.

I would like to point out that the fact that you use a fairly abstracted character in Humankind was one of the strengths of it's marketing since it just went full out and said that you are literally playing as you, some kind of immortal god emperor type or constantly reincarnated leader who guides humanity through a history of your creation. At the same time the game definitely aims for a more social history approach but on a meta level the game also revels in all the funny and absurd scenarios 4X games creates on that level. So internally it's a social history game but externally it's more like a history sandbox that lets you influence and create history.

Your channel is gonna be big one day

I don't have anything intelligent to say so I'm just going to say "Nice work" and hope that the algorithm smiles upon this video!

Amazing analysis

Already watched, already liked. Just here to comment

"Average people" are hard to generalize and describe in regards to influence on history, but there is merit in seeing interests of groups. Most importantly, I think, the elites and the counter-elites, who have the means and interest to influence "average people" one way or another.

Nicely done! I admire your concise approach to such a complex topic. The example with the diary is very good. When will there be a deep dive into Great Man Theory through the lens of Horatio Dating Simulator?

I am of the opinion that history is both a story of “great men” and “the masses.” Sometimes an individual changes history, and maybe some other individual could fill that role but we have no way of knowing. Sometimes it is a group that makes a huge impact on history but without a person to rally behind would the masses make such a difference? Who is in agreement and who isn’t?

I am endlessly nostalgic for the time as a kid when I would play civ4 and just.. enjoy the sounds of cities, imagine people living there. I'd see a great jungle with fog of war behind it at the edge of my territory and feel a mix of fear and excitement for what lie beyond, as the people of my cities must have felt. I think ultimately that's the feeling I still seek from these games, in vain. I know every tile and civ and leader. Have made excel sheets of every building. Plan ahead the route through techs. Also it helped in taking my time that my vista laptop took 30min to process a turn on a standard map.

Damn this court case is crazy

Is the Horatio (faction) an example where the people's history and the great man theeory mix because the Horatio (leader) is idential to the Horatio (people) and the Horatio (people) strive to be the best Horatio (leader) that they can be?

Very interesting video, thanks for that :-)

"All models are wrong, but some are useful"

In GSGs/4x you do not play as Napoleon, but you also don't play as French. You play as France. This is why a revolution is not a game over, if the state survives it. I haven't played Humankind but from your description, it's not a game about playing as people, but rather game about playing as state pretending to be game about playing as people, just like conventionally GSGs/4x are games about playing as state pretending to be games playing as leaders.

I kinda would say it's both, right? Millions willingly participate in the maintenance and implementation of the social construct that the leader's power is real, and the leader makes important individual decisions to do the same. The reason that, say, Kim Jong Un has authority in North Korea but not South Sudan is that millions of North Koreans participate to varying degrees in the creation, maintenance, and implementation of the structure legitimating his authority while no such thing occurs in South Sudan. But that does not mean that Kim is strictly downstream from North Korean interest groups and hard power, since his decisions ultimately impact the same interest groups and hard power that put him there in the first place.

I had never thought of Humankind in this way

Great work! Thanks to F The Algorithm.

I answered 'yes' out loud at the start of the video

A French youtuber did exactly that, a series which never went in depth about Napoleon himself, nor the wars he is famous for. In fact, not only did he do that, he went on to do a series on Restauration France and the reign Napoleon III. It's a very good demonstration of how sometimes, things only have as much meaning as we give them.

Imma be honest with you. I didn't realize Napoleon was involved in the revolution. I thought it was a Robespierre and Danton gig. So I guess you can tell that story.

“One of these leaders has a dating sim” is a hilarious inclusion because it implies you know that it’s not the fish woman.