When I went back to re-download and play Surviving The Aftermath, I also noticed that Surviving Mars was in my library. I guess I must've bought it a while back on sale and forgotten about it. Due to the similarities of the name, I mistakenly thought that these 2 games were developed by the same studio, so I downloaded both. I had also seen some headlines and social media posts about controversy regarding a "Re-Launched" version of Surviving Mars. I wasn't quite sure what was going on there, but I decided to give the original game a test run and see if the Re-Launched version would be something I might like to try. If Re-Launched fixed some of the complaints that I had with the original game, than maybe I would upgrade to that. Or at least, that's what naive me thought.

After playing for a day or 2, I was liking Surviving Mars, so I went to the Steam page to see how cheap the upgrade to Re-Launched is. That is when I realized what all the controversy is about.

Paradox, in it's infinitely consumer-unfriendly wisdom, decided to make Surviving Mars: Re-Launched into a completely new game; it is not an upgrade or update to the original game! Paradox is selling Re-Launched at full price, even if you already have the original game. Worse yet, Re-Launched is basically a "complete edition" of the game, with all the DLC expansions packaged in, and with a slight graphics update. The original game looks fine as is, so I don't think a graphics update was necessary. But they also de-listed the original game, and all of its DLC expansions, so that if you own the original game, you cannot buy any of the expansions!

Re-Launched is not an update to Surviving Mars; it is a separate, full-priced release on Steam.

This is a kick in the gut to anybody who bought the original version of the game. Especially if you never got around to buying the DLC, and are now completely locked out of being able to do so.

I'm sorry, but this is basically strike 3 for Paradox. I gave them plenty of chances to right their ship, but they have now completely capsized and have lost all of my good will. They bungled the premature release of Star Trek: Infinite and killed that game basically out of the gate. They then went on to do the same thing to Cities Skylines II, and then fired Colossal Order from its own series. And now there's these shenanigans with Surviving Mars. This is all on top of all the older controversy involving Paradox's greedy piecemeal DLC pricing, releasing updates to games that make old saves incompatible, and releasing games that felt generally incomplete.

I have had it with Paradox! I don't think I can buy another game from Paradox, and I am actually starting to feel guilty for playing the Paradox games that I already own. It's a shame too, because Paradox, as a publisher, sells games that are right up my alley. They specialize in strategy, management, and simulation games -- often with historic or sci-fi themes. Now I feel like I can't play any of these games, or else I'm giving money and support to a company that might very well be the sleaziest, greediest, and overall worst game publisher on the market right now. Possibly as bad or worse than the likes of Ubisoft, Activision, EA, and 2K.

I don't know, maybe Ubisoft, Activision, EA, and 2K are still far worse. I haven't been keeping up as much with news on those companies since I haven't been on social media as much, and since I actively avoid their games (other than buying used copies of EA's football games). On top of all that, Stephanie Sterling hasn't been making new Jimquisition episodes (now rebranded as "High-Steph") to tell me all about the evils of these companies and their executives. Well, except for a recent episode that reminded everyone of former Activision CEO Bobby Kotick's close association with convicted pedophile Jeffery Epstein...

I had first played this game a couple years ago. I mostly liked it, but never got around to reviewing it. When Paradox fired Colossal Order as the developer of Cities: Skylines II and assigned Iceflake Studios to it, I decided to go back to Surviving the Aftermath to see how well it holds up, and to give myself a better idea of whether Iceflake could handle Cities: Skylines. And since I still had all my original review notes from when I first played 2 or 3 years ago, I decided to go ahead and finish that review!

Adventures in the wasteland

Well for one thing, Surviving The Aftermath is leagues better than the other post-apocalyptic colony-builder that I played a few years ago, Atomic Societies. Aftermath largely succeeds in all the ways that Societies failed, and if given the choice between the 2, Surviving the Aftermath is the hands-down winner. About the only things that Atomic Societies does that I really missed in Surviving the Aftermath were the ability to pass laws and mandates based on various ethical dilemmas, and the ability to re-purpose old buildings and infrastructure and incorporate them into your village.

Random events will ask you to make moral or ethical decisions.

Aftermath doesn't do either of those things. but that isn't to say that Surviving the Aftermath doesn't contain plenty of ethical and moral quandaries. Surviving the Aftermath will throw various quests and random events at the player that may require you to make moral or ethical decisions. People might show up at your gate asking to be let in, and you'll have to decide whether they might pose a threat, or if your village has the resource and infrastructure capacity to support them. Other events may ask you to decide to help strangers in trouble, or to attack them and raid their supplies. All of these decisions can affect your resource supplies or influence your colony's morale.

Aftermath also puts a large emphasis on exploring and adventuring in the wasteland. In addition to managing your colony, there is an entire procedurally-generated overworld map separated into small regions. Each region may contain one or more locations that can be explored or scavenged for supplies. There may also be bandit camps for you to fight, and other villages for you to trade with. You can even set up your own distant outposts in the overworld, which can provide passive resource production, gather more colonists to add to your population, conduct research, or provide places for your adventurers to heal or drop off supplies.

It's almost like having an entire second game within the game! Trying to optimize your exploration and scavenging also creates some unique strategies, and can even influence the way that you build some infrastructure within your colony.

I was a bit disappointed that the overworld wasn't a bit more dynamic. Nobody else does anything in the overworld. Bandits from the camps don't attack or threaten your colony, any of your outposts, or any of your adventurers who happen to be in the area. Nor do they threaten or attack the NPC villages or any survivors who might be wandering around. Nope, they just sit in their camp waiting for you to attack them, which provides a small amount of supplies or silver.

Your specialists will scour the overworld for resources, and battle with bandits.

There's also no competition with the other NPC villages. They don't expand and build outposts of their own that might claim territory or resources that you want. So the whole overworld map feels very stale and static, and is basically just a giant menu for collecting supplies over time.

I put Empire of the Ants on my PSN and Steam wishlist as soon as I saw it. It looked really unique and won a bunch of indie gaming awards. It was designed for console, so I went ahead and played on on PS5. Besides, I had a gift card balance on PSN at the time when it released, but my Steam wallet was empty, so ...

As the title implies, the game is about playing as an ant. More specifically, players are an ant "general" so to speak, and commands legions of ant soldiers in wars against other bugs. Your ant character is from a colony within a "Federation" of cooperating ant colonies, each with their own queen who are subordinate to a single "queen of queens". A flood ravishes the colonies of the Federation, and so your character is assigned to rally the troops to rebuild the infrastructure destroyed in the flood, and fight off termites, spiders, and other ant species who are trying to expand their territory after the disruption of the floods.

If bugs give you the heebie-jeebies, then this may not be the game for you...

The game combines some exploratory platforming with simple real-time strategy concepts to create a unique -- but sadly under-cooked -- experience. The bulk of the game is a series of "strategy" and "tactics" missions strung together in a story campaign. Each map contains nests (little ant hills) that must be captured by a faction's legions, and then that faction is able to construct new legions or infrastructure, upgrades, or abilities in those nests.

This game also features a wide variety of different bugs. If bugs give you the heebie-jeebies, then this is probably not the game for you. No cockroaches though...

Ant's-eye view

Empire of the Ants has some pretty simplistic strategy. There's 3 basic units, which have a simple "rock-paper-scissors" relationship: warriors beat workers, workers beat gunners, and gunners beat warriors. There are a few other types of units representing different bugs that the ants can recruit to their cause, such as beetles, wasps, snails, and so forth. These special units might provide support roles, or be powerful combat units with special abilities. Beetles are heavily-armored and immune to ranged attacks, for instance. Wasps can fly, and so can only be damaged by ranged attacks. The ability to fly also means wasps can move across the map quickly, and they can freely disengage from enemy units.

The strategic battles are pretty straightforward. What makes the game standout is its unique perspective.

There is a simple rock-paper-scissors relationship between units, and some special "hero" units.

I'm used to playing strategy games from a "bird's-eye view", with a wide-angle overview of much of the battlefield. But because of Empire of the Ants' novel premise, the view is actually quite the opposite. Instead of a flying bird's-eye view, the camera is at ground level at the ant character's perspective. This limits the player's view to only what your ant character can see. If you want a broader view of the arena and activity, you need to find some physical high ground, such as a large rock or a climbable plant, and park yourself there.

Settlers of Catan is a monument in the history of tabletop board gaming. I've even heard people talk about Catan as if it is the "Jesus" of board games, and that the history of board games can be broadly divided up into "before Catan" and "after Catan". It was the first German game to receive mass commercial success and popular acclaim in the United States. In a time when most American tabletop gamers were still playing Monopoly, Risk, and Stratego, Catan almost single-handedly popularized the "Eurogame".

But I've never, personally, been big into Catan. I own a Star Trek version of the game, which was gifted to me, but I've never owned the original Settlers of Catan or any of its themed expansions or revisions. I've only ever played Catan with friends who own the game, and I've always felt very "meh" about it.

Players will build power plants and must manage pollution and climate change.

But when I saw the announcement earlier this year of a renewable-energy-themed edition of the game, called New Energies, I was a lot more interested. I'm very enthusiastic about environmentalism and renewable energy. In fact, for those who don't know, my day job is a software engineer working as a contractor with utility companies regarding energy efficiency, renewable energy, and demand response programs. You know when your thermostats sets your air conditioning 2 or 4 degrees hotter on the hottest days of the year? Yeah, that's what I do. (It's intended to reduce the demand on the grid and prevent brownouts from excessive air conditioning use, so that you don't loose power entirely and have to go without any air conditioning at all!). So I have both a personal and a professional interest in the subject matter of New Energies.

I actually bought this game the week of its release, and made a concerted effort to play it promptly, instead of letting it sit on my shelf, still in its shrink-wrap, collecting dust for 2 years. Actually, it can't sit around in its shrink-wrap, because it doesn't come in shrink-wrap. In keeping with its environmentalist themes, Catan: New Energies does not include any plastic in its components or packaging. All the pieces are bio-degradable wood and cardboard, and all the tokens and cards came wrapped in recyclable, bio-degradeable paper sleeves and bags. And there was no shrink-wrap; the game was sealed with 4 pieces of circular industrial tape on each side of the box. So Catan Studio gets brownie points from me for walking-the-walk in regards to its environmental theming!

New Energies commits to its environmental theme, and include no plastic in its components or packaging.

And the components are generally very good. There's a cardboard insert for all of the game components that helps speed up set-up and tear-down. My only complaints (components-wise) is that the draw bag for event discs might be a bit over-sized, and there aren't any player aide cards that outline the turn sequence, environmental event effects, or endgame sequence. It's always helpful to have something like that for player to follow along with while I explain the core rules. Yes, the costs of all the player actions are shown on the player boards, but it's real easy for new players to miss certain actions, or not understand what the symbols mean without any kind of textual description. Thankfully, the general turn sequence for Catan is relatively simple and straightforward, so it's still fairly manageable to explain the rules without such player aides.

It's going to be virtually impossible to review Humankind without frequently comparing it to iterations of Sid Meier's Civilization. Civ has absolutely dominated (and almost completely monopolized) the historical turn-based strategy genre. There have been plenty of space and sci-fi-themed 4x strategy games, ranging from Master of Orion, to Galactic Civilizations, to Stellaris, and even Amplitude's own Endless Space; but not a whole lot in the more Earth-bound sub-genre. I've also been a huge Civ fan (as the readers of my blog can no doubt tell), so it's hard for me to look at any game in this genre and not partially judge it through the lense of comparing it to Civ.

So I'm not even going to pretend to judge Humankind strictly on its own merits, in a vacuum. I simply can't. I'm not sure if anyone can. Amplitude, as a company, clearly looked to Civ for inspiration, took lessons from the successes and failures of its previous strategy games, and said "hey, we want a piece of that pie too." But despite the surface-level comparisons to Civ, Amplitude takes a very different approach to game design. While Civ has always been very firmly rooted as a "digital board game", Humankind takes a much more story-driven and "simulationist" approach, akin to the sort of thing that you might see in a game like Crusader Kings. I think this approach works, and it does a good job of separating Humankind from Civilization.

Culture wars

Perhaps the biggest deviation that Humankind makes from Sid Meier's Civilization is the way that it handles the game's civilizations themselves. In Humankind, you don't play as a single civilization throughout an entire campaign. Instead, each era you have the opportunity to select a new culture from a list of era-specific cultures. I like this concept a lot in principle, but also have some misgivings about the way it works out in practice.

Empires transition into a new culture at the start of each era.

On the one hand, it's great to see a game like this recognize the fact that civilizations aren't singular, monolithic cultures that exist forever, unless they are conquered or die off completely. That gaming paradigm (which Civ has always embraced) ignores the reality that cultures change and evolve over time. They change with the times, and blend elements from other neighboring cultures. And even if a nation or empire falls or collapses, it doesn't just disappear off the face of the planet overnight. It's people get absorbed into whatever nation or empire replaces it, and those people continue to influence the development of that new culture.

But this isn't exactly how Humankind works. The cultures of the game don't gradually transition or evolve due to social, economic, political, or geographic pressures and influences. Instead, at arbitrary points throughout the game, each empire completely changes its culture in a single game turn. And you aren't locked into choosing a related or similar culture either. You can pick any culture that is still available from the given era, no matter how separated that new culture might be from your old culture -- whether that be geographic separation, ideological separation, or even racial separation. I can be Greek one turn, and then suddenly be Aztec the next, and be Khmer the following era.

I was hoping for a system in which players would have to select from a list of related cultures when transitioning into a new era. For example, I was imagining that being Classical Romans means that, when the medieval era hits, I would have to chose between a related culture like Byzantine, Holy Roman, Ostrogothic, Franks, or Papal States. Then, depending on which I picked, my culture would continue to shift to another related culture in the following era. For example, if I picked Byzantine as my medieval successor to Rome, then my early modern culture choices would be things along the lines of the Ottomans or Orthodox Rus; whereas, if I had gone with the Papal States or Holy Roman Empire, then my choices would be things like Venetian, German, or French.

Changing cultures each era is no more silly than ancient
Abraham Lincoln leading ancient America in a bear-skin hat.

Instead, these transitions from one culture to another over the span of a single turn can be very jarring in Humankind. But I guess it's no less jarring than seeing an ancient era Abraham Lincoln leading America in 4000 B.C.E. while wearing his silly bearskin tophat.

I hope that if Humankind gets expansions, that those expansions will modify this culture-changing mechanic so that there are more cultures available each era, but your choices are limited to cultures that are related to the one you were playing in the previous era. Maybe it costs influence (or maybe even fame) to change cultures, and changing to an un-related culture costs more than changing to a closely related one. I know it can be difficult to find such examples of related offshoots for every possible culture, especially for cultures that were conquered or died off in real life, but I think it's a solvable problem.

It's easy to come up with possible successors to the Roman Empire, because every culture in Europe and Asia Minor seemed to claim succession from Rome. It's a lot harder to come up with related successors to culture like the Aztecs or Maya, and it would seem insensitive or outright offensive to limit the choice of succession to the colonial European cultures that had conquered or massacred them in real history. But there are options. In the case of the Maya or Aztecs, successor options could include cultures like the various Pueblo or Navajo cultures, but I admit that's kind of a stretch.