I think what went wrong was that the game juggled too many concepts and ideas, a war mechanic thats been compared to paradox's real time grand strategy war mechanic, a new diplomacy mechanic, new culture mechanic, religious mechanic, soo many new concepts were implemented that it appeared they couldn't polish all of them in the development time, as well as the fact that the game went over expected development time as seen by the delays, and even that probably needed more time as the contemporary era, one of the eras not play tested in the closed beta's ended up being the least polished era in the game. There is also the fact that the game may have been overhyped as Amplitude in videos before the games released called it their most ambitious game to date, implying it would be bigger than games like EL and ES2.

Kamino72 wrote:

The game need 1 more year of debug, polish and balance.

this.

Also multiplayer in some platforms is COMPLETELY non-existent. 

Quite possibly because when someone dares to mention they don't like forced surrenders, someone comes along and tells them they're playing wrong and they should love this non-choice. Or maybe it's because when someone suggests that it would be nice to be able to pick whatever culture they want (as the pre-launch ads suggested they would be able to) someone comes along and tells them it's fun not to be able to and they just suck at the game if they don't like it (as you said to me). Or maybe it's because the pollution feature is game breaking and there's no option to turn it off, but if someone mentions this someone comes along and tells them they aren't playing right if this happens. Or maybe it's because the AI doesn't update its army but can still kill modern units with eras-outdated troops, but when someone points this out they're bombarded by sycophants saying this is "just like Afghanistan." It's unclear why people think attacking players providing feedback is helpful, but here we are.

More likely it's because a lot of people can't complete a game because of bugs like the turn pending bug, the your internet lost connection bug, or the AI freezes during battle bug. All of which can lead to the "exception when trying to load an autosave bug."

Does this game have a lot of potential - yes. I like the game in spite of its toxic community (which is no fault of the devs). I like the game in spite of the fact that it has a lot of bugs.

Do I feel this game was rushed out without proper prep? Kinda.

Please note: you can't tell people they should like the game and if they don't they're just playing it wrong and they suck. Many people you speak to like this will then not like the game. They will then not recommend the game to their friends.

Edited to add: I incorrectly stated that you can't tell people they should like the game and if they don't they're just playing it wrong and they suck. You can actually do this. But, surprise, surprise, that doesn't actually make people like the game. It makes them not want to report problems or suggest features they'd like to see. It makes them not want to deal with your toxicity. Then they go and play something else and tell their friends that the game is awful.

AOM wrote:

Quite possibly because when someone dares to mention they don't like forced surrenders, someone comes along and tells them they're playing wrong and they should love this non-choice. Or maybe it's because when someone suggests that it would be nice to be able to pick whatever culture they want (as the pre-launch ads suggested they would be able to) someone comes along and tells them it's fun not to be able to and they just suck at the game if they don't like it (as you said to me). Or maybe it's because the pollution feature is game breaking and there's no option to turn it off, but if someone mentions this someone comes along and tells them they aren't playing right if this happens. Or maybe it's because the AI doesn't update its army but can still kill modern units with eras-outdated troops, but when someone points this out they're bombarded by sycophants saying this is "just like Afghanistan." It's unclear why people think attacking players providing feedback is helpful, but here we are.

More likely it's because a lot of people can't complete a game because of bugs like the turn pending bug, the your internet lost connection bug, or the AI freezes during battle bug. All of which can lead to the "exception when trying to load an autosave bug."

Does this game have a lot of potential - yes. I like the game in spite of its toxic community (which is no fault of the devs). I like the game in spite of the fact that it has a lot of bugs.

Do I feel this game was rushed out without proper prep? Kinda.

Please note: you can't tell people they should like the game and if they don't they're just playing it wrong and they suck. Many people you speak to like this will then not like the game. They will then not recommend the game to their friends.

While I haven't heard of the outdated units complaint, I have seen people use the "realism" and "historically accurate" excuses, most notably when the war mechanics is being discussed, Its a stupid reason, this is a game where you can be British one turn and switch to Japanese the next than Russian, where's the realism and historically accurate context there.

AOM wrote:

DragonGaming wrote:

While I haven't heard of the outdated units complaint, I have seen people use the "realism" and "historically accurate" excuses, most notably when the war mechanics is being discussed, Its a stupid reason, this is a game where you can be British one turn and switch to Japanese the next than Russian, where's the realism and historically accurate context there.

The dislike of outdated units killing modern ones is big on Steam forums. Anytime someone posts about this, they're bombarded with everything from stories about some guy taking out a tank with an umbrella to people saying this is just like Afghanistan. People just want the AI to update its troops so they aren't facing naked Celts from the Classical era when they have machine guns and tanks. But, if anyone mentions this this, people will say well, you need to bring enough troops to take out the enemy and so it's on you if you lose a tank to a bunch of archers. It's like, look, there's no question that I'm taking out the enemy. But this shouldn't happen. The AI should be able to field an era-appropriate army.

Another reason i believe caused a decrease in opinion was the fact that there is only 1 victory condition and its in essence a glorified score victory, and with that single victory condition all games automatically have a turn limit which I believe most 4x people don't like. Considering that older Amplitude games had more than 1 victory condition that allowed you to turn off the score victory and play a game as long as you would like before winning. The decision to restrict players choice to 1 victory condition that requires a time limit is probably a unpopular move. The ability to turn on and off victory conditions allowed games to satisfy both sides, Humankind only satisfied 1 side.

Ever since the open devs it was obvious the game had a serious problem with the way it handles core gameplay systems. On top of generally feeling quite lacking in features in comparison to the Endless games.

It's completely nonsensical to me that Amplitude have cultivated some super interesting and intuitive mechanics in Endless Space and Endless Legend only to completely omit them in Humankind. Endless Spaces' politics system was incredibly interesting in the way it interacted with the entire game and made you feel the ebbs and flows of your people, elections giving way to different political spectrums that required you to play in slightly different but meaningful ways would have been amazing adapted and enhanced for Humankind, where politics is a major day to day part of ruling any empire and yet it simply doesn't exist. Endless Legends Empire Plan, Marketplace and how it handled resources were all far more interesting and involved than Humankinds systems.

Subtle but interesting mechanics such as each pop in Endless Space being from a certain culture and being good at certain things simulating multiculturalism and the idea of an empire made of many different peoples.

Amplitude were fantastic at inovating these kind of mechanics to fit comfortably into a 4x game and yet Humankind omits all of these things, making for a very generic feeling game where you can't help but feel they played it too safe. Equally in an attempt to "streamline" the game they have ripped out somethings that were a bit micro-managey but were important for allowing player agency, such as being able to trade yields for yields in a negotiation window like every Endless game, Civilization game and large 4x game in existence, instead replaced entirely by a trading mechanic that is in someways interesting but in so many others completely limiting..

Generally I agree with the sentiment bought up during the Opendevs - Humankind revolves far too much around war. Meaningful ways to create and cultivate a unique empire that not only looks different but plays different depending on the choices you make isn't there. Every empire tends to merge into the same kind of amalgamation of +X these yields. 

In none of the Endless Games have I felt the need to mod the game to make it more interesting. Humankind is the first Amplitude game where I'm waiting for mods to add to and improve the game.

This was a pretty ambitious game. It was almost a certainty that trying to balance so many different systems would be problematic. Hopefully over time they can steer things in the right direction. If they can figure it out this has the potential to be one of best strategy games ever.

Multiplayer is another part of the game that needs a lot of work. A thriving multiplayer community can keep your game relevant for years on end. I have yet to find a good, engaging multiplayer strategy game. I really hope multiplayer doesn't become an afterthought.

Edit: Obligatory Nice!!

Humankind has been praised by magazines. He has been labeled a Civilization killer. And this long before its release.

So players bought it with confidence.

But it came out buggy, unbalanced, with mechanics that do not necessarily please (the division of the map into zones for example).

And above all, it is not complete. We all suspect that DLC are going to be sold. DLC that will not exist to improve the game, but to complete it.

It is therefore normal that there is a big disappointment from the players.