If even for fans the game deserves more time in the oven, then how can we give it a positive review?

How can you tell other players that they can now spend so much money with confidence?

What's wrong is why still 69% positive reviews?

Thanks to the fans.

FabriceCPR wrote:

If even for fans the game deserves more time in the oven, then how can we give it a positive review?

How can you tell other players that they can now spend so much money with confidence?

What's wrong is why still 69% positive reviews?

Thanks to the fans.

Aside from trying decipher the middle part of your text, just because its a 69% approval doesn't immediately mean that every Amplitude fan gave it a positive review, new players can give positive reviews, and Fans can give negative reviews, are you implying that we can't criticize franchises and companies we like? There is also the fact this is still Amplitudes lowest review game, most of their other games are in the 80-90%, I don't recall anytime any of those games went below 75% let alone 70%. Also haven't you looked around on G2G, there's plenty of Amplitude fans expressing their anger/dissatisfaction.

DragonGaming wrote:

FabriceCPR wrote:

The call of Civilization successor has attracted many of its players. As this is currently not the case, they fled and the appreciation of Humankind suffers.

There would have been no vanity, only fans of Amplitude games would have answered the call and Humankind would have the same rating as other games from the studio.

Unfortunately no, even for Amplitude fans, Humankind needed more time in the oven, it doesn't even have randomized ai, one of the most basic mechanics that previous Amplitude games had, sure there may no longer be factions, but there are still avatars with their own traits and strengths.

Your comment shows a common problem with fans of any kind. If a developer tries stuff differently they get flag from fans of previous games because the dev had the audacity to try something different and it is not the same as other games in the same genre from the same developer.

Developers know this very well, but this is why you get very very little change in a game series and evolution usually comes from a third party. If these changes of the third party have been lauded by the playerbase, the dev might incorporate this in a later series installment or adds it by DLC.

For me personally the greatest reason of disappointment is that game try to force me to play the way I don't want to play.

DragonGaming wrote:

shakee wrote:

DragonGaming wrote:

FabriceCPR wrote:

The call of Civilization successor has attracted many of its players. As this is currently not the case, they fled and the appreciation of Humankind suffers.

There would have been no vanity, only fans of Amplitude games would have answered the call and Humankind would have the same rating as other games from the studio.

Unfortunately no, even for Amplitude fans, Humankind needed more time in the oven, it doesn't even have randomized ai, one of the most basic mechanics that previous Amplitude games had, sure there may no longer be factions, but there are still avatars with their own traits and strengths.

Your comment shows a common problem with fans of any kind. If a developer tries stuff differently they get flag from fans of previous games because the dev had the audacity to try something different and it is not the same as other games in the same genre from the same developer.

Developers know this very well, but this is why you get very very little change in a game series and evolution usually comes from a third party. If these changes of the third party have been lauded by the playerbase, the dev might incorporate this in a later series installment or adds it by DLC.

I believe you misunderstood the text, I did not say that the avatar system was bad, infact it could very much be a great part of the game, I was saying that the game did not give you the ability to randomize who your are going up against, a mechanic that has become a basic in 4x and strategy games overall and more or less a industry standard for strategy games. As of right now, when you play humankind you will always know what avatar you going up against in each match and will have already planned accordingly. with the ability to randomize opponents, you'll have no idea who your going up against, and will be forced to get creative and improvise if your nation is not suited to go against, say a super aggressive militaristic avatar, or a highly scientific tall building avatar.

I would have overlooked this one, had there not be so many other complaints by other's about different problems found that the game has already accumulated.

It was not my intention to criticize you. I also concur about a lot of other QoL things that need to be added (random opponents is one of that).

It was more of an observation I came to a realization while reading your post (and others) and has less to do with your post specifically.

It is difficult for games not to escape comparisons with other similar games and I do believe it makes their place more difficult than it should be.

sapsling wrote:

It's quite simple, they released too early and we got a buggy, under-baked game with huge mp issues. I also believe that the game will be much better in a year and maybe even great in 2-3 years and some dlc's, but yes - it's kinda sad to see the orange "mixed' tag for a game that has so much potential.  

I quite agree sapsling, it is very sad that the game is fundamentally raw. it can be a good game but it needs a lot of work. it's just not fun to play in it's current format. I've stopped playing it until the next update/dlc turns up

Endless Space 2 has around +85% approval. Endless Legend the same. Those games are also older, had more time to grow a fanbase and get expansions. Humankind is new. 70% isn't that terrible, but it's not at high as 85%.  I don't think it's the end of the world. You probably get high ratings initially as people played the game in beta and were excited and maybe a little fanboy effect going on.  Now we're getting the real reviews. 

Amplitude recently sent out a survey to players to ask them what might be improved about the game, so it doesn't seem like they're ignoring anything and realize there is always room for improvement.

Personally I just want them to make the game solid and bug free - and also release on macOS (the current macOS beta has a lot of issues).

It's a good question for Devs.

Civ VI has 30k online now in steam, Humankind has 3k and online has been decreased for 33% for the last month if I'm not mistaken.

People don't want to play the game that is not finished.

I personally stopped playing this game for a while because of unplayable multiplayer and balance issues, hope the next patch will solve some of these problems.

Light_Spectrum wrote:

It's a good question for Devs.

Civ VI has 30k online now in steam, Humankind has 3k and online has been decreased for 33% for the last month if I'm not mistaken.

People don't want to play the game that is not finished.

I personally stopped playing this game for a while because of unplayable multiplayer and balance issues, hope the next patch will solve some of these problems.

I wonder if Humankind just isn't as replayable as Civ VI, though. In theory, there are one million different ways to build your culture in Humankind. In practice, every game feels kind of the same because the cultures aren't different enough. And, there's only one way to win, so your goals are always the same. In contrast, when I play Civ, I'm playing as "English" or "Maori" or "Aztecs" and each one feels quite different. And I can decide if I'm emphasizing science or culture or religion or war, so I play differently to achieve my goals.

I don't know. I guess I just don't feel like playing more than a few Humankind games unless I come up with some gimmick to make it more fun and challenge myself. But that only goes so far.

cause reddit decided to reach the "nice" treshold.

68% and dropping

Sublustris wrote:

68% and dropping

And what? I'm fine it's 1% as long as I'm in.

Practically though the first reviews were from people waiting the game and mostly knew it during OpenDev. Later purchases are from wider audience, and so worse reviews.

VDmitry wrote:

Sublustris wrote:

68% and dropping

And what? I'm fine it's 1% as long as I'm in.

Practically though the first reviews were from people waiting the game and mostly knew it during OpenDev. Later purchases are from wider audience, and so worse reviews.

Recent reviews are much worse: 57%. While many of the highly promoted reviews aren't exactly reassuring, sadly. Whether it's the usual "ITS NOT CIV!" and "WOKE" smears, or accusations of the devs being anti-consumer or anti-gamer.

Hopefully the devs do something soon.

I hope devs do nothing for them.

I may agree on the fact that the game is not perfect, that there are a lot of things that may be EXPANDED or polished or better balanced, BUT i do not think that the game deserve such a low score. As it stands HK is a good game and quite enjoyable. It made some bold choices regarding culture choices and victory conditions that may or may not appeal to some people, but this does not change the quality of the product. I just think that a lot of people didnt want to enjoy the game, but just comparing it to civ and throw shit at it.

I think they just need a faster patch cycle, maybe at least for the first 3-4 months after release. The devs are going in the right general direction but they're just a little bit too slow and player retention is dropping faster than they can fix things.