https://www.games2gether.com/amplitude-studios/humankind/forums/168-general/threads/41966-thank-you?page=1

I am sceptical / torn about humankind

I do wonder if, in it's current state, it was or wasn’t a mistake. (Yes, we are talking about the game, just to be clear.) Given the very mixed reception and perpetuals comparisons to Civilization in reviews, I can’t help but to ask myself this question. I do understand the will to make such a “magnum opus” was floating in the air for a very long time at Amplitude.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlfUtaxkEKE

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=humankind+amplitude%27s+magnum+opus&ia=web

I can’t find where Jeff Spock originally thrown out the words “magnum opus”, but it seem to have been caught on in the media.

I do not think I break ground on this forum by saying that the execution is lacking, that the game has some deeply baked in issues. A far cry from a studio that felt it had mastered the 4x genre. There is many great ideas whom implementation is anaemic, or questionable :

- pollution and it’s link with technology and your building choices, that apparently was implemented a few weeks before launched and, as I understand it, was not tested in the open betas since the were focused on the earlier eras.

- religion, and the idea that it evolve over time with tenets and narrative events… is however disconnected from culture. Anybody that has modicum of knowledge in social and human sciences, especially history, quickly understand that the two very easily intertwine. Religion and the ancient Greek culture ? What are you separating the two ? Same for Japan in the Edo Era and it’s relationship with Shintoism and Buddhism, or China and the everlasting and pregnant influence of Confucianism. The base line here is that the way a society view the world, and consider that a covenant with the gods or a mandate of heaven must be upheld, are NOT separated from culture. They are part of it.

- civics that evolve over time based on the players actions and choices during narratives events ; although, I ask myself why some ideas from Endless Space 2 were not retained in this department. Why going to war all the time do not shape you society towards a more warlike culture, regardless of your culture choice ? (just and example) And again, it’s a far cry from what I could have been… and what was announced. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZd5pxTNzds

Civics and narratives events that shape them are sometimes anecdotal.

I worry about the fate of Amplitude, because it is one the remaining game company that I know that do not engage in unethical practices. At least, I hope so. One in a list that seem to get ever-shorter.

I will also admit that I have a somewhat emotional link with the Endless series. I can’t really put my finger on why, but I just like. Maybe because it has a soul ? I can’t explain what I don’t fully understand.

Humankind was and still is (and that’s part of the problem) a really big project that was presented as a civ-salyer… because of course it was !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP1JBYhhC2I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV9-RNLOU-o

Again, it is understandable because it was supposed to be Amplitude “Magnum Opus”. The communication before and after the release of the game lead to a great deal of confusion. Their is some hubris in this story I think.

I still remind myself of reading with some amusement the comment section of the ancestor teaser, on launch. People had no idea what the hell was announced. And that is, I think, a big problem. Nobody knew what to expect, if not something big and revolutionary. So expectations went wild and everybody made up their fantasy of what they expected the game to be, and where disappointed at launch because not everybody watch the dev-diaries. Some even excepted something that would thwart the monopoly of a certain game over historical 4x. Lots of emotion and resentment here. A mined field, let’s be honest.

The project was bold. But because the execution was and still is so lacking, even in the expectation managment department, I do wonder If Humankind was not the big mistep of Amplitude. When I read about and also experienced first hand the amount of balancing issues and, worst of all and never experienced before in an Amplitude Game, ludo-narrative dissonances (leave “your mark on history” with this unique set of preset cultures…) or just the fact that people do not understand what it’s not more like civ., as if it where to be both the anti civ. franchise, and civ. VII at the same time, or even the criticism that come when technological development is at play which is very “inhuman” and “gamey”. (Breaking news : you cannot research a technique you know nothing about. Breaking news : the onset of a new technique take, well, time… and it do not pop up like a pinata when you have thrown enough brain points at the tech.)

I know that this is how technology work for 4x since… well, the very first games ? I don’t know. But every game and their mother seem to have this kind of system. Humankind could have been a real revolution and not a gimmick if more testing of bold ideas was done before hand. The Endless Franchise could have been a testing ground. If more dev time and long term design and brain juices was given to the project, perhaps also a more clear and comprehensive view of what the team was heading for. Rumour has it that pollution was introduced and barely tested a few weeks before launch. I am fairly sure that it was not tested in the opened betas, as they seemed to focus more on the earlier eras (again : a concept that could have been questioned : what if the eras where determined and named after all the players actions, or, even, each civ. could have had it’s own set of eras. The era of the great strife. The longest peace. And so on.)

The hype and expectations were not under control. And hype is a double edged sword. Their is no way to way to have a second shot at releasing a game. Their is no second first impression. Humankind is forever tainted by it’s launch day.

The will to have such a game and magnum opus is not, I think, a mistake. But, given the information at my disposal and afford-mention, I cannot help but to come to the conclusion that the project was rushed in some ways. It failed. And I can say that because it failed by the standard it gave itself : I do not think Amplitude sat a new standard in the genre. It merely announced that it intended to innovate, and brought some ideas to the table. And that was it. A bit underwhelming.

If you argue that more years of development and DLC will fix this issue, well, this is very much the problem. Again, I insist, the game was supposed to be rock solid at launch, a Magnum Opus with the lessons from the previous games. If so stated, and it was so stated, please explain the need for DLC and a live service model ? If the live service model was conceived as the way to go from the start, it should have been stated so. But again, why a industry changer and bold new take on a genre historical for the whole gaming industry should be released with a roadmap ? Isn’t it a bit antithetical ? Can you imagine Cyrano de Bergerac Duelling it’s foes and other fools only on Mondays, because he has to prepare the rest of the week, doing push-ups and sowing in order to repair it’s worn out costume ? Nah.

I do not like the word “fan” because it always make me think of fanaticism. And being the fanatic of a corporate entity or product brand seem to me even more ludicrous than for other subjects, even more perverse. I didn’t swear the fealty of my wallet and soul to Amplitude.

But. I still like the company and the games. I played Humankind without to much expectations, mainly curious and excited to discover what one of my dearest studios came up with. I played over 200 hours and did not wait that much to leave a positive review. However, I liked the game despite and because of it’s faults and potential. Like the Mass Effect series, Mass Effect Andromeda included. A diamond, a gem in the rough, with a lot of untapped potential and bad press. Humankind didn’t as much problems as MEA, but I hope you can understand the comparison (and all the Mass Effect games, in hindsight, could have benefited from more work, they still are great or good, but still ; but I digress).

I hope Humankind see further development and the devs will learn a many great deal from all of this. But I fear it’s to late to change the overall perception. I fear that, even if the issues that the most glaring, such as pollution or industry bias, nothing can be done for the missed opportunities to try to do something really ground breaking for the civilisations mechanics, technology, religion, eras, and much more. Until next time.

English is not my first language. I hope this was constructive in some way.

Aeram wrote:
a really big project that was presented as a civ-slayer

This characterization is central, common, and problematic.

First thought... how could any studio slay Civ in their initial attempt? What are we really expecting? Civilization is one of the most dominant franchises in any genre in the last several decades. There have been plenty of decent RTS's, FPS's, RPG's, and looters. But no studio has remotely tried to compete with Civ on its own turf since the 90's. Paradox's EU4 is probably the closest but it's very different in scope, style, and development model. Will a competitor get everything right on the first try? No. Is the attempt still valuable? Absolutely. I think Civ has stagnated and devolved since Civ 4 and I know I'm not alone in my opinion - I see plenty of old-school Civ-heads that are HK fans. And yeah... if you have no competitors then there's little reason to strive for innovation or quality. But talent and imagination only get you so far against experience and budget. To think otherwise is naive. I think HK has terrific, terrific ideas. I think it also needs plenty more balancing, testing, and tweaking, like many others do. But I'm glad I can play it and I think I'm realistic in understanding that a studio can't just keep a game in testing until it's "perfect". Personally, I enjoy (single-player) HK considerably more than Civ 5 or 6 already and I think it has the potential to be an all-time great 4X, whether that happens through patches, DLC's, or a sequel.

Second thought... gamers' judgments are too simplistic and competitive. Does HK compete with Civ? Absolutely. Does it have the same approach and design? Not at all. Can someone legitimately enjoy Civ 6 over HK or vice versa? Sure, no problem. We need to stop treating genre competitors like Final Four brackets where one faction ends up as the ultimate victor. There's plenty of room within 4X (or RPG's, RTS's, etc.) for different approaches. I'll play HK (even right now with its imperfections) over Civ 5 or 6, and I've already put more hours into it than 5/6. But I don't need to go convincing modern Civ fans that they're delusional either. There's plenty of room for different approaches.

kryton24 wrote:

If they can get of this situated I believe the framework is there to keep me engaged at any rate. Game probably should have had two more opendevs and delayed launch further but at least in single player I'd say the game is like a 6 or 7/10 at least. I think everyone expected more than that and less kinks at launch hence the meh sensation going around and general disappointment. I don't think it would be fair to say that people feel hopeless though, and I think that's the key here... ATM anyways.

Tldr - Humankind launch dropped the ball but the game is far from a lost cause and can turn it around albeit might take longer than many want it to be.

I think you are right, but some of the issues and lost opportunities are deeply baked in. You might have to wait for another iteration of the game for improvement or innovations on some topics, such as research. The more I think about it, the more I think I would like to see an evolution / innovation of some kind on the subject.

I'm not hopeless that being said. Perhaps some people are. Don't know. I'm just trying to reason and understand what happened, critically.

Another thing : the "engagement" method is something I quite don't like. To keep players interested in a game that is genuinely improving is one thing, to keep them emotionally "engaged" due to FOMO and other means such has sunk cost fallacy or even addiction with gambling mechanics is different. Beware of the big publishers language and methods ; they are not meant to make games, but products and value for their investors, aka, money. I understand that this is not what you meant, but be careful.

tppytel wrote:

Aeram wrote:
a really big project that was presented as a civ-slayer

This characterization is central, common, and problematic.

First thought... how could any studio slay Civ in their initial attempt? What are we really expecting? Civilization is one of the most dominant franchises in any genre in the last several decades. There have been plenty of decent RTS's, FPS's, RPG's, and looters. But no studio has remotely tried to compete with Civ on its own turf since the 90's. Paradox's EU4 is probably the closest but it's very different in scope, style, and development model. Will a competitor get everything right on the first try? No. Is the attempt still valuable? Absolutely. I think Civ has stagnated and devolved since Civ 4 and I know I'm not alone in my opinion - I see plenty of old-school Civ-heads that are HK fans. And yeah... if you have no competitors then there's little reason to strive for innovation or quality. But talent and imagination only get you so far against experience and budget. To think otherwise is naive. I think HK has terrific, terrific ideas. I think it also needs plenty more balancing, testing, and tweaking, like many others do. But I'm glad I can play it and I think I'm realistic in understanding that a studio can't just keep a game in testing until it's "perfect". Personally, I enjoy (single-player) HK considerably more than Civ 5 or 6 already and I think it has the potential to be an all-time great 4X, whether that happens through patches, DLC's, or a sequel.

I do agree with all of that.

Furthermore, the idea that a franchise can be "slayed" is, in my opinion, a bit ludicrous, but it make great headlines and video titles I suppose. From what I understand, franchise tend to lose relevance on their own because they fail to keep their public, not really due to the competition, although their need to be a competition. The Sonic Franchise and the very intense competition in the "battle royal" genre is a good example of that I think. "Engagement" (and all it's perverse effects, some games being describe as being a storefront with a game attached) is key and innovation alone often do not suffice to get shares.

tppytel wrote:
Second thought... gamers' judgments tend to be too simplistic. Does HK compete with Civ? Absolutely. Does it have the same approach and design? Not at all. Can someone legitimately enjoy Civ 6 over HK or vice versa? Sure, no problem. We need to stop treating genre competitors like Final Four brackets where one faction ends up as the ultimate victor. There's plenty of room within 4X (or RPG's, RTS's, etc.) for different approaches. I'll play HK (even right now with its imperfections) over Civ 5 or 6, and I've already put more hours into it than 5/6. But I don't need to go convincing modern Civ fans that they're delusional either. There's plenty of room for different approaches.

I do not think that this is limited to "gamer's judgment". Overall, critical thinking is not that widespread. I am not saying that people are morons, except us, I am saying that it's not part of the schools curricula and that cognitive biases exists. That being said, yes, Humankind was a vaillant attempt, and, as I wrote it upper, I did enjoy the game, a great deal I might had. I do understand the need for Amplitude to get games out. I'm just not sure they timed their projects right for Humankind to be as good as it could have, and devs wanted it be, at launch.

Humankind, if it was really supposed to be a magnum opus and their dream of the team, should have been tested more carefully and designed with more care. I will draw my student experience in this : a bit like when you plan and collect sources and data for your next paper, and next papers, while working on a different one, but that share similar themes. They could have made Endless Legend 2 and try to refine climate and, in some way, pollution and interaction with the environment more, as well as city and trade mechanics, for example. Yes, not everything could have been transferred, but it would have been useful, I think.

And yes, you can enjoy similar kind of games. Shogu is not inherently better than chess, or D&D better than Traveller. Different systems with different drives and appeals. But people tend to have "clanic" attitudes. I doubt they are that many though, those who do so are probably the more noisy.

And on the topic of 4x : I love Distant World. What a huge mess of an interface and AI this game is. But it's just a bloody good game, even flawed. (Besides, things that aren't flawed (ei : perfect) do not exist ; even those you dream about, they will always have the problem of being ephemeral, inconsistent, and only real in you head, which is a big drawback if it's a game you want to play for example.)

I find that you are being too critical - can there be such a thing as too much critical thinking ? :)

Humankind did enough new things to break the mold - changing cultures, tactical battles that actually take place on the strategic map (no loading times, no random battlefield), elevation and distance matter and units can even participate from outside the battlefield, real armies that can be composed of a few dozen units (thanks to reinforcements) can make each battle epic and last for a good few turns, research that is both Era-locked and has bigger impact on gameplay mechanics and much more.

There are issues but they can be improved upon or fixed. For me there are a lot of unknown mechanics in the game which are not obvious to a lot of players and they find it difficult to learn the game. Two examples if I may :

- The recent Caravansarai thread. While it is obvious the movement bonus it grants, a lot of players are still not aware that you can have one Caravansarai per territory and can combine it with a nearby train station for really fast movement. If you place your caravansarais 6 to 7 tiles apart you will be able to have a really fast and mobile army that can move continents in the space of a few turns. District placement is still something most players seem to be learning.

- The thread about religion and what happens with Foreign Holy sites. Players are still used to Civ where if you conquer, everything should become yours, wonders as well. They still think of Holy Sties as religious wonders. But the key part here is that the Foreign Holy Sites keep generating Faith for the opposing religion even within your borders. What the players do not get is that in Humankind every district can be destroyed and ransacked, Cultural Wonders and Holy Sites included. You simply need to ransack the Holy Site if you are worried of it spreading a Foreign religion.

This was the same issue with too many cities and players not realizing they can ransack both outposts and cities if they want to. Also the mechanic that allows any land army to chop forests. In Humankind there is a lot more direct interaction with the map and you want to build and place units around it. For some reason players are still very new to this type of game.

In my opinion Humankind needs both more video guides and let's play videos to show how some of the underlying mechanics work and more time for the Civ veterans to learn the new mechanics. Even if you played the original CIV back in 1991 (I know I did) that does not mean that you will pick up Humankind straight away.

Kwami wrote:

VDmitry wrote:

Fame is not exactly what makes every game somehow similar. HK allows to do everything in every game. So next game you again free to do everything.

The difference between games should come from:

- close competition (each era, with equal but varied enemies) 

- world deeds (currently not very important, but could be serious and different each game)

Sure, you're free to do everything in every game. But you also have to do pretty much everything in every game to get the most fame. That's why every game feels the same. To compare with another famous 4X game, in Civ VI, you can choose to focus primarily on science, culture, religion, war, diplomacy, etc. You still need to work on the other things, but you focus more on one and that affects the way that you build your cities, the order that you aim for techs, etc. But you can't do that in Humankind.

Exactly, this is one of the parts that I don't like about humankind, Fame is essentially a glorified score victory, you collect as many fame points as possible, the same way you get as high of a score as possible, and its the only victory condition as well, all other conditions are merely end conditions, you could still win the space race but lose the game to someone who had just 2 or 3 more points. And since Fame is the only victory condition, it only satisfies 1 part of the playerbase, other games have satisfied all by having multiple victories that can be turn on or off, you can in theory get the similar feel of humankind by having only the score victory on while the rest are off. By having a glorified score victory as the only victory condition which also requires a time limit as well, humankind only satisfies only 1 part of the playerbase.

First of all, none of my ideas are brand new and echo what a lot of people here (and some critics) have also said. Having played >300 hours and coming to a stopping point, I really want this game to succeed so here is what I see as the problem (and possible solution) in my own words. 

I agree that the sameness and repeatability is a huge concern for this game. In EL they managed this with factions that played vastly differently. In Civ 6 that’s also true to an extent (eg Babylon, Maori) but diversity mostly comes from the victory conditions and really having to laser focus on one and having to work on it the entire game. eg decisions you make for religious victory are super different from going for science victory. I play Old World heavily as well and that game also has huge variety in each game depending on what leader archetype you start with, what events you get, etc.

Aside from AI players, starting location, map, etc - which are standard randomization factors present in every 4x game  - HK doesn’t have much else that adds diversity to games. Fame system is a rebranded score victory, no question. But I don’t think that’s the root of the issue. They need to make the systems more specialized so you can’t just "do everything" in every single game. For example, going for religion needs to have additional nuances to it like in Civ 6 - right now everyone builds holy sites and you get tenet bonuses and that's that. Investing in that should open up more doors but not available to everyone. Same with influence - there should be ways to either focus on cultural dominance or get dominated, but those strategies should not be easily achievable and should have major consequences for the rest of the game. Right now in every game you do everything - max out production, growth, money, science, etc. Maybe they need to play with scaling production costs so you can't easily just build everything. I don't know what it is yet exactly, but I don't think any deep fundemental changes are needed. It can be achieved by playing with costs, prerequisites, and linking systems to each other more. For example, make it so that hoarding all luxuries to get huge stability and becoming a 'trade empire' isn't something you can easily do in every single game and that there's some greater cost to it or prerequisites. It has to be a choice or something to invest in - you can choose to go that route but have to sacrifice something else. Currently you don't have to sacrifice anything - you just do it all. 

Ningauble wrote:

You have made some pretty detailed posts but I didn't get far into this one. 

Starting a post with, "I wonder if Humankind was a mistake. (Yes, the game.)." 

I wonder if your post wasn't a mistake; Yes, the entire post. 

Apologies, the full quote is,

"I do wonder if, in it's current state, it was or wasn’t a mistake. (Yes, we are talking about the game, just to be clear.)"
But it's a rude thing to say. Almost reads like click-bait. I found it to be easily ignored (Yes, your entire post.)

Ningauble wrote:

You have made some pretty detailed posts but I didn't get far into this one.

Starting a post with, "I wonder if this it was a mistake. (Yes, the game.)."

I wonder if your post wasn't a mistake; Yes, the entire post.

You are free to dismiss my worries, and not go into the details and demonstration that give a more nuanced approach that the blunt rebbutal you offer me.

I am sorry if the way I phrased my starting point was not to your linking and disgusted you.

But do not worry, I am open to criticism. I am still torn about the way the game came out and the way most of it's mechanics were implementend, and the answers in this thread do not put me at ease as much as I would have hoped.

Ningauble wrote:

Please stop attributing the quote that it'd be a civ-killer to Amplitude Studios. If you fell for that hype from somebody else, that's a discussion of trust to have between you and the reviewer of games or whoever you heard it from.

Have you read my post ?

Ningauble wrote:
You have made some pretty detailed posts but I didn't get far into this one. 

No, you didn't.

So your mistake and misreading is understandable. What Amplitude said, was that they were going to make a Humankind their magnum opus. This is my griviance, so to speak. Journalists and videasts on the net took that as "yay, they are trying to take over civ" or "is it the civ killer ?".

Edit : I even gave some links as sources.

If you intend to critic something, please take the time to read it.

If you do not like something or find it egregious, you can just move on. And I am curious about why you did not, because :

Ningauble wrote:

Apologies, the full quote is,

"I do wonder if, in it's current state, it was or wasn’t a mistake. (Yes, we are talking about the game, just to be clear.)"
But it's a rude thing to say. Almost reads like click-bait. I found it to be easily ignored (Yes, your entire post.)

By the way, I have a bit of an academic background, and I did apply (without realising)  what I was tought, which try to catch the attention of my reader at the start of a paper with an opening statment that was interesting, in it's phrasing at the very least. It probably was not perfect, but it's easier to get into, rather than : "I do wonder if the timing of the release of Humankind was well thought out." or something along those lines.

In anyway, your critic is a valid one, and again, I am sorry you found it displeasing so much that you posted three times in a row. It must have quite obseting for you and it wasn't my objective.

I wanted to share my doubts and worries in a constructive manner, not to gather clicks. I have no interest in the later.

Ningauble wrote:

I apologize for my tone. I think I understand where you are coming from. I've just read a few articles that almost seem to be trolling in their efforts to paint broad generalizations and dismiss the effort that Amplitude has put in. Ignoring some of the complications like, uhm, working through 2020 and trying to balance a large amount of feedback. In some ways that invites more trolling because the writers of said pieces can bluntly state 'oh this feedback is being ignored' when there is just so much feedback to work through. Some of this might tone a bit if the modding becomes available because people may be able to customize their experience as desired. Although I look forward to all the posts complaining about how broken the mod-kit is when it's like...

I can already picture the mod-kit just straight up going "I'm sorry Dave I'm afraid I can't do that." 

I do understand you too.

But, besides all the explanations, and even excuses we can make for the devs, the game is... well, what it is, and their are some [not nice people] that are just happy to see things burn.

It could have been better, but despite the efforts of the devs, circomstances and what have you made it thus (hence my comparison with Mass Effect Andromeda : I don't think the teams with mistreated (I hope at least), but their was probably some mismanagment and additional stress and waste due to COVID for example, my point is that their is more going on behind the curtains that we can guess usually, and you are very right to point out that 2020 was not a great year).

It's such a waste, because having circomstances against you, during the dev process AND at launch, must be heart-wrenching. Still, even if I have my doubts and there is some [some not nice people but I will not insult anyone although I want to] going around saying "stuff", I do hope this game turns out better. It's already fun. But Humankind is in this weird place where you can see how awesome (really) it could have been, and turns out to be... well, somewhat good, sometimes great, sometimes mediocre, but no "magnum opus".

I do hope that lessons in organisation, gamedesign, and even communication and expectation management were learned. I am afraid we cant do much about the broader gaming community (which is not a nice and understanding one), but we can still learn how to make better Games2gether.

(And I, improve my written english, which is as horrendous as my accent, may the Virtuals forgive me.)

PS : no joke about the Games2gether thing by the way, see below :

https://www.games2gether.com/amplitude-studios/humankind/forums/169-game-design-and-ideas/threads/46217-get-the-game2gether-infrastructure-of-humankind-on-par-with-endless-space-2-s?page=1#post-342456

https://www.games2gether.com/ideas/2675-consistency-of-presentation-for-all-games%3Fpage%3D1