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