Just an example : diplomacy is exactly the same as it was at lucy opendev. And many players had grievances about this system.

60dlike wrote:

Remember that during opendevs, many players ask for improve diplomacy, religion and culture system etc... before the game released. But devs dont listen and keep the game like it was. I dont expect rework or new features for the future. They say they want players be a part of Humanking, but we are clearly not. Was just a marketing opportunity for me.

I think the issue was that starting with the Victor Opendev, Amplitude began using Opendevs primarily as a marketing opportunity and as incentive to preorder the game. Since the opendevs were used primarily as a way to get people to try the game and get hooked and not so much as a means to get feedback that could shape the development process for HK, the opendevs took place very late in the designing process, presumably to ensure that the builds were polished and enjoyable. As a result even when people provided feedback, the devs couldn't possibly redesign the game in time for the release date (which had already been pushed back once to the anger of many fans).

That being said, I enjoy Humankind very much in its current state, even if it has room to be much better, and I am not sure if incorporating the feedback from the opendevs would make the game better, as there were many disorganised ideas and proposals that were incompatible with the chore mechanics of the game (which, again, is totally normal from community-driven efforts like that and definitely not the fault of the community or the devs). I think the most reasonable attitude we can have is to wait patiently and if the game improves to our liking great and, if not, we can always play other games.

One last thing: I believe that for a studio to be so in touch with the community is a double-edged sword. It has amazing benefits for the players and for the design team, but at the same time I think that having the devs always interacting with us on the forums, on streams, etc. makes it very easy for some players to develop para-social relationships with the dev team where some players genuinely see the devs as their close friends. Because of this, some players feel betrayed when the design team doesn't accomodate their suggestions. They might feel like a friend dismissing their well-meaning advice without as much as an explanation. I'd like to remind thme that even if the devs are very kind and we feel like the Amplitude team is talking to us when they reply in the forums or they go on streams, or they post on social media; the truth is that it is impossible for them to know all of their thousands of players, much less be close with them. This is a reality, and this is why, in my opinion, it makes no sense to be angry or get so worked up about the game not turning out to be exactly how we'd envisioned it. In the end, Amplitude is a company presenting a product. Everyhting else is just building on top of that. If you like the product, great, if you don't there will surely be someone else in the market making what you want to play.

I don't know if this translates to HK, but way back when Endless Legend launched, I was intrigued and picked it up. After several hours, I really didn't like it. I don't even remember what I didn't like, but I got bored with it.

After a few years I came back to it for some reason (can't remember why). Now it is one of my favorite strategy games of all time. The added content as well as all of the patch tweaks they made to that game were significant.

I would expect the same kind of care for HK. Yes, the reviews are less favorable, but consider a few things:

- They have already invested in this game, both monetarily and emotionally. They can't change past reviews, but they can change peoples' impressions of the game going forward. I'm sure everyone at the company wants to accomplish this.

- There are stories of games with poor reviews turning around; it's not that rare. I believe Amplitude can absolutely do it.

TLDR; I personally don't expect the current state of review scores to reflect on HK's immediate future, at least for the next year. 

My own personal impresions of HK during the last opendev weren't super favorable, but I definitely have hope that it will become more fun; potentially much more fun. When reviews start to turn around, I'll finally purchase it (for me it's the time commitment more than the money commitment).

As for these comments about "they didn't listen to the community", I don't completely agree. It requires a lot of resources for a game studio to pivot on a design that's already implemented. It doesn't mean they did not want to make the requested changes. It could be that their commitment to ship on time meant that large changes were off the table anyway. They actually did make smaller changes due to player feedback. Maybe now that they are past the initial commitment to launch the game, they will consider larger tweaks based on feedback. A dev studio being quiet is not a bad sign; it's no sign. They have a desire to figure out what they believe to be the best way forward, and they probably want to figure that out before communicating any further. I have less frustation than others because I chose not to purchase the game in its initial state, but try to be patient and not sink into negativity. Focus on other games for the time being :).

roger212 wrote:

One last thing: I believe that for a studio to be so in touch with the community is a double-edged sword. It has amazing benefits for the players and for the design team, but at the same time I think that having the devs always interacting with us on the forums, on streams, etc. makes it very easy for some players to develop para-social relationships with the dev team where some players genuinely see the devs as their close friends. Because of this, some players feel betrayed when the design team doesn't accomodate their suggestions. They might feel like a friend dismissing their well-meaning advice without as much as an explanation. I'd like to remind thme that even if the devs are very kind and we feel like the Amplitude team is talking to us when they reply in the forums or they go on streams, or they post on social media; the truth is that it is impossible for them to know all of their thousands of players, much less be close with them. This is a reality, and this is why, in my opinion, it makes no sense to be angry or get so worked up about the game not turning out to be exactly how we'd envisioned it. In the end, Amplitude is a company presenting a product. Everyhting else is just building on top of that. If you like the product, great, if you don't there will surely be someone else in the market making what you want to play.

You pretty much nailed it here. Much of the above could be applied to more than a few other companies and developers, for better or worse.

Though given the divisive at best reception right now, the devs have a thankless job ahead of them. As pretty much everything they're doing is scrutinized, and it's bound to piss off/disappoint/enrage one camp or the other. If they don't do something big, they're risking either a "dead game" pitfall or a zero-sum failstate in which no one but drama commentators will win.

Eh I don't personally think their relationship with the community is any more or less nebulous than say Paradox, for whom seem as or even more interactive with their community. And I don't think the backlash that has stuck to Humankind has anything to do with people thinking their ideas are being ignored.

For the most part people want a deep and fun experience that holds up through multiple playthroughs, this is expected of a 4x game. However, Humankinds core mechanics are so shallow and repetitive that you see pretty much everything you're going to see, do most of what you'll ever do with the game through 1 playthrough.

Endless Legend and Endless Space 1 and 2 released in far far better states, they still had their issues but you could forgive them as the game underneath was interesting, you could play several times and still feel that your next playthrough would be different enough to pick it up again.

Humankind is going to suffer as long as it exists as it does. The gameplay systems are simply too shallow and rigid, I'm so sure the reason why the economy is so easily broken is because the loop around the economy and empire management is so basic that any "major" numerical change completely tips the scales, meaning they have to keep nerfing interesting bonuses and affinities into near irrelevance to keep the whole game together.

I and many others have what we all personally think are good ideas for improving the game, however most just want a good game regardless of what is decided. They've played or heard of previous Amplitude games and they want that but with the backdrop of humanity and history.

When Civilization VI released Endless Legend was being mentioned everywhere among that community as a fun and interesting 4x game, they were singing its praises, as equally as Amplitude fans were. But it genuinely feels as if when it came to developing Humankind they barely looked at their previous games at all for inspiration, no major new concepts from the previous Endless games made their way into Humankind... None.

However, with the developers seemingly refusing to admit that the core mechanics of the game are what's causing its problems (the whole food and growth system is a perfect example) I'm afraid this game doesn't give much hope to being better at any point in the future. 

It had so much potential and so many were looking for an alternative to Civilization, and yet we have a game that feels like it has the feature set of a game made 20 years ago, and they're trying to cram content into it thinking that will solve the problem.

For me its a complete disappointment, I've stuck with it the last few months hoping that the developers would acknowledge and improve on its failures but reading the official devblog noting what they intend to do for the next several months, its equally disappointing. 

How they managed to create 3 amazing and innovative 4x experiences and then put out Humankind in that state that it is completely baffles me.

RabidHobbit wrote:

Corgiwealth wrote:

And I don't think the backlash that has stuck to Humankind has anything to do with people thinking their ideas are being ignored[...]

I and many others have what we all personally think are good ideas for improving the game[...]

However, with the developers seemingly refusing to admit that the core mechanics of the game are what's causing its problems (the whole food and growth system is a perfect example) [...]

Is the issue that the game has too many flaws or that the devs won't listen to feedback to improve those flaws? You initially claim #2 is not significant but then it sounds like you're compaining about it later. I agree that the current game isn't fun (for me). But I think there's a chance it can be turned around, assuming the devs agree there are some design issues. We don't know what their exact stance is; regardless I'm certain it's to continue to support the game, and that can very well mean taking more to heart the design compaints that players have.

That wasn't my point, my point was that I doubt the upset around the game is to do with peoples ideas being chosen or not, rather that the games mechanics are shallow and the developers don't seem to have any plans for improving said games mechanics, which is confounded by the fact we know Amplitude knows better, they've proven it with their past games. Instead they've announced more cultures, wonders and theming improvements for the next several months, the only mechanical improvements announced are to the war score system.

Picking out quotes without including the context is also... I said people had ideas, however I doubt people care what's decided beyond just wanting the game to improve and actually be fun to play.

Corgiwealth wrote:
However, Humankinds core mechanics are so shallow and repetitive that you see pretty much everything you're going to see, do most of what you'll ever do with the game through 1 playthrough.

I disagree with this claim.

1- As someone who tried "unorthodox" strategies in these types of game, I often lean to the pacifist side just to test the game. If a game is over-reliant on war, my type of approach will reveal it and I'll have a hard time having fun let alone win. Civ6 was not fun at all for me, even with expansions and DLCs.

2- Chess have very simple mechanics and rules, yet the game is hailed as deep with strategies. The depth of a game isn't on the rules or the mechanics, but about how varied the strategies and "the meta" can be allowed to emerge from said mechanics. It's easy to make an overcomplicated game that has most of its mechanic irrelevant in the end and unused, but making one with as few "rules" as possible yet as rich strategy-wise as possible is a tough but desirable goal.

3- I can guarantee you that you'll notice different ways to use the mechanics through different playthrough. Simplest way to explore this would be to try your hand at the achievements, one of which is the "Pacifist" one that requires you to win the game without ever declaring war nor building military units (except scouts, buying mercenaries are fine so is assimilating independent people). Not being able to rely on the military has its way of forcing you to really pay attention to the rest. In the same vein, have you tried to use saboteurs to steal territory away from rivals? I have a new found appreciation for garrisons and the Authority ideology...

However, I'll admit I'd like to see more added to the game (maybe more of this saboteur stuff? Spies anyone? [EDIT: idea from Civ4: foment unrest in target city to undermine local stability sounds like a nice addition]). But I don't compare this game to the "full" current Civ6 experience, but more to Civ6 at launch that was kind of lackluster and buggy too iirc (I recall there was a community UI mod that was hailed as essential and loads of complaints about how the terrain was unclear... and still is). I'll also say that some of the Civ6 mechanics don't really work at all and can be outright ignored on most games (loyalty pressure don't really affect any decision for most players as you can just slap a governor and solve the issue, or in extreme cases use a policy card).

Tryford wrote:

Corgiwealth wrote:
However, Humankinds core mechanics are so shallow and repetitive that you see pretty much everything you're going to see, do most of what you'll ever do with the game through 1 playthrough.

I disagree with this claim.

1- As someone who tried "unorthodox" strategies in these types of game, I often lean to the pacifist side just to test the game. If a game is over-reliant on war, my type of approach will reveal it and I'll have a hard time having fun let alone win. Civ6 was not fun at all for me, even with expansions and DLCs.

2- Chess have very simple mechanics and rules, yet the game is hailed as deep with strategies. The depth of a game isn't on the rules or the mechanics, but about how varied the strategies and "the meta" can be allowed to emerge from said mechanics. It's easy to make an overcomplicated game that has most of its mechanic irrelevant in the end and unused, but making one with as few "rules" as possible yet as rich strategy-wise as possible is a tough but desirable goal.

3- I can guarantee you that you'll notice different ways to use the mechanics through different playthrough. Simplest way to explore this would be to try your hand at the achievements, one of which is the "Pacifist" one that requires you to win the game without ever declaring war nor building military units (except scouts, buying mercenaries are fine so is assimilating independent people). Not being able to rely on the military has its way of forcing you to really pay attention to the rest. In the same vein, have you tried to use saboteurs to steal territory away from rivals? I have a new found appreciation for garrisons and the Authority ideology...

However, I'll admit I'd like to see more added to the game (maybe more of this saboteur stuff? Spies anyone?). But I don't compare this game to the "full" current Civ6 experience, but more to Civ6 at launch that was kind of lackluster and buggy too iirc (I recall there was a community UI mod that was hailed as essential and loads of complaints about how the terrain was unclear... and still is). I'll also say that some of the Civ6 mechanics don't really work at all and can be outright ignored on most games (loyalty pressure don't really affect any decision for most players as you can just slap a governor and solve the issue, or in extreme cases use a policy card).

Building a city is simply placing districts in the world and increasing the numbers to be able to place more districts. There's little to no meaningful decisions to be made, not much management required. The bulk of managing a city is preparing it for a war, or recovering from a war. There's no populations with different political affinities, no different populations desiring certain luxuries, no game around increasing the size of cities from settlements to towns to cities to metropolises with each level unlocking more to do with that city, no population caps to manage, no immigration to prepare for or encourage, no management of storage capacity - All of these were in previous Amplitude games on their release.

I'm happy you find the game fun, surprised that you find the game fun without war considering the consensus around the Open Devs was war seemed to be the only major reason to do anything in Humankind beyond chasing the numbers.

I've always found the argument that people who believe the game is shallow and repetitive are judging the game based on the full release and post release cycle of another to be completely disingenuous. 

Endless Legend and Endless Space 2, on their release... day one... were a far better games than Humankind is. They're more fun, with more varied playstyles and more replay-ability and deep systems to play off of. As is evident from their reviews at the time in comparison to Humankinds.

Whatever the concern is, there's something wrong with Humankind, else it wouldn't have been deemed a mediocre product that saw a massive drop in players.

I think this game is very divisive because players aren't agreed upon what they want the game to be. Some want an new Civ and complain when they can't just play their one culture the whole game and their name changes (I'm being reductive). Others come from the Endless games and want this to be one of those games. The reality is this game is somewhere in the middle, and maybe as such neither of those groups are happy about it and they moan constantly about it. I'm not really sure where I land on this, I've liked Civ for ages but find myself lately bored with it. I never could really got into the Endless games but the one I liked the most was Legends. So maybe I'm someone where the middle of the road approach is just right. So at the end of the day maybe points against the game for not being more confident and vocal about its direction? But I also don't feel like they ever mislead us here.

The biggest knock on this game was it was clearly a rushed launch with a bevy of bugs that instantly soured a lot of players. All criticisms of the launch are justly deserved and I think it scared away many of the more casual strategy gamers. 

I honestly love the depth of this game; there are a ton of small mechanics that you can take advantage of to create some really unique playstyles and generally speaking they tend to be pretty balanced even against the King: production. If I had a complaint here is that those little mechanics aren't obvious enough in many cases. I love playing this game on lower difficulties and not just on the highest because it's fun to play with new cultures and try new strategies and just make a cool empire. I love playing this game especially in multiplayer where your skills and decisions factor in even more than against AI.

Is this depth enough for play for 1000 hours? Probably not. Maybe that's a failure for some? Personally, I don't have 1000 hours to sink into any game. A few hundred hours of attention is well worth my money. It's hard to be build a completely new IP from the ground up and have that much depth out of the gates - the game would simply never get released. As for Steam numbers, this game has more players than any other of Amplitude's game as far as I can tell. I suspect it sold well initially. Financially I'm guessing this game has largely been a big success despite what you may read in all these forum threads. Big picture, there was very small chance of knocking Civ off its throne with a new IP 4x, it's a series with decades of brand recognition. But Amplitude are likely doing quite well for a small studio.

I look forward to new content when it comes, mechanics changing and being added and learning how to leverage them. But I'm not in a rush. Do things right, take the time and don't release with a ton of bugs again. 

I don't know the future of Humankind, but I got an idea that may help Amplitude to deal with it in the long-term.

If they are having problems with it in the short-term... Maybe there is something they can do with it in the long-term, or seek another project entierly?

It feels like this project of humankind will be really, really difficult to balance and patch through all it's flaws and general features missing mechanics-wise, as some other users and players have noted...

But if Amplitude is having problems whit it...

Maybe... there is Hope...?