I would tend to agree that the game is not ready for a release in two months. It would need to compete with games like Civ6, Stellaris and even Endless Legends, and at the moment it doesn't look that good. Graphics and looks are great, but the game mechanics need more work in my humble opinion. It looks like the devs getting plenty of feedback via open dev and I think it would be good to continue with that for a while longer.

Hence why i made this topic to begin with, a bit of a compromise so that we can give the developers the upmost feedback if they remove the day limitations of the game, and make scenario base of the previous and current testing field so they know what to do in terms of feedback given to them.

+1 Although I think the game will be good enough to release if the developers can fix the game pacing.

mqpiffle wrote:

Let's start with the inability to load saved games, then move down the list of disappointments from there.

I think it's because of the way these scenarios are design, you got a term limit of 100 turns on opendev victor, and now have 200 terms in opendev. What's the point of saving your game when there is a small limited amount of time? you basically spend 4-6 hours in one scenario alone.

darkedone02 wrote:

mqpiffle wrote:

Let's start with the inability to load saved games, then move down the list of disappointments from there.

I think it's because of the way these scenarios are design, you got a term limit of 100 turns on opendev victor, and now have 200 terms in opendev. What's the point of saving your game when there is a small limited amount of time? you basically spend 4-6 hours in one scenario alone.

Who tf has 4-6 hours to play at a time?? Not me, I got work to do.

CristataC wrote:

The open dev should not be extended. There's already been so much feedback, and as someone who has been following the beta forums closely, the feedback is starting to get repetitive. I'm sure they have enough data and constructive criticism to make the final balancing and feature changes for day 1.

Also I don't think its valid to compare the day 1, base version of Humankind with other games in the genre which have been out for over 5 years and have had multiple major expansions of material added. It's not reasonable to expect the same amount of depth between games at the start and end of their content cycles.

I played about 24 hours of this open beta, provided lots of feedback, have had some irritating bugs/imbalances, and found a few features that are just poorly thought out. I've also had tons of fun with what we already have, and can see myself getting hundreds of hours of gameplay just with these base game mechanics.

Quick Day 1 Civ 5 story: My friend and I have played all the Civ games together starting with 3. In my first solo games, I found mounted units were so incredibly, insanely over powered. He came over a few days later and I let him play his first game of 5. When he was controlling the game and tried to build something like city buildings, my reply was "No. Just build horseman." I repeated that comment so many times that day, its stuck as our personal civ meme. Horses were nerfed some months later, but looking back it was still fun to experience the imbalanced, low on features/base game Civ 5.

What I'm getting at is, come August, Humankind should be released. It won't be perfectly balanced, as I would so no 4x really ever is. It won't have the same amount of depth as Civ6/Stellaris/Gal Civ/EU4 with their years of expansions. It has enough unique gameplay already at is base to give plenty of hour of enjoyment.

Honestly it's all based on how other people think about the state of the game. You might agree with the status quo at the moment, while others requesting/demanding a change of whatever that's going on at the time.

Yes, your right that this game is not going to be as balanced and strong when the game comes out, that's alot of releases that happen with strategy games when people finding a certain meta to follow, till it's get rebalanced. That's quite obvious for people who follow strategy games similar to this, (although i don't care much for civ 5 and future series due to the lack of a giant modding scene similar to civ 4 for longevity purposes, but the games are great to play but very easy to drop entirely after playing a few campaigns cause you witness and played almost everything).

I just wish to have more time to play these opendev's.

mqpiffle wrote:

darkedone02 wrote:

mqpiffle wrote:

Let's start with the inability to load saved games, then move down the list of disappointments from there.

I think it's because of the way these scenarios are design, you got a term limit of 100 turns on opendev victor, and now have 200 terms in opendev. What's the point of saving your game when there is a small limited amount of time? you basically spend 4-6 hours in one scenario alone.

Who tf has 4-6 hours to play at a time?? Not me, I got work to do.

That's understandable but these kinda games are aimed for people who do have times on their hands. Strategy games always aimed for that audience (i mean did you not heard of that one-more-turn group from civiilization?)

It's not easy to properly balance a 4X game and there is plenty of feedback. I don't think it's reasonable to expect the devs to crunch for the next six weeks and get it all in. They can keep extending the open dev beta for people like you who already have fun playing the game. Others will inevitable compare Humankind to existing games with the same price point and in its current form I fear that comparison won't be good for Humankind. Asking someone who is used to CIv6 to switch will be a hard sell.

The biggest red flag for me is that Humankind does not compare well to the 2014 (!) game Endless Legends in term of game mechanics. There are just too many things which don't make sense, are unbalanced, or just don't feel right.

Danvil wrote:

It's not easy to properly balance a 4X game and there is plenty of feedback. I don't think it's reasonable to expect the devs to crunch for the next six weeks and get it all in. They can keep extending the open dev beta for people like you who already have fun playing the game. Others will inevitable compare Humankind to existing games with the same price point and in its current form I fear that comparison won't be good for Humankind. Asking someone who is used to CIv6 to switch will be a hard sell.

The biggest red flag for me is that Humankind does not compare well to the 2014 (!) game Endless Legends in term of game mechanics. There are just too many things which don't make sense, are unbalanced, or just don't feel right.

I'm luckly enjoying the game lot because it remind me so much of civilization 4, and what I wish civ 5 kinda was. MY only grips so far would be the stability system and how hard it is to manage such things when i am an expansionist kinda person, compared to someone who play civ 4, trying to combat against unhappiness and sickness on the cities, and dreading the industrial age due to many pollution mechanics in a mod that I enjoyed playing more then based vanilla civ 4, while trying to conquer the entire continent that I am on.

Well, I do think that the current build is in such a bad shape that it will be hard to balance and fix the pacing before release. Furthermore, it's a bit sad that Amplitude will spend all summer trying to fix the game.

I don't think keeping the closed beta running will make any good, as there are already so many good feedbacks to analyse and hopefully implement.

However, why not release the game as Early Access on August 17th, instead of full release? I know it will never happen, but hey this would save a lot of frustration. 

I agree, push back release to until you're ready (no specific date).

Until then, have a really open dev. Not just for a week or so, just continuously until release. From time to time, updates can be made to the open dev to reflect the new direction the game is going in after feedback.

We all want this game to be the best it can be, and currently it is far from it.

Releasing in two months would be a big mistake!

I'd like playing game in august and eventually waiting patch for improvments.

Come on, there were released game in a worst status than this closed beta (aka Paradox) and fans, like me, are going on to play with it!

It depends what the devs want/can afford to get.

If they want an ok game, that works and people will enjoy. They have to fix the pacing, some balance and bugs. I think this could be done prior to august.

If they want a very good game that will compete with other released 4x, then they will have to push back. There are so many systems that I think they should redo from the ground up.

mqpiffle wrote:

Let's start with the inability to load saved games, then move down the list of disappointments from there.  

I was able to load save games. In fact, during one session, I had to *keep* loading save games because of an infinite end turn bug. If I saved *after* the infinite end turn bug occurred, exited the game entirely, and reloaded the save from a fresh run, the game would continue on with the new turn. Of course, it was wash, rinse, repeat for that turn too. Got too tedious and I eventually stopped. I was on turn 193 and a clear winner anyway. *shrug*

Was there some kind of issue that prevented you from loading them?

Delay will not solve anything as the issues with the game are baked into its foundation, it saddens me to say.

 I noticed in the first few times through I was struggling to keep science anywhere near the current era. I tried a few different approaches until I noticed that its all about delaying the first era. Finishing up one run where I've been delaying the eras until an AI get close and keeping civic policies balanced for stability. I have about 25 turns left and have most of the world claimed, Its ridiculous.

mqpiffle wrote:

Let's start with the inability to load saved games, then move down the list of disappointments from there. 

I had no problems loading saves, but I did note that in one game, I’d substituted Franky for Vlad, and I saved that game and came back to it later. When I reloaded, Vlad was back in charge. Sometime between the time I saved, and the time I reloaded, Vlad killed and replaced Franky. Cool feature, or super awful bug? You decide. Lol

If the game fixes its pacing, most importantly the tech to era ration, it would definitely be in a releasable state, when i get to medieval tech, im already in the industrial era, but for me thats the only big flaw i see in the game.

I would agree that once the science and era pacing is balanced the game will be serviceable, tho I would like to add that Naval is also among those possible issues that need serious work.
If they delay, as a pre-orderer I would just play the beta/EA version forever.  Even in its current state it beats out EL and Stellaris for me.

Slashman wrote:

GlorySign wrote:

I really love the Amplitude games. I hope this one will do well so if this truly is as they said "the game they always wanted to make" please don`t release it in this state. Don`t make this another Cyberpunk 2077 and keep your good game history record untouched. Right know except music and graphics it is much worse than Endless Legend but the game has a good idea and frame that if it gets worked on more it can become an amazing game. Please make the game good, take all the time you need and release a great product like always

Did you play Endless Legend at launch? That game was so hollowed out it wasn't funny. I remember when it had ZERO AI and no side that wasn't as simple as the Vaulters could play their game. I also remember that people were all raving about the district system and predefined regions. No one was talking about the fact that the AI (such as it was) was abysmal at settling and managing districts.

Rose-tinted glasses are a real thing. If you go back to the beginning launch of any 4x strategy game...you'll see that they were rarely as stellar as folks remember them being...and that all the fond memories revolved around the new and interesting mechanics that the game brought. I doubt Humankind will be much different. Then again I have been wrong before...

The AI in EL is still really bad, though. It barely manages settling and building. It still can't do most quests and it always just kills minor factions. It doesn't contribute to competitive quests and global quests. I think the only quests that it can do are its own faction quests. And it's bad at combat, too. So... I'm not hopeful for the Humankind AI. Thankfully, it's moddable.

But just because most 4X games aren't great at launch doesn't mean that Humankind can't be. I'd rather wait another few months and get a better game. I'm sure that SEGA doesn't agree.

I had fun with the open dev and if they fixed a few of the issues, such as pacing, I would be happy to play it in this state. It's not going to be perfect, but literally every other big 4x game has been missing features at launch. Civ V didn't have religion in the base game, and Civ VI lacked a world congress. But they were added in later. I don't think every 4x game has to excel in every aspect. I will admit that there are a few systems in the game that feel a little undercooked, but the game is fun and it's issues do not detract from my enjoyment at the moment. If Amplitude feels they need to push it back, they can, but I just don't think they need to. The game does enough unique and interesting things that will set it apart in the 4x genre

darkedone02 wrote:

mqpiffle wrote:

Let's start with the inability to load saved games, then move down the list of disappointments from there.

I think it's because of the way these scenarios are design, you got a term limit of 100 turns on opendev victor, and now have 200 terms in opendev. What's the point of saving your game when there is a small limited amount of time? you basically spend 4-6 hours in one scenario alone.

This is interesting as I only had one save that failed to load and gave an error message and a couple which stopped loading. The first was after a crash I went back one extra auto-save and it loaded and I continued. With the ones that stopped loading I just restarted the game reloaded the save and continued to play.

I already bought the game a few weeks ago before closed beta on the expectation that it is going to be released in August.

They need to fix the bugs (invisible unit, graphic performance issues on NVidia cards, next turns/war settlement bugs), but game balance/pace is not a big issue, that's what balance patches are for.

From someone who bought Cyberpunk pre-patch, this is not Cyberpunk. It is playable. It should be released after bug fixes. Balance is a matter of patches, mods, expansions, DLC, etc not release delay.

Echoing the sentiments that I think many of you are looking back at major 4X releases with rose tinted glasses. It's a hard genre to develop for, with a niche following, and it can take years to tweak the balance because by their very nature 4X games are a mess of interconnected systems that push and pull on each other in unexpected ways and frankly basically every game in this genre is released half finished and iterated on by expansions. (Anyone remember vanilla Civ V, for example?)

I think it would be more fair to compare it to the basic releases of it's contemporaries, and by that standard imo this game more than measures up. (with a bit of bugfixing, of course)

waven wrote:

It depends what the devs want/can afford to get.

If they want an ok game, that works and people will enjoy. They have to fix the pacing, some balance and bugs. I think this could be done prior to august.

If they want a very good game that will compete with other released 4x, then they will have to push back. There are so many systems that I think they should redo from the ground up.

I very much agree with this assessment.
Unless there's a lot of features that they are hiding from us, the game will simply be "okay" by august granted that they fix the bugs and the balance. 
However to make a great 4X game, I see a lot a lot a lot of work needs to be done, particularly from the Design team and the AI Team. If by some miracle the release version of the game turns out to be great with more fleshed out features I will be genuinenly impressed. 

If they're only going to release an "OK", "playable", but "not great" game and then rely on future DLCs to fix the problems, then they shouldn't be charging full "great game" prices for the initial release. However, since they are charging the normal AAA game price of $60, I expect a great game. Unless the internal builds are substantially better than what they gave us for Poe, there won't be a great game in August.

Corgiwealth wrote:
Cities can't be specialised to provide for your empire, excess food made in a city rich with farms can't be sent to cities that don't have a lot of fertile land. Being able to create "bread-basket" cities is massively important. Its a major reason many cities were built, especially to provide for cities that had become so urbanised they'd lost land to be able to farm.

Funny thing is you can actually transfer "food" (population rather). But the only good way is with a MILITARIST affinity. That lets you make units out of population for free, and transfer them to another city (you just move there and disband them). I don't know how intended that is, but having the option to do that only in military affinity is silly. You could also build scouts without military affinity, but with specialised food city, you probably won't have production to do it effectively. Ans you cannot transfer production which is a way bigger problem for that.

SirSaab wrote:

mqpiffle wrote:

Let's start with the inability to load saved games, then move down the list of disappointments from there. 

I had no problems loading saves, but I did note that in one game, I’d substituted Franky for Vlad, and I saved that game and came back to it later. When I reloaded, Vlad was back in charge. Sometime between the time I saved, and the time I reloaded, Vlad killed and replaced Franky. Cool feature, or super awful bug? You decide. Lol

It is because it will load the game with the characters that are on the homescreen and Vlad is the Default. If you change him to Frankie every time new games will load with her.

CristataC wrote:
It won't have the same amount of depth as Civ6/Stellaris/Gal Civ/EU4 with their years of expansions.

I strongly disagree. I think the depth of the main mechanics in Humankind is way better than Civ6. Placing quarters is so strategic, battles are more strategic, synergizing cultures is more strategic, the terrain is more strategic. The only aspect which is kinda boring and shallow is religion. But all other concept that are in the game feel way more directed towards creating interesting choices than in Civ6. I am a huge Civ6 fan, have gotten all the expansions and player them for over 1300 hours, but the problem with Civ6 is that it somehow limits your choices to a smaller range. The only reason why Civ6 feels still so interesting is because of the quantity of game mechanics. What I like about Humankind is that it is more complex than it is complicated. Complex means that it has strongly interacting elements (industry, science, population, stability, influence, units, all directly interact with each other). Complicated means that it has a lot of different elements. Civ6 has so many different features but they don't feel like they there designed to work together as much as the game elements in Humankind feel. So I think Humankind does a better job at making me consider different choices. I think if Humankind is going to grow the same way, it will be a great game. People just need to be a bit patient. That won't happen within the next few months. It is the first version of hopefully a long-time series. Developers have to consider the economic risk of such a product, so I think they wont commit all of their available resources until they see that the game IS a success. If we as a community want the game to get better, then besides our honest feedback here, we also need to make it a commercial success, and that means seeing it's potential.

Corgiwealth wrote:

Populations should be the primary hook for developing and maintaining yields, it makes everything easier to understand and makes it easier to base mechanics. Population should be the primary driver behind FIMS, Influence, Stability, Military Units, Faith. They should be the driver and crux behind your empire, gaining more population and creating more jobs to give to those populations should be the rule, the exception should be passive modifiers to yields.

I completely agree. But in this game, the population is a burden to FIMS, not a bonus. Farmers produce 6 food and consume 8 food. Cities can produce large FIMS without a single human being living in them. All population is useful for is to buy out buildings or make units.

I think people nowdays are never happy.

As others have stated the game is not perfect but more than definitely in a releaseble state, it's fun, challenging and unique. Let's be honest what does civ VI bring on the table that humankind doesn't? A lot of civs and weather mechanics? Well, guess what after three years they got implemented, the basic game was actually quite scarce. To me humankind feels ten times better than any civ I played at launch, it definitely requires some more work but nothing that will ruin the game's or company's reputation, of course it also depends what the people are asking for... Which seems unreasonable requests lately. Pretty sure the devs are aware that there will be work to be done after release, but I don't think is going to affect the release.

Corgiwealth wrote:

The issue isn't only that the game is lacking in features, but that the features it has aren't living up to their potential and it results in a very repetitive and mundane gameplay loop outside of warring. City management for example has very little meaningful decisions to be made with infrastructure levels and how they work being unnecessarily obtuse and inflating the build menu. Unlocking infrastructure levels should replace the previous level infrastructure in the city and build menu rather then add another thing to have to build before you build the unlocked level for example, it makes no sense thematically to be building Apothecaries in cities when you've already unlocked the ability to also build Hospitals. This has the additional benefit of tidying up the city building screen.

City growth is hard to understand and I think the growth cap is the reason for this, an easy to understand growth soft cap such as housing based on building districts and infrastructures would make it far easier to understand at what point your population is outgrowing the city whilst also adding something else to consider when building districts and infrastructures. Tie all infrastructures to the existence of certain districts and certain terrain elements and you even have something else to consider when settling and building cities.

Cities can't be specialised to provide for your empire, excess food made in a city rich with farms can't be sent to cities that don't have a lot of fertile land. Being able to create "bread-basket" cities is massively important. Its a major reason many cities were built, especially to provide for cities that had become so urbanised they'd lost land to be able to farm.

The battle mechanics are still slightly clunky, especially around moving units around or into battles. Its incredibly frustrating to be trying to move an army around an on going battle, or into to it to reinforce only to be constantly hit by "Your unit can't move here".

Empires gaining influence over other territories is currently useless, instead empires should be able to start assimilating territories that they have 100% Influence over, steadily converting over a period of turns based on the stability of the city or territory to give the empire time to react, generating a grievance for the empire that currently owns it. This would make trying to keep foreign empires influencing your lands far more important.

Religion is pretty much non-existent, it doesn't offer enough flavour and customisation of the religion for it to feel genuinely different from others, and doesn't offer enough management for the player to have to consider it outside of choosing tenets. Religions should be able to choose unique infrastructure such as; places of worship (churches, temples, mosques) faith police, spiritual healing centres, should be able to spend faith in more areas of the game simulating a faith-based empire, should have its own special treaty column between empires, holy days should be a special "status" that affects cities every certain amount of turns based off of the type of holy day chosen.

Populations should be the primary hook for developing and maintaining yields, it makes everything easier to understand and makes it easier to base mechanics. Population should be the primary driver behind FIMS, Influence, Stability, Military Units, Faith. They should be the driver and crux behind your empire, gaining more population and creating more jobs to give to those populations should be the rule, the exception should be passive modifiers to yields.

Naval gameplay doesn't work, ships are slower than many land units, you can't do a naval invasion of land and are weaker than their land counter-parts. There's basically no reason beyond exploration to build a navy; there's no pirates trying to plunder trade routes, no strategic war benefit to having a navy, and once you've explored the map ships even lose their only reason for existing. Special abilities for ships such as landing parties able to found outposts on the coast would be interesting.

Independent people just aren't interesting, they offer no unique stories, units, abilities or reason to keep them around. Theres no politics to involve them with, no great works they could be used to make. They're simply a city to be conquered or converted.

Other 4x games had other things to do whilst war wasn't being waged or planned in their base games. Great people, great works, espionage, politics, and archology. Equally there was more to manage in cities and planets than there is in Humankind. 

Humankind isn't ready, its just not. Beyond performance issues, graphical problems, audio glitches and balancing the game is in a weird juxtaposition of having well designed mechanics but then doesn't take advantage of what those mechanics should and could do.

The UI also... so much information hidden in difference screens or not presented at all. No means to keep track of narrative events, no means to keep track of wars and battles, there's no dedicated trade UI showing current and previous trade routes as to be able to easily diagnose problems. There's no graphs or tables to list the economy, chosen civics, trade, resource management.

There's almost certainly a lot I'm missing based off of all the feedback over the past week. I wouldn't be surprised if Amplitude are discussing a delay with Sega.

The base game has obvious potential, and it was fun to play unlike Civ VI it didn't leave me feeling empty. Its just so obviously lacking in things to do, in management, and some mechanics are just not working as they should be intended to.

I agree with almsot everything that Corgiwealth is stating here. It pretty much sums up the problems with Humankind; there's more I could add but I think if the devs would read this it could be a good summary of what Humankind's issues are. 
When comparing Civ 6 to Humankind however I would say Humankind has the superior combat and has interesting mechanics such as using population for military, and how terrain affects combat. However when it comes to City planning and District gameplay, even Vanilla Civ 6 had a more engaging gameplay. 
I share this feeling of feeling like the game has potential but it's nowhere near where it should be, not even close in my opinion. I've gotten into Crusader Kings III after completly being repelled by CKII's UI, and I cannot see Humankind come even remotely close to the amount of depth that it has. Not even to Civilization 6's level of depth. I don't know if by august the team can pull a miracle but I would be extremely surprised if anyone could turn what the Closed Beta Showcased into a really good 4X game in 6 weeks. 

Sewata wrote:

I think people nowdays are never happy.

As others have stated the game is not perfect but more than definitely in a releaseble state, it's fun, challenging and unique. Let's be honest what does civ VI bring on the table that humankind doesn't? A lot of civs and weather mechanics? Well, guess what after three years they got implemented, the basic game was actually quite scarce. To me humankind feels ten times better than any civ I played at launch, it definitely requires some more work but nothing that will ruin the game's or company's reputation, of course it also depends what the people are asking for... Which seems unreasonable requests lately. Pretty sure the devs are aware that there will be work to be done after release, but I don't think is going to affect the release.

I understand your sentiment here, that yes indeed people tend to have unrealistic expectations and so on; but with a tempered mind and heart I can tell you that the game as it is presented right now isn't what the developpers could achieve. It was their statement that they wanted to finally make the best 4X game they possibly could and that they felt like they were ready. Judging by their previous work  on other titles and comparing to what's out there in the market for Strategy games multiplied by the budged range that this game probably has, I can only feel a bit let down. 
Of course a lot of things in humankind are pretty good, like the Artwork, Sound, Concept and some design decisions however there's a lot of the design that is very lacking. I feel its only fair to be able to critizice a game especially when the developpers are openly asking for feedback. So yeah, people are never happy but criticizing the game when it's even encouraged by the developpers I think can help bring the game to a better state and atleast perhaps make people happier. 

I'm not asking for a refund I just stopped trying to play this build and part of my feedback was that if you need to delay it's release I'll understand. 

Shataraterevar wrote:

Corgiwealth wrote:
Cities can't be specialised to provide for your empire, excess food made in a city rich with farms can't be sent to cities that don't have a lot of fertile land. Being able to create "bread-basket" cities is massively important. Its a major reason many cities were built, especially to provide for cities that had become so urbanised they'd lost land to be able to farm.

Funny thing is you can actually transfer "food" (population rather). But the only good way is with a MILITARIST affinity. That lets you make units out of population for free, and transfer them to another city (you just move there and disband them). I don't know how intended that is, but having the option to do that only in military affinity is silly. You could also build scouts without military affinity, but with specialised food city, you probably won't have production to do it effectively. Ans you cannot transfer production which is a way bigger problem for that.

The Machu Picu wonder also allows one city to spread food to all other cities.

Sewata wrote:

Wolvski wrote:

Sewata wrote:

I think people nowdays are never happy.

As others have stated the game is not perfect but more than definitely in a releaseble state, it's fun, challenging and unique. Let's be honest what does civ VI bring on the table that humankind doesn't? A lot of civs and weather mechanics? Well, guess what after three years they got implemented, the basic game was actually quite scarce. To me humankind feels ten times better than any civ I played at launch, it definitely requires some more work but nothing that will ruin the game's or company's reputation, of course it also depends what the people are asking for... Which seems unreasonable requests lately. Pretty sure the devs are aware that there will be work to be done after release, but I don't think is going to affect the release.

I understand your sentiment here, that yes indeed people tend to have unrealistic expectations and so on; but with a tempered mind and heart I can tell you that the game as it is presented right now isn't what the developpers could achieve. It was their statement that they wanted to finally make the best 4X game they possibly could and that they felt like they were ready. Judging by their previous work  on other titles and comparing to what's out there in the market for Strategy games multiplied by the budged range that this game probably has, I can only feel a bit let down. 
Of course a lot of things in humankind are pretty good, like the Artwork, Sound, Concept and some design decisions however there's a lot of the design that is very lacking. I feel its only fair to be able to critizice a game especially when the developpers are openly asking for feedback. So yeah, people are never happy but criticizing the game when it's even encouraged by the developpers I think can help bring the game to a better state and atleast perhaps make people happier. 

I definitely share your view about criticism and it's importance, as long as critiques are realistically thought out with the possibilities and the situation surrounding the game.

I agree, more features could, actually most will probably enhance the game experience, but let's remember that more is not always better, I for example rather have less features but well thought and refinished, to the point it really makes the game smooth through all it's transitions. I was born in Italy and I like to compare this mentality with pizza, few ingredients but well thought and harmoniously sharing the spotlight, with a great dough for the base, that's when a pizza can be called great.

I think the same mentality can be applied for games and many other things in life. I would prefer them try to sharpen the edges and polish the already existing features, then from there start working on new features that could be included after the first year of release.

Im not saying more is better, im saying better is better ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°). 
I don't think a single one of my criticisms in any of my posts say that I want more stuff in the game, it's more like some stuff that is in the game right now isn't well developped. There's features or "ingredients" but they are not what they should be in my opinion. I also would rather have less mechanics in a game but really fleshed out and engaging ones than a lot of mechanics that are weak and boring. For example I play Super Smash bros Ultimate and that game has SO MANY things crammed in it and I only play 1v1 no items ruleset online against other people and never touch any of the other game modes.

Anyway, what I think is that there isn't an issue of quantity for Humankind, not at all. I think the game has the right amount of mechanics but some of them aren't well executed yet.