Logo Platform
logo amplifiers simplified
Humankind
Universe banner wording

HUMANKIND now sits on 69% positive review rating, indicating Mixed reception. What went wrong?

Copied to clipboard!
3 years ago
Sep 24, 2021, 6:57:01 PM

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1124300/HUMANKIND/



Steam user review score dropped to 69% positive, labeling product as not very well received, and making it worst received Amplitude game to date. 




Regardless of your trust to such evaluations of game performance and actual enjoyment of the game (personally, enjoying it very much), this is a clear indication things aren't as good as studio management openly admits to be, with their boasting of sales numbers and release celebration.


Discuss.

0Send private message
3 years ago
Sep 24, 2021, 7:01:20 PM

Do it matter, maybe the game is simply not for everyone and people bought it expecting something else?

0Send private message
3 years ago
Sep 24, 2021, 7:12:20 PM
Goodluck wrote:
Do it matter, maybe the game is simply not for everyone and people bought it expecting something else?

Yes, ratings and reviews matter, as it could affect future possible sales.  


I was shocked when Steam had it #120 on its current most active games. However I'm not worried overall as I think Humankind's base game is a solid platform to build on. The game overall just needs more balance updates, mechanic tweaks, and more future content and the reviews will swing positive again.


Not the same genre game, and it had even worse initial reviews, but the first one that came to mind is No Man's Sky. Terrible early reviews but after some time and lot of content from developers is very positive now.

0Send private message
3 years ago
Sep 24, 2021, 7:30:45 PM

I think what went wrong was that the game juggled too many concepts and ideas, a war mechanic thats been compared to paradox's real time grand strategy war mechanic, a new diplomacy mechanic, new culture mechanic, religious mechanic, soo many new concepts were implemented that it appeared they couldn't polish all of them in the development time, as well as the fact that the game went over expected development time as seen by the delays, and even that probably needed more time as the contemporary era, one of the eras not play tested in the closed beta's ended up being the least polished era in the game. There is also the fact that the game may have been overhyped as Amplitude in videos before the games released called it their most ambitious game to date, implying it would be bigger than games like EL and ES2.

Updated 3 years ago.
0Send private message
3 years ago
Sep 24, 2021, 7:36:03 PM

 It's a great base of a game, but it's really rough around the edges.  It's just not really finished.  This is especially true when making the unavoidable comparison to the Civilization games which at this point are all highly polished and refined.

I don't doubt Amplitude will polish and refine Humankind similarly, but it'll probably take a year or two for the game to really find it's footing.

0Send private message
0Send private message
3 years ago
Sep 24, 2021, 11:09:41 PM
Kamino72 wrote:

The game need 1 more year of debug, polish and balance.

this.

Also multiplayer in some platforms is COMPLETELY non-existent. 

Updated 3 years ago.
0Send private message
3 years ago
Sep 24, 2021, 11:49:33 PM

Quite possibly because when someone dares to mention they don't like forced surrenders, someone comes along and tells them they're playing wrong and they should love this non-choice. Or maybe it's because when someone suggests that it would be nice to be able to pick whatever culture they want (as the pre-launch ads suggested they would be able to) someone comes along and tells them it's fun not to be able to and they just suck at the game if they don't like it (as you said to me). Or maybe it's because the pollution feature is game breaking and there's no option to turn it off, but if someone mentions this someone comes along and tells them they aren't playing right if this happens. Or maybe it's because the AI doesn't update its army but can still kill modern units with eras-outdated troops, but when someone points this out they're bombarded by sycophants saying this is "just like Afghanistan." It's unclear why people think attacking players providing feedback is helpful, but here we are.


More likely it's because a lot of people can't complete a game because of bugs like the turn pending bug, the your internet lost connection bug, or the AI freezes during battle bug. All of which can lead to the "exception when trying to load an autosave bug."


Does this game have a lot of potential - yes. I like the game in spite of its toxic community (which is no fault of the devs). I like the game in spite of the fact that it has a lot of bugs.


Do I feel this game was rushed out without proper prep? Kinda.


Please note: you can't tell people they should like the game and if they don't they're just playing it wrong and they suck. Many people you speak to like this will then not like the game. They will then not recommend the game to their friends.


Edited to add: I incorrectly stated that you can't tell people they should like the game and if they don't they're just playing it wrong and they suck. You can actually do this. But, surprise, surprise, that doesn't actually make people like the game. It makes them not want to report problems or suggest features they'd like to see. It makes them not want to deal with your toxicity. Then they go and play something else and tell their friends that the game is awful.

Updated 3 years ago.
0Send private message
3 years ago
Sep 24, 2021, 11:58:42 PM
AOM wrote:

Quite possibly because when someone dares to mention they don't like forced surrenders, someone comes along and tells them they're playing wrong and they should love this non-choice. Or maybe it's because when someone suggests that it would be nice to be able to pick whatever culture they want (as the pre-launch ads suggested they would be able to) someone comes along and tells them it's fun not to be able to and they just suck at the game if they don't like it (as you said to me). Or maybe it's because the pollution feature is game breaking and there's no option to turn it off, but if someone mentions this someone comes along and tells them they aren't playing right if this happens. Or maybe it's because the AI doesn't update its army but can still kill modern units with eras-outdated troops, but when someone points this out they're bombarded by sycophants saying this is "just like Afghanistan." It's unclear why people think attacking players providing feedback is helpful, but here we are.


More likely it's because a lot of people can't complete a game because of bugs like the turn pending bug, the your internet lost connection bug, or the AI freezes during battle bug. All of which can lead to the "exception when trying to load an autosave bug."


Does this game have a lot of potential - yes. I like the game in spite of its toxic community (which is no fault of the devs). I like the game in spite of the fact that it has a lot of bugs.


Do I feel this game was rushed out without proper prep? Kinda.


Please note: you can't tell people they should like the game and if they don't they're just playing it wrong and they suck. Many people you speak to like this will then not like the game. They will then not recommend the game to their friends.

While I haven't heard of the outdated units complaint, I have seen people use the "realism" and "historically accurate" excuses, most notably when the war mechanics is being discussed, Its a stupid reason, this is a game where you can be British one turn and switch to Japanese the next than Russian, where's the realism and historically accurate context there.

Updated 3 years ago.
0Send private message
3 years ago
Sep 25, 2021, 12:22:30 AM
DragonGaming wrote:

While I haven't heard of the outdated units complaint, I have seen people use the "realism" and "historically accurate" excuses, most notably when the war mechanics is being discussed, Its a stupid reason, this is a game where you can be British one turn and switch to Japanese the next than Russian, where's the realism and historically accurate context there.

The dislike of outdated units killing modern ones is big on Steam forums. Anytime someone posts about this, they're bombarded with everything from stories about some guy taking out a tank with an umbrella to people saying this is just like Afghanistan. People just want the AI to update its troops so they aren't facing naked Celts from the Classical era when they have machine guns and tanks. But, if anyone mentions this this, people will say well, you need to bring enough troops to take out the enemy and so it's on you if you lose a tank to a bunch of archers. It's like, look, there's no question that I'm taking out the enemy. But this shouldn't happen. The AI should be able to field an era-appropriate army.

0Send private message
3 years ago
Sep 25, 2021, 12:26:53 AM

I mean game breaking bugs in multiplayer are what's hurting it most for me right now. The stability is an issue which has really hampered people's ability to enjoy this game. Imagine committing to several hours to a game with friends just for it to get stuck and be unplayable around the late game or whenever there's a big war. It really pushes people away. I've not been able to get my friends to play it again since those incidents. And I 100% get why. First impressions are a thing.

Single player games are filled with bizarre little nuisances which still surprise me when they come up. Like I still don't understand the design decision to obfuscate what unlocks civics. It's a game. Gamify the goals...

0Send private message
3 years ago
Sep 25, 2021, 12:46:22 AM
AOM wrote:
DragonGaming wrote:

While I haven't heard of the outdated units complaint, I have seen people use the "realism" and "historically accurate" excuses, most notably when the war mechanics is being discussed, Its a stupid reason, this is a game where you can be British one turn and switch to Japanese the next than Russian, where's the realism and historically accurate context there.

The dislike of outdated units killing modern ones is big on Steam forums. Anytime someone posts about this, they're bombarded with everything from stories about some guy taking out a tank with an umbrella to people saying this is just like Afghanistan. People just want the AI to update its troops so they aren't facing naked Celts from the Classical era when they have machine guns and tanks. But, if anyone mentions this this, people will say well, you need to bring enough troops to take out the enemy and so it's on you if you lose a tank to a bunch of archers. It's like, look, there's no question that I'm taking out the enemy. But this shouldn't happen. The AI should be able to field an era-appropriate army.

Another reason i believe caused a decrease in opinion was the fact that there is only 1 victory condition and its in essence a glorified score victory, and with that single victory condition all games automatically have a turn limit which I believe most 4x people don't like. Considering that older Amplitude games had more than 1 victory condition that allowed you to turn off the score victory and play a game as long as you would like before winning. The decision to restrict players choice to 1 victory condition that requires a time limit is probably a unpopular move. The ability to turn on and off victory conditions allowed games to satisfy both sides, Humankind only satisfied 1 side.

Updated 3 years ago.
0Send private message
3 years ago
Sep 25, 2021, 1:23:55 AM

I think there are three main reasons addressed in multiple ways by different players: disfunctional multiplayer, bugs in single player, flaws in game design. I personally think the third reason isn't, in most cases, a legitimate reason to negatively review the game.

-Multiplayer

I personally tried to play with four friends of mine. I played from steam and they played thanks to xbox game pass. I was super hyped for the game and I convinced them to try it. We were only able to play like 20 turns before my friends gave up due to connection problems.
From what I've read on this forum, first of all this thread, the multiplayer right now is still heavily unplayable for many players, or at least for lobbies with more than four players. This is a big loss. Me and my friends months ago had fun playing some civ 5, so it's not like they were totally strangers to 4X games, but a broken multiplayer couldn't keep them engaged, since I was the only real fan of Amplitude and Humankind.
-Bugs
On release the game had many bugs, as many have been reported on this forum. I personally have experienced some save-breaking bugs as pending turn, or missing option to change religion (this really made the game unplayable, since keeping a religion different from the one that every man of earth follows fuels enemies of war support).
These bugs didn't really hinder my hype for the game or my intention to explore it, but only because I have played Endless Legend and I fell in love with Humankind even before it was released. A player with a different "experience" regarding 4X games or strategy games would react differently.

I'm not a game designer and I know nothing about how big projects in IT field work nor I have any real knowledge of how the industry works so I don't want to criticize Amplitude too much for bugs and problems. Regarding the bugs of the game itself, those that happen in singleplayer game, have rightfully been heavily reported on these forums and many of them are being fixed patch after patch. I'm certain devs at Amplitude have been working hard to properly fix as many bugs as they could since release. Humankind is a vast and complex game, it's impossible to release a game like that without bugs. I think they're properly doing their job.
The main issue I think it's the broken multiplayer that is still broken more than one month after release. Multiplayer is 50% of the game. For some players can be 100% of how they experience the game and of how they want to enjoy the game.

I haven't read many reviews on the steam page, but since in this forum there are people discussing some core game mechanics I guess there could be many people on steam complaining about these same mechanics. Discussing these mechanics on this forum it's the purpose of this forum and it's good for the game, but I guess for some people religion being a world spreading set of bonuses that players struggle to control properly can be enough to put a negative review.
I personally think Humankind is a great game and I can't blame developers if the game has some flaws, could they be religion, combat exploits, not balanced contemporary era, cause the game is huge and complex. It's also ambitious, and I like it.
Multiplayer must be fixed tho. As soon as possible.
I apologise for any mistakes in my English. It's also my first comment in this forum and in any forum ever.
0Send private message
3 years ago
Sep 25, 2021, 2:12:41 AM

Ever since the open devs it was obvious the game had a serious problem with the way it handles core gameplay systems. On top of generally feeling quite lacking in features in comparison to the Endless games.


It's completely nonsensical to me that Amplitude have cultivated some super interesting and intuitive mechanics in Endless Space and Endless Legend only to completely omit them in Humankind. Endless Spaces' politics system was incredibly interesting in the way it interacted with the entire game and made you feel the ebbs and flows of your people, elections giving way to different political spectrums that required you to play in slightly different but meaningful ways would have been amazing adapted and enhanced for Humankind, where politics is a major day to day part of ruling any empire and yet it simply doesn't exist. Endless Legends Empire Plan, Marketplace and how it handled resources were all far more interesting and involved than Humankinds systems.


Subtle but interesting mechanics such as each pop in Endless Space being from a certain culture and being good at certain things simulating multiculturalism and the idea of an empire made of many different peoples.


Amplitude were fantastic at inovating these kind of mechanics to fit comfortably into a 4x game and yet Humankind omits all of these things, making for a very generic feeling game where you can't help but feel they played it too safe. Equally in an attempt to "streamline" the game they have ripped out somethings that were a bit micro-managey but were important for allowing player agency, such as being able to trade yields for yields in a negotiation window like every Endless game, Civilization game and large 4x game in existence, instead replaced entirely by a trading mechanic that is in someways interesting but in so many others completely limiting..


Generally I agree with the sentiment bought up during the Opendevs - Humankind revolves far too much around war. Meaningful ways to create and cultivate a unique empire that not only looks different but plays different depending on the choices you make isn't there. Every empire tends to merge into the same kind of amalgamation of +X these yields. 


In none of the Endless Games have I felt the need to mod the game to make it more interesting. Humankind is the first Amplitude game where I'm waiting for mods to add to and improve the game.

Updated 3 years ago.
0Send private message
3 years ago
Sep 25, 2021, 3:02:59 AM

Largely people dislike the game because some people hate certain game mechanics, which is fine. There's some bugs particularly in MP but they've been very on top of fixing bugs. Their release version is way better than for example release civ v or release civ vi but those games have built up a long enough loyal fanbase that it doesn't matter much. Still feel the game is largely a success, by far Amplitude's biggest game release still, just has some polish and work they need to keep up on.

0Send private message
3 years ago
Sep 25, 2021, 3:14:34 AM
Corgiwealth wrote:

Ever since the open devs it was obvious the game had a serious problem with the way it handles core gameplay systems. On top of generally feeling quite lacking in features in comparison to the Endless games.


It's completely nonsensical to me that Amplitude have cultivated some super interesting and intuitive mechanics in Endless Space and Endless Legend only to completely omit them in Humankind. Endless Spaces' politics system was incredibly interesting in the way it interacted with the entire game and made you feel the ebbs and flows of your people, elections giving way to different political spectrums that required you to play in slightly different but meaningful ways would have been amazing adapted and enhanced for Humankind, where politics is a major day to day part of ruling any empire and yet it simply doesn't exist. Endless Legends Empire Plan, Marketplace and how it handled resources were all far more interesting and involved than Humankinds systems.


Subtle but interesting mechanics such as each pop in Endless Space being from a certain culture and being good at certain things simulating multiculturalism and the idea of an empire made of many different peoples.


Amplitude were fantastic at inovating these kind of mechanics to fit comfortably into a 4x game and yet Humankind omits all of these things, making for a very generic feeling game where you can't help but feel they played it too safe. Equally in an attempt to "streamline" the game they have ripped out somethings that were a bit micro-managey but were important for allowing player agency, such as being able to trade yields for yields in a negotiation window like every Endless game, Civilization game and large 4x game in existence, instead replaced entirely by a trading mechanic that is in someways interesting but in so many others completely limiting..


Generally I agree with the sentiment bought up during the Opendevs - Humankind revolves far too much around war. Meaningful ways to create and cultivate a unique empire that not only looks different but plays different depending on the choices you make isn't there. Every empire tends to merge into the same kind of amalgamation of +X these yields. 


In none of the Endless Games have I felt the need to mod the game to make it more interesting. Humankind is the first Amplitude game where I'm waiting for mods to add to and improve the game.

This is the second review of HK I've read that has gone through some of the unique, imaginative, and amazing sounding features of previous games from this dev. Instead of those features, in this game, we have no-choice popups and cardboard cutout AI personas that have only rude things to say, a trade system where you can't even pick which of your cities will be trading with which of the recipient's, an opaque "culture" system that no one really understands at all, and a religion system that functions basically without player agency. All the characters are military units, and there's nothing to do but engage in wars. The game mechanics essentially ensure that war is the focus of the game. Even selecting a religion without pursuing it will cause "grievances" that tilt future turns towards war. There is no such thing as real diplomacy. I'm not sure whether this is a dark commentary from the dev on human history or bad game mechanics, but either way, it doesn't feel like I'm pushing humankind, creating my civilization from over a million culture combinations, or writing my story. From what I've read about this dev's previous games and seen so far in this game, it could be so much better. I can't really blame Civ players for returning to Civ or players of previous Amplitude games for not wanting to play this one. I can't say this game is like Civ VI, because it is different enough to be its own game. But, what the two games have in common is that both feel like they are going through the motions of cashing in on the historical 4X genre without really caring very much about making a great game.

0Send private message
3 years ago
Sep 25, 2021, 3:44:23 AM

This was a pretty ambitious game. It was almost a certainty that trying to balance so many different systems would be problematic. Hopefully over time they can steer things in the right direction. If they can figure it out this has the potential to be one of best strategy games ever.


Multiplayer is another part of the game that needs a lot of work. A thriving multiplayer community can keep your game relevant for years on end. I have yet to find a good, engaging multiplayer strategy game. I really hope multiplayer doesn't become an afterthought.


Edit: Obligatory Nice!!

Updated 3 years ago.
0Send private message
3 years ago
Sep 25, 2021, 3:48:50 AM
Fohox wrote:


Edit: Obligatory Nice!!

I had a feeling someone was gonna make that joke sooner or later

0Send private message
3 years ago
Sep 25, 2021, 4:03:41 AM

Its pretty obvious to me. Game is very good early game. It obviously got a of testing and all its mechanics are mostly well fleshed out and working. It gives an amazing first impression. However mechanics in the mid and late game start to fall apart. This leads to a lot of bad experiences mid and late game which is leading to the gradual shift in the reviews.

0Send private message
3 years ago
Sep 25, 2021, 5:40:40 AM

Humankind has been praised by magazines. He has been labeled a Civilization killer. And this long before its release.

So players bought it with confidence.

But it came out buggy, unbalanced, with mechanics that do not necessarily please (the division of the map into zones for example).

And above all, it is not complete. We all suspect that DLC are going to be sold. DLC that will not exist to improve the game, but to complete it.

It is therefore normal that there is a big disappointment from the players.

Updated 3 years ago.
0Send private message
Comment
0Send private message