Why are reviews so mixed.

[Professor Pigeon]

I played it when ages ago on game pass and enjoyed it even then and the devs seem to be supporting the game. A lot of reviews seem to talk about the combat and simultaneous turns which seems to be a bit of a non issue. Is the game better than it was in your opinion or has it gotten worse?

[Baron]

I think reviews are mixed because there's a large faction of "CIV BETTER WAAAAH" players. People are coming in expecting the game to be "the revolutionary new Civ", or something like that. Then, a selection of little differences from Civ to Humankind get under their skin, and HK isn't really all that mind-blowing after all, so they get discouraged and stop playing before they get used to the change. Or, they play just enough to prove to themselves that the game has flaws, then trumpet about trying to discredit the perceived threat to their beloved historical 4X franchise. Either way, they're not giving the game a fair shake.

The game has gotten a lot of QoL improvements since launch, and while I understand the complaints about simultaneous turns, they're just different to sequential turns - not better or worse. You have to work around the limitations of the system either way.

Overall, I'd recommend throwing $12 at the base game while it's on sale and trying it out. It's different enough to be interesting, which IMO makes it at least worth your time. And who knows, you may end up loving it like I do!

[Stephanie]

Humankind has a steeper learning curve than Civ Vi. It's that simple. The AI opponents are way smarter than Civ Vi also.

New players: start in Town difficulty. This way, you can advance into the next era first, no matter what. The AI opponents always wait for the human player to choose the next era, on Town difficulty.

AI players are always smart on every difficulty, too. Past Metropolis setting, the Ai gets free SIMS and added combat strength, is all. they don't get "smarter" that i've ever noticed. Because they are ALWAYS smart.

Major thing: AI personas MATTER. A warlike Beowulf doesn't play anything like a hippy-dippy Peace and Love guy like Tjilbruke. New players should avoid all the warlike personas, while they're busy learning the mechanics.

You can hand-pick up to 50 different AI oppoents off the Amplitute website, as well. Grab a bunch pof peace and love, pacifist types if you're struggling as a new player.

Humankind is a great game, period. As good as Civ Vi for sure, just DIFFERENT.

[Spacesuit Spiff]

Some of it is civ players for sure. However, the game is also just sort of a mess in ways that only become apparent once you have a good grip on it. It has cool ideas that every 4X should be copying from now on, and there are clearly some talented artists on the team, but it's all built on a rickety foundation and the devs have no intention of fixing the underlying systems.
And I say this as someone who more or less LIKES the most controversial systems (war support and combat). What I can't get past is the artificial rubberbanding on food/industry/science that just wasn't thought through very well. Obviously the exponential growth in these games has to be curbed somehow, but instead of making the different systems work together they just slapped hidden exponentially increasing penalties on those yields. 40 farmers being able to feed themselves while 50 farmers all starve to death is a bad joke. Look at a game like Against the Storm, which has an elegant multi-step approach to the overpopulation problem. But that would mean making the game systems work together instead of just existing in a vacuum.
The DLC made matters worse too. Toss in some new systems that don't meaningfully interact with the existing ones, and are somehow also redundant with them, and hope the micromanagement distracts players from how little sense any of it makes. Hard to believe it's the same company that made Endless Legend.
So the Mixed reviews are totally warranted, in my opinion.

[Baron]

Originally posted by Spacesuit Spiff:

Some of it is civ players for sure. However, the game is also just sort of a mess in ways that only become apparent once you have a good grip on it. It has cool ideas that every 4X should be copying from now on, and there are clearly some talented artists on the team, but it's all built on a rickety foundation and the devs have no intention of fixing the underlying systems.
And I say this as someone who more or less LIKES the most controversial systems (war support and combat). What I can't get past is the artificial rubberbanding on food/industry/science that just wasn't thought through very well. Obviously the exponential growth in these games has to be curbed somehow, but instead of making the different systems work together they just slapped hidden exponentially increasing penalties on those yields. 40 farmers being able to feed themselves while 50 farmers all starve to death is a bad joke. Look at a game like Against the Storm, which has an elegant multi-step approach to the overpopulation problem. But that would mean making the game systems work together instead of just existing in a vacuum.
The DLC made matters worse too. Toss in some new systems that don't meaningfully interact with the existing ones, and are somehow also redundant with them, and hope the micromanagement distracts players from how little sense any of it makes. Hard to believe it's the same company that made Endless Legend.
So the Mixed reviews are totally warranted, in my opinion.

Oh. Ohhhhhhhhhhh. Yeah, okay, yeah. That's why the pacing of the game feels squibbly from Early Modern onwards. Are we really sure the devs aren't going to continue making balancing changes? Like, has it been explicitly stated, or are we just going off the general trend of DLCs/updates focusing on fairly granular changes and additions?

[yeknod]

I have 4,000 hrs on Civ and 2,000 hrs on HK. Both great games (if they don't crash). HK is more dynamic with the culture changes every era. Also enjoy the Neolithic stage. It matters where you settle and which stars you gain. HK is based on 'most fame wins'. This makes sense. Civ has different ways to win. But a premise of Civ is collecting art matters. Art is irrelevant. The man in the street couldn't care less. So Civ lost me there. To me HK combat where you play tactical battles on the strategic map is fun. The stealth and diplomacy in HK is fine tuned. The personalities of the AI impact the game. So, for me HK is better. But they are different takes on the human journey.

[SanityBasket]

Two reasons:

First, the game streamlined the the standard 4x experience in an effort to make it multiplayer focused, and then released the game in a state where multiplayer didn't work for like a year.

Second, the game was released in an extremely bare bones state with lots of placeholder content, and progress has been quite slow and unimpressive.

I mean the game just dropped content today, and Humankind fans are still more interested in talking about Civ VI.

[Damedius]

I think a lot of it is Civ fans mad that it isn't Civ.

I think it's a fun game but if you are on the fence check out some videos, so you get a better understanding of the game.

[Buff Butler (no monitor)]

Because the game is bad.

[chaney]

I read through a few pages of reviews: most recent and most helpful. This game is unusual in that the "mixed" character is not just the number of positive vs. negative recommendations, but the strength of the feelings - on both positive and negative recommendations. To me that suggests a community that really wants what they think the game could be, but are disappointed so far. Improvements have been made, but now two years from scheduled release, so much of the core/foundation seems not to be in good order. Mixed seems to be very appropriate.

[Arsene Lupin]

I don't find the argument about Civilization to be very compelling here. There are plenty of other Civ-style 4X games out there, and none of the other "big" ones have as mixed of a reception as Humankind. Like Paradox's Imperator launched in a pretty poor state, but managed to climb its way back up to a "Very Positive" rating for recent reviews after a year or so.

Just as someone looking into Humankind right now due to the sale, the main issue I can see with it is simply that it seems too similar to Civilization, making it less attractive than something like, say, Old World, which offers a more unique spin on the whole Civilization style.

[Stephanie]

Arsene, I own all the games you mentioned, along with their DLCs (where applicable).

Humankind is waaaay different from Civ Vi, mechanics wise. and combat wise. And just everything-wise.

It's current sale price is beyond a bargain. You'd be a fool to pass it up. It's well worth playing.

100s of great mods available, several of which are so gigantgic it'slike a free expansion pack.

Just try it, man. :P

[Arsene Lupin]

I mean, just looking at the size of my backlog, I am definitely a fool. I'll probably pick up Humankind eventually, just because I love the genre, it's just a question of when.

As for the mechanics... from what I've read, it sounds like the mechanics are basically identical outside of the civ creation, whereas it's the underlying systems where Humankind differs the most. Are there any other major mechanical differences you think I should be aware of?

[FreeThinker]

In my view, one of the main advantage of Humankind is that there are much less micromanaging and there is much more sence of flexibility

[休斯顿杨耍儿]

Because it's not Civ, HK and Civ are just two different games,If HK is evaluated by Civ's standards, HK is sure there is no Civ good play.

[Baron]

Originally posted by Arsene Lupin:

I mean, just looking at the size of my backlog, I am definitely a fool. I'll probably pick up Humankind eventually, just because I love the genre, it's just a question of when.

As for the mechanics... from what I've read, it sounds like the mechanics are basically identical outside of the civ creation, whereas it's the underlying systems where Humankind differs the most. Are there any other major mechanical differences you think I should be aware of?

I mean, I don't know when's a better time to pick it up for later than an 80% sale with a temp free DLC, but we all feel the pain of the backlog, so.

Beyond just the "civ for every era" thing, HK has also done some interesting things with territory management - which has that sort of Amplitude scent to it - and combat - which has done interesting things with terrain and positioning to make it an engaging tactical experience.

I'd say it also handles diplomacy differently, but even as a fan I'll admit that bit is pretty shrug-worthy.

Maybe the mixed reviews are warranted. Maybe Amplitude decided to take a swing at Civ and missed. But in doing so they've created something interesting. If it did fail, it failed with grand ambitions, and landed well shy of mediocrity.

I'd venture to say that - despite its flaws - any 4X fan will find something here to justify investing a few dozen hours.