It's just ok? Somewhat underwhelming?

user330977

Prince
Joined
Dec 8, 2020
Messages
348
Hello folks,

I've read a fair share of reviews (user and 'professional') and the main impression I get is that the game lies quite squarely on the ok-to-good side of things. Most alarming for me is that it is failing to even beat Civ VI's review ratings. I love 4x empire builders and have recently fallen in love with Old World, but I do really enjoy the look of a larger scope game like Humankind.

Do you think patches and extra content will improve review scores?

Kind regards,
Ita Bear
 
I feel that it's currently in a mediocre state but there is stuff that can definately be improved with patching and dlc.

But dont look too much on Steam reviews, many are just
"The best strategy game ever!"
Or
"Woke propaganda! Refund!"
 
Do you think patches and extra content will improve review scores?

I hope it improves the game. I have less and less faith in the score system as people use it for other reasons than to review a game.

Personally, I find the game quite fun, needs a bit of balance work, and the devs are in this for the long run.
 
Last edited:
After witnessing civ5 go from horrible trainwreck on release (with literally nothing to do but fighting extremely hostile but braindead AI) to universally belowed classic by the final expansion (with a ton of ways to play, almost none of them present on release), and Stellaris undergoing crazy and extreme transformations during its lifetime, and No Man's Sky going from a complete trash to very good game eventually... I have accepted that we're living in age when you cannot predict how games of certain sophisticated scope (especially strategy games) are going to evolve during their development cycle. The release is only the beginning, after which everything can happen.

A majority of negative Steam reviews are disliking rotating cultures stuff for subjective immersion reasons, so with time those who dislike the fundamental idea of a game should go away, in favour of reviews going past this starting point and focusing on the gameplay itself, not on the controversial fundational idea.

Personally I am more troubled by the enormous problems this game has with balance, pacing and difficulty at this point, when certain players (both AI and human) can exponentially gain infinite power very quickly if they have a lucky start. Well such stuff in theory is easy to balance, but I have a feeling it is deeply rooted within the base systems of a game.
 
A lot of the things that make this ‘next gen’ are buried in the mechanics and not visible at first to the casual player.
My first impression last week was it was a bit boring. It now feels like a game you can play on a variety of levels gameplay wise. But you need to get a grasp of a hell of a lotta things first.
It feels a bit long to play hot seated and I know a lot of youngsters that do that with civ.
 
the game has great potential but it is currently hampered by a rather under cooked AI that seems to play by a different ruleset going by the many moves it is able to pull that the player isn't allowed; a somewhat dumbed down version of some of its core mechanics such as stability and city slots (governors? were great idea back in Lucy OD); and finally what seems like a last minute flip flop on the victory conditions that go against the premise of the fame system

i'd say it is a game with broad appeal, easy to learn and hard to master. we shouldn't expect it to pander to veteran audiences only

visuals and audio are fantastic. had a few issues with both from a performance pov and getting crashes, but it seems better after the updates and vulkan mode
 
Last edited:
I think/hope most of the balancing is going to be targeted at the late game, which can currently fall apart pretty badly. That said, there really is an amazing evolution of dynamics from Ancient through Early Modern that can only be experienced here.

One think I love about Old World is that the orders restrict me from optimizing every part of my empire at once, which actually frees me to focus on a few things at a time, pivoting my focus from development to warfare to science at (hopefully) strategic times, often punctuated by a change in leader.

The cultures in HK do a very similar thing for me, getting to laser focus on improving one aspect of my empire at a time, and being handed really enjoyably powerful tools to do so.

I do find an awkward gap between the top two difficulties, but have settled on playing at the highest on crowded maps (large, 10 opponents) with the “new world” turned off (ie empty continent that the AI never settles).

Once you figure out how to claim territory and develop faster than the AI, it is very easy to snowball right past them if they don’t get in your way. Going up to highest difficulty that early game war upgrades from an single 8 v 8 skirmish to a 16 v 40 series of epic exchanges.

For example, in my current game I warred as Egyptians against the Zhou through a beautiful desert mountain pass. The dynamic tended toward a series of even matchups with 10-16 units on either side. Some early skirmishes pushed me to retreat back to my capital, where my recently trained warriors and spears held a defensive line together with my surviving scouts and city defense, while my chariot archers opened fire. Whatever it’s limitations, the AI usually knows how to hit the weak places and they broke through the line a few times, aided by their beastly heavy chariots. I won that battle with a few casualties, pumped out a few more units and took it on offense, and discovered the AI had built back up 8 units (probably a mix of reserves and their powerful production bonuses, they seem to train entire 4-unit armies at once and send them out when done) half of which were the scary chariots. Even though you can outsmart the AI, the shear number and power of their units creates moments of consequence. In the third such battle in this mountain pass between our cities, heavy casualties forced me to abandon the pair of choke points I started with and rush my surviving force up a hill that could be defended from one tile. I would have lost the battle staying put for one more turn and I was thrilled when this actually worked. Fighting several battles in one region of the map really gets you familiar with its terrain and provided a certain sense of immersion I haven’t felt elsewhere as I learn what features I can reliably turn to my advantage. Finally I broke through and sieged their city (unfortunately I didn’t have range siege yet, so just more chariot arching) which brought a new region of the map in play (the battle was bigger so the map expanded to include our familiar battleground but now ask the city and its surroundings). They had another full force of chariots and infantry reinforce the battle, and now I was also contending with their classical era city defense, here 6 free units that are stronger than ancient infantry. At long last I wore them down and took the city. Cleaned up another city and their war support ran out. Claiming their capital for my own, I now set out to join the rest of the empires in the race to the top. To get more fame (and the AI has a ton at this difficulty) I stayed ancient era through this war chasing a few more era stars. I just now entered medieval in 3rd place, as two large AI empires have taken control of their respective continents. My neighbor of the two, the English, have a fully developed medieval army of heavy swords and longbows. I am absolutely engrossed with how I can use Khmer to challenge them before it’s too late.

As you can tell, I find the early-mid game absolutely exhilarating, so long as I get the difficulty right for the AI to maintain the lead. The weak end game is actually less of an issue. My first playthru since release showed me how little you can do to change the fame race once the contemporary era sets in. This means the game is decided in the first 4-5 eras which the game does very well. This game looks like I’ll have to take down the English in medieval/early modern and move across the ocean to take down the leader in early modern/industrial and probably hit them again in contemporary. This level of urgency did not exist for me in Civ6, and is most similar to what I feel navigating ambitions and double victory in Old World. With the exception that the ability to destroy the AI at the end game is not nearly as helpful as doing it earlier.
 
Oh god, it’s starting! The battlefields for any battle or siege are going to be 1/3 of an empire (cities hexes are very sticky when picking the battle map) and will probably be in reach of most/all of both sides’ units. Guess I don’t need to worry about unit maintenance anymore.

Also I think I found the humankind AI food bonus, an occupied city has +45/153 food from exploitation/districts and +474 from “unknown” which I’m guessing is the difficulty bonus. Explains the size 60 cities everywhere.
 
I'm finding the culture swapping is making me de-identify with the civs. What I mean is, I get a message from the British, or was that the Turks, or the Mauryans, or the Babylonians? I'm finding I'm thinking of the in terms of their colours. Oh, the pink civ wants this.

The other major issue I have with the game is the forced surrender mechanic. I have come to view this as an anti-war mechanic the designers put in to arbitrarily stop comp-stomps. Even if you completely wipe out a civ, and occupy all of its cities and outposts, you cannot "take all". It is also extremely buggy. Things like being forced into surrender when your enemy surrenders to a third civ, and the situation where you can be winning the war, occupy most of your enemies cities, but because your war support hits 0 you are forced to surrender and the AI takes half your civ's cities. I would have much preferred to see the option to actually "take all" with a massive stability hit. So as a player I can either take the low risk option of some of the conquered civ, or the high risk option of take all.

Aside from those two big things there is a lot to like about the game. Overall though there is a big sense of imbalance and systems not completely cohesive. But anyone who had been playing the open devs would have known this imbalance and lack of cohesion was coming.

I hope they are able to fix these.
 
I’ve definitely got a few issues with the combat and war support/forced surrender dynamics. Not least is why the forced surrender menu has a greyed out cancel button with a tooltip “not ready to end the war yet” when you don’t have a choice but to end the war, even if on the doorstep of your opponent’s undefended capital.

But it occurred to me just now that if (and this may be a medium size if) the current systems were arrived at because they happen to create an AI that will capture each other’s cities, but stop before eliminating everyone else by the classical era, I think I’m happy to play by these somewhat contrived feeling rules. Including if the all or nothing battles (ie one side is going to be dead 6 turns from now) is needed to sufficiently destabilize a war so that one side wins and takes a city or two. (Also, certainly beats the the beta system with skirmishes in the field with no progress randomly leading to one to side becoming the vassal of the other for the rest of history.
 
I can't see myself playing humankind. Judging by the let's play's I've watched, you get the same kind of boring production system as endless legends.

The pre-civilization era is kinda interesting and the game looks very pretty, but I'm going to stick to another game. I'm sure it's not hard to figure out which ;)
 
I'm 70 hours in or so and finding I'm having fun figuring it out. I'm no brainiac but I can tell already that the smaller maps are more fun than the big, empty maps. By empty, I mean many provinces have no resources. And I do like seizing provinces and building cities in them. The small maps with 4 or 6 players seem more dynamic and interesting than the enormous spaces of the huge map. Also am finding the elevation aspect of the game a bit offputting when there are just so many mountains where you are channeled down a single route one hex wide. Getting to where you want to go is a hassle with those mountain chains. I do like the tactical implications of elevation though, and so I play on maps with fewer mountains but average numbers of hills and cliffs. As for my biggest gripe so far, it is the constant change of names of the various parties or players. Who are those people again? Yes, you can remember them by color and totem symbol, but I end up even forgetting who I am sometimes and that is part and parcel of this game's character. It is a mixed bag but fun to play so I stick with it. Perhaps future DLC's will introduce more options and devise ways to help us more consistently identify ourselves and the other players. Modders will no doubt improve the game too, once they get their hands on it, that is.
 
I'm finding the culture swapping is making me de-identify with the civs. What I mean is, I get a message from the British, or was that the Turks, or the Mauryans, or the Babylonians? I'm finding I'm thinking of the in terms of their colours. Oh, the pink civ wants this.

Yeah, I'm getting the same problem - both with my own civ and the opponents. Completely changing the civ every era doesn't really feel like I'm building up a custom culture or journey or whatever. In fact I find I'm becoming quite indifferent to what culture I pick, as in another 30 turns it'll be changed again. Makes it a nuisance to keep track of what the neighbours are called this turn as well, and makes them all feel a bit interchangeable. I think the game needs to retain more features from each culture. Or in fact just have each new culture be an outright addition, and have some kind of naming system that retains continuity. It also makes every game feel a bit samey. There's less scope for playing with completely different styles with different leaders, or having major differences depending who the neighbours are.

Other big issue is the snowballing. There's a point in the mid game where my cities just run out of stuff to build, and I'm sitting on huge stockpiles of money and influence with nothing to do with it - which is where I tend to lose interest. Needs a lot of balance/pacing work.

That said, while I'd agree it's merely "OK" at the moment, there's plenty of potential for improvement. It's in a much more solid state than Civ 5 was at launch.
 
There's a point in the mid game where my cities just run out of stuff to build, and I'm sitting on huge stockpiles of money and influence with nothing to do with it - which is where I tend to lose interest.

I was surprised how demotivating it was to secure a huge money/turn income. I usually stay pretty engaged when it’s about ramping up production and building stuff, but when it’s mostly about buyout something clicks off for me. Maybe it’s that I am addicted to micro, and with money your whole empire really just becomes one big city and more money and science tend to be all you need so you tile out a build queue and every few turns to click buy on a bunch. Or just that it’s really powerful currently once you get it working and the game becomes far less interesting to me when I am the leader.
 
Still haven't got it, just finishing up a rpg I currently have in progress. But so far I find the Let's plays on youtube a little on the boring side. Visually the game looks great. But from a 3rd person perspective, the game doesn't look as interesting as Civ6. Even despite a lot more you can do in the early game. That said, I still will probably buy it, I have a feeling this game is more fun to play than to watch.
 
City planning and building feels boring to me. I was never a huge fan of that in Civ either but building in HK is less interesting than building in Civ6 or OW for me. But the combat, or risk of it, makes it all feel engaging and exciting. When it’s about researching new units and maintaining the production to produce more of them, because you need to invade your neighbor during a narrow window before they don’t out tech you (and they always do by the end of a war, I find) or defend against a (mostly early-game) aggressive invasion , then adding yields here or there and the cost-benefit of investment more vs making use of my economy feels very dynamic. Not sure what people are thinking who like the building of Civ more, but I imagine this would make watching really dull. Most games the AI very nearly gets me, and I haven’t even faced a Mongol/Huns neighbor yet since release.
 
Back
Top Bottom