My somewhat disappointing experience with HK (review)

[Haig]

Now that I have played the game for 10+ hours and the honeymoon phase is over I try to get down what I like and dislike about the game.

From the mechanics I like the forming of the government, even though I don't feel it makes a huge difference how my values are on it it gives good storytelling. Civ 7 should definately have something like this, but more impactful.
Some very nice diplomatic options like the "cold war" of allowing to attack other empire's troops outside borders (similar from Endless Legend).

The map artstyle is beautiful and definately has it's own style, and I love how every unit and tech have their own artscreen, again something that Civ 7 needs to bring back from Civ 5.
The combat animations on the other hand aren't very detailed and have few frames unlike smooth animations in Civs 5/6.

I am now on my third play, having aborted previous ones from lack of challenge and then added difficulty.
The big problem here is how everything is just more bonuses on top of previous bonuses, the sprawling cities get crazy yields that the AI can't compete with. I find myself just queuing and buying every district and building as I wait for era stars to fill. Era stars sounded good on paper but are like a chore where I just fill out x number of required things instead of any organic developement to them.
The choices in the game don't feel very impactful.

Biggest marketing point for the game is the changing cultures of every era, before the release I wasn't excited for the design and I am not impressed now either. It is of course a matter of taste, but I feel that instead of giving uniqueness to each empire, it makes everything disjointed and chaotic, and the cultures themselves don't have any creative or unique designs imho (apart from gorgeous art screens).

Interacting with the AI is not that memorable either, the AI leaders don't seem that different from each other, everyone of them has two characteristics like "committed" or "cool headed" but I seriously can't see any difference. The budget shows on the leader screens too.

Tactical battles are straight from Endless Legend, and I feel that the combat maps are too small and the battles don't feel very historical, especially when firearms come in. I love how you can bombard and soften armies before attack and how with tech you grow the size of stacks, but I am already bored with the combat phase and go for auto-resolve.

I'm glad that many people are having fun with the game, but for me the game feels a bit repetitive and lacks personality (surprising after Endless Legend's memorable nations!).

Civ 5 at launch was bareboned and simple and needed expansions to become a classic. Now I feel that many core systems of Humankind would require lot of work before adding any new content.

I'm still giving the game a change but I am going to rise difficulty level and slow the pace.

 

[mitsho]

I agree that the storytelling is where humankind excels (loved the "story" at the end, even though that could get old fast) and that where it needs work the most is in balancing. Or rather, adapting AI playstyle could solve a lot of things as well. I had one runaway AI and that kinda ruined it. I didn't know how to counter the cultural takeover and then it was too late. That can get better with some playthroughs, and it certainly will if the developers can continue to work on the game and improve it (by adding/refining systems).

So, I'm very optimistic, but I do see your points. One thing Humankind made me wish for though was a longer game. I never had that in civ. Where jt got boring fast. So what I will do is find a gamespeed/mod for me that let's me play one or two eras per session, where I played a half game of civ instead. Meaning my games will take much longer, maybe weeks. But in the end, I will have had "6" civ games in that as I played as six cultures.

It's definitely more a RPG than a competitive multiplayer (or singleplayer optimizer) game in my mind.

 

[Elhoim]

am now on my third play, having aborted previous ones from lack of challenge and then added difficulty.
The big problem here is how everything is just more bonuses on top of previous bonuses, the sprawling cities get crazy yields that the AI can't compete with. I find myself just queuing and buying every district and building as I wait for era stars to fill. Era stars sounded good on paper but are like a chore where I just fill out x number of required things instead of any organic developement to them.
The choices in the game don't feel very impactful.

Yes, the late game balance needs a bit of a pass since yields snowball too much and you end up in a situation in which the district building pace is too fast while the infrastracture too costly, and stability is way too generous. Also some cultures and emblematic quarters can give A LOT of yields. The good thing is that they are working on improving the game, so any feedback on which things are OP is definitely going to be heard.

As a balance test, I did the Earth map with only 25 luxuries. That slowed the stability snowball until very late, and also toned down the yields as well. It's more challenging and not for everyone.

Tactical battles are straight from Endless Legend, and I feel that the combat maps are too small and the battles don't feel very historical, especially when firearms come in. I love how you can bombard and soften armies before attack and how with tech you grow the size of stacks, but I am already bored with the combat phase and go for auto-resolve.

In which sense when firearms come in? Way too much range? I personally like how they managed to change the combat with firearms instead of them becoming "melee with a rifle animation".