Info about 7 Billion Humans:

Official game description:
**Automate swarms** of office workers to solve puzzles inside your very own **parallel computer made of people.** A thrilling followup to the award winning Human Resource Machine. Now with more humans!  
THRILLING FEATURES!
-------------------
*   More puzzles, more humans, more rippling brain muscles - over 60+ levels of programming puzzles! 77.777778% more levels than Human Resource Machine.  
*   A whole new programming language to enjoy! Where Human Resource Machine was based on Assembly and executed by a single worker, 7 Billion Humans has an all new language that lots of workers can all execute at the same time.  
*   You'll be taught everything you need to know. Even useless skills can be put to work!  
*   Feeling stressed out? There are now friendly hint and "skip" systems to facilitate your career's ascent.  
*   Available in English, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Dutch, Japanese, Korean, Polish, Brazilian Portuguese, and Russian. With more languages on the way!  
*   Incomprehensible cutscenes! You will be delighted and bewildered.  
*   New soundtrack by Kyle Gabler included alongside the game.  
*   From the creators of Human Resource Machine, Little Inferno, and World of Goo.

Release date: Aug 23, 2018

Categories: Automation Game, Programming Logic, Puzzle, Logic-based Gameplay, Educational Game, Single-player, Hand-drawn Animation

Feature scans:
- Proton/Linux: score 8; verdict: Works Well - Flawless Native Linux Build; summary: The filtered dataset contains a single review, and it is entirely positive regarding Linux: the user reports that the game runs flawlessly via a native Linux build, with no mention of Proton, launch options, drivers, anti-cheat, DRM, or stability workarounds. There is no negative Linux or Proton evidence at all, so friction appears to be effectively absent. Because evidence volume is minimal (one review), the assessment rests on that single strong positive signal rather than broad consensus.

- Hardware Profile: No data
Feature extractions:
- Community Price:
  - Community fair range: $7.50 - $12.00
  - Reasoning: The first quote shows some players accept the current $14.99 full price. However, the second quote warns that near-full price feels content-light, and the third treats a 50% off sale (about $7.50) as an obvious buy. The translated Chinese quote notes limited content but strong long-term value, supporting a moderate range rather than the full $14.99. Overall, the community fair base-game range appears to be roughly $7.50 to $12.00.
- Playtime Metrics:
  - Game completion: 18.0h
  - Story completion: 10.0h
  - Session length: 2.0h
  - Endgame: 24.0h
  - Reasoning: The main-story quote directly supports storyCompletion at 10 hours. The full-clear quote reports completing all content including side levels in 18 hours, so gameCompletion is set to 18. The perfect-score quote indicates post-game optimization can take dozens of hours, so endgame is estimated at 24 hours as a conservative lower bound for 'dozens.' The session quote describes a 2-hour session, supporting sessionLength at 2 hours. Values are approximate because several reports vary.
- Time-to-fun:
  - Summary: Players generally report the game is enjoyable from the start because puzzle solutions are satisfying and the learning curve is smooth and confidence-building, though a clunky interface and occasional tedium add friction.
  - Stance: Fun immediately
  - Anchor: N/A
  - Time to anchor: N/A
  - Friction: No hotkeys and click-heavy if-statements; Tedious code editor with no undo step; Steep learning curve if jumping straight in; Difficulty wall starting around level 10; Repetitive puzzles and tedious size/speed challenges; Late-game command ForAllDir poorly explained
  - Unlock drivers: Tutorial levels that introduce new functions; Gradual pacing that builds confidence before complex ideas; A-ha moments when a solution clicks; Skip function for optional completion objectives; Automating more tedious actions; No single correct answer, reducing frustration
  - Conditions: Prior enjoyment of Human Resource Machine; Jumping straight in without tutorials makes the learning curve steeper; Tolerance for a tedious click-heavy interface; Interest in optional size/speed challenges; Use of the Skip function for optional objectives; Comfort with programming or puzzle-solving; Preference for a gradual difficulty ramp
- Player Archetypes:
  - Casual Coding Newcomer (buy)
    - Motivation: To learn basic programming ideas through an approachable, humorous puzzle game.
    - Playstyle: Plays at a relaxed pace with drag-and-drop blocks, focusing on solving levels rather than speed or size optimization.
    - Experience: newcomer
    - Purchase stance: buy
    - Labels: N/A
    - Reference games: N/A
  - Algorithm Optimization Hobbyist (buy)
    - Motivation: To get satisfying coding-style problem solving and optimization challenges.
    - Playstyle: Treats levels as algorithmic puzzles and optimizes programs for size and runtime, including hardcoded or hacky solutions.
    - Experience: familiar
    - Purchase stance: buy
    - Labels: N/A
    - Reference games: N/A
  - Human Resource Machine Sequel Fan (buy)
    - Motivation: To continue the Human Resource Machine experience with more story, humor, and puzzle levels.
    - Playstyle: Plays the prequel first, then works through the sequel's campaign for narrative and puzzle completion.
    - Experience: familiar
    - Purchase stance: buy
    - Labels: N/A
    - Reference games: Human Resource Machine
  - Experienced Programmer Skeptic (no buy)
    - Motivation: To see whether the puzzle game offers worthwhile coding challenge; many conclude it does not beat real programming.
    - Playstyle: Engages with the campaign but often avoids or criticizes speed and size optimization challenges as chores.
    - Experience: familiar
    - Purchase stance: no buy
    - Labels: computer science student
    - Reference games: N/A


Below are summaries of things people say about the game per category.
Each point is assigned a weight that represents how often it is mentioned across all reviews.
What players like:
- Excellent programming puzzle game (weight 0.34): Many reviewers consider it one of the best programming puzzle games available, effectively turning coding concepts into engaging visual puzzles. It is praised for its clever design and literal representation of programming.
- Strong sequel to Human Resource Machine (weight 0.29): The game is widely seen as a fun and worthy sequel that improves on its predecessor. Those who enjoyed Human Resource Machine will likely appreciate this follow-up.
- Beginner-friendly programming education (weight 0.25): The game is highly recommended for beginners, offering a gentle introduction to programming logic without requiring prior knowledge. It also serves as a good tool for teaching yourself programming.
- Charming and original art style (weight 0.24): The art style is consistently described as cute, charming, simple yet beautiful, and original. It contributes to the game's overall pleasant and unique presentation.
- Challenging puzzles for experienced players (weight 0.22): Later levels and optional challenges provide a serious difficulty spike that can satisfy experienced programmers. The puzzles often have multiple solutions and require creative thinking.
- Great music and graphics (weight 0.18): The music is frequently praised as great, and the graphics are considered beautiful and pleasant. Both elements enhance the overall game experience.
- Generally fun and good game (weight 0.17): Many simply describe the game as very fun to play and a good game overall. This broad positive sentiment reflects high satisfaction.
- Parallel processing adds new dimension (weight 0.17): The introduction of parallel processing with a team of workers forces players to think in genuinely new ways. It requires a different approach to solving tasks compared to single-threaded puzzles.
- Satisfying puzzle-solving experience (weight 0.16): Solving puzzles is described as insanely satisfying and easy to get absorbed in. The smart and good puzzles keep players engaged for hours.
- More content than predecessor (weight 0.09): The game offers more puzzles and more options for achieving tasks compared to the first game. This adds replay value and depth.

Common complaints:
- Optimization challenges are brutal (weight 0.58): Optional optimization challenges for speed and code size are extremely hard, tedious, and often require non-obvious tricks. Many players find them frustrating and unrewarding.
- UI clunky and mobile-first design (weight 0.49): The interface feels designed for touch controls, making mouse and gamepad use awkward. UI clutter and poor visibility hinder debugging and code management.
- Difficulty spikes extremely hard (weight 0.49): The game's difficulty increases sharply, especially after the early levels and around the mid-game. Many players hit a wall and cannot progress without looking up solutions.
- Not beginner-friendly, lacks teaching (weight 0.41): The game provides insufficient tutorials, hints, and explanations, making it very difficult for players without programming knowledge. It fails as an introduction to programming.
- Multi-threading frustrating and shallow (weight 0.36): Managing multiple workers introduces frustrating synchronization and timing challenges. The multi-threading aspects feel shallow and not well explained.
- Not recommended for learning programming (weight 0.34): The game is not suitable for learning programming concepts or practicing algorithms. Its esoteric language and puzzles do not translate to real-world coding skills.
- Jump arrows and spaghetti code (weight 0.32): Jump and conditional commands create complex arrow spaghetti that is hard to follow. Managing if-statements and jumps manually is tedious and error-prone.
- Bugs in worker behavior and rules (weight 0.29): Workers sometimes behave unexpectedly, such as moving through obstacles, giving cubes to wrong places, or failing due to hidden rules. This makes some puzzles seem unfair.
- No keyboard hotkeys or shortcuts (weight 0.29): The game lacks keyboard controls and hotkeys for common actions like undo or compile. Players must rely entirely on mouse clicks, which makes coding tedious and slow.
- No partial copy-paste of code (weight 0.29): Players cannot copy or paste specific code fragments, only the entire program. This makes reusing code sections and building parallel logic extremely frustrating.
- Debugger lacks rewind and breakpoints (weight 0.29): The debugger does not allow stepping back or setting breakpoints. Step-by-step execution is broken or inadequate, making debugging long programs nearly impossible.
- Randomness undermines puzzle fairness (weight 0.27): Random elements and timing inconsistencies mean solutions can fail unpredictably. The game does not reset randomization seeds properly, leading to frustration and a sense of unfairness.
- Code editor lacks essential features (weight 0.25): The code editor is missing many quality-of-life features such as text-based editing, ability to remove blocks without affecting others, and code wrapping. This makes coding cumbersome.
- Narrow instruction set limits solutions (weight 0.22): The programming language has a limited set of commands, forcing players to solve every level with the same few instructions. This restricts creativity and makes puzzles feel repetitive.
- Language support issues: Chinese (weight 0.21): Chinese language support was missing, removed, or required workarounds to enable. This caused frustration for Chinese-speaking players.
- Story and characters are weak (weight 0.18): The game's story is minimal and unengaging, with no compelling characters. Some players found the plot nonsensical compared to the predecessor.
- Undo button buggy and hidden (weight 0.13): The undo button is only visible when scrolled to the bottom and does not indicate what action will be undone. Sometimes undo fails after re-entering a level, causing lost work.
- No animation skip in testing (weight 0.1): Players cannot skip test case animations, forcing them to rewatch lengthy animations after each test. This adds significant tedium, especially for long programs.
- Paste replaces entire source code (weight 0.06): The paste function replaces the current source code instead of adding to it. This limitation severely hampers code reuse and modification.

Gameplay feedback:
- Core programming puzzle gameplay (weight 0.73): The game is a level-based programming puzzle where players write code or visual pseudo-code to solve challenges. It is described as Zachtronics-style with progressive difficulty.
- Parallel worker execution (weight 0.34): All workers execute commands simultaneously, and players program a team of workers in parallel rather than a single worker. This introduces multithreading concepts.
- Optional speed and size challenges (weight 0.34): Each level includes two optional challenges: minimizing steps (speed) and minimizing commands (size). These optimization challenges add replay value.
- Difficulty increases over time (weight 0.24): The game has a difficulty curve, with levels becoming more challenging around level 60 and beyond. Early levels are easier, later levels are harder.
- Multiple solutions possible (weight 0.21): Many puzzles can be solved in multiple ways, and some can be solved instantly. This allows for creative problem-solving.
- Manage a workforce of employees (weight 0.2): Players control a group of tiny office employees and give them instructions to complete tasks. The gameplay involves managing these workers and their actions.
- Teaches programming concepts (weight 0.19): The game is educational and teaches coding fundamentals, logic behind programming, and algorithmic thinking. It is suitable for learning basic coding concepts.
- Language resembles assembly code (weight 0.16): The in-game programming language uses simplified assembly-like instructions. Commands include basic actions like step forward and pick up.
- Level skipping feature available (weight 0.12): Players can skip levels if they get stuck, which helps maintain progression. This feature is available to all players.
- No prior coding knowledge needed (weight 0.09): Most levels can be completed without any programming background. The game is accessible to players new to coding.
- Drag-and-drop programming interface (weight 0.09): The game uses a stripped-down programming language with a drag-and-drop interface. This makes it easy to build programs visually.
- Challenges can be very difficult (weight 0.09): Some optional challenges are extremely hard, requiring significant effort. These provide a tough challenge for experienced players.
- Simple controls (weight 0.09): The controls are very simple, making the game easy to pick up. This simplicity contrasts with the complex puzzles.

Performance notes:
- Low system requirements praised (weight 0.09): Multiple reviews highlight that the game runs on very basic hardware, even on computers that can only play Minesweeper. It also runs with any GPU, making it highly accessible.

Recommendations:
- Compare with Human Resource Machine (weight 0.65): Many reviewers compare this game to its predecessor Human Resource Machine, often recommending the original as a better starting point. Some say fans of HRM will love this, while others find HRM easier and more enjoyable.
- Recommended for programming puzzle fans (weight 0.57): Most positive recommendations target players who enjoy programming and well-designed puzzles. Clusters repeatedly suggest the game to puzzle enthusiasts, coding hobbyists, and problem solvers.
- Not for non-programmers (weight 0.33): Several clusters warn that players with no programming background may struggle or should avoid the game. Some recommend learning a formal language or starting with Human Resource Machine first.
- Great sequel for HRM fans (weight 0.27): Reviewers who enjoyed the first game highly recommend this sequel, especially for its focus on multithreading. It is seen as a worthy follow-up.
- Price and value considerations (weight 0.26): Several clusters discuss pricing, suggesting waiting for a sale or buying at a discount. Some consider the game cost-effective or worth the investment.
- Positive reviews and thumbs up (weight 0.19): Several clusters simply give a thumbs up or positive review without detailed reasoning. They express overall enjoyment and recommend the game.
- Good for learning parallel processing (weight 0.18): A few clusters recommend the game for learning or practicing programming concepts, especially parallel processing and algorithms. It is seen as useful for self-taught programmers.
- Challenging and brain-teasing (weight 0.16): The game is described as difficult, requiring logical reasoning and sometimes causing frustration. It is recommended for those who enjoy torturing their brains.
- Suitable for all ages (weight 0.12): Some reviewers note the game is appropriate for children, teenagers, and adults. It is considered accessible across age groups and skill levels.
- Use walkthroughs and study solutions (weight 0.12): Advice includes using walkthroughs when stuck, skipping difficult levels, and studying other players' solutions. This reflects the challenging nature of the puzzles.
- Good for students and schools (weight 0.08): Some clusters suggest gifting the game to students or schools, and see potential for educational use. It is recommended for aspiring young programmers.
- Interface issues and copying answers (weight 0.05): One cluster criticizes the awful interface, noting it is easier to copy-paste answers from a guide. This detracts from the experience for some players.
- Good for short bursts (weight 0.05): One cluster recommends playing in short bursts, suitable for finding a sense of accomplishment regardless of mood. This suggests the game works well in small sessions.
- Teaches avoiding goto (weight 0.05): One reviewer recommends the game because it teaches avoiding goto in real scenarios, emphasizing that one mistake can be disastrous. This is a unique educational point.
- Recommended for competitive programmers (weight 0.05): One cluster suggests competitive programmers can buy it to practice. It is seen as a useful tool for honing algorithmic skills.
- Not recommended for relaxation (weight 0.05): One cluster advises against the game for working programmers who want to relax after work. It is considered too mentally demanding for leisure.
- No programming language required (weight 0.05): One cluster notes that no programming language knowledge is required to play. This makes it accessible to a wider audience.
- Manager hiring advice (weight 0.04): One reviewer suggests managers hiring programmers should worry about candidates who cannot clear the core levels. This implies the game tests fundamental programming logic.

Other player notes:
- Sequel to Human Resource Machine (weight 0.6): Many reviewers describe the game as a direct sequel to Human Resource Machine, with a harder difficulty curve and expanded mechanics. It is often compared favorably or unfavorably to its predecessor, and some see it as an expansion or evolution of that formula.
- Level count and playtime (weight 0.24): The game features more than 60 levels and takes about 12-15 hours to complete, with some players spending 40 more hours than the predecessor for all achievements.
- Compared to Zachtronics games (weight 0.23): Reviewers compare this game to Zachtronics programming games, noting it is shorter and simpler, and some suggest Zachtronics fans might prefer those games. Documentation is considered much better in Zachtronics titles.
- Educational and accessible programming (weight 0.23): The game presents itself as accessible and as a tool for learning programming, comparable to Scratch, and combines educational and entertaining elements.
- Multithreading and new mechanics (weight 0.22): Compared to its predecessor, the game introduces multithreading and more powerful commands, allowing players to program multiple office characters at once. Some describe it as moving from assembly-level to compiled-language-level programming.
- Developed by Tomorrow Corporation (weight 0.22): The game is developed by Tomorrow Corporation, the studio behind Little Inferno, Human Resource Machine, and World of Goo. Reviewers frequently note this pedigree as a sign of quality.
- Humor and office-life story (weight 0.19): The game features a funny story with jokes about office life, and its humor and cutscenes are fun to watch. The narrative touches on themes of artificial intelligence, productivity, and human progress.
- Programming puzzle genre niche (weight 0.15): The programming puzzle genre selects its audience, and this game is considered rather niche. Some reviewers note many similar programming-style games exist on the market.
- Soundtrack and music quality (weight 0.15): The soundtrack by Kyle Gabler is fun to listen to and fits the style of the game. The official soundtrack is available for free in the game folder.
- Steam Deck and PC bugs (weight 0.14): A bug occurs on both Steam Deck and Windows PC, though Steam Deck support is Verified. No other notable bugs were reported.
- Localization and language support (weight 0.14): The game supports Portuguese and Japanese, and the Russian localization translates code keywords like IF/ELSE into Russian words. The store screenshots show Japanese text.
- OCD challenges and level skip (weight 0.14): The game includes OCD challenges and an OCD+ feature, as well as a level skip feature. Platinum trophy requires replaying levels to meet certain requirements.
- Runs on low-end hardware (weight 0.14): PC requirements are low, comparable to mobile-level, and the game runs on any GPU. It runs natively on Linux and can be played offline.
- Optimization and perfect scores (weight 0.12): Achieving perfect scores can require dozens of hours of optimization or use of guides. Optimization goals can sometimes be completed by sacrificing generality and correctness.
- Debugging features criticized (weight 0.12): Compared to Human Resource Machine, the debugging features are considered worse. The programming language is described as deliberately crippled, designed to torture players.
- Compared to LeetCode and math (weight 0.11): Reviewers compare the experience of tweaking code to improve runtime to LeetCode, and solving problems to high school math. It is also compared to Go in that the simplest is the hardest.
- Story and future setting (weight 0.09): The story is set in a future where robots took all jobs and seven billion humans became processors in a giant parallel computer. The game has a story, and some await a continuation.
- Zhihu walkthrough recommended (weight 0.07): A Zhihu article by '一五画生' is recommended for walkthroughs, and hints or complete solutions are available on the web.
- Frequently discounted (weight 0.04): The game is frequently discounted, making it accessible to more players.

Emotions:
- Frustration (weight 0.21): Players are frustrated by the inability to copy and paste code, making it tedious to modify large programs. Later puzzles are extremely difficult, often requiring walkthroughs, and debugging is hampered by a lack of breakpoints and unclear worker behavior. The difficulty spike and cumbersome interface compound the frustration.
- Enjoyment (weight 0.13): Players enjoy the game's programming puzzle design, finding it fun to develop algorithms and optimize solutions. The cute atmosphere, humor, and optional challenges add to the enjoyment, making it a relaxing and engaging experience.
- Satisfaction (weight 0.1): Satisfaction comes from solving difficult puzzles and experiencing 'a-ha' moments when solutions click. Optimizing code and achieving automation provides a strong sense of accomplishment and makes the game rewarding.
- Disappointment (weight 0.09): Disappointment arises from the game becoming tedious and lacking quality-of-life features, which hinders experimentation. The puzzles and optimization challenges fall flat, and the game feels short and unsatisfying compared to its potential.
- Annoyance (weight 0.04): Annoyance is caused by the lack of an animation skip button, making long programs tedious to watch. The clunky coding interface, difficult debugging, and random failures further irritate players.
- Amusement (weight 0.04): Amusement stems from hilarious outcomes when instructions go wrong, such as conga lines of confused office drones. The game's humor and whimsical scenarios entertain players.
- Challenge (weight 0.04): Challenge is derived from the game's difficulty, especially in later levels that require complex solutions. Optional optimization challenges and speed objectives add to the challenge.
- Fun (weight 0.04): Fun is found in solving programming logic puzzles and optimizing code. The game effectively shows the logic behind programming and offers multiple solutions, making it enjoyable for nerds.
- Enthusiasm (weight 0.03): Enthusiasm is driven by the game's effectiveness in teaching programming concepts and its perfect balance of gameplay, humor, and programming language. The introduction of multithreading and familiar concepts like deadlocks excites players.
- Joy (weight 0.02): Joy comes from the process of thinking and solving puzzles, particularly the 'a-ha' moments. The addition of Japanese language support also brings joy to some players.
- Engagement (weight 0.02): Engagement is maintained by the rhythm of gameplay and brain-burning puzzles that keep players coming back. The progressive complexity and absorbing nature of solving unsolvable puzzles lead to extended play sessions.
- Confusion (weight 0.02): Confusion arises from hidden rules about worker movement that don't match intuitive expectations. The difficulty increase near the end confuses even professionals, and the game can feel like work rather than play.
- Dissatisfaction (weight 0.02): Dissatisfaction is caused by the paste function replacing the entire source code instead of inserting, and ambiguous commands lacking standard programming structures. Fastest solutions relying on random luck feel unsatisfying.
- Boredom (weight 0.02): Boredom sets in when puzzles are not engaging enough to complete all of them. Initial stages feel like performing basic tasks similar to the first game, and mechanics are used only briefly.
- Appreciation (weight 0.02): Appreciation is for the game's charming, simple, and challenging design that appeals to both non-programmers and coders. Beautiful graphics and pleasant presentation make it worth figuring out.
- Humility (weight 0.01): Humility is felt when brilliant plans turn into chaos, making players feel humbled. Limited programming knowledge restricts achievements, adding to the sense of humility.
- Admiration (weight 0.01): Admiration is for the smart, stylish, and funny presentation, as well as the impressive core transition from the previous version. The game's design and humor are highly regarded.
- Tedium (weight 0.01): Tedium is experienced when puzzles feel like solving a spreadsheet, and extremely difficult space challenges become tedious. The repetitive nature of certain tasks reduces enjoyment.
- Sadness (weight 0.01): Sadness is felt when players cannot finish the game and lose drive to continue. The depiction of overworked workers resonates with some players' own lives, evoking sadness.
- Hope (weight 0.01): Hope is expressed through wanting more similar games from the developer and anticipating language support based on store page hints. Players look forward to future content.}