Worrying review: Tom Chick says AI and Diplomacy are dumb. Has "Serious Problems"
- Thread starter solidsmooky
- Start date
jeffreyac
Mostly Harmless
lol... nah, most of us are receptive to criticism, and generate it ourselves. (reference the thread on if the GDR was a good idea, for example...)
We just want a little more substance with our speculative criticism. (and, yes, this sentence was intentionally funny...
)
We just want a little more substance with our speculative criticism. (and, yes, this sentence was intentionally funny...
)
stealth_nsk
Deity
Yes, from what we've seen in the demos I doubt AI is smart. Not sure about diplomacy, we didn't see enough.
I think bad AI will not hurt - it was the weakest side of all Civ games, they are still fun. And with the new combat system I expect a lot of joy in tactically destroying strong but not very clever opponent at high difficulty levels.
Again, can't say anything about diplomacy.
I think bad AI will not hurt - it was the weakest side of all Civ games, they are still fun. And with the new combat system I expect a lot of joy in tactically destroying strong but not very clever opponent at high difficulty levels.
Again, can't say anything about diplomacy.
Abraxis
☮
The man has played Aurora, I doubt he's had any problems with Civ5's interface.
And read the manual, it does not say anything about the AI getting any better with difficulty, it only mentions bonuses, there was a video review that stated this aswell.
The only one's saying AI improves with difficulty are the marketing reps, and can anyone really prove them wrong? no, it's an easy claim to make.
Is this the idiot who hates most good games? If I recall he's the guy who gave Deus Ex 4/10 or something crazy, and then defended it by saying he was right and the 5 million people who thought its one of the best games ever were just moron sheep...
I'll wait till a reviewer I respect reviews the AI.
I'll wait till a reviewer I respect reviews the AI.
jeffreyac
Mostly Harmless
:shrug:
Well, guess it's time for a little disclosure here - I admit, I'm worried about if the AI can handle this system (since 1upt and tactics/strategies sound like they're more important vs SoD style warfare), but I have two consoling thoughts:
1) I have a great track record with this series. There are some versions I've enjoyed more than others, but I've genuinely loved Civ for decades now, so I'm able to give a vote of confidence to at least try out what they've done and see if I like it.
2) (and here's the disclosure part...) I'm wondering if some of you are concerned about the AI as your play level is high enough that you want a good challenge (like, maybe you're beating Diety already in Civ IV...) Me, I'm a prince player at best in Civ IV - and, frankly, I like it that way. I like my playstyle, and have some great games. My point is, to be honest, the AI may not have to be all that smart to provide me with a challenging, enjoyable game experience...
So, anyway, I'm not saying I don't have concerns. I'm saying I'm willing to accept that I have concerns, and wait and see how those concerns play out.
That is, I'll wait - ONE MORE DAY!!!!
Well, guess it's time for a little disclosure here - I admit, I'm worried about if the AI can handle this system (since 1upt and tactics/strategies sound like they're more important vs SoD style warfare), but I have two consoling thoughts:
1) I have a great track record with this series. There are some versions I've enjoyed more than others, but I've genuinely loved Civ for decades now, so I'm able to give a vote of confidence to at least try out what they've done and see if I like it.
2) (and here's the disclosure part...) I'm wondering if some of you are concerned about the AI as your play level is high enough that you want a good challenge (like, maybe you're beating Diety already in Civ IV...) Me, I'm a prince player at best in Civ IV - and, frankly, I like it that way. I like my playstyle, and have some great games. My point is, to be honest, the AI may not have to be all that smart to provide me with a challenging, enjoyable game experience...
So, anyway, I'm not saying I don't have concerns. I'm saying I'm willing to accept that I have concerns, and wait and see how those concerns play out.
That is, I'll wait - ONE MORE DAY!!!!
seasnake
Conquistador
There's no need to blast this guy or the OP. The AI is a huge concern, and indications that it may not be very good should be worrying. It can still be a fun game, regardless.
solidsmooky
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13
Thank you very much for the support! We have all heard how companies "buy" there reviews. I really worry about the AI!!!
Zhahz
PC Gamer
Everybody has opinions. One reviewer out of a ton of previews, users playing, and reviews claims technical issues. One reviewer out of a ton of previews, users playing, and reviews says the AI sucks with zero explanation, evidence, or context.
We shall see tomorrow (at least some of us) and judge for ourselves!
And perhaps the test group that features a lot of forum users will finally get to speak - that should be informative.
The AI will undoubtable have faults. What I hope for is more aggressive patching for it if it needs it. Civ IV's number and frequency of patches was pretty weak.
A lot of people, including me, mentioned this in various posts. Greg commented that Nappy did try to come across the water and his ranged forces tore up Nappy's embarked troops.
Apparently the AI isn't omniscient in Civ 5 so Nappy was limited to visibility just like Greg. A great deal of the time Greg couldn't see more than 2-3 hexes into Nappy's lands and couldn't even tell if there were walls of guns coming his way.
Greg's Japan demo shows a couple of turns out of a very short war, you can't see Nappy's empire and Nappy does appear to be fighting several wars at once, and so on. Ie, many unknowns.
So, I wouldn't judge the AI entirely based on that small slice.
I doubt the AI will be utterly amazing, it's a complicated game and I'm also a programmer and have commented on the limits of AI in a game like Civ. But, I'll hold back on judging it til I see it for myself.
We shall see tomorrow (at least some of us) and judge for ourselves!
And perhaps the test group that features a lot of forum users will finally get to speak - that should be informative.
The AI will undoubtable have faults. What I hope for is more aggressive patching for it if it needs it. Civ IV's number and frequency of patches was pretty weak.
A lot of people, including me, mentioned this in various posts. Greg commented that Nappy did try to come across the water and his ranged forces tore up Nappy's embarked troops.
Apparently the AI isn't omniscient in Civ 5 so Nappy was limited to visibility just like Greg. A great deal of the time Greg couldn't see more than 2-3 hexes into Nappy's lands and couldn't even tell if there were walls of guns coming his way.
Greg's Japan demo shows a couple of turns out of a very short war, you can't see Nappy's empire and Nappy does appear to be fighting several wars at once, and so on. Ie, many unknowns.
So, I wouldn't judge the AI entirely based on that small slice.
I doubt the AI will be utterly amazing, it's a complicated game and I'm also a programmer and have commented on the limits of AI in a game like Civ. But, I'll hold back on judging it til I see it for myself.
VikingMaekel
Chieftain
Keep in mind that Civ's AI has never been anything close to smart ; )
seasnake
Conquistador
We've also all heard the moon landings were fake.
I don't think all of the great reviews are the product of bribery. I think this is a great game and one person has noticed that there are some problems with the current AI. That's all I take this for, I don't dismiss it but don't overreact either.
Who's Tom Chick?
Oneluv
Warlord
yes, without a doubt definately cancel pre-order. that's what I'd do. 
All I needed to know.
Ehm, not to be a troll or anything (and this has been said before but I'll just add my voice), but the AI in Civ4 was horrible. Like, lobotomized. If the AI in Civ5 is just "dumb", that's a huge step forward.
As far as diplomacy goes, I don't expect anything more than what we had in Civ4, which is to say next to nothing. Civ4 is an amazing game that I've sunked literally hundreds and hundreds of hours into, and neither the lobotomized AI nor the anemic diplomacy has stopped me. Basically, all that preview is saying is "here are two areas where the game hasn't been improved".
As far as diplomacy goes, I don't expect anything more than what we had in Civ4, which is to say next to nothing. Civ4 is an amazing game that I've sunked literally hundreds and hundreds of hours into, and neither the lobotomized AI nor the anemic diplomacy has stopped me. Basically, all that preview is saying is "here are two areas where the game hasn't been improved".
The AI and diplomacy are probably going to be a ways worse than in civ4, but then again who wouldn't be expecting that - you'd have to have a pretty warped understanding of the game to not expect that.
It could still probably be a good thing overall if difficulties didn't become insanely hard/imbalanced (Deity beat-able by 50% of players playing well for instance). And if the AI stresses it's invidual civ-traits and personality that's what some people want anyway.
Few if any I'd bet have ever played higher levels in civ4 or understand a lot of things about the AI, it's handicapping, etc... A lot might not even have played civIII at all as well and understood the reason for diplo changes from 3 to 4 (civIII AI could be easily just as abused, like civ5's might be, for lack of knowing who it should really like or dislike)
I'm really ok if civ5 difficulty levels are easier and more accessible all the way up though.
Thanks for an excellent post. Everybody with any experience programming and those involved or experienced with 1upt and tactical games elsewhere say mostly the same things and I do agree with that expertise rather than random fans who somehow "believe" the AI will excel at tactics.
It could still probably be a good thing overall if difficulties didn't become insanely hard/imbalanced (Deity beat-able by 50% of players playing well for instance). And if the AI stresses it's invidual civ-traits and personality that's what some people want anyway.
I'm wondering if some of you are concerned about the AI as your play level is high enough that you want a good challenge (like, maybe you're beating Diety already in Civ IV...) Me, I'm a prince player at best in Civ IV - and, frankly, I like it that way. I like my playstyle, and have some great games. My point is, to be honest, the AI may not have to be all that smart to provide me with a challenging, enjoyable game experience...
Few if any I'd bet have ever played higher levels in civ4 or understand a lot of things about the AI, it's handicapping, etc... A lot might not even have played civIII at all as well and understood the reason for diplo changes from 3 to 4 (civIII AI could be easily just as abused, like civ5's might be, for lack of knowing who it should really like or dislike)
I'm really ok if civ5 difficulty levels are easier and more accessible all the way up though.
Thanks for an excellent post. Everybody with any experience programming and those involved or experienced with 1upt and tactical games elsewhere say mostly the same things and I do agree with that expertise rather than random fans who somehow "believe" the AI will excel at tactics.
