Volstag
Chairman of the Bored
Given that the AI has always been dubious in the Civ series (or any strategy game of commensurate complexity), I fail to see how this is cause for alarm.
-V
-V
Given that the AI has always been dubious in the Civ series (or any strategy game of commensurate complexity), I fail to see how this is cause for alarm.
-V
The Poles have had a harsh history. For you, a brussel sprout it like heaven. For us decadent westerners, it is abit nasty and causes bad wind
Actually thats wrong. Napoleon was a much better game. It got a lower score for 4 reasons, 1. Reviewers were mad they were made to look stupid when empire was so unstable after sega said bugs would be fixed 2. It was so simillar to empire but priced like a full new game. 3. It is popular to slag off total war after empire even though napoleons probably one of the best games theyve released. And 4 the most important reason empire scored well above what it should have 80 is what i rank empire and 90 napoleon.
OK, guys, let's not rant on the reviewer. If what he says may have merit - if the AI may not be all that strong (and, hey, historically the Civ AI doesn't war well, so that's a probablility) then he could have a point.
I'll tell you for certain if he has a point or not tomorrow...
It's the apocalypse! We all need to cancel our pre-orders and hide under our beds for the rest of our lives.
Keep in mind that the developers are also designing their AI to run at consumer levels of processing power. Deep Blue needed to be able to handle a trillion operations per second to be able to beat Kasparov at chess -- a game that has one winning condition, six different units, and a 64 tile map that is the same for every game. Designing an AI that can beat the best humans at civ might require years of additional development time and hardware requirements that exceed what most customers would be willing to pay for.
Or maybe just until Civ VI come out.
Well Civ 6 probably won't come out til 2015, and the world is going to end in December of 2012, so I'm not sure that is the way to go.
Just like civ they have good and bad releases, like i hated civ 3, which most people love. (im a big tw fan if you didnt guess)
I disagree. I do not think Civ 3 was "loved" by most people... I think it was simply the first Civ game that many people had played. If you played Civ I or Civ II... I don't know how you could "love" Civ III. I thought it was very poorly done, period. It had some nice innovations, but my brand new computer couldn't handle it, and I think many people were in a similar position. "Finishing" a game was a nightmare, and the replay-ability was quite low.
Civ I, II, and IV were all far superior products in my opinion.
If you knew more about the predication you would know the world doesn't just end completely. It's more just a change of times. Typical mistake.