Is AI really brain dead?

[bite]

I'd gladly hear a story about the AI excelling. From my experience with the game so far, the only thing the AI is good with is using missionaries to convert the world to their religion.

In most of my games there is at least one or two civs that always tech up as quickly as me and provide a bit of a challenge to contain, but I am working my way up the difficulty tree so well see how it goes

 

[tekjunkie28]

The game can potentially be good but the AI issue is too important to qualify Civ 6 as a good game. I don't get the 90+% "professional" reviews. Have they played the game? or just see some Firaxis demo?

They are paid to give those high scores.... Even Civ 5 had incredibly high scores and that game was released with absolutely nothing.

 

[Sascha77]

These reviews are part of marketing to promote the game. It's a mutual busniess. Never trust any "professional" reviews.

LOL... You're dipping into conspiracy-territory here.

I used to be a professional reviewer and between 1995 and 2006 I wrote for three of Germany's leading PC-gaming mags. And I can tell you that we never, ever were "bribed" by the industry. Sure: PR-guys would call up and complain when they thought you'd given one of their products too low of a score. But most of them would usually concede if you had good arguments as to why you scored their game the way you did.
Thinking that publishers and reviewers are somehow conspiring to fool customers is rather silly. Especially in these times of easily accessible internet-reviews/blogs where customers don't have to rely on a single source to obtain information on a title they're interested in.

The way I see it, the problem has more to do with reviewers being human or even "fan-boys" themselves. Even if it's justified, it's not easy to rip a big-name-title a new one, simply because you yourself might not want to accept that a big developer or a famous design-team have screwed up. Or because you don't have the balls to be the one voice amid the fan-boy-choir to point out that the emperor has no clothes on this time.



S.

 

[Deterbeest]

They are paid to give those high scores.... Even Civ 5 had incredibly high scores and that game was released with absolutely nothing.

So the countless bad reviews out there for various other games are just the result of dumb developers/publishers failing to realize they can just buy a few good reviews and call it a day? Or could it be that reviewers tend not to be "fanatics" when it comes to specific franchises (they need to be versatile in their tastes), and therefore put less emphasis on long term, advanced game play? Don't get me wrong, I am and have been disappointed by the AI in recent Civ titles as well, but I'm afraid it's a result of the market being more supportive of aesthetic improvements and "new toy" features rather than fundamental overhauls of the underlying systems. People keep buying it. Including many of us who've been disappointed before.

The lesson is: if you're a hardcore fanatic of anything, take mainstream reviews with a healthy grain of salt. Not because they're bought and paid for, but because they might just not be written with you in mind. Which is why we have forums like these. Too bad I didn't read this thread before buying though

 

[tekjunkie28]

What I find strange is that Firaxis, from what I remember, has never been better then bad with patches and communicating with the players. If they would just fix the AI and spend the $$$ we all know they have to hire 1 or 2 more people and put then on AI it would be glorious as long as those people could code a good AI. I understand it take a long time to play a game of civ and debug the AI but come on. Firaxis you need to have a better patch system and communicate with US. We are the ones keeping you in business.

IF what you are worried about is an AI being too good on easy diffculites for the newcomers or the casuals (which is probably 70% of the current player base) then add options like weighted damage against the difficulty level or something along those lines which doesnt affect the way the tactical AI is.

I personally dont play on the higher difficulty levels but I believe that the highest difficulty level should be nearly impossible to beat for even the top players.

 

[tekjunkie28]

So the countless bad reviews out there for various other games are just the result of dumb developers/publishers failing to realize they can just buy a few good reviews and call it a day? Or could it be that reviewers tend not to be "fanatics" when it comes to specific franchises (they need to be versatile in their tastes), and therefore put less emphasis on long term, advanced game play? Don't get me wrong, I am and have been disappointed by the AI in recent Civ titles as well, but I'm afraid it's a result of the market being more supportive of aesthetic improvements and "new toy" features rather than fundamental overhauls of the underlying systems. People keep buying it. Including many of us who've been disappointed before.

The lesson is: if you're a hardcore fanatic of anything, take mainstream reviews with a healthy grain of salt. Not because they're bought and paid for, but because they might just not be written with you in mind. Which is why we have forums like these. Too bad I didn't read this thread before buying though

I think our exact some conversation came up shortly after Civ5 release about Firaxis paying for praising reviews. I don't see how Civ5 could ever have been given good reviews when it was first released. PC gamer even game Sword of the Stars 2 a 55%!!! LOL, the game wasnt able to be played in full screen. it wasnt even in alpha. At most that game deserved a 15%. I think civ6 is a very good game minus AI and balance. I feel a 70% score would be the highest it would get on release.

I think I played half a game and that was only because of the lack of content and the AI not building cities.

 

[jekke]

LOL... You're dipping into conspiracy-territory here.

I used to be a professional reviewer and between 1995 and 2006 I wrote for three of Germany's leading PC-gaming mags. And I can tell you that we never, ever were "bribed" by the industry. Sure: PR-guys would call up and complain when they thought you'd given one of their products too low of a score. But most of them would usually concede if you had good arguments as to why you scored their game the way you did.
Thinking that publishers and reviewers are somehow conspiring to fool customers is rather silly. Especially in these times of easily accessible internet-reviews/blogs where customers don't have to rely on a single source to obtain information on a title they're interested in.

The way I see it, the problem has more to do with reviewers being human or even "fan-boys" themselves. Even if it's justified, it's not easy to rip a big-name-title a new one, simply because you yourself might not want to accept that a big developer or a famous design-team have screwed up. Or because you don't have the balls to be the one voice amid the fan-boy-choir to point out that the emperor has no clothes on this time.

S.

I tend to agree with this assessment... sometimes you don't even have to bribe anyone, if your sample is large enough, there will always be boneheads who like whatever you are doing. The thing is, nowadays every schoolboy can borrow his dad's laptop and become a reviewer... and grown-ups are not better because they aim at pleasing the audience of exactly these kids. This was not the case in 2006 I suppose.

Actually, negative reviews are of much higher value than the positive ones; I do like dutch reviews (I can understand some dutch) much more than english ones, as the Dutch people are known for not being afraid of criticizing everything quite directly. Somehow this seems to be a problem in the english-speaking part of the internet where everything is awesome and fantastic.

 

[ProMeTheus112]

It's known fact that reviewers get priviledges from publishers so long as they give good marks, things like pre-release luxury hotel play tests... there is a hierarchy also that may punish a reviewer who writes a negative review for a game with whom they have partnership, it happened with kain & lynch for some magazine who were also using kain & lynch theme on their website. I read that Activision-Blizzard blacklisted critics of their game from getting press entry to their promotional event. There are also deals with hardware sellers. You can't just trust the large reviewers, not to mention I'm sure they have ton of things to review and might tend to do rather superficial testing. Imo that's why there is such a big difference between "pro" review average and user average on some of the big publishers games lately like http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-4 or http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii ; honestly I read user reviews much more than pro now, much better to get an idea of how interesting a game truly is. (isn't it obvious with civ 6 ? how would you know about the AI UI and balance shortcomings if you didn't look at civfanatics or user reviews ?)

 

[Sascha77]

Somehow this seems to be a problem in the english-speaking part of the internet where everything is awesome and fantastic.

Even back in the day this used to be a problem with English-.speaking review mags/websites - well, mostly with American ones, if I'm honest. I clearly recall quite a few cases where places like Gamespot or IGN would hand out scores of 80+% for titles that we had at 60 - 70% at the most. And that was before the time of social media and before everyone and their grandma even had internet and could provide instant feedback to a review.

But looking at Civ VI's entry at gamerankings.com, that general trend still seems to persist:

http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/190280-sid-meiers-civilization-vi/articles.html

The only sub 90% review (out of 24) I can find linked there comes from Australia (Impulse Gamer) - go figure.. Although IMO they dwell too much on the game's looks in their verdict, but .. oh well... :

Ultimately is Civilization 6 worth buying? Certainly there have been a few solid play improvements on Civ 5, but not enough to justify its current price tag. The graphics are much less appealing than previous Civs, and depending on your personal tastes, you may find this edition simply unplayable because of it. Really, the best thing Civ 6 has done is make Civ 5 cheaper. If you’re new to the franchise, go buy Civ 5 at a bargain price. You’ll get a full, rich game packed with all its DLC. And if like me you’ve already played Civ 5 to death, I would wait a while before plunging into Civ 6. Give Firaxis a chance to smooth out the bugs, refine the game, and let other players suffer for a few months instead. Still, if you truly are a hardcore Civ fan, you’ll ignore my warnings. You know suffering and frustration into those wee small hours is what Civilization is all about.

One review-site even gave it a 10 out of 10, basically saying Civ VI is a perfect game. Which kinda disqualifies that review without having to read it or without knowing/owning Civ VI: No game should ever get a 10/10 or 100% score, because the perfect game simply doesn't exist.


S.

 

[mogilan]

It's not uncommon for crap movies (like Indiana Jones 4) to have, for some reason, super-high rates on popular websites like IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes prior to release. Later on the rating drops to reflect the true quality. I think the same mechanism applies for computer games.

Also: the invitation of a bunch of youtubers to review the game a month before release - suspicious. Now poor guys have the dilemma - say something wrong about AI or not. They still want to be invited for the next such event in the future.

Btw if you still believe that companies cannot influence reviewers or even "independent" analyst - please read a book or watch a movie about Enron collapse. They were the masters at influencing opinions.

 

[darko82]

Reviews and rating are powerful tools to sell anything.

 

[orasis]

It needs improvement.

 

[orasis]

I think the first mod I will install is something to disable random agendas. They make the AI feel schizo. Diplomacy right now seems to consist of everyone being permanently furious with each other and no one explaining why. Not that you can do much even if you know why they are upset.

The mechanic is an all or nothing calculation and that should be fixed. The random/hidden agendas should be graded.

 

[orasis]

I suggest you guys add +4 to the default number of civs for any given map size. Of all the games I've started so far, I've seen a trend of AI seeming more competent when there is more competition.

You may be onto something. In a recent game I was trying to find the last civilization and I found Phillip in the middle of the Ocean on a nice Island. Besides a holy site and a shrine, he had not done anything at all. As I said earlier, it was a nice island, I could not understand why he had done nothing, he did not even build a military unit.

Then, I declared war and all of a sudden he was rushing Settlers and Horses.

This was in the industrial era...

 

[Heklios]

Just as a small caveat. I think Civ6 has remarkable selling points and has made several valuable improvements to its previous installments of the series with this release.
I played few games so far and it would be a lie to say I did not enjoy myself. I really had fun. The invigorated control you now have over your cities is engaging and the amount of decision making involved is the perfect balance between impactful and convenient. The dual research tree Science/Civics builds up on the strengths of the franchise while offering a bold and engaging new game mechanic with the Governments and dynamic Policy swaps. It's brilliant.

The point of my post is not to make a review of Civ6. But because I replied to the OP quite passionately about what I think of the (brain dead) AI and now realize I maybe participated in this snowball effect where all replies to this thread now consist in jumping in the "yeah Civ6 sucks and its good reviews were all fake paid reviews" wagon, I feel like I must inform future readers of this thread that :

YES. The AI is miserable. Unacceptable for a strategy game. Even more so for a solo oriented one. It's almost insulting to realize that raising the difficulty has no noticeable impacts on the behavior of the AI but simply gives him incremental bonuses and free startup units. And that is why I participated in this thread. I think it is very important the message gets out there, that some massive work needs to be done quickly to the AI.

BUT NO. That does not make Civ6 a game not worthy of the praise it received in reviews. It's a fantastic game nonetheless and fairness implies that all matters should not be amalgamated in an undeserved community rant.

Civ6 rocks, thanks for the hard work Firaxis. But please now, have a relevant part of your team/budget be shifted to the AI developement and actively work on it.

Now, I shall go back and finish my current game Have fun everyone.

 

[mogilan]

YES. The AI is miserable. Unacceptable for a strategy game. Even more so for a solo oriented one. It's almost insulting to realize that raising the difficulty has no noticeable impacts on the behavior of the AI but simply gives him incremental bonuses and free startup units. And that is why I participated in this thread. I think it is very important the message gets out there, that some massive work needs to be done quickly to the AI..

I have a feeling that such, very common opinions where one blame AI that sucks but on the other hand still have a lot of fun with the game is a serious evidence that 1UPT IS WORTHLESS. Because it simply means that there is much more fun with city management, technology and civics than war and expansion. So why the hell we need 1upt?? Does perfect Europa Universalis 4 have 1UTP?? No, this is grant strategy as well and EU4 has Stacks of Dooms. Really.

As someone mentioned on Civ4 forum - all previous (pre-V) civs put more focus on City management. V and VI seems to simplify this part but on the other hand make tactical part more complex by introducing 1UPT.

 

[footslogger]

Yep, 1upt is the worst feature of the game by far. I wish Firaxis would just accept the obvious impossibility of making it work and abandon it. I hope the expansions make big, significant changes to the combat system. Stacked units don't have to be boring if enacted in an intelligent way.

 

[Sascha77]

YES. The AI is miserable. Unacceptable for a strategy game. Even more so for a solo oriented one. It's almost insulting to realize that raising the difficulty has no noticeable impacts on the behavior of the AI but simply gives him incremental bonuses and free startup units. And that is why I participated in this thread. I think it is very important the message gets out there, that some massive work needs to be done quickly to the AI.

(...)

Civ6 rocks, thanks for the hard work Firaxis

Errr...?

Imagine you buy a new car. It looks great, has a powerful engine and beautifully finished interior with leather-seats and all the electronic gizmos you'd ever want. But the gearbox only has reverse-gears.

Unless your desire is to only ever play Civ VI in multiplayer, having an AI that's more or less broken is a show-stopper - just like the inability to drive forward would be in a car (unless you only ever want to drive in reverse of course ).

Besides: There are more areas in the game that need fixing besides the AI. Perhaps none that need it as badly as the AI, but things like the UI or general balancing are far from perfect either.

My point here isn't to say that Civ VI is beyond saving via patches and expansions. Just that in its current state it isn't a lot of fun for me. I for one will go back to IV and V until Firaxis can sort some of the most annoying inconsistencies and problems.


S.

 

[skyclad]

I have a feeling that such, very common opinions where one blame AI that sucks but on the other hand still have a lot of fun with the game is a serious evidence that 1UPT IS WORTHLESS. Because it simply means that there is much more fun with city management, technology and civics than war and expansion. So why the hell we need 1upt?? Does perfect Europa Universalis 4 have 1UTP?? No, this is grant strategy as well and EU4 has Stacks of Dooms. Really.

As someone mentioned on Civ4 forum - all previous (pre-V) civs put more focus on City management. V and VI seems to simplify this part but on the other hand make tactical part more complex by introducing 1UPT.

What i find really interesting is that even civ 5 lead designer jon shafer changed his mind about 1upt. Saying it was a mistake and for it to work maps need to be at least 4x bigger.
1upt is a fine idea but my casual friends cant even manage it properly, how is a toaster supposed to not embarrass itself trying to use it?

 

[DubiousSquirrel]

In a recent game I was trying to find the last civilization and I found Phillip in the middle of the Ocean on a nice Island. Besides a holy site and a shrine, he had not done anything at all.

Maybe he was constantly under siege from horse barbarians? If there wasn't any city states or AI's around to give a hand, I imagine AI might have a hard time coping with that.