Poor A.I should lower the metacritic score.

[Very Mad Max]

I have been debating to play my first game on Deity considering this whole AI dilemma, but I might play on a lower difficulty to ignore the AI and test out district adjacency bonuses, ext. to make a plan for a higher difficulty game. Just my idea

 

[DSveno]

No.

I want to be able to lose to an opponent because my mistakes were punished by better play, not by a handicap.

I have a much better solution. Play with other players.

 

[ptoss1]

Civ 6 will receive 8-9 scores, nothing less. There's no way major game media will rock the boat. Other reviewers might but damn I remember when CiV was first released, so many 9s for such a crap game.

 

[ToothedBomb]

Not every review is for everyone. A casual gamer's review might be valuable for other casual players or newcomers. They might not even be able to recognize some of the problems the game might have. Hardcore fans should probably look elsewhere for in-depth critique of the game. I don't expect such things to be reflected in a metacritic score. Not that that score matters anyway.

 

[treadwin]

I am sure that if the reviewers, ie the people who have actually played the game, thought the AI was bad they would mark it down.

Right now, as far as I can tell, the only people who seem to think the AI is bad, are people who have never played the game.

 

[darko82]

As much as I love Civ VI, I cannot give a positive rating. The reason: totally ******ed AI.

 

[Randall_Flagg]

Don't you know how youtube works? its all about making profit... quilt18 and other youtuber's get money for streaming these early built from civ 6 and they don't rant about how bad the AI is i've not seen marborzir or other youtuber's do it..

Angry joe did make a big rant video about total war rome AI so if Ai is as bad as it is now i thinx he willl say something about it he is a honest youtuber

but IGN, gamespot just give positive reviews why its marketing they get money from firaxis. Rome total war had good reviews by IGN why? it had bad AI

You are mistaken. There have been people with the press copy who have railed about the AI.

 

[darko82]

I will activate the game on Steam just to give my rating about the Moderator Action: <snip> AI. And I am pretty pissed off right now.

 

[Lyoncet]

I will activate the game on Steam just to give my rating about the Moderator Action: <snip> AI. And I am pretty pissed off right now.

Planning on playing at all first? I doubt there will be any giant leaps between the press builds and the launch, but come on. Scores aren't there for venting.

 

[Lord Shadow]

As much as I love Civ VI, I cannot give a positive rating. The reason: Moderator Action: <snip> AI.

I will activate the game on Steam just to give my rating about the Moderator Action: <snip> AI. And I am pretty pissed off right now.

Regardless of what you might've seen or read, it's quite disingenuous to give a game any rating without having actually played it.

 

[Xyriach]

Poor AI based on your extensive experience playing the game? Or based on a video you watched of someone else doing it?

That's kinda like writing a bad review on Trip Advisor for a hotel you never stayed in, but once drove past on a bus and didn't like the look of the concierge.

 

[Plus Ultra]

Metacritic is where naive 12 year olds vote either 10 or 0 for games they haven't even played right?

Why are we discussing this again?

 

[RealHuhn]

I will activate the game on Steam just to give my rating about the ******ed AI. And I am pretty pissed off right now.

And this is exactly why nobody should care about user reviews (unless they give a reasonable opinion with pros and cons of course, but what am I talking about, it's the internet -_-)

 

[Lyoncet]

Metacritic is where naive 12 year olds vote either 10 or 0 for games they haven't even played right?

Why are we discussing this again?

Because the game's not out yet, so this is as close to 0-bombing as you can get at the moment.

 

[Frank327]

Metacritic is where naive 12 year olds vote either 10 or 0 for games they haven't even played right?

Why are we discussing this again?

It's also where professional reviews are gathered and an average score of those is calculated. It sort of eliminates biases of individual reviewers.

 

[darko82]

And this is exactly why nobody should care about user reviews (unless they give a reasonable opinion with pros and cons of course, but what am I talking about, it's the internet -_-)

It's a pure truth. The AI is Moderator Action: <snip> and broken. Because the AI is the most important thing in this game, it is unforgivable untill they fix it.

I do not understand how people can give a positive rating if the game is not working as supposed to?

No wonder we get broken games.

If they fix it, I will change my rating.

There are only two ways you can influence developers etc. Either you do not buy their product, or give a negative rating.

 

[Plus Ultra]

It's also where professional reviews are gathered and an average score of those is calculated. It sort of eliminates biases of individual reviewers.

Have you tried Opencritic.com?

 

[darko82]

It's also where professional reviews are gathered and an average score of those is calculated. It sort of eliminates biases of individual reviewers.

"Professional" reviews are not objective because they are often paid to give a good review.

 

[fmm]

The game can still be challenging and fun without "good" AI.

 

[Plus Ultra]

It's a pure truth. The AI is Moderator Action: <snip> and broken. Because the AI is the most important thing in this game, it is unforgivable untill they fix it.

I do not understand how people can give a positive rating if the game is not working as supposed to?

No wonder we get broken games.

If they fix it, I will change my rating.

There are only two ways you can influence developers etc. Either you do not buy their product, or give a negative rating.

Darko82, voting 0 on a game without playing it makes no sense whatsoever.

I really can't take anything you say seriously if you don't see that.