Poor A.I should lower the metacritic score.

[genyl]

I understand the frustration of bad AI. This has happened in every civ game and any AI improvement has been negated by more complex gameplay.

I play at the highest difficulty settings and I am in the minority of players (although I am among the majority in these forums) I find shocking only 10% of players have won in king which is a good level to learn the game for veterans.

It is normal their main focus is for the main chunk of players.

Even if the AI is crap if it is a good challenge with the bonus I will still like the game

 

[darko82]

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.

On Steam you have two options: UP or DOWN. How can I give UP and say I am happy when I am not? When the AI is broken; it's not working etc.?

 

[Xyriach]

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

Kinda like, how can people give a game a negative rating when they haven't played it?

 

[Lord Shadow]

On Steam you have two options: UP or DOWN. How can I give UP and say I am happy when I am not? When the AI is broken; it's not working etc.?

There's a third option, the one you should be taking: giving no rating, if you're unwilling to even play the game.

And you can't really criticize the objectivity of professional reviews while simultaneously advocating 0-bombing.

 

[darko82]

Kinda like, how can people give a game a negative rating when they haven't played it?

How playing the game can change the broken AI? How can it change my experience?

There's a third option, the one you should be taking: giving no rating, if you're unwilling to even play the game.

I will play the game, but it will not change my opinion. I will rate the AI, which is the most important part of this game for me.

 

[Xyriach]

How playing the game can change the broken AI? How can it change my experience?

You haven't had an experience to rate yet.

 

[Plus Ultra]

How playing the game can change the broken AI? How can it change my experience?

What experience?

 

[killmeplease]

they were playing prince difficulty right?
there isnt much competition at the prince level in civ5 too so whats the problem

 

[darko82]

You haven't had an experience to rate yet.

What experience?

The experience I am going to have with this type of AI.

There's a third option, the one you should be taking: giving no rating, if you're unwilling to even play the game.

I will play the game BEFORE I RATE it, just as I played Civ V with its poor AI. So I can predict the experience. I will rate the AI, which is the most important part of this game for me.

 

[RealHuhn]

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.

And you think you can make a qualified opinion about the AI without playing the game? The AI battle yesterday had like 5 civs with very similar scores. Of course, wars are less likely to happen in that scenario because all those AIs had a good chance of winning the game without having to risk a war. I assume that modifiers like this can be tweaked. So if AIs are always too peaceful (too scared), Firaxis can fix it without too much effort. We also don't know how the player effects those modifiers.
Unit upgrades are more a design issue because the gap between units in the tech tree is too big and resource requirements can make it even worse (both catapults and warriors cannot be upgraded without niter until late game).

 

[Xyriach]

I will play the game BEFORE I RATE it, just as I played Civ V with its poor AI. So I can predict the experience. I will rate the AI, which is the most important part of this game for me.

Potentially your experience will be as you predict as you've clearly already made your mind up on the issue. Self-Fulfilling Prophecy 101.

 

[Stilgar08]

Let's make a competition:How many threads about the bad AI are possible in a row???
My guess is around 11...

 

[StrideColossus]

@darko82 I'm sure the AI will leave a lot to be desired, I've never played any game (civ or otherwise) that's any different - spamming every thread with your whining won't make it any better I'm afraid.

 

[darko82]

@darko82 I'm sure the AI will leave a lot to be desired, I've never played any game (civ or otherwise) that's any different - spamming every thread with your whining won't make it any better I'm afraid.

Really? They won't even care to fix it? Oh, they will leave it to the modders after their bank account is filled?

Potentially your experience will be as you predict as you've clearly already made your mind up on the issue. Self-Fulfilling Prophecy 101.

Just a justified dissatisfaction. If things improve, I will change my rating.

 

[rreebb]

And this is exactly why nobody should care about user reviews

It's why us reasonable users should also post a review.

 

[Lord Shadow]

Just a justified dissatisfaction. If things improve, I will change my rating.

There's no valid justification for any rating at this point.

But there's no point in beating the dead horse. Do as you please. I'm sure there will be no shortage of people negatively rating the game over single issues (art style comes to mind as well), disregarding the whole, so this behaviour isn't particularly anomalous.

 

[Ryika]

Thankfully many people seem to have understood already that User Reviews are just as dumb and meaningless as the review score given by "professional reviewers", and with more people focusing only on their one pet issue instead of evaluating the game as a whole and use the review-sites as their personal soapbox instead of trying to help others make a good decision the number of people who realize that will only become bigger.

It sucks, but the old mantra "If you want it done right, do it yourself." proves to also be true when it comes to reviewing games.

 

[darko82]

It's why us reasonable users should also post a review.

If you are reasonable, you will describe the AI in detail objectively - according to truth.

 

[tekjunkie28]

I think the AI should be good. It doesn't have to be Einstein and MacArthur wrapped in a package but I expect to get ripped by it if i mess up on atleast medium high difficulty. I expect only a fraction of players to be able to beat the game on the highest difficulty level. I expect the AI to be fun and fun means it a challenge. Stomping the AI is fun the first time but after that its just boring.
The AI should be able to put me in a defensive position and force me to rethink my options. It would also add suspense (fun) to the game and drive the player to one more turn.

I remember years ago Sid had a seminar about developing games and the psychiatric aspects of it. Basically it boiled down to making the player believe the game was challenging when it wasn't and some other stuff.

 

[rreebb]

If you are reasonable, you will describe the AI in detail objectively - according to truth.

That's what I intend to do. I will also give the AI performance (which I expect I will find to be generally competent, with some flaws) a reasonable weight in my score.