Poor A.I should lower the metacritic score.

That sounds exactly like what they're balancing for. As for "good AI" vs "fun AI", please have a look at the Civ4 lead (and AI) designer's talk:

 

I seriously doubt that many players are sufficiently qualified in artificial intelligence programming to be able to describe it in detail. They can put forward their perceptions, but without understanding the coding behind it all you're getting is an interpretation of someone elses play experience.

Ultimately, using Civ5 as a baseline, you can draw basic comparisons and make observations of behaviours, but unless you're going to concede that you're not playing against Skynet, it will never perform as a human player does and be able to plan and execute strategy to a remotely similar level.

Technical reviews from users tend to be virtually useless.

 

The final result/outcome is what really counts; not understanding complex programming etc.

My reference of "good AI" comes down to Civ V CP. This is something that would satisfy me as of now. Thus, I do not expect the AI not to have bonuses on higher levels or compare it to human players. I know it's just a dream.

 

Metacritic user reviews for civilzation 6 will be plagued by nationalistic Turks and Polish people who demand their nation should be at the base game.
People will give the game a 0 because of issues that would be considered minor or trivial at the most for many civfanatics.
I`ll think the game will have a lot of 10`s and 0`s but overall positive. An 7 or so on average.
Metacritic scores are pointless. I`m starting to play the game non-stop tomorrow and make up my own mind wether it is good or not.
I`ve put 1200 hours in civ 5 which i considered a low amount as civ4 is just an overall much better game. I`ve got confidence civ 6 might come close to civ 4 in a year of 2 of patching and expansions. And be worth playing from day one from what i`ve seen so far.

 

The best thing they could do for AI really is to get it to learn from monitoring human games (which obviously comes with it's own complexity and problems).

I tend to find that the majority of combat issues tend to come from the AI not organizing it's units appropriately (i.e. Thanks for putting your cannons in front of your cavalry...). They seemed to have resolved this to a large extent by BNW so provided they've basically templated from there then there should be nothing to worry about in terms of getting a decent single player game out of it.

Only time will tell.

 

There's a ceiling to what's possible/practical in AI right now. Those of you who don't have fun playing deity because it's a handicap rather than actual tactical challenge probably just need to stick to multiplayer or wait another 15-20 years for AI to progress.

Single player is for people like me who don't read up on tactics, don't theory test, and don't watch better people youtube it. We have a blast on Emperor.

(all that being said, I'll probably wait a year until the bugs, tweeks and patches are all worked out)

 

You might as well playing Chess if AI is the only thing important to you. So far you sounds like nothing else matters.

 

This is nonsense. "Nationalistic" what the hell are you talking about?

 

Why is it necessary to punish a developer? Seems to me that is not the way to go about encouraging better development. Several folks here are so uh, forceful on their view on how easy and simple it is to create a 'good ai'. My suggestion is to contact developers like Stardock or Firaxis and volunteer your time to write out code for free. Two things happen. The ai gets better, and you can know that you helped create a better game for everyone. My thought is that folks want something for nothing and that seems to be the case here in the USA particularly true.

If it were as easy and simple as some of the posters on our boards claim, do you not think it would have been done? Its not like developers are deliberately gimping the ai because making a good one would not sell well.

Just my thought on this thread.

 

I have not said it is easy. But if modders can do it better, why not developers? Don't explain why. This is a rhetorical question.

Why should we reward developers for something that does not work? To get more of it in the future? To make them ignore the bad AI?

 

Your statements come off slightly condescending. My response is in 25 years of games we still have the same type of ai. Developers already know the limit of the ai Darko. They are not making a bad product or one that does not work, their goal is to make one that can be the most fun to play with. Modders make mods that make (for them) the ai more difficult to play against. My statement still stands. If you and folks here have coding experience and claim you can make a better ai, why not volunteer to show the developers like Firaxis and Stardock 'how its done'..??

 

I'm not referring to a "product" as a whole, but specifically to the AI.

Your statement sounds like this. If you consider that the AI is a disappointment, if you think it is not working as supposed to, then do it yourself better. The thing is it is not our responsibility to do so, as customers. We are not paid for it; we pay for the product including the AI. Let's not be ridiculous.

However, skilled modders showed "how it's done" to make people satisfied, and developers should follow this path. They showed it can be done a lot better.

 

Obviously you haven't read many meta critic user reviews if you don't think people would give it a 0 because their nation is missing and they're upset about it

 

Have you seen any Polish people giving 0 just because of it? I didn't. One guy, two guys? Are those Polish nationalists? How do you know? If so, do two "nationalists" make the whole country "nationalistic"?

 

Oy vey, I'm sure he was being hyperbolic, Amelia Bedelia

 

I've been playing Civ since 3, I'm not as exprienced as other users here far from it, but I've always enjoyed the game and find the AI difficult which I find to be a huge positive. Often in games the AI is dumbed down on the earlier levels, which is Civ I actually like the huge bonuses that are given to the AI in order to tip the scale. I currently play at King right now (I believe, I think it's the 5th level actually) and find it difficult enough that I really find the game to be extremely entertaining and challenging which is why I'm playing it. So really I strongly disagree that the AI is dumb or too easy, in fact I think it's at a very satisfying level. Again I'm clearly not the best player or most experienced here, but I would definitely not be criticizing the game for difficulty when I find each edition to be more challenging and more entertaining.

 

Because Civ 3 and Civ 4 were a lot more challenging than Civ 5 and (most probably) Civ 6. Stacks of units are a true threat on higher difficulties.

 

I will answer regardless, because people keep short-selling the work of developers, claiming modders fix things as if they worked in remotely the same circumstances.

Modders have years to work on specific aspects, with little pressure. That is pretty much the extent of the complexity of their work environment. The worst they have to deal with is the occasional patch or expansion.

Developers are simultaneously building a game from scratch, with budgets to work within and objectives and deadlines to meet. Any aspect is just one of many which deserve attention in order to make a whole game, and each has to fight for priority and has to constantly adjust to ever-changing iterations.

It's a whole other ball game. In the case of AI, one thing is to polish and enhance a semi-finished one with years of time ahead of you, and another entirely to code it from scratch and be constantly rushing to adapt it as features and mechanics continuously change under you, desperately hoping it maintains a semblance of decency.

 

So in your logic, a highly paid company should get free work just for the sake of showing them?
It seems absurd to me, better not buy their product if they are bad or complain, surely giving them a free help isnt the way of solving the problem.

 

Yup. As one particularly vocal CEO recently pointed out, game studios are businesses, whether we like it or not. I doubt there's any financial incentive for top-notch AI in a game like Civ, and the end product will reflect that. As much as it sucks.

Of course that should be reflected in scores. I think you'd be crazy to say someone should just discount such a vital part of the game experience in a review or rating. But expecting developers to put out a vanilla product on the same level as a community mod with years of metagame development behind it is unrealistic.