Poor A.I should lower the metacritic score.

[Ravellion]

I expect high scores from the typical Angry Joe lets play for 10 hours review score [...]

Then that is a realistic score. Most people play these games as a simple power fantasy, playing maybe 2 or three times, having loads of fun trouncing the weak AI. In fact, when the AI gets too aggressive, this is usually not enjoyed. Us Civfanatics are just that; fanatics. Our way of playing the game is strange. I've met many Civ players in my time; few want to play above Prince.

So no, bad AI should not be part of the metacritic score; most users don't need it. That Firaxis spends any time on the fanatics at all (with patches, DLCs, and expansions) is a kindness.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Can a game be fun without a competitive ai, I would say yes

Should a fun game get a low score because it have a noncompetitive ai, I would say no

What is a games purpose, generally it is about having fun

Are competitive games fun, not always

Could civilization VI keep everything the same but be given a much superior ai, very unlikely

A civilization VI with a very competitive ai would likely be a very simple game and unlikely to be fun for play for most people and thus likely to recive a low score

Our way of playing the game is strange.

Everyone play the game in a strange way because there is no correct way to play the game even though some people try to say there is a correct way to play the game

 

[AmericaAlways]

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.

The tactical difficulties in 5/6 though make them immensely entertaining at least for me. Positioning and correctly deploying troops in specific areas to maximize damage. I thoroughly enjoy that aspect as opposed to the stacking feature which honestly made it too easy at some points (in my humble opinion at least)

 

[TeraHammer]

Multiplayer master race!

 

[treadwin]

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

The person that you replied to gave examples of critics to support his point. If you did the same, it would greatly enhance the worth of your post.

 

[darko82]

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

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

It's funny how people give positive ratings without playing the game on Steam. Half an hour? One hour? And they say the game is great. Is it constructive? Nobody even says there is no valid justification, or they haven't played it, or it should be constructive.

I think your above statements make very little sense in that respect.

And it strikes me how people (without playing the game enough) completely ignore totally terrible AI.

We will never get a decent AI, even when Civ 10 comes out because people totally ignore it, which I cannot understand...

They do not even mention this terrible flaw in their reviews... insane...

The best review of steam that I found sounds like this: "very gut". Lol. This is very constructive, indeed...

 

[Browd]

Don't know about YouTube, but you can watch the replay of the AI Battle Royale (nearly 4 hour run-time) on 2K's twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/2k/v/95936655

 

[darko82]

Don't know about YouTube, but you can watch the replay of the AI Battle Royale (nearly 4 hour run-time) on 2K's twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/2k/v/95936655

Thanks. I didn't know about it.

 

[Myth and Legend]

Angry Joe is objective about his reviews but he is not a skilled player. He never plays on the highest difficulty setting. His RII review was spot on (the game was horrible at launch). His Civ5 5 review consisted of him picking Alex and rushing the AI with hoplites. That strat would have gotten him slaugheted and outpaced on Deity. Esentially what he liked about civ 5 (picking honor and roleplaying his sparatn hoplite phalanxes) was enabled due to him playing on Prince or some such. His reveiws are the quintesencial "i'm a casual" viewpoint, and that is why they resonate wtih the masses.

 

[darko82]

Angry Joe is objective about his reviews but he is not a skilled player. He never plays on the highest difficulty setting. His RII review was spot on (the game was horrible at launch). His Civ5 5 review consisted of him picking Alex and rushing the AI with hoplites. That strat would have gotten him slaugheted and outpaced on Deity. Esentially what he liked about civ 5 (picking honor and roleplaying his sparatn hoplite phalanxes) was enabled due to him playing on Prince or some such. His reveiws are the quintesencial "i'm a casual" viewpoint, and that is why they resonate wtih the masses.

You are totally right. He is not an experienced Civ player. How often does he play a Civ game? I bet very rarely. His rating is very subjective. It's good to new players who do not know much about Civ games.

 

[Myth and Legend]

Yes, by objective I meant he is unbiased and not under suspicious influences.

BEST GAME EVAR 9.5/10 -IGN

 

[DSveno]

And it strikes me how people (without playing the game enough) completely ignore totally terrible AI.

Guess what? The AI is not terrible as people made it out to be, but I'm sure you're going to give it negative review after 15 minutes of playing anyway, because you already decided that it's terrible.

 

[darko82]

Guess what? The AI is not terrible as people made it out to be, but I'm sure you're going to give it negative review after 15 minutes of playing anyway, because you already decided that it's terrible.

I have seen how it plays. It cannot play as I would expect it.

No, I decided not to give any review at the moment. Maybe next year.