Tom Chick's take on Civ 6

[Underseer]

You seem to take it personally.

I said that this lazy company needs to put more than half a guy's working time in coding a decent AI. Look at the game credits and count the number of people who have worked on AI, then compare to the number of people who have worked on graphics and animations. Ratio is more than 1:30. They clearly chose to dedicate most of the resources to make a shiny game but when you scratch the surface you see it's just an empty shell.

Yeah, lots of people like shiny stuff, but civ fanatics are not the targeted playerbase anymore.

I'm not taking it personally, other than that I dislike lazy truth claims.

That the AI is weak is a well-established fact, but you made a much more specific claim. So either back up your claim or just admit that you were indulging hyperbole. If you continue to insist that your original truth claim is valid, them I expect you to demonstrate that your claim is valid with a mod that has a better AI.

 

[Acken]

Yeah AI+ has better AI.

Somewhat... hard to make something good when the base is so flawed and we don't even have access to the code.

 

[Zuizgond]

I'm not taking it personally, other than that I dislike lazy truth claims.

That the AI is weak is a well-established fact, but you made a much more specific claim. So either back up your claim or just admit that you were indulging hyperbole. If you continue to insist that your original truth claim is valid, them I expect you to demonstrate that your claim is valid with a mod that has a better AI.

So basically, what you are saying is that it's impossible to do better? even if you put 5 people on it during 6 months? which is what they should have done.

 

[Biz_]

If this AI was made with just half a guy, then you should be able to make a mod with a better AI all by yourself, right?

want to pay me $250K for 3 years to make it happen?

 

[Kamamura]

He provides the only really in-depth review (which incidentally proves he really played the game, unlike other reviewers, it seems).

This casts a really bleak light on gaming journalism. Why none of the other reviews on prominent sites like Gamespot or IGN mention the glaring problems like incompetent AI or broken diplomacy, or the missionary spam?

 

[bladex]

tom chick LMFAO what a name i bet he got HELL when he was in school

 

[DocRock]

Don't know if this was mentioned, but the game was also trashed by two German magazines (well one magazine, the other one is the biggest German podcast). That's surprising, because turn-based strategy is usually always a winner here.

That made me a bit happier, because the rest of the press seem to be "it's AAA just give it a 11/10 so we don't lose our status with Firaxis" companies.

edit: "trashed" as in 7/10

 

[c4c6]

Don't know if this was mentioned

Well, it was mentioned, but I prefer not to be too pungent ... (some people here seem so desperate, that they develop neurotic habits ...)

I read several reviews in german magazines and all mentioned the c6 vanilla state of the AI as poor or problematic. Of course they used not the strong words some people here (like our "None of you is a bigger 'fanatic' than I am.") think are appropriate, but none reading carefully could be surprised. Methinks it's a question of style.

Btw, a critic in 'diplomatic speech' can be far more devastating than using 'raw force'. Or as Confucius phrased: "He, who talks loud, will be heard - but forgotten."

 

[Drakarska]

tom chick LMFAO what a name i bet he got HELL when he was in school

Bro, if he's a got a ride named "The Thunderbolt Grease Slapper", and it's fully tricked out. Then I am sending that man a box of cookies.