I am so confused here is a quote by you from the games criticism thread.
When I read about a game, all I want to know is if it’s fun.
-Tom
Of course if this site allowed emoticons no confusion would exist ;).
I agree with you ignoring the “other that how did you like the play Mrs Lincoln”, flaw in Civ V is huge omission by reviewers. On the other even as an experienced Civ player it took me three games before I was convinced that AI was completely inept. That is 40-60 hours of game play certainly as much time as can be reasonably expected for reviewer to put into a game.
I knew it!
Anyway, I guess I was thinking of something on Fidgit, but I can’t find it anywhere now, so perhaps I dreamed the whole thing, or I did in fact get the 1UP review confused with you, in which case my apologies!
You’re probably thinking of the Elemental game diary series I wrote on Fidgit. It sort of charted my plunge from guarded enthusiasm to despair. I finally washed my hands of that game in the hopes that it would get fixed up as well as the GalCiv series was fixed up.
But I never wrote a formal review of Elemental. If I had, I would have given it the lowest rating possible. The state of Elemental’s release was wretched.
-Tom
Yeah, I was just goofing. I have been on a crusade against fun for as long as I can remember. I’m tempted to say you won’t find any review where I’ve used that word unironically. But I’ve been doing this for nearly 20 years now, so I don’t always remember what I wrote when I was young and desperate and needed the money.
And for the record, I have no problem with people talking about fun in a casual conversation. It’s as important as it is intangible! I’m glad Adam and Chris and Hans and whomever are having fun with Civ V and that’s a conversation worth having. But it’s not really helpful when we’re talking about the game’s many failings. And it certainly doesn’t excuse those failings.
-Tom, crusader against fun
Thasero
4845
It’s worse than you thought, BleedTheFreak!
I haven’t actually said I’m still having fun playing Civ V, so try reading what people are saying before snarkily pointing out how they are not quoting you correct.
This is page 121 of the thread perhaps the more detailed arguments have already been made - but there’s really no point in arguing with you. Your mind is set. You deal in absolutes. And you always group people together like this and then dismiss their opinion with a cute little putdown.
You’ve been doing this for 20 years, and you know when people are playing a game wrong.
Sometimes you’re the Bob Cherub of the Games forum (and Movies) and there’s really no point in continuing.
I’ve sunk several hundred hours into Stone Soup and never won it. Indeed, the vast amount of time I’ve spent playing it is at least partly because I’ve never won it. I’m not saying that’s the only way to enjoy games but there are people who’d prefer to play games that it’s genuinely possible to lose. GalCiv & GalCiv2 were both equipped with an AI that would genuinely try to beat you, (without cheating, even) and often would, and they sold pretty well.
Therlun
4848
It’s interesting how this opinion is rightfully formed at least every two weeks by another forum member. :P Also, emoticons rock!
IMO Tom’s review of Civ V is the model of a useful contrarian review. There were really not enough people saying that about the Civ V AI outside of discussion forums in the release period.
Meanwhile, I don’t feel ripped off my my Civ V purchase, in some measure because I knew before purchasing it that there were potentially irremediable AI issues.
Group hug?
It sounds like homos have been touching your stuff.
-Tom
Yeah, I don’t think objective of AI design is ever an AI that can beat the player. AI has the unenviable task of having to lose without losing too badly. :) The Civ series has always been good about providing a broad range of choices for this.
However, that’s a largely separate issue from having an AI that understands that game you’ve designed. I’d argue that’s the first step of any successful AI, and Civ V never made that first step.
-Tom
Octonoo
4852
HAW! HAW! HAW!
I now believe this more than ever.
This upcoming patch will most likely be the last big one and we may as well entirely forget about the complete Modding SDK being released…
I fear it’s destined to be “Delete Local Content” with Civ 5.
As has been discussed, it is impossible to make a good AI for a Civ-type game and no one would stand for a “multiplayer-only” version unless it was an actual physical board game.
Therefore,
THERE WILL BE NO CIVILIZATION 6
Doesn’t matter, though.
I’m truly looking forward to:
This is the future of Civilization, including a console/iOS Civilization Revolution 2 with Facebook Civ World interactivity.
GalCiv2 is a 4X game and has excellent AI.
Squee
4854
This is a darker vision of the future than Warhammer 40,000.
He said “civ-type”, not 4x. It’s easier to create an AI for a 4x in space than a 4x on terrestrial tiles.
Having said that, I was pretty happy with Civ IV’s AI.
Yes, that was a good review. I agreed with some parts, disagreed with others. It’s like he made an effort.
I have no idea if this is a clever insult that I’m just missing because of language or if you’re channeling your inner 15-year old shouting “FAG!” at me in your headset. But well done.
ShivaX
4858
As was I, and just almost everyone else.
Its hard to buy throwing up ones hands and saying “Its Impossible!” when I’ve seen it done, in the previous iteration of the same title no less.
It would be like CoD/whatever going to 4v4 and saying its not possible to have any more people. I’m guessing people wouldn’t buy it and some might even dare to call out the devs on it.
I’m not asking for some amazing AI, asking that it know how to play the game is pretty reasonable. If you can’t figure out how to do that, maybe doing all these game-changing paradigms wasn’t such a good idea.
Only if you change your quote to reflect my now correct use of ‘you’re’, … penis?!
Quitch
4860
I see this and talks on it and I think it’s nonsense. Difficulty levels solved this problem a long time ago, and games like Civ use naming conventions which don’t imply wussiness in choosing lower levels… No one needs to design an AI which can lose on a level playing field, every game thus far has achieved this whether they were trying or not.
I loved the implied idea that somehow we’re designing AIs to lose because secretly we’re sitting on these amazing AIs, so don’t make us unleash the fury.
I wonder if this statement started in regards to FPS, where you need to limit the AIs ability to shoot things to a more human level. It sure as hell doesn’t apply to strategy games.
