My prediction is that people will overhype it with lots of hopes for super complex systems, call it shit when it has fewer mechanics and civs than 3/4/5/6 with all their DLC, and then eventually decide it's good after a couple years of DLC and patches.

You know, the usual Civ cycle. I'll probably buy it day 1 assuming it isn't actually broken, per usual, and dump a couple hundred hours in it, per usual.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 6 months ago (3 children)

I just want an AI that actually plays the game and have to build things for real instead of cheating in everything.

[–] EarMaster 16 points 6 months ago

"just"

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The AI has never been great in the series for various reasons, but for whatever reason it just did not know how to play in Civ6. I'd either get crushed by the bonuses early on if I played on high difficulty or have the game firmly in hand by the Renaissance otherwise. Easily the worst game in the series for me as a result.

[–] Phoonzang 6 points 6 months ago

Yeah, it seems at a certain breaking point in the difficulty curve it becomes "catch up with the AI boni", which made it a completely different game for me. And as you said, usually by renaissance you know if this is going to be a landslide victory (which at that point becomes a chore), or if you're screwed.

[–] thejoker954 2 points 6 months ago

This please.

Yes pretty graphics are nice, but I have never understood why it seems like all effort to make better game 'AI' just completely stopped.

Like I get getting game ai to act 'real' is/was virtually impossible, but it's possible to fake it enough to make it enjoyable and has been for a long while and yet is always an afterthought.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago

I, for one, am eager to ride the next civilization wave. They've only gotten better and better.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

Problem is how much it costs after the DLC