 |
| |
|
|
playshogi
|
|
This guy was clueless, but his score is probably accurate. Once I got the hang of how to build and equip starbases, it's not a problem defeating the AI even on intelligent. The AI does not know how to deploy starbases to 1) extend its range in the early game 2) magnify its power in the middle game. All it knows how to do with starbases is grab resources -- otherwise it lets tons of constructors float around the galaxy doing nothing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Draginol
|
|
You think the score was fair?
Did you look at how they rate other games?
Things have to be put into perspective. I'd be interested in knowing what strategy games AI GalCiv's should aspire to.
Since we made the Starcraft add "StarCraft:Retribution" I can tell you a lot about Starcraft's AI for instance - it basically doesn't exist. It's all triggers and scripts.
That doesn't mean Starcraft's a bad game of course, it's one of my favorites. But saying that the AI in galCiv is essentially mediocre because it doesn't use star bases as well as a human seems a bit of a stretch IMO.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
playshogi
|
|
I think it should be easy to "teach" the AI that if there are no habitable planets in adjacent sectors it should either 1) establish a starbase to extend its range 2) settle a class 14 planet (and build Soil Enrichment, pronto). But it does neither, though it has constructors galore. Of course, it WILL do that if it finds a resource, but if its beaten to it all the mutithreading and thinking while the player is thinking is useless. Two AI in my game were essentially confined to 1 sector the whole game. To say that "... the AI in galCiv is essentially mediocre because it doesn't use star bases as well as a human..." is to suggest that the AI knows something about starbases-- and that's a stretch.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Romanus
|
 |
Somewhere between points A and B
Dec 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
Draginol,
I recently purchased GalCiv(at EB), and I will gladly testify to the fact that the AI is top notch. I am a veteran and still a fan of the RTS genre, but the RTS AI in most...hell, all games I have played is generally weak. I think that it would really be hard to make a decent AI in a RTS because there is so much instantaneous action....the read and react abilities required are hard enough for a human playing against another human, but to expect a computer to hang in....I dont think we are at that point. Some games seem to just produce units like mad and throw them at you, like Empire Earth....good way to counter human strategy, but not a true thinking, competing AI.
I play TBS almost exclusively now, mainly because I do feel the AI is actually trying to beat me. Civ3, and GalCiv are a cut above, and even much maligned MOO3 is starting to give me some good games after the data patch.
Im not concerned with the GalCiv AI because its something I see you guys taking seriously. I truly feel that GalCiv is pretty much on par with Civ3, very polished and definately fun. The bags under my bloodshot eyes will attest to the fact I get no real sleep.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Draginol
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by playshogi
I think it should be easy to "teach" the AI that if there are no habitable planets in adjacent sectors it should either 1) establish a starbase to extend its range 2) settle a class 14 planet (and build Soil Enrichment, pronto). But it does neither, though it has constructors galore. Of course, it WILL do that if it finds a resource, but if its beaten to it all the mutithreading and thinking while the player is thinking is useless. Two AI in my game were essentially confined to 1 sector the whole game. To say that "... the AI in galCiv is essentially mediocre because it doesn't use star bases as well as a human..." is to suggest that the AI knows something about starbases-- and that's a stretch. |
Okay I'll bite.
By your own ommission the AI knows how to use star bases. Not only does it capture resources but it intelligently upgrades its starbses.
Secondly, the Arceans do build star bases across their trade routes.
I'll ask again - what AI should GalCiv be taking its lead from? If GalCiv's is mediocre, then you should have no problem listing off dozens of games with better AI.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
playshogi
|
|
Draginol, I never said GC AI was worse or bad. It is just that many claim "great AI" or "top-notch" AI. However, I don't see any better or worse than MOO1, MOO2, CIV2 or CIV3 which are the only TBS games I've played. It irks me that the GC AI is claimed to be plotting strategy while I'm thinking, but can't find a way to escape its beginning sector even though it has constructors roaming the galaxy. Finally, as my single dreadnaught approached its single planet, I noticed that it had ringed said planet with 5 unimproved starbases. Wouldn't it have been better to have 1 starbase with 4 upgrades?
I also said the AI knows how to plant a starbase on resources, as far as upgrading them, I have not observed that any were upgraded in my game, let alone intelligently upgraded.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Draginol
|
|
Well I'm sure you must be at the top of the Metaverse then.
Try playing the game on larger sized galaxies and I think you'll see the difference. As for GalCiv AI vs. MOO 1 or 2, well, I dont' think there's really any point in discussing it.
MOO 1, a great game, didn't actually have "AI" in terms of what most people think of it. It didn't actually play the same game as human players did.
The reviewer, who you said you agreed with, found the AI too hard. You claim it's easy. I found one game for you on th emetaverse which you did win at a reasonably high level on a small sized galaxy. On small, starting conditions trump tactics most of the time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Draginol
|
|
BTW, the point is, they rated the AI worse than pretty much any strategy game they have reviewed.
One thing that is very obnoxious about the gaming media, which is in stark contrast with the commercial software media is that the webzines, at least many of them, are woefully amateur. That is, each review that many of them do is completely independent from every other review they're previously done.
Ratings should be relative to other games in the genre. If Civ 3, for instance, is a 9, then how can GalCiv's be a 7?
Games should not be compared to some theoretical ideal. They should be compared to other games that have been previewed.
They had reviewed Civ 3, so they had a benchmark to go by. In each category they could figure out whether the game was better or worse in those categories and then decide by how much.
This is one of the complaints many people have about the gaming media -- and it is (in the software industyr anyway) a problem with the gaming media specifically. Smaller titles don't get the benefit of the doubt. Civ 3, for instance (a game I really enjoyed) got a 9 on graphics from that site. Ask yourself this, if Civ 3 had been called "Land conquest" or something, do you think it would have gotten a 9 on graphics? or a 10 on value?
Look at Civ 3's ratings:
Graphics 9
Sound: 8
Stability: 9
Gamplay: 10
AI: 9
Value 10
Now look at GalCiv's ratings:
Graphics: 6
Sound: 7
Stability: 9
Gameplay: 7
AI: 7
Value: 7
Now, one can look at the GalCiv ratings and (as I would agree in a vacuum) "Well, graphics in galciv are so-so, sound is so-so, AI might be a bit low but overall, not too unfair.."
But to be fair, they need to be compared with other games so that there is a context. How can Civ 3 get a 10 on value but GalCiv a 7? What is the justification? We're doing a year's worth of free updates. How can Civ 3 get a 9 on AI while GalCiv a 7. Or heck, even graphics, GalCiv's graphics are what I would rate a 6 but not in a world where Civ 3's are a 9.
It ultimately doesn't matter. StrategyInformer is about as popular as my personal blog page. But it illustrates a problem that spans out into the gaming media in general (other than a few pretty well known exceptions). If you're a big name game, you get a lot of slack.
It shows that even webzines, that are definitely not corrupt or anything (i.e. I don't think they give puff ball reviews to the big named titles because they're bribed, I think they just fall into the hype like many consumers do).
Remember Black & White? Guess what it got from StrategyInformer: 9.5.
Value: 10/10. Given that you couldn't actually finish the shipping game out of the box due to the creature cruse bug, this is very telling.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Draginol
|
|
Actually, I have a better example:
The Corporate Machine, which I wrote with 1 artist in about a month:
Graphics: 7
Sound: 6
Stability: 9
Gameplay: 8
AI: 9
Value: 8
Total: 8.5
Since I wrote the AI in both, I can speak to the quality of both.
It's not that one review is "good" and the other is "bad". The problem si that two different people reviewed each title with their own internal scoring philosophies and no editorial control put them into perspective.
TCM's graphics are definitely not better than GalCiv's. And they almost got the same score on sound. TCM's "sound" consisted of playing mono WAV files at low quality. GalCiv's are high qualty MP3 stereo.
Basically it was a "luck of the draw" on reviewers. GalCiv happened to get someone who didn't like the game and TCM happened to get someone that did. And that would be fine if they didn't have a rating system.
But rating systems, by definition, create a ranking. One that should be consistent.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fried-Psitalon
|
 |
Not just another pretty face.
Dec 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
Brad/Draginol-
Don't forget there's another pool of reviewers out there, though, and it's actually the one that *I* read and considered before I bought GalCiv.
Forums like these and your own at Galciv.com. If you look around here you'll see all kinds of remarks about modifications to the game, because everyone thinks they can be a master programmer and game designer (myself included, hey, got an opening? hehe) but there's one thing about GalCiv that stands out rather sharply:
The remarks are almost all suggestions, and DARN few complaints. (Well, except for that mindless troll incident.) *THAT* is, in my opinion, the highest review you can get. MoO3 came out and you got lots of remarks, MOST of which were complaints, and darn few useful suggestions- you guys probably have 10 pages of useful (and no doubt useless too, hehe) suggestions.
If someone is genuinely seeking to learn about a game via review before buying it, they'll check the forums, too - and I'd say the forums rate GalCiv pretty darn high.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go and figure out a way out of the box I'm stuck in between the Torians, Drengin, and Yor.... bloody Drengin made peace with the Torians after 1 turn of the war I bought them for....  I should have joined the War Party!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yin26
|
 |
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:27
|
|
Brad:
I think your core audience is savvy enough to read this type of review and say: "You know what, this guy is a twitch finger. Why is he even bothering to review a genre he doesn't like and can't understand?" Honestly, the far more deadly situation for an indie is to get NO reviews! Trust me, from where I sit, anybody who is capable of playing a strategy game for more than 10 minutes at a time loves your game and the support you are giving.
quote:
But saying that the AI in galCiv is essentially mediocre because it doesn't use star bases as well as a human seems a bit of a stretch IMO. |
On this point, I'll just refer to my long-dropped thread (http://www.galciv.com/forum.asp?id=37539&BID=GF&page=1) about finding clever ways to limit what the *human* can do with starbases so the playing field is leveled. I wouldn't even _want_ the computer to be programmed to do half the cheesy tactics a human can with starbases!
Last edited by yin26 on 15-04-2003 at 18:16
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yin26
|
|
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:27
|
|
That's not the point. He could have easily begun to upgrade them all ... some of them *are* upgraded.
The point is that such spamming is even possible..
Last edited by yin26 on 16-04-2003 at 01:29
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Magpie7787
|
|
We are not liked.
Last edited by Magpie7787 on 25-08-2003 at 13:57
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-04-2003 15:31
|