improved graphics hype vs improved AI hype

[lord of the mark]

The question has come up why Firaxis is hyping (sp?) Civ3's improved graphics, but saying nothing about improved AI. One response is that the AI is normally developed last. I cannot speak to that, but I can think of 2 additional possible reasons.


1. The Civ product cycle. Civ2 was released in 1996, but since then Microprose released MGE and TOT. Firaxis released SMAC.

Now TOT and SMAC had new graphics, but both met with widespread disapproval in the Civ community. The consensus is that there has not been real improvement in civ graphics in 5 years. Therefore there is both a need for real improvement, and the possibility to hit a "home run".

WRT the AI, MGE had a somewhat more aggressive AI. SMAC had, IIUC, an improved AI. Therefore we are probably talking about only marginal improvements from the SMAC AI. And the AI will need work just to accomodate the new features. All around AI improvement will be difficult. Doest mean there won't be soem improvement, but a "home run" is much more difficult than WRT graphics.

2. Marketing - Graphics is visible to everyone, from the hardcore civers here to the casual gamer. Attractive, immersive graphics will be very important to the overall market. AI ? Lets face it, the vast majority of Civ players find the Civ2 AI challenging - Most people simply dont play any game (even this one) as much as the hard core players, and many will come to this with little experience of other TBS games. This is not to say that Firaxis wont find it worthwhile to improve the AI - poor AI will effect reviews and "buzz" - but its hardly something they need to hype at this point

LOTM
(contemplating founding the Civ Anti-Racialist Group - CARG)

[Recurve]

Frankly, I find TOT to be the ultimate Civ2 experience (the graphics are admirable and it has a ‘hotseat’ option). It was worth the £30-00.

With regards to Civ3, the screenshots I’ve seen so far are inferior to those of TOT (someone will HAVE TO FIX THOSE ROADS). I can’t comment on the AI until I’ve played the game.

As for hype, I’d say the average civ player is immune to it.

[Urban Ranger]

It's not in the tradition. Where did you see any ad for a computer game that says anything about improved AI?

[Sabre2th]

About ToT: bleh

About civ3 graphics: screenshots are shrunk down and compressed. Plus, they are alpha graphics. Firaxis would be foolish to leave the roads like that.

I think people are reading into things waaaaay too much.

[marcuspeddle]

Well, I found the AI challenging enough when it came to military matters but what frustrated me about Civ2 and CTP2 was that the AI wasn't reasonable. I'm sure you've all had leaders break alliances for no good reason. The other day I asked the Egyptians to exchange maps and the reply was "You worthless Sumerians! We cancel this alliance and we're going to wipe your sorry asses off the face of the earth!" And they did. I liked the AI in SMAC where you could reason with the AI to stop fighting or even break off a war with another faction. If the AI in Civ3 is any better than the AI in SMAC I'll be pleased as punch. I'm very excited about the cultural system that an described in his recent posting. Civ3 looks like it's shaping up into a great game.

[yin26]

It's not in the tradition. Where did you see any ad for a computer game that says anything about improved AI?

Submarine Titans was BUILT on AI hype in a lot of ways. Also, most any FPS has to address the AI of enemies, etc. Take a look at Black and White, which got most players to buy it simply for the 'living, thinking' creature. Quake 3 is often praised a great deal for enemy AI, and on and on. Simply put, AI will become more and more THE factor behind games as graphics improvements become simply standard and more readily supported with hardware and directx updates.

Outstanding AI has always been the Holy Grail, and there's reason to expect as more CPU cycles open up, this still relatively un-capitalized cash-cow will start being tapped in a serious way.

[yin26]

Here, enemy AI will be smart enough to deftly maneuver away from your swings and parry with blows of its own when you leave yourself open. During one such scene, a Sith lord managed to dodge Katarn's sword swings by jumping over one and ducking under another. This level of AI will also carry on down to the lower rungs of the enemy hierarchy as well--don't be surprised if a storm trooper picks up a thermal detonator you've lobbed at him and throws it back at you.

From the upcoming Star Wars Jedi game. Just happened to check it out on Gamespot. This kind of stuff is in most reviews/previews these days. Imgine hearing comparable things about the Civ 3's AI! Would really make the mind race at the possibilities...

Why mention AI, Urban Ranger? Because CTP2's unmodded AI was so bad, and screwed gameplay to such an extent that AI on any civ game is now an issue. I know CTP2 wasn't Firaxis's fault, but that's how it is. If civ3 is too easy because the AI is incompetent, people will notice and the game will become shelfware. Hate to break it to people out there, but non-hardcore gamers care about a challenge. And the fact that Firaxis has not mentioned the AI leaves me a bit worried.

[dexter4dxm]

to those of you that diss TOT, all you have to do is change a few settings and change most of the graphics. TOT has a number of fixes and even includes unofficial simultainious MP. the graphical capabilites of TOT far surpass MGE, the artists just did a horrible job of making use of those capabilities. see my post in the TOT forum for more on that. with better graphics, TOT is easily the best of the series (until civ3, HOPEFULLY)

[DarkCloud]

TOT was a good game- the graphics were horrible; dark and cruddy

Alpha C's graphics were too dark

CONCLUSION:

Civ II-style graphics are the best for the Civ-series

Older is better

[loinburger]

With the amount of *****ing that's been done about the Civ III screenshots you'd think that graphics were all that mattered in Civ III. My guess is that those who want dramatic improvements in the AI are in the minority while those who want dramatic improvements in graphics are in the majority, both in the general gaming market and (if Apolyton is any indication) in the harcdore Civ community as well. The improvements are going to be made where they're wanted the most, therefore graphics hype is going to surpass AI hype.

[Sabre2th]

Check out this poll, technophile.

AI it is.

[Sabre2th]

I've said this a few times already, but I'll say it again.

Programming an AI is difficult work. A truly smart AI will not happen until actual artificial intelligence. Given the complexity of ANY civ game, a strong AI is unlikely (without cheating), no matter what. Any AI Firaxis puts out will eventually be beaten by hardcore civers. Then they will complain again. Until we can invent an AI that learns and adapts, we're stuck with what we've got. If the lack of competition is too much for you, play MP.

This does not mean I'm against them working on the AI. On the contrary, I would love to have the AI wipe the floor with my @$$ occasionally, but it's just not within our grasp.

[tniem]

Originally posted by dexter4dxm
to those of you that diss TOT, all you have to do is change a few settings and change most of the graphics. TOT has a number of fixes and even includes unofficial simultainious MP. the graphical capabilites of TOT far surpass MGE, the artists just did a horrible job of making use of those capabilities. see my post in the TOT forum for more on that. with better graphics, TOT is easily the best of the series (until civ3, HOPEFULLY)

You know what, if I am going to spend money on a game, I do not want to have to change much or download patches. I want the game to be good out of the box. Yeah, so it is customizable so someone else can make it playable, then why don't I go pay them. If the game/graphics are not good out of the box than I don't want to have to deal with it.

Sure down the road I will download some mods and of course the occassional patch. But the game should work and be good right from the start.

[meriadoc]

I agree with Sabre2th. A really good AI would be a wonderful thing to have in any game, especially in Civ3. But we have to be realistic. A game's AI is just a bunch of if/then/else statements written in such a way as to try and approximate human behavior. Yes, they've been getting better, but the capabilities to learn and adapt are still off in the future.

As an example, think back a couple of years to when human chess player Garry Kasparov was beat by the computer Deep Blue. The computer was several times more powerful than anything we're ever likely to play Civ on, and beat Kasparov not so much because it could plan a strategy, learn, or adapt, but because it could process thousands of different movement possibilities in its system. And that only was on a simple chess board with 16 pieces per player with limited rules!

Basically, we have to accept the fact that with today's systems the AI's aren't going to be as good as us.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Sabre2th
Check out this poll, technophile.

AI it is.

You linked me back to the poll that I started.

[Sabre2th]

I KNOW. My point is that you're contradicting yourself a bit. I mean, you proved yourself wrong before you even said it.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Sabre2th
I KNOW. My point is that you're contradicting yourself a bit. I mean, you proved yourself wrong before you even said it.

I began that poll immediately after posting my response to this thread, to see whether everybody's focus is really on graphics or whether people are only complaining about the graphics because they can't complain about the AI yet. TechWins makes a valid point that lousy graphics can make the game unplayable, but most posters are focusing on the aesthetics and not the functionality of the graphics. Either they're lying in my poll, or they haven't posted in my poll, or they're placing unnecessary weight on the graphics because they cannot place weight anywhere else.

[SerapisIV]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It's not in the tradition. Where did you see any ad for a computer game that says anything about improved AI?

I haven't seen an ad that says anything other than "Civilization III"

Looking at the info released, we have very minimal information about Civ3. We have screenshots, from which you can tell the existence of culture and improved diplomacy. So obviously, those are things that they'll talk about, things that they can show. Anything that's been discussed so far about Civ3 is stuff that is visual, game improvements that can be physically shown to the public. Besides, if Firaxis started talking about the AI 2 years ago, (like Black and White) our hopes would've been raised too un-attainable levels. The AI will always have shortcomings in any Civ series due to the incredible complexity of the game. But those shortcomings are made smaller and smaller with each iteration (that is with Firaxis/Sid games, ignoring any mention fo CtP)

Though I completely agree, I'd definitely like to see some talk about the AI and how its grown since SMAC, at least mentioning if they've made AI war more focused, using overwhelming force, not 1 unit after another without any plan of attack

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by technophile
most posters are focusing on the aesthetics and not the functionality of the graphics.

I don't think this is the case. I certainly don't care so much about the graphics and I know there are many others that feel the same way. The only problem is that the pessimists are much louder than everyone else. Certainly, there isn't much else to complain about. If Firaxis released information about the AI or other parts of the game, they would just complain about them. Many people seem to be here just so they can complain about things they know nothing about. That makes a lot of sense, eh?

[kolpo]

double post

[kolpo]

Many people seem to be here just so they can complain about things they know nothing about. That makes a lot of sense, eh?

If nobody complainted about what is or could go wrong will it go wrong.

Feedback is a very important thing in making games and in fact is realistic feedback better then blind optimistic feedback. Everything is godlike good is next to useless feedback for firaxis because they don't know then what the players want to see improved. SMAC his AI used some form of invasions and was much better in anexating small countries then that of civ2 because people have heavily complained about that in civ2.

And I still see some things that could be improved in the graphics(like pink units) so we can better let them know what we think is wrong. They aren't paranormal beings who can feel what there fans don't like about there game, if we don't tell them that, won't they know that most likely(Firaxis thought that there SMAC grahpics where much better then civ2; they aren't Gods they don't know everything that there fans think).

This doesn't mean that complet pessimism is good but blind optimism is even worser(it stops progress). The screenshots can be inproved in my view and I think we can better post that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, the question is what would they say?

That Civ has the best AI of the series? How would they be able to pass that off a year before the game was released? By contrast, talking about the graphics is easier, because you can easily make good graphics, and can predict how the graphics will look a year from now. Can you do the same about AI? I doubt it.