What is more important, MP or good AI?

[Akron]

Answer the question. Would you rather have crappy ai and good mp or great ai and no mp?

I'm not defending firaxis's exclusion of multiplayer, nor am I saying that multiplayer is unimportant. I'm just trying to see what people feel is worth spending more time on developing.

[Inverse Icarus]

MP.

[Grumbold]

Neither answer is acceptable and the company was large enough to be developing both, particularly if they weren't making a golf game at the same time.

[Akron]

I'm asking for a preference. If you had to choose one, which would it be? I don't care whether or not Firaxis could have done both (though I believe that they easily could have).

[Juggernaut]

AI all the way.

[Sarxis]

I voted 'MP' more for political reasons (if there can be such a thing concerning a game).

In actuality, good AI will benefit ALL players of the game, while MP caters to the gaming needs of a smaller group. Though for that smaller group, functional MP is probably more important than AI, since the MP game mode is usually their escape from crappy AI.

[Pembleton]

I guess I'll give my answer that I have stated ad nauseum previously in this forum.

Good AI is impossible given current techonology. It just can't be done presently with any game that has a whole bunch of variables.

I think a better way to have worded this poll would be: spending time in making the AI as strong as possible.

[SteveJH]

AI, seeing as how the majority of civ players are SP players. This is still no excuse for Firaxis not to include MP or charge for it in the future however.

[Grumbold]

I do, which is why I refuse to answer your question The release should have been delayed.

I find the game released as SP only offensive when we know they fully intend to produce a multiplayer addition. While the Multiplayer was getting done properly the others could have been testing the AI more and making it better. However a game with MP option but an useless computer AI would be unplayable except when all nations are player controlled, making it not worth buying at all.

[Akron]

Originally posted by Pembleton
I guess I'll give my answer that I have stated ad nauseum previously in this forum.

Good AI is impossible given current techonology. It just can't be done presently with any game that has a whole bunch of variables.

Good AI is subjective, but for most it does not necessarily mean perfect and perfectly human-like AI. Good AI would be challenging, interesting, and not so predictable.

[Inverse Icarus]

humans will always "debunk" the AI and beat them every time after you figure out how it works. human players are completely versatile in every aspect of the game.

[PGM]

IMO all the efforts should be first around the AI. Then, they should focus on the AI. Later, they should work on the AI a little more, and finally, test the AI some more. Then they should sell the game in the USA and Europe at the same time, and afterwards, they are free to upload MP patches, language patches, expansion packs, whatever.

[manofthehour]

AI. Mainly because I thought CIV was a better single player game.

[Provost Harrison]

No doubt, AI!

MP is awkward, you have to coordinate times to continue a game and then it is so slow to wait for other people to take their turn, and then there are disconnections. Personally I think MP TBS is overrated!

So AI all the way!

[Inverse Icarus]

after 2 weeks of playing, when you have beat the diety level AI several times consistently, you will be BEGGING for MP.