Interview with Mike Simpson on RPS

[al Roumi]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010...-mike-simpson/

Not hugely revelatory, but some thoughts from Mike Simpson on why Shogy 2 will be good. I've picked the below out, on AI issues of previous games, as it seemed the most important (to me):

"To give an example of the kind of problem we faced: if you were playing against AI on a very high difficulty level in Empire or Napoleon, then you wanted a serious challenge, you wanted to be attacked. The campaign AI wasn’t aggressive enough for most people, it was passive, that problem has gone for Shogun 2, and the very hard and hard levels have beaten me already in testing. There is so much AI grunt that I think we are now dialing that back, which is a better position to be in. I don’t expect to get any of that kind of criticism of the AI in Shogun."

I don’t expect to get any of that kind of criticism of the AI in Shogun

Right, that probably just means the very narrow example of the AI not being aggressive -but that's not really the point, its about the AI being sensibly aggressive. Empire's campaign AI was fully capable of being agressive, even if it had no army left to do it with!

Sorry, I just can't read anything Mark S says without getting riled.

[Gregoshi]

Sorry, I just can't read anything Mark S says without getting riled.

Then why do you continue to read his interviews? It is easy to sit back and pick apart general comments made in an interview with countless "yeah, but"s on specific items in which they can't respond to (unless CA comes here and addresses your specific issue). We have to face it - we will only get solid info on the AI and the game when we have a chance to play it ourselves. All we can do at thet moment is read every word...fearing for the worse and/or hoping for the best.

Regarding the AI in general, I think it gets a bum deal with all the criticism at being stupid. History is littered with stupid human generalship - Nagashino, parts of the Waterloo campaign, Burnsides' Bridge, Fredericksburg, pretty much all of WW1, Dunkirk, Battle of the Bulge (definitely NOT sensibly aggressive), me in almost any STW MP battle, etc. Of course, human generalship does have competence and brilliance as well, and a healthy level of at least competence is desired for the AI in a TW game.

[pevergreen]

That may be true, but CA know they've boasted about the AI before and it has been bad. Yet they continue to boast. They can either wait and try to prove it to us on release, or they can get people that players will trust and believe to test it. I understand it still may be too early, but having places that have given the AI favourable reviews in the past give it the same high score again is meaningless. The actual TW fans want reports and reviews from other total war players.

If you read a review praising the AI from IGN, or one from Kagemusha, for example, which would make you think better of it?

[Gregoshi]

And what exactly is CA supposed to say about the AI? "The AI is turning out dreadfully bad for S2TW. The other day I started a campaign battle and was promptly called away from the computer. I came back five minutes later and found out I had won the battle." You know they are going to put a positive spin on the game, so it continues to amaze me when people get all worked up over it. It would be nice if they'd say "We think we've made some great strides in the AI. However, the TW fans will have to be the final judge on whether or not we've been successful", but that isn't likely to happen.

[pevergreen]

True, but I believe my last point still stands.

When someone has failed to deliver multiple times, you can't trust what they say anymore. SEGA and CA should realise this and take action to rectify it.

[al Roumi]

And what exactly is CA supposed to say about the AI? "The AI is turning out dreadfully bad for S2TW. The other day I started a campaign battle and was promptly called away from the computer. I came back five minutes later and found out I had won the battle." You know they are going to put a positive spin on the game, so it continues to amaze me when people get all worked up over it. It would be nice if they'd say "We think we've made some great strides in the AI. However, the TW fans will have to be the final judge on whether or not we've been successful", but that isn't likely to happen.

But that last would be sensible marketing aimed at the fans -rather than the insipid tosh they've chucked out so far.

[Gregoshi]

I'm still convinced CA's best course of action would be to remain silent on the game aside from a teaser trailer or two until a couple of weeks before released. For the Org audience at least, they seem to cause more stress than relief, though the MP crowd seems reasonably happy at the moment...but after months of much gnashing of teeth. Too much hype is rarely a good thing.

[al Roumi]

Then why do you continue to read his interviews? It is easy to sit back and pick apart general comments made in an interview with countless "yeah, but"s on specific items in which they can't respond to (unless CA comes here and addresses your specific issue). We have to face it - we will only get solid info on the AI and the game when we have a chance to play it ourselves. All we can do at thet moment is read every word...fearing for the worse and/or hoping for the best.

Of course, it's all just empty words until we have the "finished" (ha!) product in our hands. I really do want to like shogun2 and would melt into a ball of slavish consumerism and hero worship of the CA team if they actually delivered. As Pever says however, this is another interview where Mr Simpson says some encouraging things which I'm too bitter and twisted to let myself be convinced by. Scepticism seems all the more apt when you look at the more tangible evidence provided so far (i.e. the battle videos).

Sega's marketing sucks badly, or it is aimed at consumers are just suckers for pretty graphics.