I am a shameless cheerleader for online multiplayer. I don't really mean to insult people who enjoy playing it in single player, but I do like to point out that they are missing out on a great strategy game.
Thank you for not really meaning to insult us ignorant SP folk...by all means, continue to hijack our threads on SP/AI to cheer for MP...we like that much more than your attempts to indirectly insult us. /s
I think that length of game play is one of the common misconceptions many people have about online multiplayer. It really only takes around 1.25-1.5 hours to play a PvP game. It's easy to see how people might think that it would take forever when they are used to playing FFA against 9 AI, but in a team-based PvP game (mostly played on single star maps) you only have to contribute enough to your team's war effort to take down one opponent, not 9. Also, it usually isn't necessary to conquer every planet because the players on the losing team tend to quit so that a new (and once again competitive) game can be started rather than waste time in a game where the outcome has already been decided and is nothing more than a mop-up job for the winning team.
Good job on missing the point YET AGAIN. In SP, we can play a long game in increments of our choosing, whether that is 15 minutes or 1.5 hours, at a time. I like to play games with multiple stars, normally 3-5 AI opponents, with as many planets as my gaming rig can handle into the late game. in these games, 3 hours won't even get you to the half way point with research and other settings set to normal or low. In addition, we don't have to worry about the time constraints of another person, even if we are lucky enough to have a close friend to play with (which most of us don't have that luxury). You're points are valid for MP but also obvious and no secret to anyone and completely miss the afore mentioned point to the benefit of SP and therefore the need for as competent an AI as possible.
Are you certain that you know the meanings of those words well-enough to argue that I don't? Why do you think that cars and bicycles, properly defined, do not have certain metaphysical natures and identities? Read the book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology to learn more about concept formation and how abstract concepts (such as "car" and "bicycle") relate to physical entities.
You will note that I said there was nothing metaphysical about your lil metaphor "in this context". The fact is that you hijacked this thread, by your own admission of being an "MP cheerleader", not to teach us any abstract correlation to this entities (which was never requested, i might add) but to champion your singular and opposing view to the OP. Hence your label as troll.
Thank you for your candor.
I disagree with you that SP players really want a mentally retarded AI. I suspect that what they really want is an AI that is capable of strategic thought and that has a skill level at or below their own skill level--a challenging but not overwhelming opponent that still exercises your strategic thought. If someone is unhappy about the Hard-level AI, they could just move up to the Unfair-level AI; problem solved. However, people don't want a merely more muscular but brain-dead opponent. What they really want is an opponent that can engage in strategy and the Sins AI (which is not bad as far as AI goes) can only do so much in that regard.
Philosophy encompasses every element of human life in some sort of a way. My point in using the word metaphysical was to help you attempt to understand the concept that existents possess identity. In this case, that AI is AI and that it necessarily lacks certain properties offered by human players.
Do I really need to explain that my use of the term "mentally retarded", a term you used, was sarcastic given the fact that I quoted it? Especially since i immediately stated afterwards that we wanted a reasonably challenging AI with no realistic chance of beating us (depending on the level of AI chosen)? It is so obvious that you barely skimmed, if read the OP at all, considering he specifically stated (and I agree to a certain point) that he dislikes playing against "cheating AIs". Of course we can bump it up from hard to unfair...that too is painfully obvious and we didn't need your enlightened mind to point that out for us. He also mentioned the AI as being more challenging in Diplomacy than is apparent in Rebellion. The fact is that the AI can be tweaked so that the "hard" AI will attack more often than it currently does to make it...wait for it...HARDer(I know you're getting a chubby waiting to reply to this....just calm down).
You are right of course, philosophy can be applied to all facets of life and we would probably have less problems if people employed it more than they do currently. However, it is facetious and borders on narcissism to use your "desk chair philosophy" as a segway to hijack someone elses idea, namely this thread. Much less the inherent issues with applying philosophy to a game, that among other things, includes fictional races, story, physics, cosmology, technology etc. We know that you love MP, by all means, go play a game right now...beat your head over it for all we care. What we do ask of you is to realize we don't give a sh*t. We want to bring attention to a deficit on the tactical strategy of the AI, the "hard" AI in this discussion. We do not want or care to know that "MP is da shiz, my God, you must check it out".
Your points are valid, but they digress from the originator of this post. At a bare minimum this is rude if not completely troll-worthy.