It is absolutely not unreasonable to expect a 1993 game to not choose a random route at a junction; it should use a basic pathfinding algorithm (which were well-known, even in 1993) to choose the closest one.
Of course it is limited by performance but optimization is hardly a good counter-point to intuition in this kind of game.
The number one bottleneck in real traffic is intersections. Some people think optimal city design should mix zoning types at a finer level.
To your point though, we can't really demonstrate what's better when the agents are acting stupidly. I'd like to be able to learn what would work in the real world too.
So, all bets are off when a fantastical element is introduced? We should no longer expect any internal consistency, and the work is entirely above critique?
Why didn't Frodo take down Sauron in his X-wing?? I saw the walking trees, so I know that anything is possible.
The answer is because we expect internal consistency. Ok, so there's a superhero in this game system. Doesn't change the fact that it's supposed to simulate traffic, and that this is one of the fundamental systems the game is built upon. Oh, it doesn't actually simulate traffic? Yes, this is a problem: it's a traffic simulation with superheros.
That’s it, no more internet for me today. And I haven’t even had lunch!
No it isn't. Traffic played basically zero part in the game and certainly didn't influence "success" or "failure." Traffic was 99% for visual effect. When I played Sim City 2000 I never put any work into optimizing for traffic and my cities were effectively "perfect" in terms of crime, life expectancy, citizen happiness etc.
I think if you assumed such a thing in the first place your premise and assumptions were massively flawed.
You're saying the game isn't playable because it was too different to real life? Did you notice the Superhero who arrives to fight natural disasters or the giant aliens who can invade? Or the fact that you can magically position fire "trucks" where you want instantly?