Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ General Gaming _ Are Game AI's getting worse?
Posted by: Warlordtheft Jul 27 2011, 04:24 PM
Is it me or am I just getting older? Most newer games just seem like button mashers rather than requiring any real thought or planning to play. I would think AI's would have gotten better over the years but have been sorely unimpressed with the AI's of the recent total war series, Hearts of Iron III, and others. Or is it just that I'm so used to try an outhink human opponents (from my many years of wargaming) that any AI wouldn't challenge me.
What have your all's impression of the challenge of AI's in newer games?
Posted by: Tanegar Jul 27 2011, 07:17 PM
I think it's an inevitable result of increasing sophistication in games. It's easy to write a program that makes smart decisions within simple parameters, but when the rules and variables get more complicated, it becomes much harder for an AI to evaluate them all and make good decisions.
Posted by: CanRay Jul 27 2011, 07:24 PM
Explains the proliferation of Multiplayer as well... And why designers are more interested in that than first-person storylines and challenges.
Posted by: capt.pantsless Jul 27 2011, 07:31 PM
Or better put, it's harder for wimpy human programmers to figure-out a good AI algorithm that evaluates all the parameters intelligently.
Often times a huge number of imputs can be a major advantage for a well-thought-through AI. E.g. if there's a complicated mathmatical model to finding the optimal action, the AI can find that optimal path in a couple thousand clock-cycles.
One of the bigger factors is game-design studio's not dedicating enough programmer-hours to the AI. Since it's not a feature you can take a screenshot of to put on the box, it's not going to get as much attention from the marketing dept.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jul 27 2011, 07:41 PM
Shogun: Total War 2 has a better AI than earlier games in the franchise.
Posted by: Bigity Jul 27 2011, 08:19 PM
Now if only my PC didn't cry in terror when I even think about trying to run that.
Posted by: Warlordtheft Jul 27 2011, 08:33 PM
Often times a huge number of imputs can be a major advantage for a well-thought-through AI. E.g. if there's a complicated mathmatical model to finding the optimal action, the AI can find that optimal path in a couple thousand clock-cycles.
One of the bigger factors is game-design studio's not dedicating enough programmer-hours to the AI. Since it's not a feature you can take a screenshot of to put on the box, it's not going to get as much attention from the marketing dept.
Might be why computers are good at chess....it is fairly predictable. But yes there is the factor of more complicated strategy games (I'd put HOI3 in that boat) where the AI can't make a decision because of the number of inputs and options that are available. However, processors have gotten powerful enough that a more robust AI should be possible.
Also, begs the question if a scripted AI would be better in some respects than a fully autonomous one would be.
PS:I've not gotten Shogun Total WarII yet, but a friend of mine has said it suffers from the same Battlefield AI idiocy that made Napoleon and Empire total war less than challenging.
Posted by: CanRay Jul 28 2011, 12:45 AM
I knew I should have put my money into Artificial Stupidity Futures in the '80s...
Posted by: Blade Jul 28 2011, 07:52 AM
In the past, a lot of games used to cheat: FPS bots knew exactly where you were and in a lot of strategy/tactics game, the AI just started with more resources than the human. Nowadays it's less common.
But even back then, I remember disliking RTS because the AI were just so simple to beat that they turned into auto-satisfaction games where all you had to do was spend enough time to see your unstoppable army destroy your opponent.
In some cases, playability is an issue. For some games it's easy to do an optimal AI that nobody will be able to defeat, but doing so would make the game less interesting. So you have to program an AI that will be challenging (and preferably human-like) yet not too good. And since the overall difficulty level of video game has been steadily going down for a long time (with some exceptions), AI might look like they're getting worse.
Posted by: Bigity Jul 28 2011, 01:54 PM
You're on to something here, IMO.
Developers can't spend months making a kick-ass AI for a FPS game, because the Xbox kids won't be able to 'win' by mashing buttons.
I mean, look what the consoles did to the Rainbow Six series.
These days games have to cater to 30+ year olds that remember when video games were brutal and utterly unforgiving and 10 year olds on an Xbox shouting profanities into the mic 24/7 and thinking they are cool for doing so.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jul 28 2011, 02:23 PM
Part of the problem is that developers have decided to focus on AI too much. Games like DOOM were challenging but not unfairly so despite having very small amounts of monster logic—primarily due to player-monster asymmetry (monsters not nimble, mostly non-hitscan weapons, encountered in massive numbers). This wasn't guaranteed to maintain an enjoyable experience (Rise of the Triad's hardest mode was simply unfair), but Unreal started a nasty trend of having opposition resemble humans more, at which point you really lose the middle ground of "difficult but able to be overcome with effort/study".
Plus, AI problems tend to be hard. One of my favourite game AI stories is about how the AI in F.E.A.R. was made to appear much smarter than it actually was—the AI would appear to flank the player, but would actually just switch between "attack" and "take cover" modes, with the flanking achieved by designing the combat areas such that iterating the "take cover" mode would naturally lead to a flanking-style movement. Similarly, the AI would yell for reinforcements while being massacred—these calls were noops, but players would tend to assume that the next batch of enemies they encountered were responding to the call.
So I suspect the problem is that game AIs are getting better.
~J
Posted by: KarmaInferno Jul 29 2011, 05:57 AM
The voice clips in FEAR 3 are a little annoying.
It's kinda nifty to hear the AI opponents going "Holy shit, did you see that?" and "That's impossible!" early on in response to your uber-combat ability.
Hearing it for the ten-thousandth time, well, I shoot them faster just to get them to shut up.
-k
Posted by: Blade Jul 29 2011, 08:40 AM
It's kinda nifty to hear the AI opponents going "Holy shit, did you see that?" and "That's impossible!" early on in response to your uber-combat ability.
Hearing it for the ten-thousandth time, well, I shoot them faster just to get them to shut up.
It was fun in Deus Ex to hear security guards in the area 51 say, a minute after an explosion "Must have been a cat" or "Probably a bum".
Posted by: CanRay Jul 29 2011, 04:48 PM
Yeah, they really need to aim the voice systems a lot better. More voice acting!!!
Posted by: KarmaInferno Jul 29 2011, 11:48 PM
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/4/16
-k
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jul 30 2011, 02:16 PM
Also, begs the question if a scripted AI would be better in some respects than a fully autonomous one would be.
PS:I've not gotten Shogun Total WarII yet, but a friend of mine has said it suffers from the same Battlefield AI idiocy that made Napoleon and Empire total war less than challenging.
I mean it's not like a little Subotai is living in your processor or anything, but it's a VAST improvement over Medieval II.
Posted by: Fyndhal Aug 2 2011, 08:08 PM
Just give it some http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/language-from-games-0712.html Things will get better.
Posted by: Tanegar Aug 2 2011, 08:36 PM
So, we're making AIs by teaching them to play a game where world domination by military supremacy is a valid goal? http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatCouldPossiblyGoWrong 
Posted by: CanRay Aug 2 2011, 10:01 PM
NO! Not TVTropes! Don't teach military AIs about TVTropes! THEY'LL RULE THE WORLD!!!
Rage is getting some interesting reviews on their AI. Going to have to check that out.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 2 2011, 10:44 PM
http://www.preventingskynet.com/why-we-need-friendly-ai/…
~J
Posted by: Socinus Aug 3 2011, 09:51 PM
Part of the problem is it's far easier to make an AI that will cheat more as the difficulty goes up rather than one that has better strategy.
The basic AI tactic, the bull rush, is effective if the computer can build units twice as fast as you and can harvest more resources than you.
That becomes more problematic in games where there is specific mechanics in place to beat out a rush or you can develop defenses against a rush quickly. At that point, massed units are basically only really good for boosting the player's score. If the AI has formidable defenses, either as emplacements or hordes of units, you can just wait until the computer makes a bad move or until their resources run out or you can get a force in position to the damage needed to knock them out of the game.
I'm not a programmer, but I wonder how difficult it would be to put a major push into a program that could analyze what the player did to win a game, then employ that strategy or defenses against it and simply build as more games were played.
As I said, most game designers take the short-cut of having the AI cheat more as the difficulty goes up. Which does present it's own tactical challenges, but bludgeoning someone to death with mobs of units only works so long or is only fun for so long when you have this great tactical framework that isnt utilized.
Posted by: Warlordtheft Aug 4 2011, 01:26 PM
This is one of my basic complaints about difficulty levels in many strategy games. The higher difficulties only mean that the AI's units are given bonuses, they get more strategic resources, and might be given a better strategic position. But that still won't prevent the AI from continuing to do stupid stuff like the mongol fort trap in Medieval Total War II
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Aug 4 2011, 07:46 PM
The basic AI tactic, the bull rush, is effective if the computer can build units twice as fast as you and can harvest more resources than you.
That becomes more problematic in games where there is specific mechanics in place to beat out a rush or you can develop defenses against a rush quickly. At that point, massed units are basically only really good for boosting the player's score. If the AI has formidable defenses, either as emplacements or hordes of units, you can just wait until the computer makes a bad move or until their resources run out or you can get a force in position to the damage needed to knock them out of the game.
I'm not a programmer, but I wonder how difficult it would be to put a major push into a program that could analyze what the player did to win a game, then employ that strategy or defenses against it and simply build as more games were played.
As I said, most game designers take the short-cut of having the AI cheat more as the difficulty goes up. Which does present it's own tactical challenges, but bludgeoning someone to death with mobs of units only works so long or is only fun for so long when you have this great tactical framework that isnt utilized.
That is why the next great game should be Redcoats vs. Shaka Zulu. Just have the AI use charging bull formation every time.
Better yet make it a squad level FPS. Think of how hardcore it would be to work the action on your rifle in a realistic manner while a hundred guys with spears suicide rush you.
Use dated graphics so the computer can keep track of hundreds of bodies piling up on the ground and forming obstacles.
Posted by: Warlordtheft Aug 5 2011, 01:57 PM
Back in Medieval toal War (the original), there was one spot that the Mongols invaded through. I was the Byzantines, and had stacked my armies there in preparation for the MOAB. THe battle timer was off for this game. It took about 3 days realtime to resolve that battle and the corpses (especially at my defensive line) was about 6-7 deep. It was one of the most epic battles I've ever had on a PC.
Posted by: Blackb1rd Aug 11 2011, 02:20 PM
We are at an interesting point in the technological world where the potential for huge advancements are present but we do not have the resources, abilities, or skills to make those advancements. Give it a few years and the AI in games will blow you out of the water, however right now AI in games is far from stupid or predictable. Alot of it depends on the way YOU play the game because any decisions the AI makes are based off of what you do.
I'd assume this thread is speaking manly of AI in strategy games? I ask because AI in RPG's has advanced significantly over the past couple years to the point where there is the potential for some very realistic behavior coming from in game characters.
Posted by: Blade Aug 12 2011, 07:05 AM
Really? I haven't seen any RPG IA showing something superior to what there was in Ultima VII, but I haven't played that many recent RPGs.
Posted by: Juno Aug 29 2011, 11:39 PM
I think everyone who plays Shadowrun and who's bothered by predictable AI should know about http://www.joystiq.com/2010/04/05/hands-on-sleep-is-death/ Its a slice of improv, mixed with the virtual world, though maybe if you've played pen & paper RPGs with virtual desktops you'll be underwhelmed (I haven't, though I've not played SID either).
I know many would consider multi player to be completely tangental to AI, but I think this is far more deserving of gaming news hype than many other supposed AI breakthroughs (Watson on Jeopardy in particular).
Posted by: Blade Aug 30 2011, 08:32 AM
There's a huge difference with PnP RPG and SID. In P&P RPG you interact directly with a GM to interact indirectly with a world. In SID you interact directly with the world to interact with the GM. You feel much more like you're on your own. It's an interesting experience.
It has little to do with AI. Something that would have been interesting would have been to have an AI learn from the games people played so that it could be able to GM game on its own. IIRC some people are working on that concept.
Posted by: Stahlseele Aug 30 2011, 12:32 PM
The AI in Deus Ex 3 sucks . .
You shoot one guy in the head, where you can't be seen but the dead body can be seen . .
Then you don't change your aiming point at all and seconds later, the next head pops under your cross hair.
Rinse and repeat untill the enemies forces are depleted . .
Posted by: hermit Aug 30 2011, 03:03 PM
Video games in general are becoming easier and going for nstant gratification. Probably not least because that's been pioneered by Blizzard's WoW.
And the AI in DX3 reminds me a lot of the AI from Metal Gear Solid. So yes, the guards indeed are stupid (Example: Me and gangers are shooting it out, the gangers are on red alert. I shoot all but one, who persistently is behind a cover I have a hard time getting to. Some time passes between him taking potshots and me trying to maneuver someplace where I can pick him off, and he goes to yellow alert, leaves cover, stretches and says "He's run off, we really kicked his ass." He says amid 7 dead buddies. With me aiming at him. Yeeeeeaaaaaah.)
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Aug 30 2011, 07:11 PM
You shoot one guy in the head, where you can't be seen but the dead body can be seen . .
Then you don't change your aiming point at all and seconds later, the next head pops under your cross hair.
Rinse and repeat untill the enemies forces are depleted . .
Are you joking? That has happened in real life. In "We Were Soldiers Once, And Young" one guy kills several North Vietnamese with headshots like that. At first he thought he missed but actually it was three guys who sequentially came and did the exact same thing and got BOOM HEADSHOT.
Realistic AI doesn't necessarily mean genius AI. In chaotic violent situations people often do less than ideal things.
Posted by: CanRay Aug 30 2011, 07:24 PM
Well, don't snipers move from a position after they've taken their shot?
Or am I thinking Sgt. Johnson and his Laser Eyes?
Posted by: Brazilian_Shinobi Aug 30 2011, 08:23 PM
Yeah...
videogames should be designed back to the difficult level of nintendo hard
Posted by: hermit Aug 30 2011, 09:14 PM
Axelay. Hard. Playthrough. Only R-Type 3 was harder.
Dedicated snipers yes, marksmen or GIs with a scope maybe not. At least back then, in the days of a conscript army.
Posted by: CanRay Aug 30 2011, 11:03 PM
Ah, right. Designated Marksman. My bad.
Posted by: Adarael Aug 30 2011, 11:43 PM
I think it is extremly unwise to confuse difficulty for quality of AI. "Nintendo hard" games weren't hard because of great AI, they were hard because - as people have mentioned - the game cheated more outrageously, or the games required increasing levels of precision on the player's part.
Some of the more egregious cheating I can think of include insta-charge moves in Street Fighter II, and in Soul Calibur (or maybe it was SCII) the computer reads your controller input and techs out of attacks, even when in positions/moves that you normally can't tech in.
AI has gotten progressively better, but it cheats less. And in earlier games, well-hidden cheating was often mistaken for intelligence.
Posted by: CanRay Aug 31 2011, 02:56 AM
The Computer is a cheating bastard. And you smile when you don't tell Your Friend And Mine The Comptuer that, otherwise you'll be summarily executed for treason.
Posted by: hermit Aug 31 2011, 10:31 AM
Or having neither a health bar - first hit will kill (wel, usually you had three lives, so were able to 'soak' three hits) and no save function in-game. No regenerating health like in ever modern shooter out there, no shield or anything. Turn-based combat bosses that didn't pull any punch (if you want some truely outrageously frustrating boss fights, try the SNES Lufia game). Of course, the mechanics of a 3D shooter and a side-scroller are very different.
Very true for strategy games (like Civ I through III), though there, lots of cheating still is going on. But of course, well-timed cheating (or, in case of the original Mortal Kombat, blatantly obvious) is the way to go with a shoestring machine like a 16 bit console running on an Apple II equivalent chip.
Posted by: X-Kalibur Aug 31 2011, 06:32 PM
videogames should be designed back to the difficult level of nintendo hard
Demon's Souls. Alternately, wait until October 4th for Dark Souls.
The former is actually hard in the traditional NES style. It requires memorization of patterns and levels for you to be successful, and if you die, you lose all your unspent souls (used as money AND for levelling) unless you can get back to the spot you died at and reclaim them, without dying again, and everything has respawned, and you're back at the beginning.
I love that game.
Posted by: Brazilian_Shinobi Aug 31 2011, 08:16 PM
Yes...
Demon's Souls, that game is truly Nintendo Hard.
Posted by: Adarael Aug 31 2011, 08:24 PM
I think one of the more interesting behaviors I've noticed in strategy & electronic boardgames is that in some games, lower difficulty equates a higher frequency of the computer players making utterly bone-headed moves. Carcassone from XBLA is like this - the lower the difficulty, the more often I'll notice the computer placing tiles in a fashion that's not just a bad idea, but actively gives me an advantage. Civilization Revolutions is like that as well - although that game is of the "cheats outrageously and blatantly" variety as well.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Sep 1 2011, 02:52 PM
Some of the more egregious cheating I can think of include insta-charge moves in Street Fighter II, and in Soul Calibur (or maybe it was SCII) the computer reads your controller input and techs out of attacks, even when in positions/moves that you normally can't tech in.
AI has gotten progressively better, but it cheats less. And in earlier games, well-hidden cheating was often mistaken for intelligence.
I need to see if the John Mullins interviews for Soldier of Fortune 2 are still online or not. Basically Mullins is a Vietnam vet who was the realism consultant for SoF2. In an interview someone asked him if improved realism re AI would make games harder in the future, and Mullins said something like, "I don't see why that would make games harder, because killing people is the easiest thing in the world."
Posted by: SleepMethod Sep 5 2011, 12:20 PM
According to a few interiviews I've read the advancement of AI is going to be the next big thing in gaming as graphics seem to have pleatued somewhat.
Also one of the problems with programming for AI is that it's only budgeted a certain number of CPU cycles to do what it needs to do between frame rendering, usually between 10 - 15% with a good chuck of that dedicated to checking line of sight for the AI's, aparently the decision tree once that's determined is relatively easy to dictate
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Sep 5 2011, 03:20 PM
I think you could make a pretty badass role playing game if you came up with an AI that could react realistically to violence.
Posted by: Tanegar Sep 5 2011, 04:14 PM
For what value of "realism?" Running and screaming is realistic if the person is an untrained civilian, and AI can do that already.
Posted by: Critias Sep 5 2011, 05:40 PM
And many already do.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Sep 5 2011, 06:17 PM
Well I was thinking more along the lines of unpredictability. Like, some people will do that, but you never know. Maybe one unpredictably tries to tackle the shooter, or something like that.
I attended a simunitions training in Henderson, NV, and in the context of that training, given the mentality of the participants, when we were doing active shooter scenarios, people tended to pile on the active shooter, even at risk of being lit up with sims. So you never know.
That's why SWAT zipties everyone. Because of unpredictability.
Posted by: Critias Sep 5 2011, 06:32 PM
Some do. GTA IV, for instance, has most people cowering, screaming, and running away when a firefight breaks out -- but in certain neighborhoods, instead, an assortment of 'bangers (and/or white-color CCW-looking types) will bust out pistols and start snapping shots at you. Likewise, if fisticuffs ensue when you're walking down the street and punch someone. Some folks will run away, some will square off and start swinging, some will brawl for a few swings and then break and run...
Some games already have this sort of thing built in, inasmuch as a video game can.
Posted by: Tanegar Sep 5 2011, 06:48 PM
I attended a simunitions training in Henderson, NV, and in the context of that training, given the mentality of the participants, when we were doing active shooter scenarios, people tended to pile on the active shooter, even at risk of being lit up with sims. So you never know.
That's why SWAT zipties everyone. Because of unpredictability.
That's not AI, that's just a random number generator. Roll 1d10. 1-5, NPC cowers ineffectually, retaining just enough self-possession to look for a hiding place. 6-8, NPC flees. 9, NPC goes berserk, attacking without regard for personal safety. 10, NPC is combat-trained and attacks accordingly, using terrain to own advantage, etc. Objective achieved.
Posted by: CanRay Sep 5 2011, 07:05 PM
Some games already have this sort of thing built in, inasmuch as a video game can.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Sep 6 2011, 01:52 AM
The AI would be for implementing each of those behaviors convincingly, I guess.
Posted by: Tanegar Sep 6 2011, 09:36 AM
Each of those behaviors already has been implemented convincingly. It's just a matter of cribbing from somebody else's work.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Sep 6 2011, 06:44 PM
I thought the whole point of this thread was that they hadn't.
Posted by: Warlordtheft Sep 6 2011, 07:54 PM
In the GTA IV example, there is not an AI making a decision as to how to beat the player. Rather the AI is following a script, with inherent probabilities.
I'll us GTA IV as the example: You pull out your gun in the wrong neighborhood. 1/2 the people are armed the other half (unarmed) are scripted to run. Do the Armed persons just sit there and shoot at you regardless of if they have cover? For easy level yes, for hard no they are scripted to move then fire from cover. Really here we are talking about the AI following a IF condition X is present then I take action Y.
This is not the issue at hand, rather than does the AI have limits in resources, if no then it really can just "cheat" to win the scenario by sending wave after wave of mooks. Otherwise, does it use some mooks to pin the player behind his car? While the remaining try to flank. Do they attack piecmeal, or all at once depending on the situation?
My original question, and many others seem to think as well AI development has kind of been poor compared to the development of graphics. And in many cases sequal have worse AI's than their predecessors.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Sep 8 2011, 07:27 PM
Thought about it a little bit. If SWAT 2 were re done with an emphasis on multiple high quality AIs it would be a hell of a game.
Posted by: Blade Sep 9 2011, 07:09 AM
It would also need an interface where you can actually understand what's going on and issue orders to your unit.
Posted by: hyzmarca Sep 22 2011, 01:56 AM
Soldier of Forture 2 did have some issues with realism, mostly in the form of the teleporting keycard squads. You go through a cargo ship killing everyone you can find, which is more crew members than the ship could possibly support, even if they slept three to a bed, and then you flip a switch and there are suddenly dozens more hostile crew members for no apparent reason. Ships like that really aren't designed to support more than thirty or so crew members. But the game just keeps spawning more and more of them for you to kill.
So yes, more realism would have made it significantly easier. But it isn't just enemy AI, it's organizational composition.
Video game hostile organizations tend to have absurd numbers of faceless mooks thanks to unrealistic spawing. You end up with smalltime street gangs who apparently outnumber the US Army and other things of that nature. Terrorist cells that should have five or ten people tops somehow throw hundreds of cannon fodder soldiers at you, all armed with impossible-to-obtain fully automatic weapons. In a worse case scenario it doesn't matter how many millions of people you kill, even though the game supposedly takes place in the real world.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Sep 22 2011, 07:38 PM
So yes, more realism would have made it significantly easier. But it isn't just enemy AI, it's organizational composition.
Video game hostile organizations tend to have absurd numbers of faceless mooks thanks to unrealistic spawing. You end up with smalltime street gangs who apparently outnumber the US Army and other things of that nature. Terrorist cells that should have five or ten people tops somehow throw hundreds of cannon fodder soldiers at you, all armed with impossible-to-obtain fully automatic weapons. In a worse case scenario it doesn't matter how many millions of people you kill, even though the game supposedly takes place in the real world.
This is the best post I've read in a while.
It makes me think there could be potential in a first person adventure type game in a realistic setting which supports reasonably good combat gameplay, but at the same time doesn't focus exclusively on it, so that you could just make an interesting immersive story about, say, a regular guy who stumbles on a terror cell in his city. Instead of mooks, each bad guy would be an actual character.
Posted by: Critias Sep 22 2011, 08:48 PM
People playing a first person shooter like to first person shoot. That requires targets. They like to feel awesome and roflstomp the game, and that requires targets that don't murder-face the player on default difficulty. The end result is wave after wave of faceless mook. The more action-movie FPS games get, the better they seem to market (compare the newer Rainbow Six games to the originals), so ultimately it's our fault. The lack of realism is just gamers getting what gamers voted for (with their wallets).
Posted by: Bigity Sep 22 2011, 09:22 PM
Well you don't see any new Rainbow Six games in my damn collection, that's for sure.
I need to find and post my screenshot of Raven Shield end mission screen where I completed it after being hit 32 times (but to be fair, it was mostly shotguns going through doors or near misses).
Posted by: X-Kalibur Sep 23 2011, 06:15 PM
I need to find and post my screenshot of Raven Shield end mission screen where I completed it after being hit 32 times (but to be fair, it was mostly shotguns going through doors or near misses).
Gods I miss Raven Shield again, I want to play it when I get home. My roommate and I would do co-op elite tango hunts (and hostage rescue as well) with just the two of us pretty effectively. It was a lot harder if you didn't abuse smoke. I can't even remember how many people got pissed at us during hostage rescues when we'd go in with our 12ga shotguns and raise hell, but thanks to somewhat shoddy AI, as long as there was a door in the way of my loud gunshot, they wouldn't shoot the hostage. (always enjoyed the FN-FAL with a silencer for long range shots as well as picking off tangos through doors)
That said, on elite, the AI cheats and knows where you are most of the time. Ghost cam sometime and watch them start tracing people behind walls as they walk up to doorways.
Posted by: hyzmarca Sep 25 2011, 05:24 PM
While I do tend to suffer from mook fatigue when mook waves are overused, I don't object to the concept in its entirely. It certainly has its place in a certain style of game. The problem is that it can get totally ridiculous when overused, especially in supposedly realistic games. This is especially true when combined with poor level design and unrealistic spawning.
Posted by: Critias Sep 25 2011, 05:36 PM
Oh, yeah. I'm right there with ya, trust me, just saying it's kind of our own fault (as gamers, we get what we pay for). I remember when I was first playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare I kept thinking "Man, there's an awful lot of these terrorist fellas, huh?" There are certainly times it gets awful silly.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Sep 25 2011, 11:56 PM
My favorite FPS with mooks remains Damage Incorporated by Richard Rouse. Since you were clearing survivalist compounds, the kind of mass slaughter portrayed in the game wasn't too jarring in terms of the numbers. And in the ending the last boss comments how a few hundred slaughtered aren't enough for you.
Posted by: Warlordtheft Mar 20 2012, 01:47 PM
Necto verratas nictu....?
No.
Nepto verratas nictu?
Close enough.
Just started my 3rd game of Civ 5. I'm not sure of it but I think they forgot the program the AI to do Amphibious assaults. There has yet to be one....I take that back, there was on launched against an allied City state.
But of note in the game design, difficulty is not so much the improvement of the AI, but bonuses given to the AI
Posted by: X-Kalibur Mar 20 2012, 06:17 PM
No.
Nepto verratas nictu?
Close enough.
Just started my 3rd game of Civ 5. I'm not sure of it but I think they forgot the program the AI to do Amphibious assaults. There has yet to be one....I take that back, there was on launched against an allied City state.
But of note in the game design, difficulty is not so much the improvement of the AI, but bonuses given to the AI
Klaatu... Verada... Nic*coughcough*. Okay, I said the words!
(side note - the words Klaatu Verada Nicto are from "The Day the Earth Stood Still (original) as the words that would stop Gort.)
Posted by: The Wrestling Troll Mar 20 2012, 06:54 PM
My guess is that a lot of publishers yell at the game designers:
"MORE EXPLOSIONS!! YEESSSSS BLOW UP THAT BUILDING, OH AND THAT OLD LADY, NOW BLOW EVERYTHING UP !!" followed by "NooOOooOOooo, Our players don't need any challenge! We want the game to be easy as pie so that we can sell it to total noobs and people never played any video game before"
.... well that's how I imagine a board meeting between a dev studio and the publishers 
Posted by: CanRay Mar 20 2012, 08:22 PM
Which is why I'm looking forward to what DoubleFine is going to put out next! No Publishers!!!
Posted by: Adarael Mar 20 2012, 08:54 PM
Neither of these things are true. At least not mostly. I don't doubt SOME publisher has yelled that at SOME studio, but that's not how it usually goes. Mostly it's the publisher yelling, "What do you mean you're behind schedule? What do we have to cut to get you to the release date on time?" Publishers have some say in how explosive a game is, but it's mostly in the pitch phase. If you say, "I'm gonna make a slow-paced, thoughtful adventure game about brewing coffee," they won't step in and demand more explosions - they just won't give you any money to begin with.
And Doublefine does have a publisher. Self-publishing is still publishing - look at the Dead Kennedys. It means your success or failure rides only on yourself.
Posted by: CanRay Mar 20 2012, 10:26 PM
OK, how about advertizing? I can think of two excellent games that were killed by ads: Callahan's Crosstime Saloon (Which was billed as a WESTERN!), and Brutal Legend.
Posted by: Adarael Mar 20 2012, 10:26 PM
What part of advertising? In-game, or like... magazine ads?
Posted by: CanRay Mar 20 2012, 10:30 PM
In-Game Advertizing, the worst I've seen was Alan Wake. Luckily it didn't detract from the game.
Posted by: Adarael Mar 20 2012, 10:45 PM
Magazines and magazine ads are, as far as I know, always terrible. But I don't know how Brutal Legend was killed by advertising. All the ads I saw were pretty normal.
Posted by: Tanegar Mar 21 2012, 05:34 AM
I think he's referring to the fact that Brütal Legend was marketed as a third-person action game, when in fact it's closer to being an RTS.
Posted by: X-Kalibur Mar 21 2012, 04:36 PM
Fixed that.
Posted by: Warlordtheft Mar 23 2012, 03:55 PM
That is why the AI development gets cut. I have not seen a challenging AI in a game since X-com. And even then it was only a challenge till the old Jedi mind trick came into play.
Posted by: CanRay Mar 23 2012, 03:58 PM
Hopefully the new X-Com will have challenging AIs.
And the money being pumped into Wasteland 2 should make for some really interesting options for AIs I hope!
Posted by: Adarael Mar 23 2012, 07:23 PM
That's also not generally true. If AI development gets cut - IF - it's almost ALWAYS because it needs to be simplified in order to work in the context of the game. If there's a need to cut something due to a time crunch, it's levels/zones, player options, or game features. That's because if you straight up cut a level, game mode, customization option, etc, people will often be none the wiser. If you cut AI development, you still need to implement AI of SOME kind.
AI is VASTLY better than the days of XCom, your perceptions of it not withstanding. Xcom's AI is not particularly intelligent; on higher difficulties, enemies are simply more accurate, and cheat more outrageously. Enemies were still highly predictable even at Supergenius.
Do not mistake game difficulty for AI quality.
Posted by: Warlordtheft Mar 26 2012, 05:41 PM
I don't. that has been one of my complaints with HOI3, Empire Total War, Shogun Total War II (was looking forward till my friend got it an saw the AI was no better than Empires), and now CIV V. But the Aliens in X-com did seem to do some intelligent things, but 15 years later my memory of it might be more a fond remembrance. 
Posted by: Adarael Mar 26 2012, 06:30 PM
Have you tried Frozen Synapse, by chance? Some very, very clever computer work in there. It uses all the usual AI tricks, but it really doesn't cheat, as far as I can tell. Which is wonderful.
Posted by: CanadianWolverine Mar 28 2012, 07:55 PM
Oh yeah, Frozen Synapse is something wonderful - got distracted by its multiplayer and didn't finish the single player. There are some really amazing tricks in tactics you can pull off in that game, like stand duck to get the attention of a gunner so your shooter has the time to take them out from a different angle.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)