Gameplay and AI

[Rodion Romanovich]

What do you consider most important in terms of AI and gameplay? A lot of modern games in fact have much more code and budget for AI and gameplay than all older games, but they're perhaps spending the time on doing the wrong stuff? For example, in recent sneaking games the NPCs can move around doing natural-looking activities when they've not discovered the player, and so on, but in return the behavior once they find the player may be less believable. To what type of game elements, in your opinion, should the most effort in AI and gameplay go? Is the example above waste of resources or bad prioritization, in your opinion?

[Kekvit Irae]

Friendly AI has to adapt to the player's movements and orders. Enemy AI has to adapt to the player's behaviors and learn accordingly. Those are the fundamental rules of good AI. Game programmers can take a lesson from the military AI in the original Half Life. They flank, flush out, throw grenades when the player is hiding, and adapt.

Gameplay has to be precise, but not touchy. Crate jumping puzzles are fun, but only when they are sparse. Optional exploration of a level is vital, but not fun when every level looks the same (Assassin's Creed). Innovations to new ideas are good, so long as they integrate themselves into the game well. But most of all, gameplay has to be FUN.

[Martok]

(Note: I play primarily strategy games, so just bear that in mind when reading this.)

I think it's important to make sure that when contemplating adding new features to a game, that the AI can utilize said features with a reasonable degree of competence. There are too many examples of game features -- RTW's diplomacy system and MTW's mercenaries, to name only a couple -- that the human player can take advantage of, but the AI cannot (or can make use of in only the most rudimentary fashion). And while I readily admit that a human player will almost always do a better job than computer-controlled opponents of using certain features, one can at least avoid implemeting things that the AI can barely use at all.

[Ramses II CP]

Good AI should be aggressive rather than passive. It's all too common in gaming to have the 'creep forward until I can snipe him' attitude sneak in. I prefer an AI that forces the player to adapt by actively attacking him.

The next generation of AI will, hopefully, be more flexible and adaptive on it's own; i.e. if you're using the sniper rifle a lot the enemy should set more ambushes and look to surround you or engage at close range. If you're shotgunning through hordes then the AI needs to step back and pull it's own sniper rifle. Cooperation walks hand in hand with that adaptation.

I'm waiting for the AI that will pin you down with HMG fire and execute a leapfrog advance in pairs while tossing grenades to overrun your position.

[Fragony]

Halo's AI is particularily good, they adapt, flank flush, still the best out there.

[Bob the Insane]

I'm waiting for the AI that will pin you down with HMG fire and execute a leapfrog advance in pairs while tossing grenades to overrun your position.

The enemy soldiers (not the aliens) are almost up to this in Crysis...

At least they have a positive aggresive response to your attacks and never really return a a default, nothing happened state...

[Veho Nex]

kinda sounds like RTS ai from opposing fronts and Company of Heroes just a little except its an allied blitzkrieg that i can never seem to counter

[Geoffrey S]

Problem appears when they games gain in complexity of environment and player abilities, and the AI requires that much more ability to deal with the numerous variables. Programmers can get around that through very careful scripting and telling enemies what to do in certain situations (done particularly succesfully in Halo 3, for instance), but it's very easy for players to start recognizing the patterns and force the AI to do certain things.