Gameplay and AI

[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.

[TinCow]

I think the main problem with poor AIs is the way in which the games themselves are created. I have no factual basis for this theory whatsoever, but I suspect that many developers create the game system first, then attempt to create an AI that can handle it. Naturally, the designers will want to include many 'cool' features that their players will enjoy having access to. When that is done, they then turn to the AI team and say, "Create an AI that can do all of this." Unfortunately, coding an AI is extremely difficult and the more complex the game rules, the harder it is to get a good AI system.

I think the best way to create an AI is to consider an fundamentally important part of the design of the game from the very first step. Every addition to the game should be accompanied by the question, "Can the AI handle this rule?" If the answer is yes, it is included in the game. If the answer is no, it is not. That will certainly result in less complex games, but I think it would result in an overall improvement in gaming entertainment.

Of course, I could be totally wrong about how games are developed. If they are already doing what I suggest and still getting poor results, then I'm not quite sure what the solution is.

[Fragony]

I think the best way to create an AI is to consider an fundamentally important part of the design of the game from the very first step. Every addition to the game should be accompanied by the question, "Can the AI handle this rule?" If the answer is yes, it is included in the game. If the answer is no, it is not. That will certainly result in less complex games, but I think it would result in an overall improvement in gaming entertainment.

Take FEAR, the AI is just about flawless because of just that. Leveldesign is wrapped around the (impressive) skills of the AI, saves an otherwise soso title. AI is the most important aspect of an excellent shooter imho.

[Husar]

There are also concerns like system requirements, an awesome AI would use a lot of CPU power, maybe multi cores can help with that in the future as you can have one or two cores just to calculate complicated AI routines.

[Fragony]

There are also concerns like system requirements, an awesome AI would use a lot of CPU power, maybe multi cores can help with that in the future as you can have one or two cores just to calculate complicated AI routines.

How old are Half-Life and No One Lives Forever (best shooter ever made by the way)? These games are technically ancient but have better AI then 99% of the other shooters even today, FEAR and Halo top them, and that's it. I think it just asks for some more dedication, nobody would ever say Half-life and NOLF were underdeveloped when it comes to other aspects.

[Bob the Insane]

We also have to recognise that horror of the modern games industry...

Making things easier...

Even if they could produce an FPS AI that would be practically identical to playing MP against living opponents without the human error, would that be fun?

I recall Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield playing MP co-op against the AI on Hard... All the R6 guys were human and all thr tangos AI...

They would kick our collective butts round after round...

I doubt that would occur in newer games...

[Martok]

I think the main problem with poor AIs is the way in which the games themselves are created. I have no factual basis for this theory whatsoever, but I suspect that many developers create the game system first, then attempt to create an AI that can handle it. Naturally, the designers will want to include many 'cool' features that their players will enjoy having access to. When that is done, they then turn to the AI team and say, "Create an AI that can do all of this." Unfortunately, coding an AI is extremely difficult and the more complex the game rules, the harder it is to get a good AI system.

I think the best way to create an AI is to consider an fundamentally important part of the design of the game from the very first step. Every addition to the game should be accompanied by the question, "Can the AI handle this rule?" If the answer is yes, it is included in the game. If the answer is no, it is not. That will certainly result in less complex games, but I think it would result in an overall improvement in gaming entertainment.

Of course, I could be totally wrong about how games are developed. If they are already doing what I suggest and still getting poor results, then I'm not quite sure what the solution is.

I completely agree with you, TinCow. You actually made the precise point I was trying to make myself, but you were far more eloquent than I.


[That's one reason why I enjoy Galactic Civilizations 2 so much. Its AI is so superb in part because Brad Wardell (the game's creator & main AI programmer) refuses to add features that the the computer-controlled opponents can't handle. No matter how "cool" and/or exciting a potential new feature may be, he won't implement it unless he feels he can program the AI to utilize said feature competently.]

[CountArach]

Good squad cohesion is one of the most important things for me. The AI for example in F.E.A.R is great because they'll chuck a grenade in, then rush you with several men, while simultaneously setting up a flanking attack.