[Derrick01]

I want better AI, physics and animation more than an ultra boost in texture quality.

But if I can only choose one thing then I want every game to be open world or at least have their gameplay way more open. I can't take another generation where most of the AAA games are ultra linear headshot fests, I just can't do it another 7 years. Give me a lot of cool toys to play with and let me get creative. It doesn't have to be open world but give me large spaces to fool around with. Gameplay should be evolving, not this boring jump between cover and shoot with the same gun shit we've been dealing with.

[iceatcs]

Um most games this gen have fucking terrible AI. What games have you been playing to make a statement like this?

What's kind fucking terrible?
I believe I have been killed by AI, that's good enough. But I did said earlier "less stupid" mean more quicker reaction and better option (can be fixed by faster CPU and more coding to give more options).

[PinkCrayon]

Having enemies that react to the environment and having situational awareness would be nice.

The AI in Max Payne is decent, constantly trying to flank you, usually not just staying in the same spot. Rage is also a good example, with enemies using the environment to make it harder for you to shoot them. Would love to see more stuff like this next gen.

[Akainu]

Demon/Humans will still flop around like ragdolls in Demon Spirits no matter how big they are.

[Xplatformer]

AI is good enough atm. What more do you want? Maybe less stupid (better aware) but do you want them to emotional and give hand job? Destruction physics should have some limits as always. We cannot destroy whole level to flat crumble, it will broke the game. But I would love to see better water/rubbish/clothes/hair physics.

I really hope the majority of game developers don't feel this way. Seriously...how much have AI routines for any genre improved over the past 15 years? Compare that to how much graphics have improved in the same amount of time. It's depressing.

[Ceebs]

Unless big advances are made in middleware physics or AI you can probably forget it. AAA games cost too much and take too long to make already for publishers to really invest in it.

[delirium]

Unless big advances are made in middleware physics or AI you can probably forget it. AAA games cost too much and take too long to make already for publishers to really invest in it.

You need huge leaps for AI in academy before you see them in games. Games are generally years behind theoretical computer science academic works.

[Slayven]

I want better AI, physics and animation more than an ultra boost in texture quality. But if I can only choose one thing then I want every game to be open world or at least have their gameplay way more open. I can't take another generation where most of the AAA games are ultra linear headshot fests, I just can't do it another 7 years. Give me a lot of cool toys to play with and let me get creative. It doesn't have to be open world but give me large spaces to fool around with. Gameplay should be evolving, not this boring jump between cover and shoot with the same gun shit we've been dealing with.

Haha I think that is why I mostly played open world games. Make your own fun.

[saunderez]

I agree with you no physics probably being the main focus next gen. On the Wii U for an example, there is this tank game called Tank! Tank! Tank! that has fully destructible environments: I hope we see more stuff like above on the next-gen machines.

This was already possible this gen...

If you didn't make a new door with your hammer every time you needed a side entrance to a building you were playing it wrong.

[Grayman]

I want better AI, physics and animation more than an ultra boost in texture quality. But if I can only choose one thing then I want every game to be open world or at least have their gameplay way more open. I can't take another generation where most of the AAA games are ultra linear headshot fests, I just can't do it another 7 years. Give me a lot of cool toys to play with and let me get creative. It doesn't have to be open world but give me large spaces to fool around with. Gameplay should be evolving, not this boring jump between cover and shoot with the same gun shit we've been dealing with.

I do miss the more open style of game design. Games like Uncharted are bordering on rail shooters with how little of the linear environment is active at one time. Steaming may be some of the limitation but play ground limitations are a design choice sadly.

[Black_Stride]

Hopefully, Apex will become standard soon. Dem colliders.

Apex is Nvidia specific so it wont be standard.
But who knows if Nvidia make Apex and PhysX that much more attractive to devs maybe we will get "The way its meant to be played" in front of every major game

One can hope devs still push Apex wherever they can.
I want Apex cloth and Apex destruction in Watch_Dogs.

It might have just been clever scripting, but FEAR sure did a good job of selling its AI. The entire game pretty much took place in small spaces. Isn't real AI meant to be quite resource intensive?

Whats real AI?

FEARs AI was brilliant, they tried to flank you any chance they got, heck if one guy heard you kill anouther he would run round and jump through a window to try flanking you....the window isnt the most subtle way to flank, but its smarter than facing pointman head on.
FEAR is still one of the only games where ive seen AI use suppression fire.....when the needle guy is in play the low level guys try to suppress you as the needle guy closes the distance.
They retreated when heavily injured(if you killed one of the heavies it happens more often)

Left 4 Dead has overall pretty damn good AI too.

Im not expecting AI to get much better any time soon.
AI seems to be an after though to most developers....either the enemies are nigh mindless shoot at player till im dead or they are the even worse aimbot powered bullet sponges(Syndicate worst AI in a none bargain bin game ever)

Maybe in AC3 the enemies wont be retarded....cuz in ACB the first time i saw enemies dodge attacks i thought excellent now it feels like a fight not just a one sided beat down.....but no its still just a beat down cuz if you press B you break their guard.....then kill them almost immediately.

[iceatcs]

I really hope the majority of game developers don't feel this way. Seriously...how much have AI routines for any genre improved over the past 15 years? Compare that to how much graphics have improved in the same amount of time. It's depressing.

The problem is if you want the enemies to be more advanced AI almost human level they will become like a real-life soldier, not Rambo. It will bored the game.

[Grayman]

You need huge leaps for AI in academy before you see them in games. Games are generally years behind theoretical computer science academic works.

AI isn't really a good term for what we shoot at in video games. Game AI can be made better(more fun) without getting into intelligence research.

[Ken Masters]

The only game I remember where the AI wowed me was FEAR on PC, back when I had a PC that could run top of line games at that time :(

Creating advanced AI is substantially more difficult then make prettier graphics

[Zabuza]

The Last of Us AI should be fantastic.

[echothreealpha]

The AI that we have now is fine, but what's lacking is the human element of it.

Best example I can give is what we can hopefully expect in The Last Of Us. The AI acknowledging when we fucked up or get enraged when we kill their friends.

[Poimandres]

Whats real AI? FEARs AI was brilliant, they tried to flank you any chance they got, heck if one guy heard you kill anouther he would run round and jump through a window to try flanking you....the window isnt the most subtle way to flank, but its smarter than facing pointman head on. FEAR is still one of the only games where ive seen AI use suppression fire.....when the needle guy is in play the low level guys try to suppress you as the needle guy closes the distance. They retreated when heavily injured(if you killed one of the heavies it happens more often)

I'm far from well educated on the matter, but I thought I'd read that the AI in FEAR was all done through scripting. Real AI would be a simulated intelligence that isn't just predetermined behaviours reacting to certain triggers. I don't even know if any games have attempted something like this!

I really enjoyed FEAR, and was very impressed with the AI. But I think I read something about the level design being restricted by the type of AI they used. That's why it was mostly boxy offices, because larger spaces would effectively break the AI.

[br0ken_shad0w]

I miss customizable AI bots like in Perfect Dark. Sad that an N64 game has more options than most current-gen games.

[cacildo]

This was already possible this gen... If you didn't make a new door with your hammer every time you needed a side entrance to a building you were playing it wrong.

And it was the best game this gen had to offer

[ii Stryker]

I want better AI, physics and animation more than an ultra boost in texture quality. But if I can only choose one thing then I want every game to be open world or at least have their gameplay way more open. I can't take another generation where most of the AAA games are ultra linear headshot fests, I just can't do it another 7 years. Give me a lot of cool toys to play with and let me get creative. It doesn't have to be open world but give me large spaces to fool around with. Gameplay should be evolving, not this boring jump between cover and shoot with the same gun shit we've been dealing with.

Add the option to do all of that with 4 player co-op and that would be gaming nirvana.

Borderlands and Dead Island are examples of what I'd like more of next gen with the choice and consequence from games made by CD Projekt and Obsidian.

[Black_Stride]

I'm far from well educated on the matter, but I thought I'd read that the AI in FEAR was all done through scripting. Real AI would be a simulated intelligence that isn't just predetermined behaviours reacting to certain triggers. I don't even know if any games have attempted something like this! I really enjoyed FEAR, and was very impressed with the AI. But I think I read something about the level design being restricted by the type of AI they used. That's why it was mostly boxy offices, because larger spaces would effectively break the AI.

I dont understand.

Real AI is simulated intelligence???? As in like Artificial Intelligence???
Im being a fool.


But seriously dont inteligent people in a gun fight react to certain conditions.....if i see a man walk through the door with a shotgun, one of my instincts is get behind cover, or get down.

FEARs AI reacts to certain situations, if you burst through a door with a shotgun, the AI figures what to do next.
Flip a table over and take cover.....retreat behind a wall cuz the table isnt bullet proof.
Scream for backup...etc, etc.
Yes the reactions are taken from a pool of possible reactions.....but if we let AI literally do whatever we would have an infinite amount of possible outcomes.....it would be a waste of code.

There is no way to make a game in which AI doesnt react to some sort of trigger.....whatever situation the AI is in is the trigger....so even AI thats just sitting idle has been triggered to be idle by the fact that the player hasnt made himself known.

Lets look at some features of Intelligence:
Being Self-Aware - FEAR AI knows its there.
Problem Solving - In danger of being shot, hide(problem averted) Kill danger(Problem solved)
Planning - Lets flank together as a squad, hes hiding You go left ill go right.
Understanding - He just killed 10 of my mates....im probably too weak for this shit RETREAT!
Communication - see Planning
Learning - see Understanding.

Id say FEARs AI is as AI as videogame AI can get.

[StevieP]

This topic gets brought up during every generational transition and the answer is the same every time.

Developers making the types of games that we are discussing here will put their focus where they think it matters most to the gamers. And it ain't physics and AI. Hardware be damned in either equation, it's more like time and money.

[Spazznid]

I thought the enemies in today's games were very smart. making so that the only way to get to the next area is by killing ALL of them, and then when you get the the next area, there's more enemies and another locked door. Kill them all and some backup enemies will pour through the door revealing your next room. I thought it was the enemy's way of demoralizing you and making you quit the game. I'm looking at you, F.3.A.R.

Seriously, though. the only groups who seem to push AI seem to be less mainstream. Although, if you've been reading the 'Last of Us Extended Demo Impressions' thread, you might be joyous to see that the AI in that game seems to be shaping up nicely.

As for physics, I think they are at a point where "Better" physics won't improve gameplay enough to warrant the time to develop it. Though, more games could use physics in more charming ways.

[Bombadil]

What games have enemy NPCs that run away when you kill the rest of their squad or beg for their lives when you corner them? That would be nice.

"I've a got a wife and two kids. Please!"

And localized damage needs to be a feature in all shooting games. If I shoot you in the arm, don't use that arm again. Shoot you in the leg, limp away and bleed to death.

[Fancy Corndog]

I think everything is going to look more 'alive', physics included.

I don't think AI is bounded so much by hardware, it's sort of always advancing gradually (even though it doesn't always seem like it).



I wish I was one of those people who could approach every single generation expecting things not to drastically improve. That must be incredible every single time.

[Poimandres]

I dont understand. Real AI is simulated intelligence???? As in like Artificial Intelligence??? Im being a fool. But seriously dont inteligent people in a gun fight react to certain conditions.....if i see a man walk through the door with a shotgun, one of my instincts is get behind cover, or get down. FEARs AI reacts to certain situations, if you burst through a door with a shotgun, the AI figures what to do next. Flip a table over and take cover.....retreat behind a wall cuz the table isnt bullet proof. Scream for backup...etc, etc. Yes the reactions are taken from a pool of possible reactions.....but if we let AI literally do whatever we would have an infinite amount of possible outcomes.....it would be a waste of code. There is no way to make a game in which AI doesnt react to some sort of trigger.....whatever situation the AI is in is the trigger....so even AI thats just sitting idle has been triggered to be idle by the fact that the player hasnt made himself known. Lets look at some features of Intelligence: Being Self-Aware - FEAR AI knows its there. Problem Solving - In danger of being shot, hide(problem averted) Kill danger(Problem solved) Planning - Lets flank together as a squad, hes hiding You go left ill go right. Understanding - He just killed 10 of my mates....im probably too weak for this shit RETREAT! Communication - see Planning Learning - see Understanding. Id say FEARs AI is as AI as videogame AI can get.

There was a guy doing a research paper on AI in videogames at the University I work at who used FEAR as one of his case studies. The gist of his study was that very few games have actual AI simulations built in.

I agree with you that it's not really necessary. FEAR was good enough for me. But if this kind of approach is restricting level design, I guess advancements are ultimately needed.

Here's a paper on the A.I of FEAR. Pretty interesting read: http://web.media.mit.edu/~jorkin/gdc..._jeff_fear.pdf

Here's an interview about the AI in STALKER. That's a pretty cool system as well: http://aigamedev.com/open/interviews/stalker-alife/

[SquiddyCracker]

What games have enemy NPCs that run away when you kill the rest of their squad or beg for their lives when you corner them? That would be nice. "I've a got a wife and two kids. Please!" And localized damage needs to be a feature in all shooting games. If I shoot you in the arm, don't use that arm again. Shoot you in the leg, limp away and bleed to death.

Only if we have the choice not to kill the poor sob.
I now understand what people say by video games becoming "ultra-violent".

[Dragonzord]

I'd rather have more detailed open worlds than bigger open worlds next gen. Like, I find Liberty City interesting to explore and would enjoy that more if they kept the same size but added more interiors. I found Just Cause 2's environment extremely boring to explore. It just felt compltely randomly generated.

Of course, I found San Andreas more exciting to explore than Just Cause 2 as well.

[purple cobra]

I don't know about AI but I think physics and animation are going to be a central focus. Several developers, like Crytek, have shown how they're integrating new dynamic physics into their engine's animation systems. Havok has also commented as well. Max Payne 3 has shown how much of an effect this can have on gameplay and immersion and I would love to see other developers do something like that and see other kind of systems aside from Euphoria that can be integrated in to more games.

Ok, I know this is all wishful thinking but here: I will settle for better Animations (enough with characters that cannot jump, take cover, run or climb);Next: better Hair (yeah, i said it: "hair" I'm tired of ugly plastic looking hair on characters and all the bald heroes); add to that No more Invisible Walls... "Oh look at this path here... Meh!! nope, can't go there either! What good will better looking graphics do if the environments and characters are often useless... or act the same as a decade ago? It is time for an overhaul gents! *Pros to developers who have, indeed, improved the quality of their games. You know who you are, you creative beasts!! Thank you.

I'm hoping these points are concentrated on next gen. I would love if traversal in FPS games next gen are more Mirror's Edge/Battlefield 3/Crysis.

I love the sense of being you have in those games. You feel more like you're controlling a "body" than a camera attached to a gun. The animations in ME/BF3 when doing things like vaulting over objects and going prone help to sell the feeling of being in someone's shoes.

Also a big part that helps sell it is the fact these games I've mentioned actually render legs on the character you're controlling. That's another big part that helps to sell you controlling a character.

It would be a little (just a little) disappointing if next gen most FPS games don't let you look down and see a pair of legs on your character.

[Dragonzord]

I hope animation isn't a focus outside of cutscenes. Then every game becomes like Red Dead or Max Payne where animation takes key over everything and it feels awkward.

[Slayven]

What games have enemy NPCs that run away when you kill the rest of their squad or beg for their lives when you corner them? That would be nice. "I've a got a wife and two kids. Please!" And localized damage needs to be a feature in all shooting games. If I shoot you in the arm, don't use that arm again. Shoot you in the leg, limp away and bleed to death.

Shit yeah, in the original Soldier of Fortune game you could shoot an enemies' legs and they will crawl to retrieve their gun and post up on a wall to make a last stand.

[Not a Jellyfish]

Graphics is all that REALLY matters.

Just no.

[AdventureRacing]

Isn't he sort of right? What kind of genius strategy is the AI supposed to pull off in some linear corridor shooter?

No he isn't right at all. First of all since when is this discussion limited to linear corridor shooters? AI this gen is incredibly basic and dumb, in a lot of games it feels like they're barely able to navigate walls. In others (like COD) it barely feels like there is AI at all.

What's kind fucking terrible? I believe I have been killed by AI, that's good enough. But I did said earlier "less stupid" mean more quicker reaction and better option (can be fixed by faster CPU and more coding to give more options).

You've hit the nail on the head! As long as you can be killed by the AI what more could you possibly want?

[Fancy Corndog]

Just no.

That's actually a pretty bad example of what you're trying to say.

[Bombadil]

Only if we have the choice not to kill the poor sob. I now understand what people say by video games becoming "ultra-violent".

Indeed there needs to be an option. I swear the bad guys in nearly all video games are extremely dedicated to guarding whatever they're guarding. They're willing to die for nothing. They say mercenaries are quick to abandon their posts but I've never encountered such a one in video games. Okay, maybe the grunts in Halo, but if you give them some time they start shooting again.

[mr jones]

Truly serious question:

What do you consider AI?

I don't consider there to be any "Artificial Intelligence" in game software. I don't believe that there are games that learn you actions in the game, and based off of those actions either help or hinder you progress through out the game using tools supplied by the game programmer. I honestly haven't seen what I'd consider AI since... since... I guess Seaman on the Dreamcast.

I think what folks are looking for is more creative scripting. Scripting isn't bad. Scripting is crucial to game development. All of the ghosts in Pac Man follow a script that is unique to each ghost. One ghost is going to simply hunt you down. If it "sees" you, it will just continue to chase you. One ghost is sort of a "flanker," of sorts. It doesn't chase you directly, but it goes in the areas that you're at, so while you're in a panic trying to outrun the ghost chasing you, you'll run into the one that floating around close by.

In Metal Gear Solid 2, the guards on the tanker had some fantastic scripting. If one hears you, he searches in your vicinity, and if he finds you, he will attempt to call for backup, and then chase you down and shoot. When he and another guard are hunting you, one will try to go on one side of the object you're hiding behind, and give the signal for the other to go to the other side and flush you out. It can get quite intense, and it all looks great when you're playing the game.

However, once they don't see you for a while, they go back to they're predefined path, as if no one even saw you in the first place. They don't even do anything with the bodies of their buddies that you shot.

I'm hoping that there will be more creative scripting in games. The combination of decent animation and scripting that gives the illusion of intelligence can be very powerful in modern videogames.

[injurai]

L4D2 has amazing damage that I have yet to see in any other game.

Force Unleashed has the awesome DMM

Crysis has great physics on top of graphics.

The Last of Us, seemingly will have amazing animation and AI.

[mugurumakensei]

Truly serious question: What do you consider AI? I don't consider there to be any "Artificial Intelligence" in game software. I don't believe that there are games that learn you actions in the game, and based off of those actions either help or hinder you progress through out the game using tools supplied by the game programmer. I honestly haven't seen what I'd consider AI since... since... I guess Seaman on the Dreamcast. I think what folks are looking for is more creative scripting.

You are quite correct. AI in games mostly only relates to pathfinding and scripts that run based on vicinity and action. Other than that, games don't keep track of what's succeeded/failed in order to improve enemy reactions. It would be something to do it, but it would quite a large amount of storage per game.

[theBishop]

We now have several examples of companions which follow you for large portions of a game. The Last of Us' Ellie looks like the latest in an increasingly effective design hook. It seems like a logical step to have a "companion" who is working against your interests, or even hunting you.

[toddhunter]

Can't have good AI.

'hey there is that guy who has already killed like 1000 of our comrades' * runs and hides *

have to make them stupid to give you something to do.

Seriously though, hardware is a limitation on AI. Game dev is all about compromises most of the time, and good AI doesn't look pretty on the box.

[Grayman]

We now have several examples of companions which follow you for large portions of a game. The Last of Us' Ellie looks like the latest in an increasingly effective design hook. It seems like a logical step to have a "companion" who is working against your interests, or even hunting you.

I really thought that Uncharted 2 was going to have something like that with Flynn but it never happened. More equal adversaries to the player could be a trend in new games.

[Formless]

AI doesn't really need to be that great (as in using the latest research or computationally super expensive techniques) to have a game be fun. The same goes for physics to a degree, as in the computational load might not have a noticeable effect for most people to appreciate.

I imagine better hardware could mean one mirrion trooops with some more varied AI and better pathfinding, but it's not gonna make enemies super efficient at finding you necessarily. And gamers of course want to be able to still beat a game.

[Forkball]

What games have enemy NPCs that run away when you kill the rest of their squad or beg for their lives when you corner them? That would be nice. "I've a got a wife and two kids. Please!" And localized damage needs to be a feature in all shooting games. If I shoot you in the arm, don't use that arm again. Shoot you in the leg, limp away and bleed to death.

Skyrim kind of had NPCs pleading for their life. Often they would go to a kneeling state and say "I yield!" or something like that, however once they recovered they continued to attack.

[ZackieChan]

There's a point in AI where the game stops being fun, though. If the enemies are super-smart and super effective, or if they have some kind of omniscience, they will hinder people's enjoyment of the game. It's a difficult balancing act for programmers.

I remember listening to Trick on the Bombcast complaining about the shipyard scene in Uncharted 3. He would hide behind something, and attempt to kill enemies, but suddenly an enemy would shotgun him to the back. That's smart AI. The enemies are using their numbers to defeat you, spreading out to take you from behind. They throw grenades to stop you from staying in one place. However, you can see how that might stop the game from being fun, as it did for Trick (I don't agree; I thought that battle was fun because it was semi-difficult and you had to watch all of your angles at all times).

[Gen X]

I wouldn't expect pubs to allow their developers to allocate much resources to revolutionary AI unless the entire premise of the game was based on it.

I'm surprised someone hasn't come up with an AI system/engine that can be licensed out like other engines in the past such as Havok for physics.

[Game2Death]

I would just hope that friendly AI is worked on..haven't seen too many good examples of those yet.

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I want better AI, physics and animation more than an ultra boost in texture quality. But if I can only choose one thing then I want every game to be open world or at least have their gameplay way more open. I can't take another generation where most of the AAA games are ultra linear headshot fests, I just can't do it another 7 years. Give me a lot of cool toys to play with and let me get creative. It doesn't have to be open world but give me large spaces to fool around with. Gameplay should be evolving, not this boring jump between cover and shoot with the same gun shit we've been dealing with.

Truly serious question: What do you consider AI?

Be careful not to over-analyze. For the purpose of what we're discussing, the AI is "the thing that controls NPC behavior". It needs to be more convincing and challenging in human ways (i.e. not just giving them perfect accuracy and double HP when you crank the difficulty). Games where you encounter enemies outside of pure combat situations are notoriously bad at behaving realistically, especially in terms of playing hide & seek with the player.

I'm surprised someone hasn't come up with an AI system/engine that can be licensed out like other engines in the past such as Havok for physics.

If it was easy somebody would have done it, I'm thinking. I'm not familiar enough with the inner workings of A.I. programming to give detailed answers, but I imagine the problem lies with the obscene number of ways you can approach it and how it's integrated with other parts of your game.

[PumpkinPie]

Crysis is the epitome of this issue, amazing graphics, terrible AI.

[Moostache]

Years ago, 2K had the "VIP" system in their games and while far from perfect, it was a damn sight better than anything in sports gaming since...and this was available on LAST gen hardware (PS2 / XB1).

The VIP would take people's playing tendencies and translate them into game-play on the field when you selected a specific profile to play against. It would change the basic play of the game's default AI to match whatever player tendencies and movements were made and would replicate them.

I tried it out by playing against my own VIP and it was kind of eerie to see the way that it worked. When I would call audibles and flip plays, the VIP would do the same things when it was controlling the CPU players. It was an incredible idea and I was sorry to see it dead-end and go away when they lost the NFL license to EA.

Innovation is independent of hardware specs. I expect to see advances all the time, but I have come to accept that disappointment is part and parcel of being a gamer.

[spindoc]

Crysis is the epitome of this issue, amazing graphics, terrible AI.

Until you played Far Cry 2 - sad to say, but it made Crysis's AI seem amazing in comparison.