-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AI: Why does it still suck in games?
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
We aren't talking a quantum computer using god to figure out A.I algorithms. But basic game A.I could be improved largely as an industry standard. Without getting to the levels of Data from star trek. Its lacking almost as much as really good sound design.
The base improvements could just be mirrored from other games doing A.I well. I shouldn't be able to crouch in front of guard 1 when I'm literally 1 foot away from it, and a Trigger Box or some sort of volume around the A.I can't respond.
A.I is behind with innovation in gaming. The A.I of Today in gaming isn't developers best efforts, not by a long shot. They aren't even nearing true ai. its just the same muddled scripts.
I think its because of how difficult it can be to get the balance right, too hard vs too easy. What I find annoying is when the AI is downright moronic, an example of this is when you get seen by an enemy in Dishonored and they just go "maybe it's the wind" .Well no, go and investigate the sneaking man you have just seen!
Kotetsu534
Member
I think a not insignificant proportion of gamers who care about challenging/intelligent opposition are playing online multiplayer (especially some of the millions playing FPSs or MOBAs at any given time). And developing AI which is more interesting to play against than human opposition of a simlar skill level to your own is probably either impossible or far too time consuming ever to be considered.
ShinMaruku
Member
I think with proper design the ai is more than sufficient enough to do the job.
Also developers are NOT the people who would be breaking through with intelligence.
Also developers are NOT the people who would be breaking through with intelligence.
aygomyownroad
Member
Go play F.E.A.R on a hard setting. The AI in that has yet to be beat in my opinion.
Exactly. This isn't a huge demand.
As a gamer, as soon as I notice shitty A.I, i can't help but to take advantage. Or try really hard not to take advantage(If I really really like the game). In Alien Isolation, its not really up to me. The game is frustrating and it pisses me off at times. I stop playing. Its enjoyable to think about how I need to play next time around. This game has been one of the best gaming experiences I've had in recent years, but because its not something I'm just taking advantage of to pass through.
There is something to a difficult entertaining experience.
Its more rewarding to progress through.
autoduelist
Member
1) AI that is too good is no fun.
2) Giving AI the ability to do tactics/strategy is hard. For example, in a RTS game if you feint attacking one area and then commit your full army to a different front, the AI needs to be able to recognize the feint as a feint. Very, very, very hard.
3) AI for simplistic tasks (say, optimizing resources) can be so good that the human has no chance, see #1. For example, the CPU can micromanage resource collection/building improvement to a degree no human can match.
So basically you have an issue where building a good AI is extremely hard and time intensive, and if you actually succeed, the game might be less fun.
Meanwhile, people enjoy finding exploits and ways to 'beat' the game (like being able to score from a certain angle in ice hockey).
In an FPS, if you're facing a squad of enemies that had solid AI (flanking, suppressive fire, grenades to force you from cover, etc) it quickly would overwhelm most players. So instead we get enemies that sit in place waiting to get headshot, because that's more fun for most people.
2) Giving AI the ability to do tactics/strategy is hard. For example, in a RTS game if you feint attacking one area and then commit your full army to a different front, the AI needs to be able to recognize the feint as a feint. Very, very, very hard.
3) AI for simplistic tasks (say, optimizing resources) can be so good that the human has no chance, see #1. For example, the CPU can micromanage resource collection/building improvement to a degree no human can match.
So basically you have an issue where building a good AI is extremely hard and time intensive, and if you actually succeed, the game might be less fun.
Meanwhile, people enjoy finding exploits and ways to 'beat' the game (like being able to score from a certain angle in ice hockey).
In an FPS, if you're facing a squad of enemies that had solid AI (flanking, suppressive fire, grenades to force you from cover, etc) it quickly would overwhelm most players. So instead we get enemies that sit in place waiting to get headshot, because that's more fun for most people.
ShinMaruku
Member
We could get some better AI but I would never peg Developers as the ones to push AI.
amstradcpc
Member
Which game has AI that is too good that is not a RTS game?.As far as I know at least in FPSs except for three or four games(HL,FEAR,KZ2,TLOU...) they are all in the end shooting galleries, being COD the worst offender.I, by the way, found the WTNO AI quite good/fun, reminding HL1 AI.
http://downloads.bungie.net/presentations/gdc02_jaime_griesemer.ppt
This presentation from Bungie's Chris Butcher and Jamie Griesemer is just as relevant now as it was 12 years ago. Halo CE's AI was revolutionary for its time and hasn't really been bettered since. It doesn't need to be, for this sort of game.
This presentation from Bungie's Chris Butcher and Jamie Griesemer is just as relevant now as it was 12 years ago. Halo CE's AI was revolutionary for its time and hasn't really been bettered since. It doesn't need to be, for this sort of game.
FeiRR
Banned
Because of meltdowns https://medium.com/the-physics-arxi...akout-then-thrashes-human-gamers-bfc25f2ffe03
AI is time consuming and difficult.
Time consuming, difficult tasks are high risk.
High risk, complex engineering tasks are not conducive to deadlines, to streamlined production cycles.
AI, the kind most players think about, is often not processor intensive, unless you're talking about pathing. The "nemesis" system in Shadow of Mordor is very simple, for example. AI is more algorithmically intensive, programmer intensive.
Here's a good essay on AI, written by Jeff Orkin, an AI researcher at MIT, and a programmer on F.E.A.R. :
http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~jorkin/..._jeff_fear.pdf
There is no "Artificial Intelligence" in games it's just a lot of state machines, behavioural tress and path finding algorithms. If they actually made them perfect then you wouldn't have fun because in order to make games fun they need to be imperfect and do mistakes, and it is where they sometimes end up glitching sometimes which leads to dumb behaviour.
And this is all difficult as well as extremely time consuming. Leave the innovation in AI to the engineers who specialise in AI rather than Game Developers.
And this is all difficult as well as extremely time consuming. Leave the innovation in AI to the engineers who specialise in AI rather than Game Developers.
NullPointer
Member
Short term-wise I'd agree. But good AI lends replayability, which can generate more profit if you invest in and plan for the longevity of your game rather than the opening weeks.
This is not to downplay a good game that is The Last Of Us, but I watched a playthrough of the game and couldn't but shake my head about the AI in the game. It's one of the worst I've seen in games. They totally ignore your ally, they can't see you hiding behind an object even if the character is basically 50% visible, they can't see you walk past them unless you're almost right in front of them and so on and so on. On top of that everything feels so scripted.
I liked the theme, atmosphere, sound, characters, story and scenery in the game, but the bad AI ruined a lot of the whole package. So yeah, if even a big title like TLOU can't get good AI, something's wrong.
I liked the theme, atmosphere, sound, characters, story and scenery in the game, but the bad AI ruined a lot of the whole package. So yeah, if even a big title like TLOU can't get good AI, something's wrong.
Otakumegane
Member
If AI is too smart then people will stop playing the game.
AI is designed to be easy.
AI is designed to be easy.
ShinMaruku
Member
Good AI is not in the developer's skill set at this moment.
F.E.A.R. white paper on AI
http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~jorkin/gdc2006_orkin_jeff_fear.pdf
A lot of this stuff is psychological too. I love that the rats have the same AI patterns, they just can't shoot.
Regular tip of the hat to Halo as well. Destiny's enemies are decent, but I don't think they have quite the same chemistry with the sorties as Halo.
http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~jorkin/gdc2006_orkin_jeff_fear.pdf
A lot of this stuff is psychological too. I love that the rats have the same AI patterns, they just can't shoot.
Regular tip of the hat to Halo as well. Destiny's enemies are decent, but I don't think they have quite the same chemistry with the sorties as Halo.
NinjamicWZ
Banned
NPC's do not fear death, so they do not fight for their lives.
amstradcpc
Member
They are stalkers and cant see...only hear.
TrojanBlade
Member
Thats just some BS cop out...now a days most games are really easy and a walk in the park. If they want casuals to enjoy then have the easy setting for them. But for others who want some good challenge, there should be improved A.I at harder levels and not just more enemies on screen that are bullet sponges.
The trend with each new gen console is to improve on visuals but A.I never progresses by much except in enemy count. Developers don't want to invest time in improving the A.I. as they know it doesn't sell games which is sad. I mean forget next gen consoles, they have uber PCs to work with that have more than enough juice, but no one takes advantage of that. Basically as I said, no dev wants to invest time in this regard. Its all about flashy graphics to lure gamers to a shallow experience.
amstradcpc
Member
Forget super PCs.HL1 AI is the best bar none and run in a Pentium 200.Is simple logic programming, you dont net neural networks.
Its a priorities problem.If reviewers gave more credit to AI in their reviews things would change.But you see, a new COD and better scores that WTNO...so, who gives a s...?.
cormack12
Gold Member
6MB it was:
There's also a good powerpoint here on Killzone 2 bots and some suggestions of further reading in PDF links:
http://files.aigamedev.com/coverage/GAIC09_Killzone2Bots_StraatmanChampandard.ppt
There's also a good powerpoint here on Killzone 2 bots and some suggestions of further reading in PDF links:
http://files.aigamedev.com/coverage/GAIC09_Killzone2Bots_StraatmanChampandard.ppt
Air Zombie Meat
Member
I didn't get the impression the poster was talking about the stalkers. The humans in the game act like that post describes.
ChawlieTheFair
pip pip cheerio you slags!
If the enemies could spot your partner it would make the game way more frustrating was ND's reasoning. I agree with you on some of the cover stuff, But I guess the reasoning was if Joel is doing the animation for being in cover, you can't be seen.
amstradcpc
Member
TLOU human AI is the best in last gen.So,no.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
Could you point out what was false in that statement about the human ai? Honestly sounds like an accurate description of it to me. I don't think it's bad compared to other games but it does work like that.
Wow I don't want to say what anyone is saying is bs because it'll cause pointless arguments but i live and breathe AI, it's essientially the industry I work in (although I'm not a programmer nor do I know the game development life cycle).
Firstly, there have recently been some considerable leaps in AI in the past five years, so it's nothing to do with the development AI.
Not all computer game is fixed, their are multiple games that have used machine learning to build knowledge on how you play.
Thirdly, AI in games has remained relatively static and I do put a lot of that down to resource and time.
Firstly, there have recently been some considerable leaps in AI in the past five years, so it's nothing to do with the development AI.
Not all computer game is fixed, their are multiple games that have used machine learning to build knowledge on how you play.
Thirdly, AI in games has remained relatively static and I do put a lot of that down to resource and time.
Sgt.Pepper
Banned
I'm pretty sure devs could put out AIs better than us, but what's the point in losing everytime against an AI?
The infected are all blind as for Human enemies the reason why they ignore Ellie is for gameplay reasons, so that you don't have to babysit an AI or so that you don't end up cursing the game because the ally is not doing what you want it to do. As for player being visible, again gameplay purposes. It's the same as Dishonoured lean system, you can lean as far as you want and you won't get seen....these are done for the convenience of player and it's not "dumb AI".
6MB it was:
There's also a good powerpoint here on Killzone 2 bots and some suggestions of further reading in PDF links:
http://files.aigamedev.com/coverage/GAIC09_Killzone2Bots_StraatmanChampandard.ppt
You'd be surprised how many state machines and behaviour trees you can get in 6MB, considering the only job the AI has is to shoot you (or other AI in case of your team mate) and do path finding.
Robert at Zeboyd Games
Banned
Take Civilization V/BE for example. They have basic enemy AI and to increase the difficulty, they let them cheat essentially (by giving them more resources, bonuses, less penalties, etc.). It's not a great system, but I'm not sure that spending a ton of effort to make the AI more intelligent would be much better.
The reason being that you have basically two camps of complaints about the AI - people who complain that the AI isn't acting realistically for a history simulation and people who complain that the AI isn't taking advantage of the game's strategies & situations. Catering to one of these camps is likely to just make the other camp mad - for example, making the AI play like another player would play is likely to make the realistic camp angry when the AI is constantly taking advantage of your weaknesses & backstabbing you. Conversing, making the AI play in a historically realistic manner will make the other camp think the AI is stupid & easily exploited.
The reason being that you have basically two camps of complaints about the AI - people who complain that the AI isn't acting realistically for a history simulation and people who complain that the AI isn't taking advantage of the game's strategies & situations. Catering to one of these camps is likely to just make the other camp mad - for example, making the AI play like another player would play is likely to make the realistic camp angry when the AI is constantly taking advantage of your weaknesses & backstabbing you. Conversing, making the AI play in a historically realistic manner will make the other camp think the AI is stupid & easily exploited.
ChawlieTheFair
pip pip cheerio you slags!
Question for smarter folks: Isn't what an AI does in a game by definition scripted? It's not like they learn, and even if they do, they are "scripted" to learn?
Genetic algorithms? Neural networks? Super systems?
lukeskymac
Member
Please don't derail a thread due to semantics like last time.
We all know that the "AI" used in games isn't an actual intelligence. Just roll with it.
Chubzdoomer
Banned
I'm always disappointed with AI as well. In fact, when's the last time a game actually had convincing, dynamic AI? The last one I can remember was F.E.A.R., which turns a decade old next year. Crysis's AI was also pretty good, but to a lesser extent since it could sometimes go full retard.
I'd hoped that Alien: Isolation's AI would be impressive since it claimed to have a "truly dynamic alien" on the Steam store page, but based on everything I've seen in gameplay videos (I haven't yet played it myself for various reasons), it misses the mark.
I'd hoped that Alien: Isolation's AI would be impressive since it claimed to have a "truly dynamic alien" on the Steam store page, but based on everything I've seen in gameplay videos (I haven't yet played it myself for various reasons), it misses the mark.
Revolutionary
Member
I often wondered this while playing Destiny.
Really basic stuff in there, like the multitude of melee enemies that beeline towards you. It's especially fun with the one hit kill melee modifier! -_-
As for your second point, if you played the MP you would see that people are not as visible as you think while hiding behind cover.
Not sure about your third point, though. Some infected are blind and some are just not very aware. But the humans can spot you from quite a ways.
Really basic stuff in there, like the multitude of melee enemies that beeline towards you. It's especially fun with the one hit kill melee modifier! -_-
Letting them see your allies would have made the stealth sections absolutely impossible.
As for your second point, if you played the MP you would see that people are not as visible as you think while hiding behind cover.
Not sure about your third point, though. Some infected are blind and some are just not very aware. But the humans can spot you from quite a ways.
amstradcpc
Member
Is one of he worst seen in games?.When he talks about a design decission about your AI partner that would make the game a chore to play.
AtomicShroom
Member
Because it's not worth the investment. Games with ordinary AI (see Call of Duty) sell through the roof. They'd be dumb to spend their time and money improving the AI when clearly nobody cares.
This is a short term-focused industry.
Turin Turambar
Member
Because if someone could a really intelligent AI he would winning a Nobel prize not working on a video game.
It's a bit like saying "what the hell are doing medical researchers, after all these years they STILL haven't beaten cancer? WTF".
Real, dynamic, complex AI is a hard problem.
It's a bit like saying "what the hell are doing medical researchers, after all these years they STILL haven't beaten cancer? WTF".
Real, dynamic, complex AI is a hard problem.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
play multiplayer
Air Zombie Meat
Member
I agree it's not one of the worst but the behaviours he mentions are accurate. If that's all you took issue with then fair enough. I thought you were trying to deny that the ai acted like that.
It's just difficult to implement, period, and not a kind of problem where throwing more power at it solves thing. new approaches will have to be invented for AI to progress.
amstradcpc
Member
One thing.Why not even FEAR 2 had FEAR 1 like AI?.The code was not reusable?.only understandable by he writer?.With so many white papers about it i dont get why hasnt been used an identical method in other its not like Epic couldnt have written something similar in an Unreal Enine AI module.
lukeskymac
Member
These reductive excuses of comments contribute nothing. Thanks a lot.