Artificial Intelligence? more like Artificial Stupidity

With the arrival of the latest generation consoles, graphics have taken a massive leap forward in achieving realism ( for the sake of this argument let's exclude PCs). Yet with all amazing visuals being achieved in the latest and greatest games a major weakness in "next-generation" gaming has been revealed.

Artificial Intelligence is something I'm sure not alot of people consciously think about while playing their favourite game yet it plays a massive role in increasing realism and in my opinion it engages the player much more effectively than realistic graphics. So why is A.I not being pushed? Why are we playing Next-Gen games which only use Last-Gen A.I?

It is my strong opinion that it will take just one developer to revolutionize A.I. We saw it with Half Life 2 where Valve placed a major emphasis on physics, which when coupled with an amazing game, revolutionized not only physics but our expectations of in-game physics as well.

I am eagerly awaiting the arrival of that truly revolutionary game which sets the bar for what A.I should be, but until that day I'll just have to stick with my revolutionary controller.

It looks like the next major step forward will be with Crysis.

Someone posted a really nice article detailing the game's AI a few day's back, wish I had it handy.

In fact Halo 3 had weak AI.

Dont worry PS3, Wii and 360 will all start getting good AI.

AI is a much harder thing to improve upon than graphics. It's not that AI is waiting for new hardware to be exploited like visuals are but rather, it's just not quite there yet to mimic real human reaction.

Someone obviously has no clue what-so-ever about how difficult it is to create AI. By far one of the most challenging steps game devs have to attempt to overcome.

AI should be able to read your mind and counter every attack precisely so there is no way to get any further in the game. The AI should be so smart that it makes you angry to the point of kicking the TV in and throwing the controller out the window (or bashing it into one's skull). Sounds incredibly fun! The reactions should be so realistic that the enemy AIresponds to movement and sound IRL while you're playing!

:twisted:

why isnt there a "next-gen" in AI? Because more powerful hardware doesnt make better AI. Better software does. Software tools havent improved much since last generation. Naturally, AI wouldnt improve much, either. With the popularity of multiplayer, its just easier to rely on people playing online for random experiences than it is to develop a very intelligent AI system.

It looks like the next major step forward will be with Crysis.

Someone posted a really nice article detailing the game's AI a few day's back, wish I had it handy.

Velocitas8

Crysis, so clever it's stupid.

But is it really worth it? Well, yes. Because Crysis is stupid. We'd never have thought it before our latest hands-on with the game, but that's one of the best reasons to get busy with the smashy. We're not talking sticking-your-soggy-fingers-in-a-power-socket dumb. Instead, we're referring to the game's AI, which is so realistic it messes up just like a real person. Enemies actually trip over foliage and lose their balance getting legs over fences. So stupid, yet very, very smart.

Crysis' AI credentials have been bigged up from the start of its development. Not only do enemies use cover and flank the player, they understand their environment. Objects in the game world are programmed to communicate with them, so the AI knows it can jump over a wall or use a recently flattened tree for cover.

"We have smart object interactions, so if an enemy encounters a fence, he knows he can jump over it instead of running around it," says Hubler. "We've programmed it so enemies can sometimes fall over too. You have moments where you're thinking 'damn he's going to kill me'. Then he trips over and you kill him instead."

Equally as impressive as this unpredictable and downright clumsy behaviour is how the Korean soldiers react to your character's futuristic US prototype Nanosuit and its various cloaking and super-speed abilities. Understandably, seeing as they've never seen anything like it before, they react with surprise and confusion at the sight of a man darting towards them like Linford Christie on fast forward. If you're seen running down a dead end, then you activate the suit's cloaking function, enemies understand that you can't have disappeared into thin air and respond by tentatively investigating the area.Games Radar

I do realise how dificult programming intelligent A.I can be but i really dont think the hardware of some of the newer systems will allow for greater A.I.

I'm not sure about this but it may have been possible to write the code for amazingly detailed A.I and have it be utilised on a last gen system. I don't see how the hardware specs in this generation of consoles allows for more detailed and intelligent A.I to be created.

I do realise how dificult programming intelligent A.I can be but i really dont think the hardware of some of the newer systems will allow for greater A.I.

I'm not sure about this but it may have been possible to write the code for amazingly detailed A.I and have it be utilised on a last gen system. I don't see how the hardware specs in this generation of consoles allows for more detailed and intelligent A.I to be created.

Popadophalis

Didn't you just completely contradict yourself?

In fact Halo 3 had weak AI.

Dont worry PS3, Wii and 360 will all start getting good AI.

sonic_rusher

Yea, Halo 3 had atrocious AI.

You know what game had pretty good AI? Resistance.

I do realise how dificult programming intelligent A.I can be but i really dont think the hardware of some of the newer systems will allow for greater A.I.

I'm not sure about this but it may have been possible to write the code for amazingly detailed A.I and have it be utilised on a last gen system. I don't see how the hardware specs in this generation of consoles allows for more detailed and intelligent A.I to be created.

Popadophalis

Here's what Cevat Yerli, director of Crysis, has to say about A.I. It's enlightening and only reinforces how great Crysis' AI will be. He's especially correct about level design and environmental design playing a big part in A.I.:

Do you think there's not enough creativity going on in the FPS genre?

Yerli: Effectively the genre has been stagnating, even after Far Cry times. We're seeing the same experience over and over again. But what I think was the big breakthrough in the first-person shooter genre was the AI.

One of the things for game designers and creators is to make the user think before he does something. Then make him think through the options he has so he can choose something meaningful to overcome the challenge.

That inherently asks for an AI that can compensate for your choice, or can challenge and counteract your choice.

Our design stimulates you to think about a certain tactic. You come up with a tactic and when you use the tactic we have to react with AI. So we have to create systems that are flexible in any kind of situation, that you can come up with hundreds of ideas and the game still works.

Not only do you have to have strong AI but also level design to make the amount of choice possible.

Usually, the assumption is that you can make intelligent games by just putting better AI in, but that's not the case. You have to make better AI and better environment design and better level design in order to actually make the choices happen.

That's really where shooters have been stagnating. They've been focussing too much on technology like middleware. "I have middleware. I have physics middleware. If I have physics middleware and AI and rendering, I should be fine." That's the assumption.

But the true power is to use it creatively through better level design, better environmental art, to stimulate the player to make the choices. That's what's been missing. The technology has been there, but people haven't been using it.

[QUOTE="sonic_rusher"]

In fact Halo 3 had weak AI.

Dont worry PS3, Wii and 360 will all start getting good AI.

NavigatorsGhost

Yea, Halo 3 had atrocious AI.

You know what game had pretty good AI? Resistance.

:lol: you should put sarcasm on there cuz someone might believe you.

[QUOTE="NavigatorsGhost"][QUOTE="sonic_rusher"]

In fact Halo 3 had weak AI.

Dont worry PS3, Wii and 360 will all start getting good AI.

amorbis1001

Yea, Halo 3 had atrocious AI.

You know what game had pretty good AI? Resistance.

:lol: you should put sarcasm on there cuz someone might believe you.

um, I was being serious. If you refute what I've said, you never played Resistance. I will gladly post my reasons why and quickly end this debate if you want?

I've been saying this since cows and lemmings started on the whole, "AI + Physics + Graphics = Trifecta of greatness!" shpiel. Video game AI right now is being done with finite state machines (basically, intentional infinite loops), and the only thing which really separates one AI system from the other is how many different "states", or choices, an AI agent has, and how close those choices would be to real human choices. It's extremely troublesome and tedious to program, plus it eats up CPU cycles no matter what you do because it has to keep on running, hence why so many so-called "next-gen" games feel so LAST gen in intelligence.

I think it's going to be another year or two before we start seeing games that exhibit enough improvement in AI that we can say, "Ok, THAT is smart."

Before anyone brings it up, FEAR didn't have good AI, it had good pathfinding and good freedom of movement. The enemy units had more choices where they could go, and HOW they could go there (through a window, through a door, under a crawlspace, jump off a balcony, etc.), which resulted in more "intelligent" movement and more aggressive enemies. But the AI itself was still dumb as a post. That's enough for enclosed gunfights like in FEAR, but not enough for wide-open games like Halo 3.

Before anyone brings it up, FEAR didn't have good AI, it had good pathfinding and good freedom of movement. The enemy units had more choices where they could go, and HOW they could go there (through a window, through a door, under a crawlspace, jump off a balcony, etc.), which resulted in more "intelligent" movement and more aggressive enemies. But the AI itself was still dumb as a post. That's enough for enclosed gunfights like in FEAR, but not enough for wide-open games like Halo 3.mjarantilla

I disagree. F.E.A.R.'s AI was also very good at flanking and staying together in squads, and when there was one enemy left, he'd almost always hang back in cover and wait for you to make the first move. They also had realistically accurate aim, especially grenade aim, but not to the extent that it's botlike. "Dumb as a post" is an exaggeration. I've certainly seen nothing from Halo 3's A.I. to suggest it's any better than F.E.A.R.'s

[QUOTE="amorbis1001"][QUOTE="NavigatorsGhost"][QUOTE="sonic_rusher"]

In fact Halo 3 had weak AI.

Dont worry PS3, Wii and 360 will all start getting good AI.

NavigatorsGhost

Yea, Halo 3 had atrocious AI.

You know what game had pretty good AI? Resistance.

:lol: you should put sarcasm on there cuz someone might believe you.

um, I was being serious. If you refute what I've said, you never played Resistance. I will gladly post my reasons why and quickly end this debate if you want?

I have played resistance from start to finish and the ai was dumb, they didnt do any think when I trew a grenade and the only thing the chimara did was hid behind cover, which basically every basic AI does. halo 3 ai was the best but it is certainly better than resistance.

Half Life 2 ep2 Hunters.

Crysis A.i

Stalker A-Life.

All very impressive.

Like I said earlier, UT2004's AI= Human.

UT3's is pretty much the same way too(same code).

Crysis, so clever it's stupid.Zeliard9

Yup, that's it. :)

Definitely deserves a read.

It looks like the next major step forward will be with Crysis.

Someone posted a really nice article detailing the game's AI a few day's back, wish I had it handy.

Velocitas8

Here and

Here

[QUOTE="NavigatorsGhost"][QUOTE="amorbis1001"][QUOTE="NavigatorsGhost"][QUOTE="sonic_rusher"]

In fact Halo 3 had weak AI.

Dont worry PS3, Wii and 360 will all start getting good AI.

amorbis1001

Yea, Halo 3 had atrocious AI.

You know what game had pretty good AI? Resistance.

:lol: you should put sarcasm on there cuz someone might believe you.

um, I was being serious. If you refute what I've said, you never played Resistance. I will gladly post my reasons why and quickly end this debate if you want?

I have played resistance from start to finish and the ai was dumb, they didnt do any think when I trew a grenade and the only thing the chimara did was hid behind cover, which basically every basic AI does. halo 3 ai was the best but it is certainly better than resistance.

That is completely false. Turn off the easy difficulty, chief.

Enemies actually worked together and used covering fire.

Unlike Halo, they would ADVANCE ON YOUR POSITION. You sitting behind a wall, will not save you in this game. They will grenade the **** out of your hiding spot, while the stronger Chimera, The Steelheads, circle around and try and melee you.

They will walk around mines.

They dive out of the way of grenades.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]Before anyone brings it up, FEAR didn't have good AI, it had good pathfinding and good freedom of movement. The enemy units had more choices where they could go, and HOW they could go there (through a window, through a door, under a crawlspace, jump off a balcony, etc.), which resulted in more "intelligent" movement and more aggressive enemies. But the AI itself was still dumb as a post. That's enough for enclosed gunfights like in FEAR, but not enough for wide-open games like Halo 3.Zeliard9

I disagree. F.E.A.R.'s AI was also very good at flanking and staying together in squads, and when there was one enemy left, he'd almost always hang back in cover and wait for you to make the first move. They also had realistically accurate aim, especially grenade aim, but not to the extent that it's botlike. "Dumb as a post" is an exaggeration. I've certainly seen nothing from Halo 3's A.I. to suggest it's any better than F.E.A.R.'s

In Halo 2 and Halo 3, the Brutes/Elites were quite good at also staying together in squads and providing covering fire for their fellows. It's just much less apparent because they didn't have nearly the same freedom of movement as the FEAR agents. You're right about the flanking, but again, that's really part of pathfinding, not behavior. It's kind of like how a car GPS system finds detours: Instead of taking a direct route (the route of least resistance), the AI has some of the other agents under its control take less direct routes of varying values to end up at the same destination. Thus, the AI agents would always appear to come at you from different directions.

FEAR's AI grenades were some of the worst I've seen, though, because the devs gave them specific animations for throwing grenades around corners and such (again, freedom of movement in action), but for some reason didn't adapt that animation for EVERY corner. So, there would be some cases where right around the corner, there was ANOTHER corner or obstacle, and the grenade would just bounce back right at them. The Halo games avoided this issue because, IIRC, your teammates never threw grenades, while the Brute and Covenant grenades stuck to their targets rather than bounced around.

Thanks for helping me gain a better understanding of how AI works mjarantilla;)Popadophalis

Is that what you really wanted? I thought you just wanted people to say that the current consoles weren't powerful enough for believeable AI.

Honestly, would improving the Ai make for a better gameplay experience?

Personally, I wouldn't enjoy it if every group of enemies kicked my arse, purely because they have lifelike AI and squad tactics.

Honestly, would improving the Ai make for a better gameplay experience?

Personally, I wouldn't enjoy it if every group of enemies kicked my arse, purely because they have lifelike AI and squad tactics.

Planeforger

They don't have to be extreamly smart just life like, thats what I want and that whats Crysis is going to deliver with the NK soldiers A.I. with the last preview I read

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]Before anyone brings it up, FEAR didn't have good AI, it had good pathfinding and good freedom of movement. The enemy units had more choices where they could go, and HOW they could go there (through a window, through a door, under a crawlspace, jump off a balcony, etc.), which resulted in more "intelligent" movement and more aggressive enemies. But the AI itself was still dumb as a post. That's enough for enclosed gunfights like in FEAR, but not enough for wide-open games like Halo 3.mjarantilla

I disagree. F.E.A.R.'s AI was also very good at flanking and staying together in squads, and when there was one enemy left, he'd almost always hang back in cover and wait for you to make the first move. They also had realistically accurate aim, especially grenade aim, but not to the extent that it's botlike. "Dumb as a post" is an exaggeration. I've certainly seen nothing from Halo 3's A.I. to suggest it's any better than F.E.A.R.'s

In Halo 2 and Halo 3, the Brutes/Elites were quite good at also staying together in squads and providing covering fire for their fellows. It's just much less apparent because they didn't have nearly the same freedom of movement as the FEAR agents. You're right about the flanking, but again, that's really part of pathfinding, not behavior. It's kind of like how a car GPS system finds detours: Instead of taking a direct route (the route of least resistance), the AI has some of the other agents under its control take less direct routes of varying values to end up at the same destination. Thus, the AI agents would always appear to come at you from different directions.

FEAR's AI grenades were some of the worst I've seen, though, because the devs gave them specific animations for throwing grenades around corners and such (again, freedom of movement in action), but for some reason didn't adapt that animation for EVERY corner. So, there would be some cases where right around the corner, there was ANOTHER corner or obstacle, and the grenade would just bounce back right at them. The Halo games avoided this issue because, IIRC, your teammates never threw grenades, while the Brute and Covenant grenades stuck to their targets rather than bounced around.

I somewhat agree about the freedom of movement, and how F.E.A.R.'s A.I. sort of "cheated" in that they could do physical manauvers and dodges that you couldn't (of course they couldn't slow down time, either). Still, I dunno, I like to count that as part of strong A.I. even if it is a bit cheating, because you're used to seeing freedom of movement in more open-ended shooters, not corridor shooters. So it was quite striking and new, IMO. Also it seemed to be that they were aggressive, but pretty intelligent with that aggressiveness. For example, if they saw your flashlight or heard you make a sound, only one would usually go investigate. And even after you killed that guy, most of them would still hang back some and wait for you, or toss grenades. They don't just blindly charge you like in most corridor shooters, and yet, when you're busy fending off one of their pals, they will rush you and try to overcome you. I thought it was a pretty great balance.

And as far as the grenades, haha, well it's those particular animations they gave them that made it seem so neat to me. It's very rare in a shooter to have an enemy actually bouncing a grenade off the wall and around the corner, so that it's sitting at your feet while you think you're in cover, but it's true that it was a bit buggy at times (though I've personally never experienced it to be as buggy as you seem to have).

Halo 3's A.I. isn't bad, but one of the things I felt it could've used was a bit more freedom of movement, amusingly. ;) Also, the enemy AI when piloting vehicles left a lot to be desired. I beat it on Heroic and when I faced any enemies on vehicles it felt like I was playing on the easiest setting.

Honestly, would improving the Ai make for a better gameplay experience?

Personally, I wouldn't enjoy it if every group of enemies kicked my arse, purely because they have lifelike AI and squad tactics.

Planeforger

I think what the TC wants is better artificial BEHAVIOR, not necessarily more intelligent combatants. Hence why someone brought up the point about Crysis allowing its AI agents to make errors, like missing a step.

[QUOTE="amorbis1001"][QUOTE="NavigatorsGhost"][QUOTE="amorbis1001"][QUOTE="NavigatorsGhost"][QUOTE="sonic_rusher"]

In fact Halo 3 had weak AI.

Dont worry PS3, Wii and 360 will all start getting good AI.

NavigatorsGhost

Yea, Halo 3 had atrocious AI.

You know what game had pretty good AI? Resistance.

:lol: you should put sarcasm on there cuz someone might believe you.

um, I was being serious. If you refute what I've said, you never played Resistance. I will gladly post my reasons why and quickly end this debate if you want?

I have played resistance from start to finish and the ai was dumb, they didnt do any think when I trew a grenade and the only thing the chimara did was hid behind cover, which basically every basic AI does. halo 3 ai was the best but it is certainly better than resistance.

That is completely false. Turn off the easy difficulty, chief.

Enemies actually worked together and used covering fire.

Unlike Halo, they would ADVANCE ON YOUR POSITION. You sitting behind a wall, will not save you in this game. They will grenade the **** out of your hiding spot, while the stronger Chimera, The Steelheads, circle around and try and melee you.

They will walk around mines.

They dive out of the way of grenades.

well I cettainly aint gonna play resistance on harder dificulty I cant believe I actually play it on regular difficulty.

but halo 3 the do advance they also seek higher ground (unlike rfom) to clear shoots. and the grunts greande the !@#$ out of you hiding spots especially when that skull is turned on.

[QUOTE="Planeforger"]

Honestly, would improving the Ai make for a better gameplay experience?

Personally, I wouldn't enjoy it if every group of enemies kicked my arse, purely because they have lifelike AI and squad tactics.

mjarantilla

I think what the TC wants is better artificial BEHAVIOR, not necessarily more intelligent combatants. Hence why someone brought up the point about Crysis allowing its AI agents to make errors, like missing a step.

It would be cool if you could also trip up etc

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]In Halo 2 and Halo 3, the Brutes/Elites were quite good at also staying together in squads and providing covering fire for their fellows. It's just much less apparent because they didn't have nearly the same freedom of movement as the FEAR agents. You're right about the flanking, but again, that's really part of pathfinding, not behavior. It's kind of like how a car GPS system finds detours: Instead of taking a direct route (the route of least resistance), the AI has some of the other agents under its control take less direct routes of varying values to end up at the same destination. Thus, the AI agents would always appear to come at you from different directions.

FEAR's AI grenades were some of the worst I've seen, though, because the devs gave them specific animations for throwing grenades around corners and such (again, freedom of movement in action), but for some reason didn't adapt that animation for EVERY corner. So, there would be some cases where right around the corner, there was ANOTHER corner or obstacle, and the grenade would just bounce back right at them. The Halo games avoided this issue because, IIRC, your teammates never threw grenades, while the Brute and Covenant grenades stuck to their targets rather than bounced around.

Zeliard9

I somewhat agree about the freedom of movement, and how F.E.A.R.'s A.I. sort of "cheated" in that they could do physical manauvers and dodges that you couldn't (of course they couldn't slow down time, either). Still, I dunno, I like to count that as part of strong A.I. even if it is a bit cheating, because you're used to seeing freedom of movement in more open-ended shooters, not corridor shooters. So it was quite striking and new, IMO. Also it seemed to be that they were aggressive, but pretty intelligent with that aggressiveness. For example, if they saw your flashlight or heard you make a sound, only one would usually go investigate. And even after you killed that guy, most of them would still hang back some and wait for you, or toss grenades. They don't just blindly charge you like in most corridor shooters, and yet, when you're busy fending off one of their pals, they will rush you and try to overcome you. I thought it was a pretty great balance.

And as far as the grenades, haha, well it's those particular animations they gave them that made it seem so neat to me. It's very rare in a shooter to have an enemy actually bouncing a grenade off the wall and around the corner, so that it's sitting at your feet while you think you're in cover, but it's true that it was a bit buggy at times (though I've personally never experienced it to be as buggy as you seem to have).

Halo 3's A.I. isn't bad, but one of the things I felt it could've used was a bit more freedom of movement, amusingly. ;) Also, the enemy AI when piloting vehicles left a lot to be desired. I beat it on Heroic and when I faced any enemies on vehicles it felt like I was playing on the easiest setting.

I didn't say it was a BAD thing. And I guess it does sort of count as AI, because it's exactly what we would do in the same situation: we would try to find the shortest way to our target, or try to get around his back. FEAR does just that. What FEAR doesn't do is judge the stealth value of their paths, so even though they are flanking you, if it's a fairly open area, then the flanking was still pretty obvious. Which is why most of FEAR's battles took place in office buildings, where the different pathways were harder to see and so made it harder to detect someone coming up from behind.

And yeah, FEAR had awesome squad AI (compared to Halo and other games). It was much more complex than with other FPSes I've played. i definitely felt that they used subtler AI personality templates for each agent than other FPSes. Not like Halo 3, where it is painfully obvious what the different Brutes' personalities are (the chargers, the grenadiers, the gunners, etc.). FEAR seemed to design each template around mindset rather than behavior, so that when something happened (like when you kill off half the squad), the other squad members' mindsets completely change, so the choices the AI system gives them change, too, so that instead of looking for the shortest route towards YOU, they look for the shortest route towards cover and towards a pre-determined "base."

I didn't say it was a BAD thing. And I guess it does sort of count as AI, because it's exactly what we would do in the same situation: we would try to find the shortest way to our target, or try to get around his back. FEAR does just that. What FEAR doesn't do is judge the stealth value of their paths, so even though they are flanking you, if it's a fairly open area, then the flanking was still pretty obvious. Which is why most of FEAR's battles took place in office buildings, where the different pathways were harder to see and so made it harder to detect someone coming up from behind.

And yeah, FEAR had awesome squad AI (compared to Halo and other games). It was much more complex than with other FPSes I've played. i definitely felt that they used subtler AI personality templates for each agent than other FPSes. Not like Halo 3, where it is painfully obvious what the different Brutes' personalities are (the chargers, the grenadiers, the gunners, etc.). FEAR seemed to design each template around mindset rather than behavior, so that when something happened (like when you kill off half the squad), the other squad members' mindsets completely change, so the choices the AI system gives them change, too, so that instead of looking for the shortest route towards YOU, they look for the shortest route towards cover and towards a pre-determined "base."mjarantilla

Great analysis, I don't disagree with any of it. All this talk is making me wanna boot up F.E.A.R. again. Maybe I should go try that Perseus Mandate demo I downloaded but haven't played yet. I think it's supposed to be doing some neat things with teammate A.I., the full version, at least.

How do you feel about what Crysis is attempting with A.I.?

F.E.A.R AI>any other AI of any game out right now. I loved the way they worked together, and advanced on you, but retreated if they needed to. Also, if they were caught in the open, they would knock over objects like tables and such to create cover. If they were alone, they retreated while laying down fire, took cover and called for back up. Honestly, if a lot of games just copied the F.E.A.R AI, they would be much better off.

Resistance AI was pretty good. The Chimera dove away from grenades,Took cover when they needed too,and were hell bent on killing you. They try to draw you out from behind cover with hedgehog grenades, flank you and such. they lay down cover fire so the other chimera can gainposition on you. its actually not too bad.

I never saw anything special about Halo's AI. I have not played Halo 3, but if its like Halo 2, then its not that great.

I agree wholeheartedly, the aspects needed to give games artistic credibility- narrative, AI and most importantly emotion- are all being neglected in favour of graphical advancement. What is the point of having powerful technology if it is not utilised correctly? Everyone knows graphics are reaching a plateaux, developers increasingly put more effort into graphics yet yield evermore diminishing returns. As our games take on a hyper-realistic look we also expect them to behave in a more realistic manner, otherwise the illusion is broken.

However, developers continue to direct technological strength primarily towards visuals. Improving AI does not mean making enemies hide behind crates or use different attack patterns, it means giving characters real emotional depth and charm. The game I regard as having the best AI is not some multimillion blockbuster from a massive developer, it is a prototype named 'Façade' created by two independent developers with very limited resources and a tight budget. For me this experiment does more for AI than any megaton FPS because it truly advances video-games. It shifts the focus away from physical activity, away from attack patterns, towards relationships and the social aspects of games. This game manages to be more believable and realistic than almost all others despite having flat-shaded 3D graphics and pre-recorded voice clips.

How can games ever be taken seriously if we are still hindered by poor quality writing, facile character relationships, trite narratives or inability to rouse the same range and intensity of emotions as say a film, book, or piece of music? Of course games must carve their own distinct path rather than emulating existing media, our medium has the greatest potential of any to create a masterpiece and truly influence society. Games are an amalgamation of a multitude of disciplines, the visual arts, sound and music, writing as well as the defining trait- interactivity. I wish to go beyond 'interactive entertainment'. I want games to be more than entertaining.

Games should have a profound social, political, artistic and cultural impact, unfortunately this will never happen until the focus is shifted from visuals to narrative and emotions. Whenever I become disillusioned, or complacent, I only have to think of the sex mini-games in God of War to realise how I must never cease to push in a different direction to the bulk of the industry.

I never saw anything special about Halo's AI. I have not played Halo 3, but if its like Halo 2, then its not that great.

mazdero

As for the humans - god, dont get me started. Some of the worst I have seen in ages. So stupid. And the flood - yea they are supposed to be dumb, but getting caught behind walls.......... Ugh.

Oh and the Arbiter is pretty Abysmal aswell. Its no wonder he has unlimited respawns.

Good AI is hard to make, the logic that goes behind it is beyond mind bending. To replicate human intellgence through a computer is no easy feat as I have tried many times with my years of programming experience only to come up with something that is no better then what you find in an average game. It's much harder to create mind blowing AI then it is nextgen physics, graphics, sound, etc...coolviper2003

A great example is not only Fears A.i, but Stalkers A-Life. The amount of work put into that is insane - and the result is astounding.

Republic Commando's A.I. > Any other shooter

At least that FPS has smart friendly A.I. :P

[QUOTE="NavigatorsGhost"][QUOTE="amorbis1001"][QUOTE="NavigatorsGhost"][QUOTE="amorbis1001"][QUOTE="NavigatorsGhost"][QUOTE="sonic_rusher"]

In fact Halo 3 had weak AI.

Dont worry PS3, Wii and 360 will all start getting good AI.

amorbis1001

Yea, Halo 3 had atrocious AI.

You know what game had pretty good AI? Resistance.

:lol: you should put sarcasm on there cuz someone might believe you.

um, I was being serious. If you refute what I've said, you never played Resistance. I will gladly post my reasons why and quickly end this debate if you want?

I have played resistance from start to finish and the ai was dumb, they didnt do any think when I trew a grenade and the only thing the chimara did was hid behind cover, which basically every basic AI does. halo 3 ai was the best but it is certainly better than resistance.

That is completely false. Turn off the easy difficulty, chief.

Enemies actually worked together and used covering fire.

Unlike Halo, they would ADVANCE ON YOUR POSITION. You sitting behind a wall, will not save you in this game. They will grenade the **** out of your hiding spot, while the stronger Chimera, The Steelheads, circle around and try and melee you.

They will walk around mines.

They dive out of the way of grenades.

well I cettainly aint gonna play resistance on harder dificulty I cant believe I actually play it on regular difficulty.

but halo 3 the do advance they also seek higher ground (unlike rfom) to clear shoots. and the grunts greande the !@#$ out of you hiding spots especially when that skull is turned on.

R:FoM's A.I. is good on Normal and they get harder on Hard and Superhuman. I don't know what you're talking about.:|

And about Halo 3's A.I., I pretty much agree that it's overrated. They use equipment, yet some of them are pretty useless, especially the regenerator, which does nothing to the Brutes. Also, when they use the bubbleshields, at times, they would get out, fire at you, and don't go back in. They are good but not as great as many people were saying.

The friendly A.I. was way smarter in R:FoM than in Halo 3. At least they didn't just stand there while getting shot. :lol: