Try out Counter Strike: Source. The multiplayer bots in that game are now outstanding, almost impossible to differentiate from real players (you can even spectate them first person, and most people would have no doubts it if they were told that it was a real player they were spectating).
[QUOTE="CentricStorm"]Crysis hardly has mediocre gunplay.DraugenCP
I think it does. This is one of the main factors why I'm considering quitting the campaign mode, even though I'm only still in the tank level.
That's your opinion. A large number of people consider the gameplay in Crysis to be outstanding, outnumbering the people who think it to be 'mediocre'. Besides, this thread relates to the multiplayer component of Crysis which is far superior to the singleplayer you mention. I could say that I thought Halo 3's gunplay was slow-paced and unvaried, but that doesn't mean that it actually is - many more people would disagree with me than agree.
[QUOTE="CentricStorm"]There's a big difference between the most popular competitive games and which games are the best for competitive play (requiring the most skill and therefore having the largest skill differentiation between new players and professionals).majadamus
How about giving us some examples of what you're talking about?
For the purposes of this I will just refer to FPS games: Some of the most popular (i.e. most often played) competitive games: Call of Duty 4 (Xbox 360/PS3), Halo Series (Xbox 360). Some of the games that are the most skill-based (i.e. highest difference between new players and veterans): Quake Series (PC), Counter Strike Series (PC).
Crysis had an alright multiplayer, power struggle was fantastic but not enough people played.tagyhag
Too true. The original Crysis had one of the most original multiplayer game modes ever - Power Struggle was outstanding, catered to players of all skill levels, but unlike games like Call of Duty, it had a significant skill gap between new and veteran players (had elements of Quake like strafe jumping and overall skill-based play style). It was unpopular because of the insanely high system requirements at the time, and the large number of glitches and hackers that were present before the patches were released.
Crysis Wars on the other hand is a lot of fun and lots of people play it.tagyhag
More people played it because more people had a system capable of running it, and also because it was a much more casual-friendly game. Many of the players of the original Crysis' multiplayer disagreed with most of the simplifications and balance made to Crysis Wars that significantly reduced the gap between players of different skill levels.
So you're telling me its selfish to expect a developer to produce AI that performs well in-game (100% of the userbase will enjoy this) as opposed to being selfless and producing AI that can work at a high theoretical capacity but be implemented so badly that the enemies come off as retarded so like what, less than 5% of thee userbase can tinker around, fix whats broken and producd some half baked mods?BELOW_MEE
I'm just putting the point across to the people who have in this thread been complaining that 'AI isn't improving' or in some cases 'AI is getting worse'. How can these console gamers expect AI to ever improve when they have slated the few attempts that have been made to push AI forward?
[QUOTE="CentricStorm"][QUOTE="BELOW_MEE"]Who cares how fancy the AI system was if it wasnt even implemented well? That's like bragging about a Bugatti Veyron with the engine of a Honda Civic and wheels stolen from a LEGO truck.BELOW_MEE
Modders care.Do you think the rest of the consumers care (in other words, everyone else)? Well, PC gamers might be interested in playing high-quality AI modifications, but of course the console gamers don't care. That's why they say that Crysis and Oblivion both had 'bad AI', and that's why the majority of game developers have resorted to AI scripting; preventing future AI advancement from occurring. Thanks to the console gamers, AI will never improve, and singleplayer experiences will continue to fall from popularity.
Who cares how fancy the AI system was if it wasnt even implemented well? That's like bragging about a Bugatti Veyron with the engine of a Honda Civic and wheels stolen from a LEGO truck.BELOW_MEE
Modders care. The potential for AI enhancement in Crysis far surpasses that of any other game.
The AI system designed for Crysis is the best there has ever been in an FPS, however the implementation (especially the balance) within the game itself was poor and gave people a false impression that the AI sucked. In most games the AI always knows where you are and has to 'fake' that it doesn't, whereas in Crysis the AI has real visual detection methods, and actually can't see enemies if they are, for example, hiding in foliage or behind a wall. Crysis' AI also supports accuracy variation depending on how fast or irratic the player's movement is - this allows for dodging to actually be effective, instead of the AI in previous games which has the same accuracy no matter how hard the target is to hit. Additionally, The AI's movements are real, not scripted, so they can be placed in any environment and will dynamically react to it - scipted AI simply won;t function if placed in a completely different situation. The AI was revolutionary, but thanks to console gamers claiming that the AI is bad, FPS developers in the future will be discouraged from the risk of creating real AI and will instead use the tried-and-tested method of AI scripting. Enjoy scripted AI console gamers.
Log in to comment