Beamer wrote on Aug 16, 2012, 15:27:

Stormsinger wrote on Aug 16, 2012, 15:20:

Beamer wrote on Aug 16, 2012, 15:00:

Ozmodan wrote on Aug 16, 2012, 14:13:

Fion wrote on Aug 16, 2012, 13:34:
AI will continue to suck if the console remains the dominant platform. With such strict resource management console games require very little of the hardware is every dedicated to AI. Not when console gamers continue to scream for better graphics that these aging consoles are increasingly unable to put out.

If a game company is going to come along and write an amazing AI for their game, it'll be a PC game. Perhaps someone should write an AI API. There are already API's for just about everything else after all.

Good post, what I was going to say.

I think you guys are confusing combat AI and non-combat AI.

Consoles can handle non-combat AI just fine, because it isn't intensive. Virtually everything he's talking about is scripted. Character development? Conversations? You can do that with a Nintendo just fine.

Scripts are NOT AI. Scripts are preplanned responses, nothing more. You can -fake- AI with scripts, but it just ain't the real thing.

Scripting is a form of AI.
And, if you read the article, it's what he's talking about. He mentions conversations and characters. By default you need to script conversations and characters. Yes, you can make it somewhat dynamic, but even then it's based off of a script.

In essence, though, he's talking about making believable people, not enemies that react a certain way.


Again, I wish people would read the article (but even then Blue summed it up adequately) rather than see "AI" and think "oh man, he means making us fight smarter guys!" He doesn't. He means making the NPCs we interact with seem like people or characters rather than tools.