Sempai wrote on May 4, 2010, 14:52:
Jesus Christ what do these people do with their time? Hasnt this vaporware been in development for years and years now?

ID wake up, leave the ferrari's at home and get off you're your rich asses and do some WORK!

There are better dev houses churning out better titles in less than half the time than these has beens..

All love to Carmack but seriously what the fuck..

Fixed that for you.

Yes, I'm the grammar/spelling police. Deal with it. Or don't. Either way, I'm good.

For the most part enemies did exactly the same thing in HL. It was often the level design that pushed it forward, like the room where you were suddenly trapped and flanked by troops. Going back and playing now you'll find those troops don't really do much when you get close to them. HL was just smart enough to not let that happen very often.

Yeah, but you have to look at it in context - the game used AI like no previous game had. The enemies came across as devious and challenging. On the otherhand, HL2 failed because the enemies were pure cannon fodder.

By and large, though, FPS games are about plowing through and killing. Few games have successfully deviated from this for a reason.

That's simply because of the limitations of the technology. It's far easier creating a challenging by throwing waves of enemies or strategically positioning them than it is to have a handful of incredibly effective AI characters. I thought the STALKER series did pretty well with the AI, though it never truly worked because for every great feature there'd be an immersion breaking bug. Far Cry 2 as well, though the cheap AI tactics again destroyed the overall progress made.

I still haven't played against any character where I felt they were a an actual character. The movements and tactics are all clearly scripted and lack any illusion of intelligence or understanding. I don't understand why it should be so difficult - if developers simply incorporated an incredible variety of moves and some coherent logic for triggering them then it could be incredibly effective. Same with sound design - I haven't noticed any progress or different in audio design for the past ten years. It's all merely functional.

They need to fix the eyes lids. They look robotic.

I dunno, the Rage screenshots look pretty spectacular to me. Little things like the skin textures (like on that cute chick's legs) really jumped out at me.

Sometimes I get tired of being the lone voice of dissent around here - it makes me look like a professional contrarian.

Yeah, the real reason the Ninja chicks from HL seemed so deadly was because their pathing was so good. They used every bit of the area they were in.

Devs need to go beyond pathing and actually make the enemies smarter, with them make decisions on the fly according to your behavoir, not just following a specific path.

And things along the lines of flipping nearby furniture for cover.

The illusion of AI and AI are essentially the same. Just like Half Life, smart level design played into it.

Adding a final layer to the illusion was the notion that the AI called for reinforcements. As the player slugged it out with the game's bad guys, one of them would call out for reinforcements. Then, when the player moved forward, they would come across an enemy squad rushing toward them. The squad was always there, regardless of whether or not reinforcements were actually "summoned," but because of the dialogue, the player creates a connection that really isn't there.

http://www.gamespy.com/pc/fear/698080p1.html

Monolith fully integrated this system with the enemy's dialogue and game environments in an effort to create the illusion that the AI was smarter than it actually is. F.E.A.R. was widely lauded for the ability of its soldiers (both singly and in squads) to flank the player. In reality, the AI wasn't flanking at all -- it was moving from one cover area to another cover area. Because of the skill exhibited by the level designers, that next cover area was to the side of the player's location (or where the designers assumed the player would be), so when the AI moved to that location, it created a seamless illusion of the enemy flanking you.

http://www.gamespy.com/pc/fear/698080p1.html

However, when we've seen games that really push the AI - like the original Half-Life did - they garner huge praise. It was the fact that the enemies took cover, tried to flank you and drew you out with grenades that was exactly why people like it; not because the enemies were quickly dispatched. Just because current FPS games are enjoyable doesn't mean that changing the dynamics wouldn't be an improvement. You seem to imply that change is bad and everyone is happy. I'd MUCH rather have intelligent enemies.

For the most part enemies did exactly the same thing in HL. It was often the level design that pushed it forward, like the room where you were suddenly trapped and flanked by troops. Going back and playing now you'll find those troops don't really do much when you get close to them. HL was just smart enough to not let that happen very often. Again, I think FEAR came closest to this recently but bullet time totally hid the AI.

And I don't think change is bad. I just don't see a regular single player game suddenly getting bad guys that can take enough damage to show real AI. The only recent game I can think of where enemies last a while and show off any interesting AI is Gears of War, and we know how beloved that game is here. Your quick death combined with enemies high life bars combined with cover systems meant the enemy had time and reason to do some interesing things.

By and large, though, FPS games are about plowing through and killing. Few games have successfully deviated from this for a reason. As Jerykk said, strategy and stealth games will benefit more. Stealth games in particular - just once I'd love to cap a guard and have others immediately respond in a way other than either ignoring it or immediately knowing my exact location and shooting me more accurately with their pistol than I can with a scoped rifle.

Some games have changed that. They haven't done well. People want the frantic nature of an FPS, which means enemies have to go down with a few good bursts.

People enjoy it because it's all they're used to and because there is no choice. However, when we've seen games that really push the AI - like the original Half-Life did - they garner huge praise. It was the fact that the enemies took cover, tried to flank you and drew you out with grenades that was exactly why people like it; not because the enemies were quickly dispatched. Just because current FPS games are enjoyable doesn't mean that changing the dynamics wouldn't be an improvement. You seem to imply that change is bad and everyone is happy. I'd MUCH rather have intelligent enemies.

Largely because they are so stupid. If AI wasn't so predictable and was far more aggressive, they'd last a lot longer.

Aaaaaand that's wrong.
It's not the AI, it's the health. Enemies, outside of arena games like UT, have significantly less health than the player. They take significantly less damage. That's why they last five seconds.

Some games have changed that. They haven't done well. People want the frantic nature of an FPS, which means enemies have to go down with a few good bursts.

I described HL2 as "whack-a-mole" many times when it came out. That's all the combat felt like to me.

I used to agree, but not so much anymore.
By and large enemies have a lifespan of about five seconds. There's really very, very little you can have them do in that time.

Despite many issues with the AI I found Far Cry 2 to be a significant improvement on other games in that respect. I felt like there was a real challenge, rather than just having enemies with high hitpoints or that deal out huge damage.

Largely because they are so stupid. If AI wasn't so predictable and was far more aggressive, they'd last a lot longer. Unfortunately, in 99% of shooters, enemies just take cover, pop their head out, take a few shots, take cover again, rinse and repeat.

Exactly. I felt HL2 was a step backwards in terms of AI, as the enemies were simply cannon fodder. And never have we had a truly intelligent, devious enemy - just bosses with more hitpoints and more damage. That's exactly why multiplayer games are so popular because people are much less predictable and opponents don't need 20,000 hitpoints to be a challenge.

You guys as usual are complete and utter tools. I have never seen a lamer collection of imbiciles as this site. You people are blind, whiney pointless little twits.

The graphics and the textures look great.

We're tools because YOU disagree? I'm sorry but the textures are very low res and washed out in comparison to most recent games, except for the player models. You're not even trying to be slightly objective about it - instead you resort to personal attacks.

What a bunch of spoiled brats.
Jesus Christ, no wonder developers want to lean towards console game development.
This game isn't even close to out, and yet it's already being banished and labeled as trash.

I'm sorry but a lot of us have seen the pattern before. We've seen a complete lack of focus on gameplay and huge pushes towards cross-platform engine developments. We haven't even seen any PC specific features, despite id Software's legacy as the creator of the genre. DX11? Nope. Dedicated servers? Nope. And like most hybrids we'll see racing below the calibre of a racing game and shooting below the calibre of a shooting game. We all know racing games work better on a controller and not on a keyboard and mouse, so it's clear where the focus lies. I'm happy to be proven wrong but it's like watching the trailer for 2012 - I don't need to actually see the movie to know it's going to be a shitty CGI action flick... and I don't need to shoot myself in the foot to know it's going to hurt.

This game should have been released last year... maybe then it would have been relevant.

Jerykk wrote on May 5, 2010, 03:27:
I do agree that shooters generally have fewer opportunities to showcase good AI, though. I'd say that stealth and strategy games have far more potential.

Yes, because in shooters, people like to actually shoot things. And not chase them around the block for hours

XM-S wrote on May 4, 2010, 16:18:
I've been reading Blue's since somewhere around Doom 2, but I don't recall exactly when the community went from like-minded gamers excited about the industry to a bunch of kids looking for an excuse to bitch about everything that gets printed.

I gotta stop reading these comments.



(edit) Maybe it was Quake. I don't remember. Long time ago. Probably before half of you were born, come to think of it.

Some us have raised our standards on what to expect vs. Doom 3 in an outdoor environment with vehicles.

By and large enemies have a lifespan of about five seconds.

Largely because they are so stupid. If AI wasn't so predictable and was far more aggressive, they'd last a lot longer. Unfortunately, in 99% of shooters, enemies just take cover, pop their head out, take a few shots, take cover again, rinse and repeat.

I do agree that shooters generally have fewer opportunities to showcase good AI, though. I'd say that stealth and strategy games have far more potential.

Graphics look unimpressive. Hard shadows, low-res textures, carbon copy of Fallout 3 design. No dedicated servers? No thanks.

You guys as usual are complete and utter tools. I have never seen a lamer collection of imbiciles as this site. You people are blind, whiney pointless little twits.

The graphics and the textures look great. Its obviously going for a theatrical feel combined with a look that is run down. everything doesnt need to look shiney to be high quality. those textures are high rez extremely detailed and obviously *huge*..... you bunch of toddlers.

I swear you morons make me insane.

They really need to start pushing the envelope with AI.

I used to agree, but not so much anymore.
By and large enemies have a lifespan of about five seconds. There's really very, very little you can have them do in that time.

FEAR, when played without the stupid bullet time, had the AI do some cool stuff, but too often I'd kill the AI before it could show it off. With bullet time I'd guarantee blow the brains out before it could move too far.

I'd love to see a game really find a way to showcase solid AI, but that would leave enemies alive for too long. Unless it's something like UT where it's arena based.

Looks like Borderlands 2, but I'm happy with that as long as they cut down on the monster closets. Maybe I'm getting old but I'm tired of mobs hiding in storage lockers with no air/food/water for centuries until I happen to walk by. I much prefer games where the enemies that haven't been alerted to my presence are foraging/talking/fixing something/having a smoke/etc.