Most Impressive Game AI?

News Reader · Post by **News Reader** » March 31st, 2007, 19:06

Most Impressive Game AI?
togelius asks: "I have the feeling that when developers make the effort to put really sophisticated AI into a game, gamers frequently just don't notice (see e.g. Forza). Conversely, games that are lauded for their fantastic AI are sometimes based on very simple algorithms (e.g. Halo 1). For someone who wants to apply AI to games, it is very interesting to know what AI is really appreciated. What is the most impressive game AI you have come across? Have you ever encountered a situation where it really felt like the computer-controlled opponents were really thinking?"

Author: Cliff
Category: pcgames
Read more...

Source: Slashdot: Games
Description: News for nerds, stuff that matters

Woo Elephant Yeah · Post by **Woo Elephant Yeah** » March 31st, 2007, 22:18

Half-Life 2 springs to mind, but other than that, can't say I've ever played anything with really good AI ever

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » March 31st, 2007, 22:23

Woo Elephant Yeah wrote:Half-Life 2 springs to mind, but other than that, can't say I've ever played anything with really good AI ever

The AI in HL2 is weak, the facial animation and stuff is impressive. but the AI is all totally scripted.

Gunslinger42 · Post by **Gunslinger42** » March 31st, 2007, 22:37

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:The AI in HL2 is weak, the facial animation and stuff is impressive. but the AI is all totally scripted.

The AI is only considered good because everything else around it kicks ass >_>

...people thought Halo had good AI?

Lee · Post by **Lee** » March 31st, 2007, 22:39

I rarely notice the difference between ai in different games. Mostly they just shoot at me and I shoot back.

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » March 31st, 2007, 22:47

AI is very difficult to judge on hostiles.

IME the best way to judge them is on Friendlies - For example, in HL2, the fucking retarded resistance guys are annoying, get in the way and rarely show anything close to AI.

Kinda the same with stalker, a lot of the scripted stuff looks great, but during combat they'll run straight into you and keep going.

4...

Post by **Roman Totale** » March 31st, 2007, 22:53

Dr. kitteny berk wrote: Kinda the same with stalker, a lot of the scripted stuff looks great, but during combat they'll run straight into you and keep going.

4...

Argh, this

The amount of times I've taken cover behind something only to be pushed out of the way by some mongoloid friendly AI, well...it's a lot of times.

buzzmong · Post by **buzzmong** » March 31st, 2007, 23:02

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:AI is very difficult to judge on hostiles.

IME the best way to judge them is on Friendlies - For example, in HL2, the fucking retarded resistance guys are annoying, get in the way and rarely show anything close to AI.

Kinda the same with stalker, a lot of the scripted stuff looks great, but during combat they'll run straight into you and keep going.

I'd argue the toss on Stalker, I agree that the people seem to bit a bit stupid, bit then again, all they've got to do is point and shoot. I've been stalked by a bloodsucker around Wild Territories of Rostok (that was soo much fun), and also had an experience in the swamp with a couple of snorks who decided to split up and try to flank me. Could be something to do with the AI kicking it up a gear to get into range to hurt me.

HL2 didn't really have good AI, friendlies or enemies.
Halo 1 was interesting, they wouldn't just charge at you in general and seemed to favour the combat stance that most benefited the enemy and range.

Hmmz, Black and White?

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » March 31st, 2007, 23:06

buzzmong wrote:I'd argue the toss on Stalker, I agree that the people seem to bit a bit stupid, bit then again, all they've got to do is point and shoot. I've been stalked by a bloodsucker around Wild Territories of Rostok (that was soo much fun), and also had an experience in the swamp with a couple of snorks who decided to split up and try to flank me. Could be something to do with the AI kicking it up a gear to get into range to hurt me.

That

In Stalker, it seemed to me that some of the hostiles are smart, and most of the friendlies are thick as shit, which isn't great

however, i suspect they did that to make it so you mattered, if you didn't help, the friendlies would die horribly
2...

Post by **Grimmie** » March 31st, 2007, 23:36

I quite liked FEAR's AI.

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » March 31st, 2007, 23:40

Thinking about it:

Farcry's AI was pretty good, certainly the best I can think of in an FPS, they felt and acted quite human.

It was quite a headfuck 2-3 years ago.

Fear · Post by **Fear** » April 1st, 2007, 0:47

Grimmie wrote:I quite liked FEAR's AI.

Thanks.

I was very impressed with the STALKER AI. They seemed to execute moves to surround you, would often provide cover fire (not that I took cover) whilst others advanced - and they'd retreat and regroup and a few other things.

The Thief series has very good AI also.

friznit · Post by **friznit** » April 1st, 2007, 22:00

Fear wrote:
Thanks.

That's just it though, it's artificial

Not FPS I know, but I've been pretty impressed with the AI in SupCom. It's fairly good at testing your strateggy and adjusting to your weak points rather than just the normal 'inflationary cascade' you get in other RTS's.

Post by **Joose** » April 2nd, 2007, 6:37

friznit wrote:Not FPS I know, but I've been pretty impressed with the AI in SupCom. It's fairly good at testing your strateggy and adjusting to your weak points rather than just the normal 'inflationary cascade' you get in other RTS's.

Ive noticed the same happening in C&C3. If the AI tries something a couple of times and it doesnt work, it adjusts. It also actually reacts to what you are doing too (more anti-air defence if you are using a lot of air units, for example.)

Wierdly though, I didnt notice this till Grimmie pointed out that AI was one of thier selling points. I think that may be the problem: Good AI is difficult to notice, because its just doing what it should do. Bad AI is waaay easier to spot, as stupid things are more obvious.

From what I could be bothered to play of Stalker, I have to say, the AI failed to impress. I took out a whole bunch of military types whilst crouched behind a small rock: had they flanked me *at all* I would have died. But instead, their amazing tactic was to look at me, shout a bit, and gently bob up and down

Post by **Dog Pants** » April 2nd, 2007, 7:16

Joose wrote:From what I could be bothered to play of Stalker, I have to say, the AI failed to impress. I took out a whole bunch of military types whilst crouched behind a small rock: had they flanked me *at all* I would have died. But instead, their amazing tactic was to look at me, shout a bit, and gently bob up and down

I've noticed them using basic tactics. Almost any fight when I'm outnumbered by more than a couple I have to keep sprinting back to more cover because I'm being outflanked. Several times I've played at chasing an enemy around an obstacle because I can't predict whether they're going to try and come round behind me or just charge in. They try and use cover, particularly the ground cover, which is annoying as it makes them a bugger to spot. I'd say it was a slight improvement over most FPSs.

Post by **FatherJack** » April 2nd, 2007, 10:34

Wah! RTSs are hard enough (for me) already without the computer getting even cleverer.

Actually though I think I prefer that attacking the weakest point thing, as I can deliberately engineer one. Some instead of them randomly attacking my lovely new wall, they can come through the hole I deliberately left where all my guys are waiting.

I don't know about AI, I've been playing games a long time and think that part of the fun is to fill in the gaps yourself, and ascribe intelligence to the computer characters, even where none exists. Sort of how the Sims works.

The less gaps you have to fill in, the more painfully obvious it is that the computer isn't actually very clever after all - an example being when Football Manager games started using animated pitch views instead of text. While the text was a little dull to watch, it described the game perfectly (usually) - the animated players though are a different story, even in the latest games player run in circles, dribble the ball into touch and pass to the opposition. (Well, since I usually manage Coventry, the last one is probably realism).

Biggest problem seems to be with AIs that "learn". B&W might have been very clever and all, but the stupid fucking creature never did what it was supposed to. The "drivertard" in one of the console racers only ever seemed to learn my worst cornering disasters. And those conversation Lisa thingies where you "chat" to them? I usually end up having a blazing row with them.

spoodie · Post by **spoodie** » April 2nd, 2007, 10:48

Fear wrote:I was very impressed with the STALKER AI. They seemed to execute moves to surround you, would often provide cover fire (not that I took cover) whilst others advanced - and they'd retreat and regroup and a few other things.

I agree. After playing the game for a while I realised given the chance the enemy will flank you and not just stupidly advance directly towards you or stay put. Although the AI can be very stupid as well, bunching up and making it very easy to take most of them out with a grenade or just not seeing you at all.