NoAccountNeeded said:
No idea what's wrong with your game. I only ever noticed it sometimes during combat when it came to item tossing. And I'm playing on three monitors so I really should have noticed it if it were that bad.
That's likely the reason. Elizabeth is (quite correctly) teleported/transported to locations of interest only when she is outside of your field of view (otherwise it would appear very obvious that she doesn't really "exist" as a physical being in the world). Since with 3 monitors you are likely to have a far greater FOV and therefore a far greater time in which Elizabeth is not out of sight, those issues become far less noticable.
It's worth pointing out that she never teleports around when you have her in your field of view. The game only takes the opportunity to move her around when it feels you can't see what she's up to, but sometimes that behavior is very obvious when her movement between points seems largely impossible given intervening time and space.
I found this to be the worst in the "sky arcade" area.
Ferisar said:
You can't really hand-waive Elizabeth's AI for not being impressive, because the reality is that majority of other "intelligent" or, at least, adjusting NPC's in games are literally bags of bricks. Other games manage to do character exploration through either: A) cutscenes, B) scripted events that often impede progress until finished or C) off-time "hub"-like dialogue.
Except Half Life 2 did helpful/believable character AI with Alyx Vance 10 years ago, who, instead of being this empty thing that gets moved around actually has a physical presence in the world, actively helps with engagements, and above all provides more meaningful interaction with the player. I'm not going to debate the pros and cons of the pacing of the game as a whole, which does have problems, but having yet again played the game recently I remain impressed with the Alyx character.
I find it hard to swallow the idea that something that was done 10 years ago cannot be done today because of "technical difficulties", and I find it funny that something that was no doubt far more technically simple compared to Elizabeth produced BETTER and more convincing results - I suspect the team not only subscribed to over-engineering/thinking the problem that Elizabeth posed thereby compromising in essentially every conceivable way, but also perhaps ended up convincing themselves that what they were doing was in some form "revolutionary". Let me iterate again - This was done BETTER and more convincingly 10 years ago.