Brains More Important Than Looks For Future of Games, Says Ubisoft Exec

[Logan Westbrook]

Brains More Important Than Looks For Future of Games, Says Ubisoft Exec

Creating believable worlds in videogames takes more than making them look realistic.

Ubisoft Montreal's executive director of production service, Yves Jacquier, says that the key to making games better is to improve the artificial intelligence powering them, not making the visuals sharper or more intricate. Ubisoft is investing a million dollars over the next five year into new ways of looking at game production, with work on AI being at the forefront.

"AI has always been the real battleground," he said. "The challenge is that, if you see an AI coming, you've failed. And that's a problem we have to overcome as we create the impression of flawless, seamless worlds." Jacquier thought that the Wii - which was rather underpowered, compared to its rivals - was the first step ousting graphics as the most important thing in videogames. While pretty visuals were important, especially when it came to marketing a game, he didn't think graphics would be a strong feature in the next console generation.

He was also hopeful that the next console generation would give developers more room to work, as the current generation made it difficult to have good graphics and and good AI. He said that he didn't see the point in making a game that looked great if it didn't have decent AI to go with it.

Jacquier is really onto something here; no one is going to say that graphics aren't important, but a game has to look pretty exceptional for the visuals to get more than a cursory mention. Obviously, there's always going to be room for improvement, but developers might find that slowing down on visuals and working on the less obvious elements of a videogame gives them more bang for their buck.

Source: GI.Biz [http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2011-07-06-ubisoft-ai-is-real-battleground-for-the-next-gen-consoles]


Permalink

 

[Duskflamer]

Graphics are as good as anyone needs them to be, Ubisoft is entirely in the right here to be focusing on the AI.

 

[kalt_13]

agreed, hopefully more companys will do similar

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Pretty does not equal good. I wish more games would focus on gameplay and AI rather than pretty graphics. Just because the original Crysis was a monster on graphics didn't make it a great game. Actually I thought it was rather a copy of Far Cry with aliens supplanting the genetic modded peoples. And gameplay was ok, but AI was dumb as hell.
That is my opinion.
Half-Life 2: Great physics engine. Graphics were low-end enough to run on most systems, AI wasn't much to reckon with tho.
Still waiting on "smart" NPC's or at least "living" NPC's. Today it seems we still have robots in NPC form.
Go Ubisoft for thinking "smart" instead of "pretty", now actually pull it of please

 

[Catchy Slogan]

He makes a fair point.

[sub]Also you wrote 'and' twice there... [/sub]

 

[ryo02]

so we may actually have smart enemy AI and friendly AI that is actually helpfull? good Ill be very glad of that.

no more walking into walls?.

AI driving in halo games.and there was an incident involving a rocket launcher wielding friendly in halo 2 in the same cover I was in trying to shoot the enemy ... through the cover last time I gave a friendly a rocket launcher outside of a vehicle.

enemies killing themselves by running into a wall head first in crysis 2.

throwing grenades and hitting something and having it bounce right back (gears of war fuck you baird that landed right next to me).

 

[Mayu_Zane]

I will look forward to the day when game AIs are so smart they beg you not to delete your installed game files out of fear that they'll perish.

 

[Fayathon]

Anyone not focusing on making a game look the absolute best it can look in favor of playing better through upgrades in mechanics and other systems has my vote of confidence. That said, I think I'm one of those odd types (at least here locally) that would love to see games drop back a generation in terms of graphical prowess in favor of more robust systems, and longer, more challenging games. I mention this to anyone here though and they look at me like I just set my head on fire and ate a live mouse at the same time.

Ubisoft has made some incredibly stupid decisions in the past, but if they can manage to pull something like this off right, then they're definitely moving in the right direction.

 

[TheComfyChair]

We still need a new console generation for it because the console CPU's are both abysmal for handling AI.

Also, graphics have been 'good enough' since the PS1, so don't give that crap about we wont see graphical improvements An extremely pretty game with great AI will always be far more immersive than an average looking game with excellent AI.

That's why assassins creed 1 on PC is so much more interesting for me to play compared to the sequels (which had a graphical nerf alongside console versions for consoles to handle the bigger map, so everything looked distinctly worse), as the graphics are so much better than the sequel, despite the AI being slightly less complex. I can more easily get immersed into the world when things don't look like i've got an eye infection beyond 10m away.

 

[Pinstar]

To me there are three types of games. The Hardcore, the casuals and the casual-hardcore.

Hardcore gamers can see past the graphics and get right to the heart of gameplay. A Pretty looking but badly designed game will be quickly abandoned by the hardcore player. While a game that sacrifices looks for good gameplay will keep their attention for a very long time.

The casual player buys games from appearance, marketing and brand name. A visually interesting game is enough to gain their purchase even if the gameplay isn't all that deep. A lack of depth in gameplay isn't a problem for a casual gamer, since they don't play the same game for very long anyway, regardless of how well or poorly designed it is. Or if they do play the same game for awhile, they play it sporadically.

Then you have the hybrid, the casually hardcore. This is a casual player with the framework of a hardcore player. They'll buy into visuals, name or hype, but may or may not stay with the game longer depending on how good the gameplay is.

Developers would ideally like the sales from all three groups. However, if graphics are sacrificed for gameplay, you came potentially lose out on 2/3 of the gamer base.

Working on the expectations of the casual-hardcore players is key to letting developers loosen up on graphics and focus more on gameplay.

 

[Something Amyss]

While this sounds nice, I expect more games from them which feature little more than sleeker graphics and multiplayer.

I also keep hearing this promise that graphics won't be as important next time, and while I hope this time it's really true, I ain't holding my breath.

 

[MajorDolphin]

"He was also hopeful that the next console generation would give developers more room to work, as the current generation made it difficult to have good graphics and and good AI."

Really? We have to wait for the next generation of consoles to have games of substance? This problem will only get worse when the next generation console with all its graphics pushing power arrives.

I like Ubisoft and all but I think they're just parroting what the masses of gamers have been saying since this generation started. At least they're listening. A certain developer said "we moved the camera closer to the character so you could make out all the details" while the gamers were saying "I can't see wtf I'm shooting at because this dumb character is in the way"...

 

[JakobBloch]

I like to think that gameplay trumps graphics and that graphics are as good as they need to be. I like to say that I am satisfied with this or that level of visual fidelity and visual design. I like to say that graphics not are important to my enjoyment of a game and that it is just a way to interface with the mechanics of the game.

Then "The Witcher 2 " sneaks up behind me and whispers in my "look at this" and my knees go soft and I become her willing slave. (mind you the Witcher 2 has what I consider excellent gameplay). I have come to understand that games have only reached the plateau of what is needed until someone shows you that there is more.

I want developers to take the time to make good games. I don't want them focussing on one part of the game at the cost of some other part. The games are in effect the sum of its parts and only if those parts are equally valued can it become more the sum.

 

[Irridium]

So pretty graphics are the reason AI is so awful?

Did anyone bother to, I don't know, not focus so much on graphics so they can focus on other things? Anyone at all? If it took this long for Ubisoft, and others, to realize this, then that's just saddening.

 

[ImprovizoR]

I approve of this logic. Graphics are already more than good enough for me. Now focus on making games more immersive, please.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

With an improved AI in Ubisoft's games it will provide a more realistic approach to dealing with NPC's and enemies which is entirely a good thing.

 

[Duskflamer]

Graphics are as good as anyone needs them to be, Ubisoft is entirely in the right here to be focusing on the AI.

They can't, the consoles have too low processing power. >_>

That was sort of the point he was trying to make. Games not being able to look good and have good A.I. at the same time.

Between those two, I'd much rather see a game with great A.I. and so-so graphics, than a graphical masterpiece with crap A.I. I think that the behind-the-scenes stuff in games, the AI, mechanics, etc, have for too long taken a backseat to the game's graphics, and that needs to change, so I applaud Ubisoft for taking this step.