Best game AI
- Thread starter Mauro Carrizales
- Start date
Personally, I like the AI in S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl. They seldom run after you wherever you are, instead the enemies actually have to SEE/HEAR you to know where you are.
One time, I was having a shootout with some thugs, killed most of them, then hid and waited for the reinforcements to show up. They didn't run straight to where I was, instead they bolted right past me towards the spot where I had killed those other guys.
One time, I was having a shootout with some thugs, killed most of them, then hid and waited for the reinforcements to show up. They didn't run straight to where I was, instead they bolted right past me towards the spot where I had killed those other guys.
It's easy to programme perfection (so I am told) but to programme in mistakes is harder. The computer could work out the perfect nade toss but it cause people to rage, it's better to make it so the computer misses sometimes and make it more human.TornadoFive said:
I recently watched A.I war vids and that A.I looks pretty good, forcing you to use actual tactics, instead of being about to select everything and attack move it.
Not really, the tic-tac-toe AI is not all that complicated because even a simple human can figure out all the possible moves and therefore beating him would also be impossible.Llil said:
But if I'm correct there is also a chess AI that can actuallly not be beaten.
Worms and Reach. The Arkham Asylum AI is fairly good as well, they always make it at least difficult to take them out.
It's not complicated, but it's really good at the game, and that's why I called it good AI.wootsniper said:
I admit it's a bad example, because the game is so simple, but still.
And I don't think there's an unbeatable chess AI. Maybe there's one that no-one has managed to beat yet, but no computer plays perfectly. The game is just too complex. I'm pretty sure the most complex game that has been "solved" is checkers.
Very difficult to answer. Worms AI doesn't count, since making a skill shot is just a a very simple vector and force calculation (something that a pocket calculator could do in an instant). Actually a mark for the AI in the worms series is how BADLY they shoot, since the game has to calculate a reasonable random error chance depending on the skill level chosen. That being said, I haven't always found the AI's tactical decisions (and that's where it can be considered AI) to be particularly good. F.E.A.R. 3 has some good enemy AI, they move, flank, try to avoid dangers, retreat, and generally make life difficult for you without pulling computational dick moves like 100% perfect aim and reflexes over any distance. Something like that is easy for the AI. Technically any shooter could be next to impossible if the enemies were tweaked to be as efficient as they could be, since that would mean 100% headshots with instant reaction time. Not fun.
Starcraft 2 is also kinda average as far as the AI is involved: It gets some + points for good(not great) pathfinding (play stuff like C&C Generals, and you'll see why pathfinding can be an issue if it's retarded) but the actual AI opponents seem to be fairly predictable and again, mostly use computational dick moves. In this case perfect Macro and close to perfect micro. Also on the highest difficulty setting the AI actually CHEATS. It gets 50% (I think, might be less or more) extra income. So instead of one SCV bringing in 5 minerals per harvest, it gets like 7.
Some nice AI in a strategy game I've found in Shogun2. It seems to be able to use terrain to it's advantage to a perverse degree, generally manages units very well, doesn't seem to pull computational dick moves, and only very rarely does it do something retarded (like march his entire massive army one unit at a time at my firing archers)
It's also pretty hard to really define AI in a game (since the actual term is wrong, there is no "intelligence" only a set of programmed responses. it really boils down to how clever these responses are). You could argue that Gothic2 had some impressive AI, with all the villagers going about their daily business, chatting about stuff that happened around them, having a realistic day/night activity cycle, but that was all down to the ridiculous amount of scripts the devs wrote in. On the other hand we have Oblivion that tried to do the exact same thing, but without the ludicrous number of scripted events, rather with an adaptive engine (that would technically be much closer to "AI" than the gothic solution). Problem was, it was nowhere near good enough and in the end it felt like crap.
Half-Life 1 had some very clever AI back in the day, it was probably the first FPS where enemies tried to do more than charge you head on. Soldiers tried to use flanking tactics against you, would retreat and regroup, tried to flush you out with grenades, tried to ambush you. Even more interesting was that different enemies had different AI behaviors. Zombies were mindless and would just come straight at you, Headcrabs sometimes hid, houndeyes would try to stick in a pack, run away and regroup after casualties. Considering this was all in the age of Quake, it made for some impressive stuff, even if it would be only above-average today.
Thief 2 also had some pretty fun programmed responses depending on the difficulty setting. On easy guards would ignore pretty much everything except a body or a direct sighting. On hard however, an open door, an extinguished torch, a missing item, or even a drop of blood would send them on alert and looking for you. Again, not much actual "AI" involved, but very inventive stuff at that time all the same that hinted strongly at "AI" and made for a gameplay experience that could match very clever "AI"
Well, I guess I haven't really been answering the question posted and sort of more mused on different approaches to AI... but since there is no real "AI" in games so far, and such I can't pick the best one, I'll stick to my answer.
Starcraft 2 is also kinda average as far as the AI is involved: It gets some + points for good(not great) pathfinding (play stuff like C&C Generals, and you'll see why pathfinding can be an issue if it's retarded) but the actual AI opponents seem to be fairly predictable and again, mostly use computational dick moves. In this case perfect Macro and close to perfect micro. Also on the highest difficulty setting the AI actually CHEATS. It gets 50% (I think, might be less or more) extra income. So instead of one SCV bringing in 5 minerals per harvest, it gets like 7.
Some nice AI in a strategy game I've found in Shogun2. It seems to be able to use terrain to it's advantage to a perverse degree, generally manages units very well, doesn't seem to pull computational dick moves, and only very rarely does it do something retarded (like march his entire massive army one unit at a time at my firing archers)
It's also pretty hard to really define AI in a game (since the actual term is wrong, there is no "intelligence" only a set of programmed responses. it really boils down to how clever these responses are). You could argue that Gothic2 had some impressive AI, with all the villagers going about their daily business, chatting about stuff that happened around them, having a realistic day/night activity cycle, but that was all down to the ridiculous amount of scripts the devs wrote in. On the other hand we have Oblivion that tried to do the exact same thing, but without the ludicrous number of scripted events, rather with an adaptive engine (that would technically be much closer to "AI" than the gothic solution). Problem was, it was nowhere near good enough and in the end it felt like crap.
Half-Life 1 had some very clever AI back in the day, it was probably the first FPS where enemies tried to do more than charge you head on. Soldiers tried to use flanking tactics against you, would retreat and regroup, tried to flush you out with grenades, tried to ambush you. Even more interesting was that different enemies had different AI behaviors. Zombies were mindless and would just come straight at you, Headcrabs sometimes hid, houndeyes would try to stick in a pack, run away and regroup after casualties. Considering this was all in the age of Quake, it made for some impressive stuff, even if it would be only above-average today.
Thief 2 also had some pretty fun programmed responses depending on the difficulty setting. On easy guards would ignore pretty much everything except a body or a direct sighting. On hard however, an open door, an extinguished torch, a missing item, or even a drop of blood would send them on alert and looking for you. Again, not much actual "AI" involved, but very inventive stuff at that time all the same that hinted strongly at "AI" and made for a gameplay experience that could match very clever "AI"
Well, I guess I haven't really been answering the question posted and sort of more mused on different approaches to AI... but since there is no real "AI" in games so far, and such I can't pick the best one, I'll stick to my answer.
I'll add to the number of people praising the Stalker AI; despite a few occasional mishaps, its a really solid AI. Animals behave pretty realistically and will often retreat if injured; they perform pretty devastating pack tactics and try to surround and overwhelm you when possible.
The human AI is devious as anything and WILL outflank you if you aren't watching all your corners, simultaneously; they flank, assault, withdraw and use grenades if you stay in cover for too long. Watching the AI battle each other is pretty cool; they retreat to heal wounds and loot from the dead.
Total War: Shogun 2's is also pretty good; in battles the AI tries to force you to pay attention to certain areas of the battlefield and when your attention is where it wants to be, it will flank with troops it hides until the opportune moment. Depending on its army composition, your army composition and the terrain, it will vary its tactics accordingly, often refusing to assault your position if it is too strong; in that scenario, it will even try to bait your troops out. Still, it too occasionally performs some stupendously mad manoeuvres which lead to catastrophic defeat on its part.
http://www.google.com/recaptcha/api/image?c=03AHJ_VuskGZ7TWnfYFFikORDsRDFwNJz16Cn-4PR7UFW95MYpNNLkuGvHu7HH1Mi5I5ttMwZGjutuN8T7GTTPOBu3d30xOdYJG4y_yLK0meSZJBQ5rMlCLj9lW0sNEOthdeahy9xRcvqpL6WxeUBvRDGmYbhJ8O9O4Q
of course, how could I forget nlacye!?
The human AI is devious as anything and WILL outflank you if you aren't watching all your corners, simultaneously; they flank, assault, withdraw and use grenades if you stay in cover for too long. Watching the AI battle each other is pretty cool; they retreat to heal wounds and loot from the dead.
Total War: Shogun 2's is also pretty good; in battles the AI tries to force you to pay attention to certain areas of the battlefield and when your attention is where it wants to be, it will flank with troops it hides until the opportune moment. Depending on its army composition, your army composition and the terrain, it will vary its tactics accordingly, often refusing to assault your position if it is too strong; in that scenario, it will even try to bait your troops out. Still, it too occasionally performs some stupendously mad manoeuvres which lead to catastrophic defeat on its part.
http://www.google.com/recaptcha/api/image?c=03AHJ_VuskGZ7TWnfYFFikORDsRDFwNJz16Cn-4PR7UFW95MYpNNLkuGvHu7HH1Mi5I5ttMwZGjutuN8T7GTTPOBu3d30xOdYJG4y_yLK0meSZJBQ5rMlCLj9lW0sNEOthdeahy9xRcvqpL6WxeUBvRDGmYbhJ8O9O4Q
of course, how could I forget nlacye!?
Depends on what you mean by good AI. You mean "an AI that is good at the game", but I think that most people when talking about good game AI will mean "an AI that makes for a good game".Llil said:
It is actually not that hard to make an AI that will beat the average human player in most video games. It's obvious in games like shooters, because the AI can just have zero reaction time and accuracy. Some games are a little harder, but even for something as complex as an RTS it is probably not that hard to defeat the average player.
I think that for most people the AI would be most enjoyable, not if it always wins, but if it loses in a believable way. In a way that makes it seem like the AI was totally trying to win, and was actually a pretty smart and formidable opponent that was just barely beaten by the sheer superiority of the player.
I agree that it's not very fun to play against an unbeatable AI, but that's what I think when I hear good AI. An enjoyable computer opponent is bad in the right way, so I would rather use "complex" or "sophisticated" to describe that. "Good" and "bad in the right way" don't really go together well.Jordi said:
TheJoojo said:
RiouChan said:
Kogge said:
Lucyfer86 said:
No, F.E.A.R AI isn't advanced at all. The AI is still as weak and basic as every other game and it was in no means ahead of its time. The developers simply found a way to create the illusion that the game had incredible AI by brilliantly integrating the environment and dialogue with the basic programming of their enemy AI. If you're going to praise anything, praise monolith for thinking that up, not falsely praising them for creating an advance AI that still doesn't exist.Shameless said:
Here, I'll copy+paste the articles that explain the F.E.A.R AI:
"the AI sees the player and wants to kill the player. The AI then runs through its possible actions, like take cover, attack, or melee-attack. The player fires on the AI and the AI looks for cover; once behind cover, the AI will take note that the player is aiming his weapon at it, so the AI will try to suppress the player by firing blindly.
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.
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. "
In what little PC Team Fortress 2 I could play I found both the friendly and enemy AI very good.
I remember playing a chess game on Windows Vista and I swear that computer blatantly cheated, it swapped 2 pieces to each others spaces IN THE SAME TURN, I sat and watched it! If that isn't cheating I don't what is.Renegade-pizza said:
The best AI character is SHODAN. The game that most impressed me with the AI responsible for moving about the various NPCs and whatnot is Dwarf Fortress.
