The Big Cost of Small Places
There's just more to design in games today and that takes resources.
Read Full Article
There's just more to design in games today and that takes resources.
Read Full Article
I missed you.Shamus Young said:The Big Cost of Small Places
There's just more to design in games today and that takes resources.
Read Full Article
As did I. It's good to have you back, Shamus. Please don't disappear again.Irridium said:I'll admit, I squealed a bit when I saw this.
Perhaps; I remember Naughty Dog saying they ramped the engine up for Uncharted 3 and then spent most of the time bringing it back down so the PS3 wouldn't implode.Irridium said:To make graphics even better than they are today would take insane amounts of work/money.
Years?! I think its only been a few months.Nooners said:Seamus? Holy crap, where have you been? We haven't seen you here for...a couple of years, I think? Anyways, good article, but it's just odd to have you pop out of nowhere all of a sudden.
Actually, we apparently have ways to make "smart" AI. The AI in FEAR was really, really good. And if I recall correctly, this is because it is completely un-scripted. Enemies would actually behave intelligently. And I don't mean "they followed where they were supposed to go as set by the developers" I mean "they make actual decisions based on the circumstances".Woodsey said:Things come at a cost: advanced AI and world's that feel more real are worth the extra time and some of the inherent restrictions (especially when you're rolling out examples like Human Revolution). Furthermore, I'm not sure that "better world design necessitates better, more adaptable AI" is a completely solid line of argument. Would this advance as much as it has if developers weren't forced to do this? There's always going to be a back and forth, and there's a case to be made that the current gen consoles are now actively holding developers back (a few have come out and said as much).
Anyway: welcome back.
I dunno how it works if I'm honest (I was just rolling with the example he'd given); I would presume that dynamic AI is actually a combination of a lot of incremental scripting and some very limited "free-thinking" stuff.Irridium said:Actually, we apparently have ways to make "smart" AI. The AI in FEAR was really, really good. And if I recall correctly, this is because it is completely un-scripted. Enemies would actually behave intelligently. And I don't mean "they followed where they were supposed to go as set by the developers" I mean "they make actual decisions based on the circumstances".Woodsey said:Things come at a cost: advanced AI and world's that feel more real are worth the extra time and some of the inherent restrictions (especially when you're rolling out examples like Human Revolution). Furthermore, I'm not sure that "better world design necessitates better, more adaptable AI" is a completely solid line of argument. Would this advance as much as it has if developers weren't forced to do this? There's always going to be a back and forth, and there's a case to be made that the current gen consoles are now actively holding developers back (a few have come out and said as much).
Anyway: welcome back.
Of course, FEAR was a PC game. So that might be why the AI was able to be so good. Though then again, FEAR did eventually come to consoles, so who knows. But I did notice that the AI in FEAR 2 was decidedly less interesting. I'm not sure if it was the same and I was just not that impressed with it anymore, or if the AI took a backseat to other things.