Zeno Clash 2 > General Discussions > Topic Details
MajorPlupe Jan 11 @ 2:40am
How did the AI go backwards from ZenoClash 1?
In the first the enemy used to run when you had a gun, now they just charge. the first was great, this is mediocre at best
Showing 1-11 of 11 comments
< >
nickjenne Feb 9 @ 5:47pm 
Well, I think in someways its gotten better but in others not so much. Yeah, as a huge fan of the first one I agree that they use to run away when you had a gun. The AI in this one feels different for sure. hopefully the developers keep that in mind and next time build an AI system that incoporates the best from both Zeno Clash 1 and 2. From what I understand they decided to make this game using a new engine they hadnt used before. I believe it was used to make it more open world, have a night and day cycle, better graphics. They took huge risk.

Plus the lighting is so much different then the original. Even with all these changes it wasnt enough to make me hate the game. Its such a unique world and I love getting lost in it. I'm sure this will help ACE TEAM to understand their limitations but also their strengths when it comes to the next Zeno Clash. I personally cant wait!
tschumann Feb 15 @ 2:58pm 
Originally posted by nickjenne:
From what I understand they decided to make this game using a new engine they hadnt used before.

It was a new engine though ACE Team used it previously for Rock of Ages.
Anyway, the AI is likely based off the enemy AI in Unreal 3, much like the AI in Zeno Clash was based of the AI in Half-Life 2.
[ACE] cbordeu  [developer] Feb 18 @ 9:04am 
Unfortunately the answer to this is that in Zeno Clash 1 the AI is based off of the Half-Life AI, while in Zeno Clash 2 it was done from scratch... (a desicion I regret). There is a mountain of stuff we'd do differently if I had the opportunity to go back in time and re-plan the project from scratch. Making a title this size for a puny 15 man team (Single Player / Coop + consoles) was too much and I think we were too optimistic (maybe even arrogant) when we concieved the project's size.
All the biggest problems of the game come back to this and are mainly because of our own fault and unrealistic planning. Despite all its shortcomings I think we did the impossible and learned greatly from this experience. Nickjenne is correct in that this was a game that made us understand our limitations. But thanks for your support and feedback. We really appreciate it.
solaris32 Mar 3 @ 7:56am 
Originally posted by ACE cbordeu:
Unfortunately the answer to this is that in Zeno Clash 1 the AI is based off of the Half-Life AI, while in Zeno Clash 2 it was done from scratch... (a desicion I regret). There is a mountain of stuff we'd do differently if I had the opportunity to go back in time and re-plan the project from scratch. Making a title this size for a puny 15 man team (Single Player / Coop + consoles) was too much and I think we were too optimistic (maybe even arrogant) when we concieved the project's size.
All the biggest problems of the game come back to this and are mainly because of our own fault and unrealistic planning. Despite all its shortcomings I think we did the impossible and learned greatly from this experience. Nickjenne is correct in that this was a game that made us understand our limitations. But thanks for your support and feedback. We really appreciate it.
Thank you for your honest response. Most devs will rarely respond, if at all, let alone admit when something they did was wrong or could've been done better.
Paulie Mar 3 @ 9:48am 
the game would have been far better and far less buggey at launch if they just kept it on the source engine.
Alien Architect Mar 3 @ 9:53am 
Originally posted by Paulie:
the game would have been far better and far less buggey at launch if they just kept it on the source engine.

Source engine is terrible at doing open world stuff. Hence the switch to Unreal.
[ACE] cbordeu  [developer] Mar 3 @ 12:33pm 
If we would have continued with Source we certainly would have had a much less buggy launch, since we would have basically started out from a stable build of ZC1. But I think a lot of people would have seen it mostly as a Zeno Clash 1.5, and I think a big percentage would have been dissapointed by that.

Obviously some people cared little (or hated) the whole more "open-world" design (even though it was much smaller than real open world titles), but that was the single greatest and most repeated complaint we got from players after ZC1. (About the game just being small combat arenas tied up by cinematics).

With Source we could have never done something of the scale we did for ZC2... definitely not a day / night cycle with maps as large as we did in Unreal. But for sure that could have meant we could do some other things better, and yes... maybe the game would have been better. But for sure it would have been much more similar and less "new".

I totally admit we aimed too high for the sequel, but I wonder if working on a "safer" approach wouldn't have spoiled much of the charm that the sequel has. We will never know... but that is how you learn in game development. Sometimes you just have to commit to something and try your best - even if it seems kind of crazy.
MajorPlupe Mar 3 @ 2:20pm 
Originally posted by ACE cbordeu:
but that is how you learn in game development. Sometimes you just have to commit to something and try your best - even if it seems kind of crazy.
I respect that, taking a chance is always better than the churning the same stuff out and playing it safe. Hope you have learnt from your success and good luck in your future titles
Cervantes Mar 3 @ 6:11pm 
Originally posted by ACE cbordeu:
I totally admit we aimed too high for the sequel, but I wonder if working on a "safer" approach wouldn't have spoiled much of the charm that the sequel has.

I really appreciate that you guys tried to do a different game from the first one, and (in my opinion) you really succeded at that. ZC2 is almost everything I hoped for a sequel.

Plus, now if you do a Zeno Clash 3, you won't have to begin from scratch, since now you have some work already done in the Unreal engine!

About the changes in the engine, I didn't noticed the AI very much (I thought the differences were consequence of the expanded scenery, with more space to run), but I certainly did notice the how the new facial animations don't look as good as the Source-made ones. Is the Source engine easier to work with for facial animation?
Quigley Mar 3 @ 7:29pm 
I'm just curious but do you plan on utilizing the Unreal Engine 4 eventually?
[ACE] cbordeu  [developer] Mar 4 @ 4:43am 
Cervantes:

I don't think that the facial animation tools of Source are necessarily better than those of Unreal. I think we had more time to polish this aspect of the game because it was smaller, and I also think that the contrast between how good facial animations are in games today, compared to how they were years ago makes it seem as if ZC2's facial animations are worse than those of ZC1 (without necessarily being all that much). You have to think that ZC2 must have 4 times as many cinematics as ZC1 - and that means painfully working on facial expressions for a very large amount of scenes.

CARPER:

We're sticking with UE3 for the moment (our upcoming game is with UE3), but we might end up using UE4 if the project requires it. We have a good relationship with Epic, so I don't think we would have any problem working with UE4 if we felt it was in our best interest.
Showing 1-11 of 11 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50