Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
It has a tendency to break occasionally though and you guy one guy just standing around in the open frozen. But overall its been pretty good, its caught me off guard when Im being lazy or sand bagging more than once.
1. It’s not ‘worth it’ for advertisements since you cannot show the AI before a game’s release: Screenshots are static, trailers are short and focus on action. Therefore you cannot build hype based on AI at all.
2. Players don’t care about AI. People often discuss graphics, stories, atmosphere or quests, but I find it extremely rare that an AI is discussed. Players are engaged in a game due to fluid or challenging combat, fascinating stories or atmosphere i.e. of a horror. AI? It doesn’t happen.
3. Money. I have no idea, but I guess developing AI is much more complex than most other game features. It would need lots of work, and therefore investment. Gaming companies usually don’t pay well in comparison to IT, but require similar skills. Somebody who could develop a good AI will likely move to an IT company that pays much better.
In consequence there were few attempts to develop a decent AI in games. By ‘decent AI’ I mean an AI that attempts to adapt to the situation in some ways. This is not case in i.e. Gothic with its NPCs walking around and having a day-cycle of work -> eat -> rest -> sleep. It’s a great feature, but it’s just scripts that run in a loop every game day.
‘Decent AI’ would be one that adapts to the situation or even caused either by the player or another trigger.
Here are the few attempts at developing AI I can think of:
1. F.E.A.R.
2. ArmA series
3. Stalker series
4. Oblivion
F.E.A.R. had the best combat AI for close quarters. Enemies attempted to attack in groups, constantly move so you can never be certain where they are if you don’t see/hear them, react to downed enemies (don’t go to the place an ally just got shot like happens in 99% of shooters), try to quickly overrun you so you don’t have plenty of time to reload, try not to come out twice from the same corner, and probably more I can’t remember. It’s important to note the following games in the series ditched the AI because consoles wouldn’t be able to support it, so there are dumbed down versions of it that are not as smart. I will mention also that due to nature of the game (basically railroaded shooter) there aren't really situations where AI (group) interacts with anything but the player.
ArmA series is a bit difficult to describe due to complexity of all in-game systems, but the AI can simulate combat, even large scale one (although the more units there are the dumber AI gets due to CPU thread limitation), they change position and once alerted stay on high alert for quite a while. AI shoots through walls in general direction where the enemy might be. In ArmA 3 AI can call reinforcements through radio, so attacking a checkpoint can result in AI calling reinforcements from nearby bases or i.e. a helicopter from a viccinity. This works both against the player as well as other AI. Of course it’s all vanilla, if we include mods then AI can get even better. That said, it was clearly never developed to handle close quarters very well, and in that aspect it falls short in comparison, although is still way above vast majority of shooters. AI can also manage driving or flying vehicles quite well, adapting to the surroundings. The only major drawback I ever felt with is that it doesn’t use grenades often, but I’m nitpicking. ArmA 3 is probably the peak of this AI, as ArmA Reforger abandoned it altogether having very simple AI that currently is neither able to flank nor drive vehicles. It will surely be improved in ArmA 4, but I suspect it will take a long time before it’s on the level of ArmA 3… if ever in the series.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl (originally titled Oblivion Lost) made a big deal about its AI before release and it turned out to be… better than in most games. It is certainly not on the level of ArmA 3 or the first F.E.A.R., but it has its own strengths. Flanking is known since at least the first Far Cry, but STALKER seems to have enemies being able to sneak on the player. Human enemies can handle combat alright both close quarters and from afar, although they don’t seem to be able to work in teams, unfortunately – although they attack together I don’t think there’s any communication between them. Animals have their own AI, hunting other animals (also seen in Gothic 3), and actually pulling out forming and attacking in packs. It is important to note that the developer who worked on the AI in the STALKER series, Volodymyr Yezhov, died fighting in Bakhmut at the end of 2022. How it affects STALKER 2 is to be seen yet.
Finally, the last on this list is TES IV: Oblivion. Unlike previous mentions it lacked any decent AI for combat as well as fauna, but it attempted to create randomized dialogues between characters and to have some kind of AI awareness of what it sees (hence bucket on the head), as well as having the typical scripted actions, but with AI left to determine itself how to achieve it. It’s more advanced than simple scripts in Gothic. Unfortunately the systems seemed to be very basic at the time leaving to mostly hilarious results. Overall, it felt to me personally as an early version of an AI that wasn’t finished on time. I didn’t play Skyrim much, but from what I’ve seen it seemed to me that Bethesda mostly abandoned the idea. Instead of developing the Radiant AI further, Skyrim focuses on simple scripts and prepared dialogues more to avoid the random aspect and make the experience more “cinematic” and repetitive. This certainly saves some development time.
Do you think Starfield compares to the above?
(At:10:33)
https://youtu.be/P4vVxkbduMs?t=633
Oh man :-/
I was clearing out a ship and went into a room and caught an NPC just as it went out of alert mode and decided to sit in a chair. The animation locked him in place as I calmly shot him in the head 4 times.
He finished the animation, THEN decided to flop over dead.
He was the last guy too, his boss, his fellow guards, every turret. Yet he decides to sit down with his back to the door cuz it suddenly went all quiet
https://youtu.be/17Kszzcmfv4?si=TQlzv2kk80apidpw
2. ArmA series
3. Stalker series
4. Oblivion
I played all those all had good AI, I wonder if difficulty plays a role because they chase me down and do maneuvers where I never where they are all at.
I'm not saying its perfect but I've never seen them ignore me after spotting me or being shot.
So the AI was able to be scripted easily according the surrounding, simply as that never changed and was not as vast as in this game.
Sure this sounds bold, as nothing is "scripted easily", when it comes to NPCs behaviour.
But the point stands. F.E.A.R. had quite tiny linear maps compared to this game. ;)
I can't count the amount of times they decided to wander in front of my mining laser or sniper scope. Or the sheer amount of times I'm trying to scan a resource or build something in my settlement and my screen gets filled with their name prompt.