Will AI really benefit from the extra processor power?
- Thread starter nameless_one
- Start date
Alstrong said:pc999 said:I f I am not wrong FORZA AI is suposed to learn, anyone tried it
really? Given enough laps, they'll run the course perfect? or do you mean adjust to the player?
The second, but I am not sure if it is the same out of the paper
.Edit
http://www.xbox.com/en-us/forza/default.htm?level1=enushome&level2=fg2blurb&level3=forza
Shark Sandwich
Regular
"Better AI" is pretty much a marketing term that has been thrown around for years now. When Geforce 256 came out, they were saying "hardware transformation and lighting will allow the CPU to spend more time on physics and AI." I've even heard claims that Intel's Hyperthreading will allow better physics and AI! Now they're saying the same thing about the new console hardware.
It seems like in most games AI just isn't given enough focus. Game companies want to focus on making flashy graphics that look good in screenshots. AI doesn't sell. You gotta love it when you can shoot a soldier in the back, and the other soldier standing right next to him doesn't even move.
That said, at least SOME developers (like Bungie) who take the time to make the characters behave more realistically. I'm excited to see what they can come up with for Halo 3.
It seems like in most games AI just isn't given enough focus. Game companies want to focus on making flashy graphics that look good in screenshots. AI doesn't sell. You gotta love it when you can shoot a soldier in the back, and the other soldier standing right next to him doesn't even move.
That said, at least SOME developers (like Bungie) who take the time to make the characters behave more realistically. I'm excited to see what they can come up with for Halo 3.
pc999 said:
The AI I describe is like the real world... the AI you describe is also like the real world. In the real world we have imperfect knowledge about others, ourselves and the world around us... any game that has AI with characters that are subject to the same lack of knowledge is realistic.
Like many have said A.I. is so broad in terms. Does it Learn? Does it recognize and adapt? Is it speech and interaction? Emotion and Animations? A.I. is so broad and varies by peoples interpetation. But it actually involves all these elements. It will be awhile before we get it all in one big package for now I think developers will have to make some consesions on which part best fits with what they are trying to accomplish with their games and the hardware they are working with.
I have written in other parts of the forums that I think the next big leap for gaming will be a robust A.I. (I myself am working on a project trying to expand the A.I. experience) Graphics is developing at a rapid pace. Sound is solid and physics is also getting alot of attention. A.I. although is not in any means terrible still IMO falls behind the others in development.
Think of it this way, Wouldnt it be great if you had an A.I. that is fluid enough that each time you play through the game (whether its a FPS to RTS etc.) that no two games will be identical EVER based on A.I. factors. That would greatly enhance the replay value of the game your developing and what gamers are looking for in current games. My hopes is that the A.I. will be more fluid and evolves the character more then just merely script based. (Although scripting in A.I. will be with us for a while. For now the need the expansion and more of a variety and prediction to it). Another words (using Halo for example) at its core the A.I. was good but after awhile you knew the habits of say Sangheili from its dodge moves to some of their sound ques. Im hoping A.I. will evolvle enough to take away the prediction factor from the gamer to "dang that was crazy, wouldnt think they would do that". When I am not able to predict what the A.I. will do under given circumstances (or see patterns), that to me will be a good start to the next lvl of "basic" A.I.
Please note that the above example is a very simplistic example and doesnt involve everything A.I. has but Im just trying to give a very simple example of the direction I hope A.I. will go.
I have written in other parts of the forums that I think the next big leap for gaming will be a robust A.I. (I myself am working on a project trying to expand the A.I. experience) Graphics is developing at a rapid pace. Sound is solid and physics is also getting alot of attention. A.I. although is not in any means terrible still IMO falls behind the others in development.
Think of it this way, Wouldnt it be great if you had an A.I. that is fluid enough that each time you play through the game (whether its a FPS to RTS etc.) that no two games will be identical EVER based on A.I. factors. That would greatly enhance the replay value of the game your developing and what gamers are looking for in current games. My hopes is that the A.I. will be more fluid and evolves the character more then just merely script based. (Although scripting in A.I. will be with us for a while. For now the need the expansion and more of a variety and prediction to it). Another words (using Halo for example) at its core the A.I. was good but after awhile you knew the habits of say Sangheili from its dodge moves to some of their sound ques. Im hoping A.I. will evolvle enough to take away the prediction factor from the gamer to "dang that was crazy, wouldnt think they would do that". When I am not able to predict what the A.I. will do under given circumstances (or see patterns), that to me will be a good start to the next lvl of "basic" A.I.
Please note that the above example is a very simplistic example and doesnt involve everything A.I. has but Im just trying to give a very simple example of the direction I hope A.I. will go.
Here's the rub though, as has been mentioned. When NPCs get to be smart, players will die a lot. The reason one man can take on entire armies is because that's an army of mindless drones with repetitve patterns. When that army becomes smart the player will always be overwhelmed by numbers.
Games have to keep a distance from reality. Though we may complain how thick computer opponents are (and I'm a big one for that!) it's only them being so thick as keeps us alive a lot of the time.
eg. In a WWII simulation, the chances of you getting killed are very high in a realistic representation. And if you die a lot and can't complete levels, the game's frustrating, not fun.
Good AI might only work if gaming takes a shift to no longer rely on you playing one character from beginning to end, winning everything undefeated. And I think a lot of gamers wouldn't like that. They WANT to be super-powerful, unstoppable forces.
Games have to keep a distance from reality. Though we may complain how thick computer opponents are (and I'm a big one for that!) it's only them being so thick as keeps us alive a lot of the time.
eg. In a WWII simulation, the chances of you getting killed are very high in a realistic representation. And if you die a lot and can't complete levels, the game's frustrating, not fun.
Good AI might only work if gaming takes a shift to no longer rely on you playing one character from beginning to end, winning everything undefeated. And I think a lot of gamers wouldn't like that. They WANT to be super-powerful, unstoppable forces.
As I said for me a good AI is one that make me think, but that dont need to make the game ultra hard, think in chess AI if you put it in the Very Easy it still make me think (but not that much) but that dont mean I would die. So good AI is different from reallistic AI. In a way that is always different from the previos ones (Halo like).
So I think this would be a great AI, at least if can set the difficulty.
So I think this would be a great AI, at least if can set the difficulty.
OK I have a question....
Would you rather have a very high quality scripted gameplay experience, limiting replay value, or a mediocre AI driven experience that will vary every time you play?
The problem with "good" AI is it's unpredictable by it's very nature, that makes it extremly difficult for a game designer to control the experience. Now that doesn't matter much when you're fighting a bot in some FPS, but in a game like MGS it would be close to impossible to balance the experience.
Would you rather have a very high quality scripted gameplay experience, limiting replay value, or a mediocre AI driven experience that will vary every time you play?
The problem with "good" AI is it's unpredictable by it's very nature, that makes it extremly difficult for a game designer to control the experience. Now that doesn't matter much when you're fighting a bot in some FPS, but in a game like MGS it would be close to impossible to balance the experience.
I'd rather have the very high quality scripted gameplay experience any day.
A.I. in games... I think us humans still are in disadvantange in games because of the control system, not being able to use all our senses fully etc... so if the A.I. was too advanced in games, that would only make the game way too unfair.
Simpler A.I. like enemies that intelligently take cover, maybe call for help, take you from behind... kind of A.I. that is in the better games today is quite enough in fast paced shooters.
For slower strategy games, chess, maybe even characters that talk and respond intelligently... for that a much more advanced A.I. than today would be preferred.
Scripted gameplay can still provide a more immersive experience, like a movie with a good director instad of a "reality TV" where the "actors" do what they want, not what they're told.
A.I. in games... I think us humans still are in disadvantange in games because of the control system, not being able to use all our senses fully etc... so if the A.I. was too advanced in games, that would only make the game way too unfair.
Simpler A.I. like enemies that intelligently take cover, maybe call for help, take you from behind... kind of A.I. that is in the better games today is quite enough in fast paced shooters.
For slower strategy games, chess, maybe even characters that talk and respond intelligently... for that a much more advanced A.I. than today would be preferred.
Scripted gameplay can still provide a more immersive experience, like a movie with a good director instad of a "reality TV" where the "actors" do what they want, not what they're told.
ERP said:
That is good question, but it limit us to " mediocre AI driven experience that will vary every time you play", but (IMO) in certain cases (e.g. Halo, for the time/power...) , I think that it is a great AI, even not scripted and it is always diferent so, even if is not as good as the first one (maybe bungie could creat a much better AI) I think I still prefering the second (but with this example I assume that it dont need to be always as say) in this kind of games, in others I think that my answer can only be: balance is the key(or a really long,long,long game).
Similar threads
