Game Difficulty Needs to Change With AI!

[ZyroXZ2]

konnichiwa said:

What you are describing is basically DDA(Dynamic Difficult Assitance) RE4 has it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFv6KAdQ5SE

But it kind of done by plenty of games already. Crash 2 (and later games) had it aswell. Game devs don't tell us that they do it and us gamers don't notice it.

We probably all had experienced a game that had a hard part/chapter/level and you then notice an health kit/ammo box/checkpoint or even an enemy that isn't their like the last time. We all probably just thought it was our imagination/bad memory etc.

sundin13 said:

konnichiwa said:

What you are describing is basically DDA(Dynamic Difficult Assitance) RE4 has it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFv6KAdQ5SE

But it kind of done by plenty of games already. Crash 2 (and later games) had it aswell. Game devs don't tell us that they do it and us gamers don't notice it.

We probably all had experienced a game that had a hard part/chapter/level and you then notice an health kit/ammo box/checkpoint or even an enemy that isn't their like the last time. We all probably just thought it was our imagination/bad memory etc.

I think that is largely a different thing. What you are talking about is invisibly tweaking variables based on how the player is doing (tweaking variables being the exact thing the OP is complaining about). What the OP is talking about is having enemy intelligence change based on selected difficulty. 

Dynamic Difficulty Assistance is stupid and I hate it. Changing AI would be a good improvement, but it takes a lot of resources to get right. 

Replying to both of you at the same time because sundin answered it right on the money, lol... Changing the RNG for the amount of ammo you get, resources, etc. is similar to adjusting the amount of enemy health and damage.  If I have 5 bullets to fight the enemy instead of 10, then it's harder by numbers, not because the enemy had any real change.  Metadata difficulty changes are why I rarely ever change difficulty in games anymore, and every now and then I "test" it only to be disappointed with the obvious said metadata methods.  And yet, shining examples exist of what I'm asking for, so I know somewhere out there are people with the tools and know-how who are trying to accomplish more dynamic AI.

SvennoJ said:

sundin13 said:

I think that is largely a different thing. What you are talking about is invisibly tweaking variables based on how the player is doing (tweaking variables being the exact thing the OP is complaining about). What the OP is talking about is having enemy intelligence change based on selected difficulty. 

Dynamic Difficulty Assistance is stupid and I hate it. Changing AI would be a good improvement, but it takes a lot of resources to get right. 

It's more of a problem that games have to cater to the male power fantasy. Intelligent enemies sound fun, but not everyone likes multiplayer. People want a single player campaign where they can feel superior to the AI and mow down a thousand enemies or more in a play through.

Even hard games like souls games work because it's all set in stone. Enemy attack patterns, positions, always the same. Suppose they actually had some intelligence and outsmarted the player at every turn, who would still play the game... It's not hard to make AI that can beat the player every time. The hard part is making the player feel good about his actions without being to obvious in holding back. Basically the roll of a good DM. Yet there is also the ego part, I beat the game on hard would become meaningless with self adjusting difficulty / AI. Heck see the resistance to an easier mode on souls games, even though those games are nothing but rote learning. NG+just ramps up the hit points, still same patterns, same positions, all there for the male power fantasy.

It would be nice if games would analyze the 'fun' level players are having with different sections of the game. I was hopeful something like that was going to happen when Kinect 2.0 was supposed to read player's emotions while playing. Bored, tone down on those sections or spice them up. Frustrated with failure over and over, lower the difficulty / provide assistance. Quickened pulse, more or those sections, increase the difficulty. Yet without any feedback, there is no way to know if a player is engaged in doing the same thing over and over (trying to beat a difficult section) or getting utterly frustrated and ready to delete the game. It's just as frustrating when you almost get it, then the game decides to make it easier...

Erhm, this is a two-edged sword you're describing.  The challenge IS often learning: learning the weak direction of Souls bosses, learning the attack patterns and range of a monster in Monster Hunter.  Once learned, then it becomes a rinse and repeat.  The feel good is gone once the human has learned the AI's patterns.  Keep in mind, I literally mention I don't want my enemy AI to be inhuman (and show an example of a button read in MK11 even though I still won the battle) as I'm keenly aware a CPU can respond faster than a human.  Humans have an average of 10-20ms response times, but thanks to modern computing, AI can respond in as little as 2-3ms (or shorter depending on the instruction set).

Thus, I'm not asking for an unbeatable AI, I'm asking for an AI that provides the very challenge that makes Souls and MH games so alluring: the learning process to defeat what was at first a tough fight.  If AI becomes adaptable with greater/deeper routines on subsequent play cycles in Souls, then it actually reinvigorates what you're saying: each playthrough is a much more "thrilling and new" experience because suddenly that boss is using moves you never saw the first playthrough that you took 10 times learning, or it's stringing together attacks with new patterns that require completely different responses.  Hell, imagine if they took the time to completely change the weapon for the next cycle, so all of a sudden the same boss went from slashing sword attacks to Stabby McStabberson with a spear!  I genuinely think AI is a weakness in our current pursuit of graphical prowess, and it needs improvement or the uncanny valley strikes beyond just appearances.