By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Why isn't enemy AI more realistic?

They could easily introduce AI based on machine learning and after a week of having the data from a couple of million game hours to train on, every player would be obliterated despite setting hard limits to make it more human-like (reaction time, aiming etc). I doubt that most of the players want to feel like a noob on some kind of e-sports arena final. Even if you're in the top 10 players on this planet, your skills and strategy will be eventually matched and exceeded by the AI and your rage quit inevitable. Having good AI isn't a problem. Having AI dumb enough to be defeatable and believable is the challenge.



Around the Network

Games with great AI: Unreal & Unreal Tournament, F.E.A.R., Perfect Dark. Those games are 15-25 years old now and AI has only gone downhill since.

It's not hard to program AI at all, devs just make different choices, probably because no one ever talks about AI so they don't think it's a big selling point.



A loong time ago, I was playing Syphon Filter on the PS1 and I was just mowing through the enemies. And out of nowhere, this one random bad guy started behaving like a real person. Like he really wanted to live. He wasn't a boss or anything, just one of the nameless cannon fodder. I can't even remember if I killed him or if he killed me but it was such an awesome moment that I never forgot that it happened.

Every generation, I look forward to moments like that but I can't think of many examples. Maybe I need to start playing on hard mode. I think companies depend on online mode for that experience but I'm not really an online player anymore.



Enemy AI is pretty good in Age of Empires 2 Definitive Edition.

Easy- Easily beaten by 90%+
Normal- Easy for most players
Hard- Is hard for the average player
Extreme- Majority of players can't beat, only top 50% ranked players have a chance.



SvennoJ said:
Hiku said:

Good A.I. shouldn't get in the way of having fun.
Which it can do if developers focus more on realism than what they actually want the players to experience.

In Ghost of Tsushima for example, if you get spotted, you can lose the enemies detection quickly by hiding somewhere.
This allows you to quickly get back into the stealth action.

The more realistic alternative could require you to evade enemies for several minutes before getting back to stealthy action again.
And the devs have to ask themselves which route most of their players would prefer.

Talking about Ghost of Tsushima, if you attack a group they will politely wait their turn to attack you like in most melee based games. None seem to care that you're dispatching them one by one and will gladly add to the pile of corpses right in front of their nose when luring them into your trap. Dumb AI is for the player.

First you need to vastly reduce the number of enemies before you can make them smarter. Yet gamers find it more fun to mow through entire crowds instead of having long tactical fights against a few smart enemies. Thus the enemies need to be dumb as rocks, and the higher the kill count, the dumber they have to be. Every game is a wave shooter nowadays.

In Half life and Fear you were worried when getting set up against 3 enemies. (Oh crap, where did number 3 go, is he behind me...)
Nowadays you kill a dozen or more in 30 seconds.

Heck, Tlou2 even has an option to turn off enemy flanking or enemies grabbing your allies to make combat easier. It's for accessibility so I guess its all right.

What I miss currently in Halo Infinite is that they don't bother anymore to shoot where you will be when strafing, jumping, grappling. I'm pretty sure they did in previous Halos or maybe it was a different game series. If you didn't randomize your strafing you would get hit every time, strafe or jump right into a grenade toss or hail of bullets. But that would take the 'fun' out of it.

AI is reversely tied to enemy count. Yet even when you get a one on one fight with a boss, they still can't be smart. They need to be predictable, doing the same patterns over and over again while absorbing a ton of hits. I guess it's not fun to have a boss that anticipates your moves, hides and keeps dodging your attacks. You feel better at yourself when you can shout at the screen, look at this bullet sponge, still can't stop me!

If the AI was smart, you would be dying as often as in multiplayer online. Or rather a lot more often since it will be all against you. Imagine how fun it is when everyone on the multiplayer server works together to kill one person, over and over and over.

From what I remember GoT only have the lined up 1 on 1 for duels, and well code of honor and all that wouldn't make sense to make it different.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
EricHiggin said:

I always thought Vex teleportation in Destiny was at times a "you clever bastard" moment.

Though they're dumb and weak enough in other ways that it's not very frustrating.

Plus you just Ghost rez if you die most of the time anyway.

They are still 'clever' moments. Bosses in Halo Infinite also sometimes run behind cover to recharge their shield. That already feels annoying, got to take that shield down again. To limit the annoyance, they only do so sporadically when fully depleted, while also routinely standing still absorbing hits. If they would run and hide all the time when they lose half shield, coming out guerilla style to deliver a few shots and fade away again, you would get frustrated pretty fast. Just like if all of those up there decided to teleport rush you.

Now and then the AI is allowed to show you that they can easily beat you, but then get chastised again to be the dumb bullet sponge not to hurt the player's ego too much. If the AI was allowed to coordinate attacks, like one stuns you or your vehicle with electrical damage while others concentrate their fire on your spot or where you will be, you wouldn't stand a chance. Duo bosses are also not allowed to position themselves in such a way that they keep you in between them. They always have to be sort of together on one side, or one has to remain stationary until you're done with the other one.

In Halo Infinite you can see what damage good AI with powerful weapons can do. Load up a Razorback with 5 marines with op weapons, rocket launchers or lasers, and you can simply drive through anything while the marines take everything down in your path. Legendary becomes piss easy that way.

The best AI I remember is all the way back to bots in Unreal Tournament. They were programmed to play like actual players do. Lot of strafing, jumping, dodging, getting behind you, using the environment. They were quite good to prepare you for online play. Yet for single player, imagine a squad of bunny hopping grunts dancing all around you, shooting and throwing grenades at where they think you will be when the projectiles hit. They're not even allowed to run at you in a zig zag pattern, straight in to make easy targets.



It seem like the consensus is that gamers like stupid AI. That makes sense. I'd still think that there's room in the market for at least some games with smarter enemies. But, maybe not.



Hasn't been any good since FEAR, maybe the casuals thought it was too hard.



Zuhyc said:
TruckOSaurus said:

Good AI is frustrating to play against. My favorite Metal Gear Solid game is the first one and the fact the enemies are dumb as fuck plays a big role in that.

Whose footprints are these!?

What was that noise?

!

Oh, just a box...



Signature goes here!

VAMatt said:

It seem like the consensus is that gamers like stupid AI. That makes sense. I'd still think that there's room in the market for at least some games with smarter enemies. But, maybe not.

Smarter they sure can be, but you asked more realistic.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."