[QUOTE=Destroyox;51851070]Someone post the video of him saying "Tribes" like 30 times in 1 review.[/QUOTE]
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqovVkr6J0o[/media]
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51850724]I did not notice how AI in DOOM was good. They just ran around and shot or melee'd at you. HR and Mankind Divided both had above average AI from my experience though.
[/QUOTE]
DOOM's AI is well designed because it's tailored to promote moving forward and punishes standing still or in one part of the arena.
Like it's not supposed to emulate real life squad tactics or anything but demons are designed to try and flank you, run away so you don't butcher them upclose, reach higher ground to gain an advantage over you, so on and so forth.
Im pretty sure AI in games has always been a mixed bag, it just depends how much time and effort is put into them.
[QUOTE=RikohZX;51850915]DOOM 2016's AI is actually incredibly clever, albeit understated due to the fact that you're essentially slaughtering them if you play well. The entire environment is able to be navigated by them, they'll lead their shots on higher difficulties,[/QUOTE]
getting AI to lead shots isn't hard to do
[CODE]LeadTarget = Target.Location + (Target.Velocity * Deflection * VSize(Target.Location - Pawn.Location));[/CODE]
[QUOTE=Xubs;51850691]
most of the time I hear the complaint of "poor AI" it's leveled at shooters with a realistic or tactical edge to them. To that effect, the AI being excessively realistic would likely create scenarios too difficult for the average user -- a conundrum with no easy answer. After all, gun combat in the real world is ruthlessly deadly to a degree considered unacceptable for your average game and player reaction times. [/QUOTE]
It's not about making AI too realistic, it's about making combat AI smart enough to be challenging and to some extent unpredictable, kind of like the AI in FEAR was. On the highest difficulty it's bots would do a lot of different things like flanking or rushing straight forward, using covering fire and smoking you out with grenades while dynamically changing their tactics, but the game still managed to also be pretty balanced to the extent that it was quite possible to beat it without using slo-mo whatsoever. It just wasn't boring. That's the problem. There are tons of shooters with a good story and design and whatnot, and very few of them have interesting shootouts.
[QUOTE=abcpea;51851353]getting AI to lead shots isn't hard to do
[CODE]LeadTarget = Target.Location + (Target.Velocity * Deflection * VSize(Target.Location - Pawn.Location));[/CODE][/QUOTE]
Not by itself, but in an environment with speed and verticality where the player and enemies alike are moving everywhere all the time, it's still a standout capability compared to most games and even the original Doom not having any shot leading anywhere.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;51850433]Was this written by Imasillypiggy? [B]The first two minutes are just him repeating that modern games are shit and old games are great.[/B]
Many modern games have utterly terrible AI, but they again most old games had terrible AI. In most old games the enemies would just run around in the open shooting you, now they duck behind cover and shoot you.[/QUOTE]
It has been a while since I have seen him but this is basically his entire shtick.
His reviews have always been pretty awful, they completely lack any kind of objectivity and its just X minutes of him jerking off about how 'back in my day the games were amazing now anyone who likes any AAA game is an idiot sheep who just doesn't know how good we had it back then'
Lets not forget this too:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/D0bQU1E.png[/img]
I would just like to retract my comparison of Imasillypiggy to this guy. While I often disagree with Imasillypiggy he seems like a nice guy and it's wrong to compare him to such a pathetic cunt.
He can't be serious? In the Witcher 3 comments:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/wuTplft.png[/img]
He bought For Honor so he could splice in footage of him beating the AI on the LOWEST possible difficulty... Jesus Christ.
[The highest setting is pretty damn challenging]
I like how throughout the video it plays music as if it was trying to enlighten us.
He is so retarded it hurts immensely.
When he said HL2 Combine anticipated him going to the window I lost my shit.
This guy has a fucking major PR issue. My lord, he honestly needs to sort his shit out.
Holy shit, I never realized how crazy this guy is. I remember this guy from the Mack&Mesh videos looooong ago
[QUOTE=kariko;51852270]He can't be serious? In the Witcher 3 comments:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/wuTplft.png[/img][/QUOTE]
I don't even know what to say
how can this guy be THIS retarded?
Like you can't even make up this level of stupidity when you're just playing a joke. You have to be figuratively brain dead to say this :v:
[QUOTE=SweetTea;51850853]why use all the horrible games as an example[/QUOTE]
You have to nit-pick at times to validate a potentially invalid point.
Personally, I found Dues Ex MD's AI to be pretty alright (as an example, I don't play too many shooters). It wasn't exactly perfect but there were some cool things they did that really made it a good challenge. Outside of Fear though, and UT99, off the top of my head, there aren't too many more OLDER games with amazing ai compared to new games. Good AI is really a thing that only a few games maybe bother with.
[QUOTE=RikohZX;51850915]The entire environment is able to be navigated by them[/QUOTE]Not quite! I found an island on-top of a box which evidently had no navmesh. As soon as you jump on it, all the demons stop moving immediately. It was like playing red light green light.
This guy doesn't understand that there's a difference between just really shitty AI, and AI that's fun to play with or against in the game environment. AI can be simple and fun to fight against at the same time.
His reviews and attitude would be fine even if I totally disagreed with it because there must be similar people who agree with him that the good old days were best and can't enjoy new games, but it's that he presents his subjective opinions on games as objective fact and anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot/shill who just obviously wasn't around to remember the good old days and how great they apparently were or is just blind to the truth that he knows.
He has a clear agenda and isn't afraid to push it hard while bending truth, massively exaggerating and making up/twisting stats (Like the ss above) to suit his views.
I don't get how a person can say with a straight face that their own research suggests the majority of people don't like Witcher 3 when you can click on the store and see that the game has 84,000 positive reviews and only 3,000 negative ones.
I think it's more important for AI to have nuanced and varied behavior than it is for them to be technically effective.
HL1's Houndeyes are [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jO-P3kXlCI"]pretty[/URL] [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8_R2OMgNUY"]good[/URL] [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lqxag2TDqtQ"]example[/URL] of what I mean. They've got some extra detail that not only makes them feel more alive (which isn't always important depending on the game), but also gives them more depth and makes them more mechanically distinct from other enemies in the game (which generally is important).
I do think there are some modern games that make their AI somewhat homogeneous, but there are also plenty of modern games that do give it the time and attention it deserves and, perhaps more to the point, plenty of old games that also didn't offer all that much in terms of AI.
This whole video is "Kids these days, they don't know"
Basically
[video=youtube;5pa6SGYWADU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pa6SGYWADU[/video]
Don't post this twats videos here.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.