The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I am fed up of hearing of new and improved ‘lifelike’ artificial intelligence. ‘Oooh, look at those guards examining a cardboard box! Wow, that player just dived and I didn’t even touch him!’ Big deal. Think about it – that’s not intelligent. What you are watching is not artificial intelligence – it is in fact artificial stupidity.
With the next generation of consoles upon us, it has become common to talk of ‘realistic A.I’. What most people don’t seem to understand, though (and neither did I until I thought about it) is that it is in fact a contradiction in terms. Apart from the odd games that try to encourage and recreate the learning development (Black and White is the only one that springs to mind) most developers, and players, use the term A.I to mean something entirely different. Now, I’ll be honest with you. I myself am not entirely sure what true A.I is, I don’t think anyone does. What I am talking about are the games that don’t include ‘intelligence’ whether you like to think so or not.
I’ll start with the game of the moment – Metal Gear Solid 2. Now, contrary to popular belief, Snake and Raiden are not realistic. To judge by their limited punch/punch/spinkick/strangle repertoire of moves, they don’t even know basic karate. Hence what you believe to be ‘A.I’ is in fact lashings of dumbness. Understandably, a guard will become suspicious on seeing a wet cardboard box in a corridor, but on the other hand, if you get seen then evade long enough the guards will forget they ever saw you, rather than conduct a full scale search till they find you. Obviously, guards having military standard marksmanship and ruthless perseverance would mean game over every time. So in fact what you perceieve to be (A.I) is in fact a deliberate dumbing down of intelligence. What you witness is in fact artificial stupidity, as the developer chooses a certain level of dumbness to make the game a reasonable challenge.
This is the rue in beat 'em ups too; games like Tekken and Soul Calibur would be unplayable if your opponent blocked you moves perfectly and then unleashed a 10hit combo. The developer must put mistakes in their armour, and leave the player to discover how to exploit them. The same goes for action games - take the much heralded Counterstrike, the enemies are stupid, not intelliegnt, for the actions they carry out.
Quite possibly the worst case of artificial stupididty is when you realise that the game isn't playing by its own rules. Recently, I purchased Red Faction on the PS2 Platinum Range. This does actually have a quite high degree of A.I. (such as avoiding detection by not making eye contact) but again suffers from incoherent programming. Take the sixth sense of guards when it comes to weapons. At a distance where they shouldn't be able to see you, you only have to whip out a gun to be mobbed by eagle-eyed guards. This sits uncomfortably with the good A.I.
Another example is driving games, and in particular Metropolis Street Racer and Project Gotham Racing. When you are racing for kudos, you try to avoid cars - yet they ram you mercilessly from behind. They don't worry about kudos at all, they just see it as a race for the finish. Similarly, if you are playing something like Sega Rally and you mistime your powerslide, you spinout of control. Fine. But no matter how hard you knock the other cars off course, they'll never, ever spin. Its just inconsistent, and overall, unfair.
Thus I am personally disappointed every time I hear A.I being trumpeted in the latest releases, just to find the same inconsistencies and foibles. In my opinion, the only proper A.I I have encountered in my playing career is that in Black and White - but even then there are limitations.
The future? I don't know. But if developers stopped trying to make photo realistic graphics and concentrated more on things like A.I, gaming might go up a notch. And until the day arrives when you can have a convincing conversation witha no-playable character, then all I ask for is a coherent illusion of life in games.
Thanks for reading; I'd love to hear your commments
RM18
With the next generation of consoles upon us, it has become common to talk of ‘realistic A.I’. What most people don’t seem to understand, though (and neither did I until I thought about it) is that it is in fact a contradiction in terms. Apart from the odd games that try to encourage and recreate the learning development (Black and White is the only one that springs to mind) most developers, and players, use the term A.I to mean something entirely different. Now, I’ll be honest with you. I myself am not entirely sure what true A.I is, I don’t think anyone does. What I am talking about are the games that don’t include ‘intelligence’ whether you like to think so or not.
I’ll start with the game of the moment – Metal Gear Solid 2. Now, contrary to popular belief, Snake and Raiden are not realistic. To judge by their limited punch/punch/spinkick/strangle repertoire of moves, they don’t even know basic karate. Hence what you believe to be ‘A.I’ is in fact lashings of dumbness. Understandably, a guard will become suspicious on seeing a wet cardboard box in a corridor, but on the other hand, if you get seen then evade long enough the guards will forget they ever saw you, rather than conduct a full scale search till they find you. Obviously, guards having military standard marksmanship and ruthless perseverance would mean game over every time. So in fact what you perceieve to be (A.I) is in fact a deliberate dumbing down of intelligence. What you witness is in fact artificial stupidity, as the developer chooses a certain level of dumbness to make the game a reasonable challenge.
This is the rue in beat 'em ups too; games like Tekken and Soul Calibur would be unplayable if your opponent blocked you moves perfectly and then unleashed a 10hit combo. The developer must put mistakes in their armour, and leave the player to discover how to exploit them. The same goes for action games - take the much heralded Counterstrike, the enemies are stupid, not intelliegnt, for the actions they carry out.
Quite possibly the worst case of artificial stupididty is when you realise that the game isn't playing by its own rules. Recently, I purchased Red Faction on the PS2 Platinum Range. This does actually have a quite high degree of A.I. (such as avoiding detection by not making eye contact) but again suffers from incoherent programming. Take the sixth sense of guards when it comes to weapons. At a distance where they shouldn't be able to see you, you only have to whip out a gun to be mobbed by eagle-eyed guards. This sits uncomfortably with the good A.I.
Another example is driving games, and in particular Metropolis Street Racer and Project Gotham Racing. When you are racing for kudos, you try to avoid cars - yet they ram you mercilessly from behind. They don't worry about kudos at all, they just see it as a race for the finish. Similarly, if you are playing something like Sega Rally and you mistime your powerslide, you spinout of control. Fine. But no matter how hard you knock the other cars off course, they'll never, ever spin. Its just inconsistent, and overall, unfair.
Thus I am personally disappointed every time I hear A.I being trumpeted in the latest releases, just to find the same inconsistencies and foibles. In my opinion, the only proper A.I I have encountered in my playing career is that in Black and White - but even then there are limitations.
The future? I don't know. But if developers stopped trying to make photo realistic graphics and concentrated more on things like A.I, gaming might go up a notch. And until the day arrives when you can have a convincing conversation witha no-playable character, then all I ask for is a coherent illusion of life in games.
Thanks for reading; I'd love to hear your commments
RM18
Page:
Thats true too, but thinking about it, how real can they honestly get the AI on games? Even some of the biggest robots are not able to quite match the human characteristics so how are they suppose to get this on a tiny CD?
I agree
Pro Evo does have good A.I, but then again the computer players aren't being instructed to do anything that difficult - and think about it, when you increase difficulty, that doesn't mean that they play slicker football, they just run faster, tackle harder etc.
Pro Evo does have good A.I, but then again the computer players aren't being instructed to do anything that difficult - and think about it, when you increase difficulty, that doesn't mean that they play slicker football, they just run faster, tackle harder etc.
True, AI is going to be hard to put on a disc though isnt it? I dont think we will be getting truly real life AI on a console for some time to come, but some games have given it a damn good go. Games like MGS2 and Operation Flashpoint, you can hardly call the enemies thick compared to some of the other games that come out. These enemies at least act real, and have the same advantages and disadvantages that are the same as your character. At times they act like real people, how many other games can you say have an attack team that move and talk using the sign language in that way.
Games like Pro Evo too has some good AI, all the players movements mimic that of the real thing, making runs where needed, tracking back when they are under attack and getting into good positions.
You can hardly argue though that the quality of the AI has been improved alot over the past few years. Remember the times when an enemie would just walk around backwards and forwards. Things have come along way, games are always getting better and you never know, the future may just be that short distance from real AI.
Games like Pro Evo too has some good AI, all the players movements mimic that of the real thing, making runs where needed, tracking back when they are under attack and getting into good positions.
You can hardly argue though that the quality of the AI has been improved alot over the past few years. Remember the times when an enemie would just walk around backwards and forwards. Things have come along way, games are always getting better and you never know, the future may just be that short distance from real AI.
Good post mate
I agree with you on the Car bit, you said "the other cars never spin out"
When you play games like the F1 games the other cars drive absolutely normal but never EVER nudge you away like proper races and they never mis time a corner and go flying into the gravel, thats what makes it so unrealistic
I agree with you on the Car bit, you said "the other cars never spin out"
When you play games like the F1 games the other cars drive absolutely normal but never EVER nudge you away like proper races and they never mis time a corner and go flying into the gravel, thats what makes it so unrealistic
Hence the guards in the game are not intelligent, they're stupid
yer some good points mate - you are right as we couldn have real life AI as in MGS2 if their view was real life style theyd sopt you every time easily
Thats the point I was making - the guards are being dumbed down in reality, but marketing and promotion for the game heralds improved A.1! Like I said its a contradiction in terms
I generally agree with your comments.
But it could be said that if A.I. was truly realistic and up to believable standards, then it would be almost impossible to get through a game like MGS2.
You'd be quickly spotted and killed before you (the player) had time to think or react.
But it could be said that if A.I. was truly realistic and up to believable standards, then it would be almost impossible to get through a game like MGS2.
You'd be quickly spotted and killed before you (the player) had time to think or react.
I am fed up of hearing of new and improved ‘lifelike’ artificial intelligence. ‘Oooh, look at those guards examining a cardboard box! Wow, that player just dived and I didn’t even touch him!’ Big deal. Think about it – that’s not intelligent. What you are watching is not artificial intelligence – it is in fact artificial stupidity.
With the next generation of consoles upon us, it has become common to talk of ‘realistic A.I’. What most people don’t seem to understand, though (and neither did I until I thought about it) is that it is in fact a contradiction in terms. Apart from the odd games that try to encourage and recreate the learning development (Black and White is the only one that springs to mind) most developers, and players, use the term A.I to mean something entirely different. Now, I’ll be honest with you. I myself am not entirely sure what true A.I is, I don’t think anyone does. What I am talking about are the games that don’t include ‘intelligence’ whether you like to think so or not.
I’ll start with the game of the moment – Metal Gear Solid 2. Now, contrary to popular belief, Snake and Raiden are not realistic. To judge by their limited punch/punch/spinkick/strangle repertoire of moves, they don’t even know basic karate. Hence what you believe to be ‘A.I’ is in fact lashings of dumbness. Understandably, a guard will become suspicious on seeing a wet cardboard box in a corridor, but on the other hand, if you get seen then evade long enough the guards will forget they ever saw you, rather than conduct a full scale search till they find you. Obviously, guards having military standard marksmanship and ruthless perseverance would mean game over every time. So in fact what you perceieve to be (A.I) is in fact a deliberate dumbing down of intelligence. What you witness is in fact artificial stupidity, as the developer chooses a certain level of dumbness to make the game a reasonable challenge.
This is the rue in beat 'em ups too; games like Tekken and Soul Calibur would be unplayable if your opponent blocked you moves perfectly and then unleashed a 10hit combo. The developer must put mistakes in their armour, and leave the player to discover how to exploit them. The same goes for action games - take the much heralded Counterstrike, the enemies are stupid, not intelliegnt, for the actions they carry out.
Quite possibly the worst case of artificial stupididty is when you realise that the game isn't playing by its own rules. Recently, I purchased Red Faction on the PS2 Platinum Range. This does actually have a quite high degree of A.I. (such as avoiding detection by not making eye contact) but again suffers from incoherent programming. Take the sixth sense of guards when it comes to weapons. At a distance where they shouldn't be able to see you, you only have to whip out a gun to be mobbed by eagle-eyed guards. This sits uncomfortably with the good A.I.
Another example is driving games, and in particular Metropolis Street Racer and Project Gotham Racing. When you are racing for kudos, you try to avoid cars - yet they ram you mercilessly from behind. They don't worry about kudos at all, they just see it as a race for the finish. Similarly, if you are playing something like Sega Rally and you mistime your powerslide, you spinout of control. Fine. But no matter how hard you knock the other cars off course, they'll never, ever spin. Its just inconsistent, and overall, unfair.
Thus I am personally disappointed every time I hear A.I being trumpeted in the latest releases, just to find the same inconsistencies and foibles. In my opinion, the only proper A.I I have encountered in my playing career is that in Black and White - but even then there are limitations.
The future? I don't know. But if developers stopped trying to make photo realistic graphics and concentrated more on things like A.I, gaming might go up a notch. And until the day arrives when you can have a convincing conversation witha no-playable character, then all I ask for is a coherent illusion of life in games.
Thanks for reading; I'd love to hear your commments
RM18
With the next generation of consoles upon us, it has become common to talk of ‘realistic A.I’. What most people don’t seem to understand, though (and neither did I until I thought about it) is that it is in fact a contradiction in terms. Apart from the odd games that try to encourage and recreate the learning development (Black and White is the only one that springs to mind) most developers, and players, use the term A.I to mean something entirely different. Now, I’ll be honest with you. I myself am not entirely sure what true A.I is, I don’t think anyone does. What I am talking about are the games that don’t include ‘intelligence’ whether you like to think so or not.
I’ll start with the game of the moment – Metal Gear Solid 2. Now, contrary to popular belief, Snake and Raiden are not realistic. To judge by their limited punch/punch/spinkick/strangle repertoire of moves, they don’t even know basic karate. Hence what you believe to be ‘A.I’ is in fact lashings of dumbness. Understandably, a guard will become suspicious on seeing a wet cardboard box in a corridor, but on the other hand, if you get seen then evade long enough the guards will forget they ever saw you, rather than conduct a full scale search till they find you. Obviously, guards having military standard marksmanship and ruthless perseverance would mean game over every time. So in fact what you perceieve to be (A.I) is in fact a deliberate dumbing down of intelligence. What you witness is in fact artificial stupidity, as the developer chooses a certain level of dumbness to make the game a reasonable challenge.
This is the rue in beat 'em ups too; games like Tekken and Soul Calibur would be unplayable if your opponent blocked you moves perfectly and then unleashed a 10hit combo. The developer must put mistakes in their armour, and leave the player to discover how to exploit them. The same goes for action games - take the much heralded Counterstrike, the enemies are stupid, not intelliegnt, for the actions they carry out.
Quite possibly the worst case of artificial stupididty is when you realise that the game isn't playing by its own rules. Recently, I purchased Red Faction on the PS2 Platinum Range. This does actually have a quite high degree of A.I. (such as avoiding detection by not making eye contact) but again suffers from incoherent programming. Take the sixth sense of guards when it comes to weapons. At a distance where they shouldn't be able to see you, you only have to whip out a gun to be mobbed by eagle-eyed guards. This sits uncomfortably with the good A.I.
Another example is driving games, and in particular Metropolis Street Racer and Project Gotham Racing. When you are racing for kudos, you try to avoid cars - yet they ram you mercilessly from behind. They don't worry about kudos at all, they just see it as a race for the finish. Similarly, if you are playing something like Sega Rally and you mistime your powerslide, you spinout of control. Fine. But no matter how hard you knock the other cars off course, they'll never, ever spin. Its just inconsistent, and overall, unfair.
Thus I am personally disappointed every time I hear A.I being trumpeted in the latest releases, just to find the same inconsistencies and foibles. In my opinion, the only proper A.I I have encountered in my playing career is that in Black and White - but even then there are limitations.
The future? I don't know. But if developers stopped trying to make photo realistic graphics and concentrated more on things like A.I, gaming might go up a notch. And until the day arrives when you can have a convincing conversation witha no-playable character, then all I ask for is a coherent illusion of life in games.
Thanks for reading; I'd love to hear your commments
RM18
Page: