"It's pure fantasy. Robots won't ever actually rise up and go to war with humanity. You know why? Because the robots of the future will be governed by Asimov's three laws of robotics."
My problems with AIs in FPSes are mainly that they're nearly ALWAYS able to hit you, regardless of what gun they're using, even if they're too far for you to be able to hit them with your crosshair centred right on them.
Also, as soon as you step onto the battlefield, every enemy will immediately stop whatever they were doing and shoot / throw grenades at YOU.
And racing games have the most bullshit AI in the world.
@Last Face; Use a Green Shell like a man!: Nothing's worse than the x-ray vision sniper boats in Far Cry and Crysis. The machine guns on those things had perfect aim, no bullet spread, and could spot you through infinite layers of thick foliage.
Of course, these magical abilities were only there when anybody OTHER than the player was using the gun...
1. When fighting a colossal near-invincible armoured mutant monster, do not empty 300 rounds of SMG ammo on the impenetrable shell.
2. If enemy is standing 500ft away, put the damn handgun away: that sniper rifle is in your inventory for a reason.
3. Stay the fuck away from me with that Red+Green herb, I got a splinter in my pinky, not a shotgun blast to the face.
4. When player is in Dying status and knocked down, do not hover above him with a healing spray waiting for him to get up. HE WON'T GET UP, WE'RE PLAYING ON PROFESSIONAL DIFFICULTY, YOU DUMB BITCH!
5. Attack mode means YOU attack THEM, not run in the middle of a swarm of enemies for THEM to attack YOU.
Relic's on RTS AI cheating reminds of the AI in Warcraft 3. I kill all the mobs on the map, my hero is level 5. He never leaves his base, then attacks me with a level 10 hero and an army the size of Texas. How does that work? That's definitely "Caught Cheating" if I ever saw it. and that's on easy. Hard will have multiple high level heroes in under five minutes, as well as the aforementioned Texan army. Do they even need to harvest resources?
This makes me want to go back and read the other KotakuRoboto articles. I've ignored it up till this point because this was the first to grab my attention.
1. If the player is expected to use strategy and tactics, i.e. flanking, ambushes etc, the AI should as well, as opposed to blindly charging, or standing around.
2. AI should not be given sniperlike accuracy. If the player's SMG cannot hit the AI from a stationary crouch, the AI better not be able to hit the player.
3. AI should be programmed to act in squadlike fashions, if the context and situation allows for such.
4. AI should only attack the player and ignore the other NPCs if and ONLY if the player character is notoriously strong.
5. I would love to see ruthlessness implemented in AI, whether its human shields, hostages, or whatnot as nonscripted events.
@NovaBlack: for example in inFamous, its a crowded city, yet all the reapers/dust men etc do is attack me. I'm playing evil, but if I were playing good, and they took hostages outside of side missions just standing in the street, alley or whatever? it would be challenging, and change the way I approached fighting them.
This is basically what AI programmers aim for (I have experience with it, but it isn't my forte). The only problem is that computers don't understand language, so turning these simple rules into a language they can understand (logic and math) can be very complex.
For example, your first one. How is the AI supposed to know you are flanking them? When the player is positioned perpendicular to the NPC? What if the NPC gets turned around and only thinks the player is flanking? Do you use map/location-specific triggers? That removes the purpose of AI (It would be scripted).
I find it ironic that most games which tout or are reviewed to have particularly impressive AI are also the games which rely primarily on scripted actions.
And because they are scripted actions, which are custom created, they take a lot of time. Meaning that many times, the games with lesser production values are the ones with a more true AI, in the sense of less scripted actions.
@Kicken: my point is not that they recognize oh hey they are flanking me, but that in games where the player is supposed to use tactics, as opposed to charging in guns blazing, that the enemy should be tactical too, I understand that's hard to program etc, mine was really more a wishlist. Some games, i.e. Halo don't focus heavily on strategy but rather run and gun, which is fine. But in a game where being smart in your actions is important, having seemingly tactically impaired AI is frustrating. I would love to see a firefight where some AI attack you head on, so you hit some cover only to be snuck up upon by a small squad of flankers. to some that may feel cheap, but to me it would be great gaming.
Matt Tonks is crap. Read Asimov's three laws and you see simplicity, but his is just confusing. And it's geared towards FPS. News flash: other genres exist.
@geiko: This law would work pretty good on any game
1. An AI must value its own life; take cover against threatening enemies, and avoid life-threatening situations.(we don't need a Rambo type AI on any game)
1. A friendly AI should never get in the player's way. If you're in the player's way, get out of the way.(We don't need an AI dam or an anvil blocking,slowing us)
So they might not be as simple as Asimov laws but they are rather good for games and not just in FPS but in other genres as well.
@Curse_Lily: Yeah, but not every AI character needs to take cover. What about in a kart racing game, or a fighting game, or an RPG? Asimov's laws covers all robots, from bartending robots all the way to military bots. How the hell do you take cover in Mario Kart.
@geiko: Apparently you haven't been hit by those damn Blue Shell have you ^_^
But joking aside is not just for an AI to take cover but for it to defend and preserve it self or else it would be like playing a DW game on easy you could kill 1000 people in a few minutes which would make any racing,fighting or RPG game too damn easy and boring and this is were Jonny Ebbert first law would come in to play.
@killah101: The army will always be on the cutting edge for robots and the main goal of those robots will be to kill, 3 rules from a sci-fi writer aren't going to save us!
@AtomikB: I don't like that law. A robot should not even be allowed to decide what for the good of humanity. That criteria needs its own rulebook!
Example: What if your house-bot Rosie decides that humanity is better off without you? You will likely not agree with her logic even if she is right! Should it kill you because it has calculated that you will be a greater risk to society alive than dead?
@SuperSonik: the hing is that the laws have to be coded into the software to begin with! If the designer is evil so will the robot be. What if the laws written on it are "destroy all humans!", where's your Asimov now!?
@liquid_kore: The rules never were going to save us. The whole point of introducing the rules was to show that even with rules to keep robots in line, there'd still be situations that would cause logic faults, and then the rules would fail to make the robots behave "properly". Like, for instance, what would an Asimovian robot do if it stumbled across an impending gunslinger duel? Such things typically end in death for at least one participant, and if neither of them were recognizable as an agent of the law, the logical assumption would be that both participants would be intent on illegally killing the other person. So, which one should the robot save? Or, more specifically, which one should the robot interfere with such that the other person would be able to get a clean shot without any risk of being shot at in return?
(1) Don't think you're going to win that easily, pal.
(2) Not when I can make the computer QB suddenly have the pinpoint accuracy of an army sniper and the arm cannon of a genetically-engineered Super John Elway.
(3) Oh, SORRY your franchise RB, who in real life has fumbled 5 times since high school, just lost fumbles on 4 consecutive plays causing you to blow that 28-point lead in the Super Bowl! "Random" number generators are a bitch, ain't they????
@A Pimp Named DaveR: Ah, the classic example of the "Fuck you!" game...when the AI decides "There's no fucking way you're winning this game." Happens many a time, though moreso on All-Madden than any other, which is why I play on All-Pro. That is, if I ever buy a Madden game again :P
Also, credit is due to Bill Simmons for the moniker of "Fuck you!" game.
I don't really see an identity crisis, or problem here. Admittedly I loved DoW and CoH when I discovered those games, so my judgement may* be clouded. Also loved the hero system in WC3, so my tastes may not be typical..
* = is definitely
I think what they're doing with DoWII is a logical extension of the changes to typical RTS gameplay they made in CoH. Obviously now it's even more RPG+RTS=?, but I guess I'm willing to be optimistic and give it a shot. Maybe it will fail, but it sounds fun enough to me.
In CoH base building/management was already reduced to such a level that once you built a few things you didn't have to look at your base much again. CoH allowed you to queue up units from wherever(which isn't unique I know), didn't ask for a lot of extra micromanagement or resource gathering, which leaves the player free to control squads, vehicles, and special abilities. DoW II is, both in appearance and spirit, CoH 2.0.
I guess what I was getting at is: I like what I see and there are enough base building RTSes out there.
The only strategy involved here was positioning units around Gutrencha to fire from all sides and moving them out of the way whenever he aimed his hammer at them.
Hey, to a bunch of WoW players I ran into, that's asking quite a bit. You make it sound like moving out of the way is a trivial task..
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
I guess you never read/saw I, Robot?
05/28/09
Also, as soon as you step onto the battlefield, every enemy will immediately stop whatever they were doing and shoot / throw grenades at YOU.
And racing games have the most bullshit AI in the world.
05/28/09
Of course, these magical abilities were only there when anybody OTHER than the player was using the gun...
05/28/09
1. When fighting a colossal near-invincible armoured mutant monster, do not empty 300 rounds of SMG ammo on the impenetrable shell.
2. If enemy is standing 500ft away, put the damn handgun away: that sniper rifle is in your inventory for a reason.
3. Stay the fuck away from me with that Red+Green herb, I got a splinter in my pinky, not a shotgun blast to the face.
4. When player is in Dying status and knocked down, do not hover above him with a healing spray waiting for him to get up. HE WON'T GET UP, WE'RE PLAYING ON PROFESSIONAL DIFFICULTY, YOU DUMB BITCH!
5. Attack mode means YOU attack THEM, not run in the middle of a swarm of enemies for THEM to attack YOU.
05/28/09
10 Take a stride towards player
20 Attempt to kill
30 Goto 10
05/28/09
05/28/09
Wouldn't that imply that the third law trumps the first law?
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
Have the other articles been just as interesting?
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
1. If the player is expected to use strategy and tactics, i.e. flanking, ambushes etc, the AI should as well, as opposed to blindly charging, or standing around.
2. AI should not be given sniperlike accuracy. If the player's SMG cannot hit the AI from a stationary crouch, the AI better not be able to hit the player.
3. AI should be programmed to act in squadlike fashions, if the context and situation allows for such.
4. AI should only attack the player and ignore the other NPCs if and ONLY if the player character is notoriously strong.
5. I would love to see ruthlessness implemented in AI, whether its human shields, hostages, or whatnot as nonscripted events.
05/28/09
hmmm as an AI programmer i find peoples opinions on this stuff fascinating!
The more feedback players give the better devs can make the experience. Really like your number 5 rule... and definitely agree with 1-4!
05/28/09
05/28/09
I imagine it to be hard to implement, though.
05/28/09
05/28/09
1. Because the AI can read your mind...
2. Despite the fact that you are scoring headshots like no tomorrow...
3. Because the AI knows exactly how you want your squad to act...
4. Regardless of the fact that you have the most kills on your squad, even if you're not 'notoriously strong'
5. And then we'll accuse the AI of cheap and unfair tactics and techniques that break the game...
05/28/09
I'm just mess'n with ya (mostly), don't take it too seriously :p
05/28/09
05/28/09
This is basically what AI programmers aim for (I have experience with it, but it isn't my forte). The only problem is that computers don't understand language, so turning these simple rules into a language they can understand (logic and math) can be very complex.
For example, your first one. How is the AI supposed to know you are flanking them? When the player is positioned perpendicular to the NPC? What if the NPC gets turned around and only thinks the player is flanking? Do you use map/location-specific triggers? That removes the purpose of AI (It would be scripted).
I find it ironic that most games which tout or are reviewed to have particularly impressive AI are also the games which rely primarily on scripted actions.
And because they are scripted actions, which are custom created, they take a lot of time. Meaning that many times, the games with lesser production values are the ones with a more true AI, in the sense of less scripted actions.
/pointless rant
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
1. An AI must value its own life; take cover against threatening enemies, and avoid life-threatening situations.(we don't need a Rambo type AI on any game)
1. A friendly AI should never get in the player's way. If you're in the player's way, get out of the way.(We don't need an AI dam or an anvil blocking,slowing us)
So they might not be as simple as Asimov laws but they are rather good for games and not just in FPS but in other genres as well.
05/28/09
05/28/09
But joking aside is not just for an AI to take cover but for it to defend and preserve it self or else it would be like playing a DW game on easy you could kill 1000 people in a few minutes which would make any racing,fighting or RPG game too damn easy and boring and this is were Jonny Ebbert first law would come in to play.
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
The ai saw that the humans were self destructive so in order to protect them had to break the laws.
05/28/09
The Will Smith movie and the Asimov book have very little in common beyond the title, and the shameless Rebok plugs.
05/28/09
The Zeroth law mandates that a robot put the interests of humanity as a whole above the interests of any individual human.
Read more Asimov, you'll like it.
05/28/09
Example: What if your house-bot Rosie decides that humanity is better off without you? You will likely not agree with her logic even if she is right! Should it kill you because it has calculated that you will be a greater risk to society alive than dead?
05/28/09
05/29/09
The rules never were going to save us. The whole point of introducing the rules was to show that even with rules to keep robots in line, there'd still be situations that would cause logic faults, and then the rules would fail to make the robots behave "properly". Like, for instance, what would an Asimovian robot do if it stumbled across an impending gunslinger duel? Such things typically end in death for at least one participant, and if neither of them were recognizable as an agent of the law, the logical assumption would be that both participants would be intent on illegally killing the other person. So, which one should the robot save? Or, more specifically, which one should the robot interfere with such that the other person would be able to get a clean shot without any risk of being shot at in return?
05/28/09
(1) Don't think you're going to win that easily, pal.
(2) Not when I can make the computer QB suddenly have the pinpoint accuracy of an army sniper and the arm cannon of a genetically-engineered Super John Elway.
(3) Oh, SORRY your franchise RB, who in real life has fumbled 5 times since high school, just lost fumbles on 4 consecutive plays causing you to blow that 28-point lead in the Super Bowl! "Random" number generators are a bitch, ain't they????
05/28/09
Also, credit is due to Bill Simmons for the moniker of "Fuck you!" game.
02/05/09
* = is definitely
I think what they're doing with DoWII is a logical extension of the changes to typical RTS gameplay they made in CoH. Obviously now it's even more RPG+RTS=?, but I guess I'm willing to be optimistic and give it a shot. Maybe it will fail, but it sounds fun enough to me.
In CoH base building/management was already reduced to such a level that once you built a few things you didn't have to look at your base much again. CoH allowed you to queue up units from wherever(which isn't unique I know), didn't ask for a lot of extra micromanagement or resource gathering, which leaves the player free to control squads, vehicles, and special abilities. DoW II is, both in appearance and spirit, CoH 2.0.
I guess what I was getting at is: I like what I see and there are enough base building RTSes out there.
The only strategy involved here was positioning units around Gutrencha to fire from all sides and moving them out of the way whenever he aimed his hammer at them.
Hey, to a bunch of WoW players I ran into, that's asking quite a bit. You make it sound like moving out of the way is a trivial task..