7 ms·

I think the runaway smash success of Call of Duty changed the direction of FPS games considerably. The focus on advancing AI was replaced with spectacle.

by vhold 10y ago

rhcom2 10y ago
Another reason could be the push to competitive gameplay. Plenty of people would buy similar titles and never touch the campaign, making spending a lot of time on AI not worth the time.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
headcanon 10y ago
For a AAA multiplayer-focused shooter, the incentives aren't there, because multiplayer. Single-player campaigns in that game are merely pretty tutorials for the "main event", as it were, so if they're going to invest money, its not going to be in AI. Single-player games are a different story though, I'd love to see less predictable AI in games like Mass Effect.
- z3phyr 10y ago
  To me, AI is more than just the behavior of the agent NPCs. Its also about the overall world environment and how the world and gameplay mechanics work. There is a lot of untapped potential in simulating world behavior. For example, the "director" in Left for Dead games increased or decreased the difficulty depending on how the players navigate and play through the map.
toomanybeersies 10y ago
Call of Duty's (and Battlefield's) single player campaigns are more akin to a Michael Bay movie than a video game. That's not to say I don't enjoy playing them, but I do sort of miss the days when games actually had deep single player gameplay.
- dvt 10y ago
  First person shooters never had deep single player gameplay. The one exception being maybe Half-Life.
  - mod 10y ago
    Bioshock comes to mind
    - dvt 10y ago
      Yeah, maybe S.T.A.L.K.E.R. as well. I don't really think Fallout counts, but it could if you really stretch what you consider an FPS. No idea why I'm getting downvoted. There are literally only a handful of first person shooters that are story-driven given the great majority that aren't: Quake, Doom, Duke Nukem, Sin, Wolfenstein, etc. Saying that you miss the "old days" when first person shooters had stories makes no sense other than stirring some misguided Southpark-esque "'member when..." nostalgia.
      - icebraining 10y ago
        The element people are missing is deep gameplay, not stories. After all, CoD does have a story.
      - fenomas 10y ago
        It sounds like you simply don't consider non-shallow games to be FPSes. I mean, if "FPS" means "a first-person game where you often shoot things", then Deus Ex, Bioshock, Half-Life, Thief, Fallout 3/4, Skyrim, etc., can all qualify. Hell, throw in Dungeon Master, and maybe even Portal and Minecraft. Of course one can argue where to draw the line based on how much "shooting" takes place. But people often say "FPS" to mean specifically "games like Quake and whatnot". Under that definition, shallow gameplay is part of what makes a game an FPS.
        dvt 10y ago
        > But people often say "FPS" to mean specifically "games like Quake and whatnot". Under that definition, shallow gameplay is part of what makes a game an FPS. You can still have deep games that are Quake-like, Half-Life being the canonical example. Deus Ex can be played, like Fallout, in third-person so I'd say it's disqualified. Why is HN turning into reddit with random downvotes and no discussion? Must be the weird gaming crowd.
douche 10y ago
Yes, chase the shiny took over on consoles. Poor console gamers. Poor everyone else...
- NTripleOne 10y ago
  I mean, you're not wrong - but couldn't you have found a way to make your point a little less antagonistic?
  - douche 10y ago
    To be honest, I'm a little bitter how many sad console ports are released on PC. Many games would be very good if they even pretended to adapt themselves to mouse/keyboard input, but the body shop responsible for the PC ports apparently don't care.
problems 10y ago
No one plays CoD for the single player. Spectacle isn't the focus, multiplayer is. The whole genre of linear single player FPSes is sort of dead. Lots of mixed genre games that tie in RPG elements with big open worlds and character customization though that are doing quite well and could benefit from better AI. Even with a friend though we can't reliably beat the top level AI in Ghost Recon Wildlands so it can't be that bad.
- rosege 10y ago
  I love FPS but hate multiplayer. Firstly, my ping sucks so I get killed very easily. Second, I dont play that much so get killed by the kids who are playing all day. Hence I rarely play multiplayer if I can avoid it.
  - elastic_church 10y ago
    yes blame the ping
- Matthias247 10y ago
  I play CoD exclusively for single player :) I personally like the interactive movie feeling, the scripted events and the scenes. I did never enjoy CoD in multiplayer which I find too hectic. The battlefield series with a more slow-paced and strategic gameplay suited me better in multiplayer. However I generally don't enjoy competing in MP that much anymore - too little time and interest to train enough to be competitive with the younger players.
- EliRivers 10y ago
  I, like others here, also play these games exclusively in single player mode. I suspect that there's an element of self-selection going on here; there are lots of people who play the single player, but an onliner can't see them because when that onliner goes online it's 100% people who go online that one sees there. There could be ten times that many playing it for the single player and they'd remain completely invisible.
- the_af 10y ago
  I play all FPSes, CoD including, exclusively for single-player. In fact, if they were MP-only (or had weak SP) I wouldn't buy them at all. What attracts me to CoD is definitely the spectacle; the feeling of being in a Hollywood war movie. The genre seems well and thriving.
nothis 10y ago
Interesting game AI still doesn't look good. The "cinematic" approach is to replace all systematic stuff (with potentially stiff/unsolved in-between animations) with motion-captured, "realistic" looking sequences. The same stuff that made critics laugh at enemies not seeing you when standing on a 0.5 square meter shadow in the middle of a well-lit room because you're technically "hidden in darkness" is what is now "solved" by removing the mechanics altogether in favor of safe and cool looking scripted sequences. Basically, this: https://twitter.com/robotduck/status/759529875992698880 https://twitter.com/robotduck/status/759529875992698880
- TheGRS 10y ago
  Yea, not to defend that type of gameplay, but this is basically the point. Uncharted and Tomb Raider and the like are out to make interactive movies. Its a great way to avoid the sort of awkward sequences you get in many games where an enemy winds up in a corner spinning around at the end of the map by accident and you can't proceed until you find him. The cinematic approach is exciting in the moment, if maybe a little boring when replayed or if you enjoy any sort of real difficulty.
- Jaruzel 10y ago
  There's about 3 sections like this in TR (2013). In the rest of the game, any hazards seen on screen are mostly dangerous. I always thought that the extra 'hazard' visuals and noisy audio were there to disorientate the player (along with a bit of shaky-cam) in the hope they'd mis-step the climbing/running/jumping, and thus increase the difficulty. For skilled gamers (which I am most definitely not) I can see how this 'cheat' is annoying, but for me, who isn't the best at precision movement in 3D games, I found it helped me immensely during these types of sections to simply turn off the sound.
Splines 10y ago
I'll be the devil's advocate: Maybe it's because players don't want more advanced AI? It's (IMO) gotten to the point where AI is good enough. There's certainly room for improvement but by and large it's serviceable to the point that at least in a mass-market FPS it doesn't actually need to be any better. We might wish that the folks at EA or Activision make shiny cool AI (and I'm sure many of them there want to!) but in reality that doesn't really do a whole lot to benefit their paying customers. Besides - "AI" in games is really about how to create stage pieces that simulate more complex behavior. Like all software development, it's mostly smoke and mirrors, and it's all about how smart you can set that up to give the user the impression of something magical.
- Tloewald 10y ago
  What people really want is "artificial stupidity" (and FEAR is a good example). If the enemy had true AI you'd just die, and in fact most unconstrained AI bots are pretty lethal (and boring). What makes for a good game is entertaining and plausible behavior that nevertheless lets you win against ridiculous odds, etc. E.g. an enemy coming out of cover at a different position than when they last popped out is cool, but working out that coming out of cover is just a bad idea and waiting in ambush would be more realistic and smarter, but lead to stalemates. Heck, you hardly ever see even vaguely decent morale implementations ("hey you just effortlessly killed 80% of my unit, so I'll, um, charge you!!!"). Again, in EverQuest some enemies would run away and get help. In World of Warcraft they just mindlessly attack until dead. EverQuest's AIs (lame as they were) were simply too deadly for a truly mainstream MMO.
  - lethargic_meat 10y ago
    About retreating behaviour, this was slightly the case with Mount&Blade Warband, where units would now and then flee when their moral was low, which could happen due several factors. Still I am unsure if historically anyone would be willing to charge alone against 100s of heavy cavalry units for a guy that pays ok.
    - komali2 10y ago

I think the runaway smash success of Call of Duty changed the direction of FPS games considerably. The focus on advancing AI was replaced with spectacle.

by vhold 10y ago

I think the runaway smash success of Call of Duty changed the direction of FPS games considerably. The focus on advancing AI was replaced with spectacle.

rhcom2 10y ago

Another reason could be the push to competitive gameplay. Plenty of people would buy similar titles and never touch the campaign, making spending a lot of time on AI not worth the time.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

headcanon 10y ago

For a AAA multiplayer-focused shooter, the incentives aren't there, because multiplayer. Single-player campaigns in that game are merely pretty tutorials for the "main event", as it were, so if they're going to invest money, its not going to be in AI. Single-player games are a different story though, I'd love to see less predictable AI in games like Mass Effect.

z3phyr 10y ago
To me, AI is more than just the behavior of the agent NPCs. Its also about the overall world environment and how the world and gameplay mechanics work. There is a lot of untapped potential in simulating world behavior. For example, the "director" in Left for Dead games increased or decreased the difficulty depending on how the players navigate and play through the map.

toomanybeersies 10y ago

Call of Duty's (and Battlefield's) single player campaigns are more akin to a Michael Bay movie than a video game. That's not to say I don't enjoy playing them, but I do sort of miss the days when games actually had deep single player gameplay.

dvt 10y ago
First person shooters never had deep single player gameplay. The one exception being maybe Half-Life.
- mod 10y ago
  Bioshock comes to mind
  - dvt 10y ago
    Yeah, maybe S.T.A.L.K.E.R. as well. I don't really think Fallout counts, but it could if you really stretch what you consider an FPS. No idea why I'm getting downvoted. There are literally only a handful of first person shooters that are story-driven given the great majority that aren't: Quake, Doom, Duke Nukem, Sin, Wolfenstein, etc. Saying that you miss the "old days" when first person shooters had stories makes no sense other than stirring some misguided Southpark-esque "'member when..." nostalgia.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      The element people are missing is deep gameplay, not stories. After all, CoD does have a story.
    - fenomas 10y ago
      It sounds like you simply don't consider non-shallow games to be FPSes. I mean, if "FPS" means "a first-person game where you often shoot things", then Deus Ex, Bioshock, Half-Life, Thief, Fallout 3/4, Skyrim, etc., can all qualify. Hell, throw in Dungeon Master, and maybe even Portal and Minecraft. Of course one can argue where to draw the line based on how much "shooting" takes place. But people often say "FPS" to mean specifically "games like Quake and whatnot". Under that definition, shallow gameplay is part of what makes a game an FPS.
      - dvt 10y ago
        > But people often say "FPS" to mean specifically "games like Quake and whatnot". Under that definition, shallow gameplay is part of what makes a game an FPS. You can still have deep games that are Quake-like, Half-Life being the canonical example. Deus Ex can be played, like Fallout, in third-person so I'd say it's disqualified. Why is HN turning into reddit with random downvotes and no discussion? Must be the weird gaming crowd.

douche 10y ago

Yes, chase the shiny took over on consoles. Poor console gamers. Poor everyone else...

NTripleOne 10y ago
I mean, you're not wrong - but couldn't you have found a way to make your point a little less antagonistic?
- douche 10y ago
  To be honest, I'm a little bitter how many sad console ports are released on PC. Many games would be very good if they even pretended to adapt themselves to mouse/keyboard input, but the body shop responsible for the PC ports apparently don't care.

problems 10y ago

No one plays CoD for the single player. Spectacle isn't the focus, multiplayer is. The whole genre of linear single player FPSes is sort of dead. Lots of mixed genre games that tie in RPG elements with big open worlds and character customization though that are doing quite well and could benefit from better AI. Even with a friend though we can't reliably beat the top level AI in Ghost Recon Wildlands so it can't be that bad.

rosege 10y ago
I love FPS but hate multiplayer. Firstly, my ping sucks so I get killed very easily. Second, I dont play that much so get killed by the kids who are playing all day. Hence I rarely play multiplayer if I can avoid it.
- elastic_church 10y ago
  yes blame the ping
Matthias247 10y ago
I play CoD exclusively for single player :) I personally like the interactive movie feeling, the scripted events and the scenes. I did never enjoy CoD in multiplayer which I find too hectic. The battlefield series with a more slow-paced and strategic gameplay suited me better in multiplayer. However I generally don't enjoy competing in MP that much anymore - too little time and interest to train enough to be competitive with the younger players.
EliRivers 10y ago
I, like others here, also play these games exclusively in single player mode. I suspect that there's an element of self-selection going on here; there are lots of people who play the single player, but an onliner can't see them because when that onliner goes online it's 100% people who go online that one sees there. There could be ten times that many playing it for the single player and they'd remain completely invisible.
the_af 10y ago
I play all FPSes, CoD including, exclusively for single-player. In fact, if they were MP-only (or had weak SP) I wouldn't buy them at all. What attracts me to CoD is definitely the spectacle; the feeling of being in a Hollywood war movie. The genre seems well and thriving.

nothis 10y ago

Interesting game AI still doesn't look good. The "cinematic" approach is to replace all systematic stuff (with potentially stiff/unsolved in-between animations) with motion-captured, "realistic" looking sequences. The same stuff that made critics laugh at enemies not seeing you when standing on a 0.5 square meter shadow in the middle of a well-lit room because you're technically "hidden in darkness" is what is now "solved" by removing the mechanics altogether in favor of safe and cool looking scripted sequences. Basically, this: https://twitter.com/robotduck/status/759529875992698880 https://twitter.com/robotduck/status/759529875992698880

TheGRS 10y ago
Yea, not to defend that type of gameplay, but this is basically the point. Uncharted and Tomb Raider and the like are out to make interactive movies. Its a great way to avoid the sort of awkward sequences you get in many games where an enemy winds up in a corner spinning around at the end of the map by accident and you can't proceed until you find him. The cinematic approach is exciting in the moment, if maybe a little boring when replayed or if you enjoy any sort of real difficulty.
Jaruzel 10y ago
There's about 3 sections like this in TR (2013). In the rest of the game, any hazards seen on screen are mostly dangerous. I always thought that the extra 'hazard' visuals and noisy audio were there to disorientate the player (along with a bit of shaky-cam) in the hope they'd mis-step the climbing/running/jumping, and thus increase the difficulty. For skilled gamers (which I am most definitely not) I can see how this 'cheat' is annoying, but for me, who isn't the best at precision movement in 3D games, I found it helped me immensely during these types of sections to simply turn off the sound.

Splines 10y ago

I'll be the devil's advocate: Maybe it's because players don't want more advanced AI? It's (IMO) gotten to the point where AI is good enough. There's certainly room for improvement but by and large it's serviceable to the point that at least in a mass-market FPS it doesn't actually need to be any better. We might wish that the folks at EA or Activision make shiny cool AI (and I'm sure many of them there want to!) but in reality that doesn't really do a whole lot to benefit their paying customers. Besides - "AI" in games is really about how to create stage pieces that simulate more complex behavior. Like all software development, it's mostly smoke and mirrors, and it's all about how smart you can set that up to give the user the impression of something magical.

Tloewald 10y ago
What people really want is "artificial stupidity" (and FEAR is a good example). If the enemy had true AI you'd just die, and in fact most unconstrained AI bots are pretty lethal (and boring). What makes for a good game is entertaining and plausible behavior that nevertheless lets you win against ridiculous odds, etc. E.g. an enemy coming out of cover at a different position than when they last popped out is cool, but working out that coming out of cover is just a bad idea and waiting in ambush would be more realistic and smarter, but lead to stalemates. Heck, you hardly ever see even vaguely decent morale implementations ("hey you just effortlessly killed 80% of my unit, so I'll, um, charge you!!!"). Again, in EverQuest some enemies would run away and get help. In World of Warcraft they just mindlessly attack until dead. EverQuest's AIs (lame as they were) were simply too deadly for a truly mainstream MMO.
- lethargic_meat 10y ago
  About retreating behaviour, this was slightly the case with Mount&Blade Warband, where units would now and then flee when their moral was low, which could happen due several factors. Still I am unsure if historically anyone would be willing to charge alone against 100s of heavy cavalry units for a guy that pays ok.
  - komali2 10y ago