4 ms·

That's not what you want at all. An AI can easily have perfect aim in a shooter game. Designers need to handicap them to be fun. The same goes for many dimensio

That's not what you want at all. An AI can easily have perfect aim in a shooter game. Designers need to handicap them to be fun. The same goes for many dimensions of games. You could make AI more competent but its usually less fun. Even strategy games designed content usually come from you beating an opponent with a superior starting position. What you really want is more immersive AI. Not in terms of the intelligence, but in the ability to do actions that interact with the environment. But this usually requires one off animation and gameplay coding so its not something that can scale easily. Things like hiding under something form a large enemy and thinking "he can't get me" but then, oh shit, turns out he is capable of crawling.

tweakimp 5y ago
I think what he meant was a realistic AI, a perfect game logic for the role it needs to play, not a perfect solution for the task it does. Example: I want to have an AI for a monkey that behaves like a monkey would behave. And if that monkey sits in a drivers seat, I want the car to move like a monkey would drive, not like a perfect driver of cars.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  But the issue isn't the AI, it's the interface that the AI has to the game. Monkey drivers is a little absurd so let's stick to monkeys in the forest. A real monkey would probably climb the trees. But if the game doesn't have climbing mechanics, then its unlikely that the game devs are going to implement them just so that the monkeys can do this. Making a behavior tree to utilize available actions is pretty easy to do. It's the implementation of the animations, game logic, and environment to allow such things to happen. Little things like letting an actor turn its head to look at things will make the AI feel more alive than a more advanced algorithm for behavior. And you definitely won't see any particular gains by trying to solve it with ML brains.
YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
>> An AI can easily have perfect aim in a shooter game. I wouldn't mind that. I would be fine with an opponent like Scar in BSG: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scar_(Battlestar_Galactica) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scar_(Battlestar_Galactica) Something that's actually smart and really, really not just there for you to kill, for once.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  Really? You'd like to play against a computer opponent that had instant perfect aim in a shooter? If you really want that go play some crappy online shooter full of cheaters with aim bots. It's not fun.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
    No, I said I'd welcome a game with an AI that's smart and not just there for you to kill. The bit about "perfect aim in a shooter" is your creative addition and I have nothing to do with it.
    - Handytinge 5y ago
      You quoted "An AI can easily have perfect aim in a shooter game.", and then said "I wouldn't mind that". You may not have meant that, but it is what you said :).
      - YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
        No, that's what you want me to have said. I said I "don't mind" and you then went off on a tangent about instant "perfect aim" and I should go play a crappy online shooter with bots etc. And oh no, it's not fun! You just decided you are going to crap all over my comment and crap all over what I said I'd like to see in a game because it does not agree with some kind of idea you have about "fun" in games. More fool me for commenting in a thread about games.
        Handytinge 5y ago
        The only conclusion I can draw here is that you've misread. I can only draw this because a) you're disputing a direct quote which is clearly visibile and b) you seem to think I'm the original person who responded to you. I could be wrong here, but it may be worth going back and reading what was said again and the obvious inference multiple people took from your original comment, even if it wasn't what you meant. Good luck!
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

tweakimp 5y ago

I think what he meant was a realistic AI, a perfect game logic for the role it needs to play, not a perfect solution for the task it does. Example: I want to have an AI for a monkey that behaves like a monkey would behave. And if that monkey sits in a drivers seat, I want the car to move like a monkey would drive, not like a perfect driver of cars.

spywaregorilla 5y ago
But the issue isn't the AI, it's the interface that the AI has to the game. Monkey drivers is a little absurd so let's stick to monkeys in the forest. A real monkey would probably climb the trees. But if the game doesn't have climbing mechanics, then its unlikely that the game devs are going to implement them just so that the monkeys can do this. Making a behavior tree to utilize available actions is pretty easy to do. It's the implementation of the animations, game logic, and environment to allow such things to happen. Little things like letting an actor turn its head to look at things will make the AI feel more alive than a more advanced algorithm for behavior. And you definitely won't see any particular gains by trying to solve it with ML brains.

YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago

>> An AI can easily have perfect aim in a shooter game. I wouldn't mind that. I would be fine with an opponent like Scar in BSG: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scar_(Battlestar_Galactica) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scar_(Battlestar_Galactica) Something that's actually smart and really, really not just there for you to kill, for once.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
spywaregorilla 5y ago
Really? You'd like to play against a computer opponent that had instant perfect aim in a shooter? If you really want that go play some crappy online shooter full of cheaters with aim bots. It's not fun.
- YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
  No, I said I'd welcome a game with an AI that's smart and not just there for you to kill. The bit about "perfect aim in a shooter" is your creative addition and I have nothing to do with it.
  - Handytinge 5y ago
    You quoted "An AI can easily have perfect aim in a shooter game.", and then said "I wouldn't mind that". You may not have meant that, but it is what you said :).
    - YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
      No, that's what you want me to have said. I said I "don't mind" and you then went off on a tangent about instant "perfect aim" and I should go play a crappy online shooter with bots etc. And oh no, it's not fun! You just decided you are going to crap all over my comment and crap all over what I said I'd like to see in a game because it does not agree with some kind of idea you have about "fun" in games. More fool me for commenting in a thread about games.
      - Handytinge 5y ago
        The only conclusion I can draw here is that you've misread. I can only draw this because a) you're disputing a direct quote which is clearly visibile and b) you seem to think I'm the original person who responded to you. I could be wrong here, but it may be worth going back and reading what was said again and the obvious inference multiple people took from your original comment, even if it wasn't what you meant. Good luck!

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]