So, I watched some E3 trailers.

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
Seriously, after watching a few trailers for various games, the AI seemed as bad as ever, if not worse.
"Resistance" (for PS3 I believe) looked like absolute rubbish in the AI department.
I'm fine with nice graphics, but intelligent enemies might be nice too someday. Can we only dream?
 

Slick5150

Diamond Member
Nov 10, 2001
8,760
3
81
AI is generally one of the last things finalized and tweaked in a game. These are advance demos/trailers, you can't expect a finished product
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
People dont buy games for AI anymore. Or gameplay for that matter. The masses of gamers are out to buy the niftiest graphics which will flex the muscles of their GeForce97 37000 TU Gold Edition w/ 4 Gb Video RAM graphcis cards. And it's only gonna get worse now with Physics engines and new hardware Physics cards. The golden age of gaming has gone. It is now Hollywood.

 

Zenoth

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2005
5,202
216
106
People dont buy games for AI anymore.

Oh, because they did, before ?

Or gameplay for that matter. The masses of gamers are out to buy the niftiest graphics which will flex the muscles of their GeForce97 37000 TU Gold Edition w/ 4 Gb Video RAM graphcis cards.

While I'll probably be living my next life once such a GPU is created, but I think this is pure generalization. There is indeed cases where a consumer wants to push the limits of his system's graphics capaibilites, but game-play is still much more important. A combination of good graphics and constant, present entertaining/addictive game-play is even better. But you always need game-play somewhere, or else the game will take up dust and won't be touched for months or even years.

And it's only gonna get worse now with Physics engines and new hardware Physics cards.

I don't see why it would get "worse" with physics engines or new hardware parts allowing developers to create new scenarios of game-play and achieve innovation in their games. It's not because your hardware now allows each and every single fired bullets to destroy a wooden house in real-time with un-scripted physics reactions and dynamic particle creations that it suddenly means that game-play is gone. Systems will cost more, overall, yes, perhaps, but as I said, as far as game-play is concerned, it won't be "annihilated" by new hardware that you don't even have to buy. It's just an extra to help your system get potentially stressed to a lesser amount when such physic situations occur. Not to mention that with the arrival of Quad-Core CPUs it might just mean that PPU's will eventually loose their share of the PC gaming market.

The golden age of gaming has gone. It is now Hollywood.

Again, generalization. I myself still play old games on my more-than-midrange system in which I must have spent more than $2000 on over the past two years to reach its current state and hardware parts. It doesn't automatically mean that I want to push it to its limits. It means that if a "stressful" game comes out, that my system will at least be able to play and run it with decent speed, even if it means turning off, or decreasing some in-game settings. Games such as Shadow Man, Turok 2, System Shock 2, the original Half-Life, Morrowind, Jedi Outcast, and even older games like Hexen 2, Doom 2, Quake 2, and all such old classics, I still own all of these and more, and I am always happy to play them from time to time.

I do agree that there is some people out there only seeking to push the limits of their system(s), but that's pure generalization to say that the "golden age of gaming has gone". When I see hundred of thousands of players playing Diablo II on-line each day, and even more than that playing the original Counter-Strike and Unreal Tournament 99', all I can think and say to myself is "wow, the golden age of gaming is still there", despite the whole technology race we're all seing at the moment.


 

Dumac

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,391
1
0
Originally posted by: Zenoth
People dont buy games for AI anymore.

Oh, because they did, before ?

Or gameplay for that matter. The masses of gamers are out to buy the niftiest graphics which will flex the muscles of their GeForce97 37000 TU Gold Edition w/ 4 Gb Video RAM graphcis cards.

While I'll probably be living my next life once such a GPU is created, but I think this is pure generalization. There is indeed cases where a consumer wants to push the limits of his system's graphics capaibilites, but game-play is still much more important. A combination of good graphics and constant, present entertaining/addictive game-play is even better. But you always need game-play somewhere, or else the game will take up dust and won't be touched for months or even years.

And it's only gonna get worse now with Physics engines and new hardware Physics cards.

I don't see why it would get "worse" with physics engines or new hardware parts allowing developers to create new scenarios of game-play and achieve innovation in their games. It's not because your hardware now allows each and every single fired bullets to destroy a wooden house in real-time with un-scripted physics reactions and dynamic particle creations that it suddenly means that game-play is gone. Systems will cost more, overall, yes, perhaps, but as I said, as far as game-play is concerned, it won't be "annihilated" by new hardware that you don't even have to buy. It's just an extra to help your system get potentially stressed to a lesser amount when such physic situations occur. Not to mention that with the arrival of Quad-Core CPUs it might just mean that PPU's will eventually loose their share of the PC gaming market.

The golden age of gaming has gone. It is now Hollywood.

Again, generalization. I myself still play old games on my more-than-midrange system in which I must have spent more than $2000 on over the past two years to reach its current state and hardware parts. It doesn't automatically mean that I want to push it to its limits. It means that if a "stressful" game comes out, that my system will at least be able to play and run it with decent speed, even if it means turning off, or decreasing some in-game settings. Games such as Shadow Man, Turok 2, System Shock 2, the original Half-Life, Morrowind, Jedi Outcast, and even older games like Hexen 2, Doom 2, Quake 2, and all such old classics, I still own all of these and more, and I am always happy to play them from time to time.

I do agree that there is some people out there only seeking to push the limits of their system(s), but that's pure generalization to say that the "golden age of gaming has gone". When I see hundred of thousands of players playing Diablo II on-line each day, and even more than that playing the original Counter-Strike and Unreal Tournament 99', all I can think and say to myself is "wow, the golden age of gaming is still there", despite the whole technology race we're all seing at the moment.

:thumbsup:
 

everman

Lifer
Nov 5, 2002
11,288
1
0
Saw an interview with the PS3 guy on the show floor today on CNBC. He basically downplayed storylines and gameplay and emphasized graphics. ...so there ya go :Q
 
Sep 29, 2004
18,656
68
91
Quiet!

You have two choices:
1) Doom 1 with the best AI ever created.
2) Quake 4 or Half Life 2 in it's current form

What would you choose. Now be honest... Think back to the Doom 1 days. The gameplay and graphics are as was back in the day.
 

fierydemise

Platinum Member
Apr 16, 2005
2,056
2
81
Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
Quiet!

You have two choices:
1) Doom 1 with the best AI ever created.
2) Quake 4 or Half Life 2 in it's current form

What would you choose. Now be honest... Think back to the Doom 1 days. The gameplay and graphics are as was back in the day.
I really hope those choices were meant as hyperbole, look at oblivion the AI is good (although it could use some tweaking) and its graphics are just about the best out there.
 

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
The general populace buys games for two reasons, good marketing and pretty graphics. Don?t expect many game companies to care about Ai, sound, or even gameplay. We all love the sequel after sequel and expansion after "booster pack" from EA's stagnation of the game industry, no? People continue to buy it, they see no reason to focus on anything else.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Originally posted by: Zenoth
People dont buy games for AI anymore.

Oh, because they did, before ?

Or gameplay for that matter. The masses of gamers are out to buy the niftiest graphics which will flex the muscles of their GeForce97 37000 TU Gold Edition w/ 4 Gb Video RAM graphcis cards.

While I'll probably be living my next life once such a GPU is created, but I think this is pure generalization. There is indeed cases where a consumer wants to push the limits of his system's graphics capaibilites, but game-play is still much more important. A combination of good graphics and constant, present entertaining/addictive game-play is even better. But you always need game-play somewhere, or else the game will take up dust and won't be touched for months or even years.

And it's only gonna get worse now with Physics engines and new hardware Physics cards.

I don't see why it would get "worse" with physics engines or new hardware parts allowing developers to create new scenarios of game-play and achieve innovation in their games. It's not because your hardware now allows each and every single fired bullets to destroy a wooden house in real-time with un-scripted physics reactions and dynamic particle creations that it suddenly means that game-play is gone. Systems will cost more, overall, yes, perhaps, but as I said, as far as game-play is concerned, it won't be "annihilated" by new hardware that you don't even have to buy. It's just an extra to help your system get potentially stressed to a lesser amount when such physic situations occur. Not to mention that with the arrival of Quad-Core CPUs it might just mean that PPU's will eventually loose their share of the PC gaming market.

The golden age of gaming has gone. It is now Hollywood.

Again, generalization. I myself still play old games on my more-than-midrange system in which I must have spent more than $2000 on over the past two years to reach its current state and hardware parts. It doesn't automatically mean that I want to push it to its limits. It means that if a "stressful" game comes out, that my system will at least be able to play and run it with decent speed, even if it means turning off, or decreasing some in-game settings. Games such as Shadow Man, Turok 2, System Shock 2, the original Half-Life, Morrowind, Jedi Outcast, and even older games like Hexen 2, Doom 2, Quake 2, and all such old classics, I still own all of these and more, and I am always happy to play them from time to time.

I do agree that there is some people out there only seeking to push the limits of their system(s), but that's pure generalization to say that the "golden age of gaming has gone". When I see hundred of thousands of players playing Diablo II on-line each day, and even more than that playing the original Counter-Strike and Unreal Tournament 99', all I can think and say to myself is "wow, the golden age of gaming is still there", despite the whole technology race we're all seing at the moment.

I thought the generalizations in my post were obvious enough that they wouldn't have to be pointed out... :)

Now get ready for some more generalizations

About how you don't think it would get worse with physics engine cards... let me explain. I see the physics aspect of games as very similar to graphics. It's great and nifty to have but it requires alot of time/effort to get it right and more of the game's budget will go to meeting those ends, and less to the guys working on the less interesting buzz words like AI.

Developers were making phenomenal games practically in their garages during what I consider the Golden Age in the mid 90's with titles such as XCom, Master of Orion, Privateer, Wing Commander, Pirates, Civilization, etc... They had shoestring budgets and only a half dozen to a dozen or so developers, yet the games they made kept me hooked for months.

Nowadays you got these gigantic Hollywood movie style budgets to feed a large cast of developers who now have to twiddle with the latest 3d graphics and how your sword bounces off of rocks when it falls off a ciff. Compare the credits of a game from the mid nineties and one from today, see how many peope are involved with different areas of the game. It's quite a drastic difference. Yet are games any more fun today? You can still find some gems but it's amazing how bland and generic most of them feel.... and even the new gems like Oblivion don't seem to provide as much fun as the old classics.


 

hooflung

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2004
1,190
1
0
Nowadays you got these gigantic Hollywood movie style budgets to feed a large cast of developers who now have to twiddle with the latest 3d graphics and how your sword bounces off of rocks when it falls off a ciff.

Garage developers of yore are now the flourishing MODDERs. If anything things have gotted value added which imo is better than it was. I have been playing PC games since 86 and there is as much cool to crap ratio of games as there were back then just that we have more #s to take our sample from.

 

JBT

Lifer
Nov 28, 2001
12,094
1
81
Probably becuase they want us to buy a AIPU, haha joking im actually in favor of the PPU.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
theres a limit to ai when dealing with console controls. if the enemy were incredibly clever you'd just keep dying lol:)