imperialreign on 23/3/2007 at 20:27
Well, to say that FPS do require more effort can still be a stretch; usually it's the AI that falls short in these games. I mean . . . look at Doom3, with how long this game was in production, how much development went into it, the AI is still fairly weak. It's possible to get your enemies to fight each other if you knew what you were doing. Secondly, most FPS the AI always figures how to get to you once they're aware (even more of a pain in the ass when the AI has the ability to teleport closer to you, i.e. Doom3)
Even though in T1/T2 this is possible, but it's only between certain pairs of enemies; as if that was programmed by the developers, and the AI enemy pairs seem reasonable, too.
But, this is all starting to compare apples to oranges . . . stealth vx melee require two different playing styles, and two drastically different forms of AI architecture. FPS does really well when it's innovative and breaks out of the stereotype (Prey, Doom3, Half-Life, Unreal, etc.); stealth seems to do well when it's believable and is really fleshed out.
sparhawk on 23/3/2007 at 21:32
Don't forget that most games, especially shooters, are scripted, exactly for the reason, because it is much harder to create believable AI. In A stealth game like Thief you can't do this, because not only has the AI to be believable, the game is also non-linear. So scripting may not help you that much in such a case. I guess this is the reason why games often ressort to scripting. They are catered for being played once, so heavy scripting is not a problem, because you only notice it if you reload often. Scriptng definitely cuts the development time and time you would need to improve the AI. And HL1/2 are also heavily scripted for this reason. They make a good job to not being so obvious, but they are nevertheless, to cover the shortcomings of the AI.
SubJeff on 24/3/2007 at 12:50
Whilst there are scripted elements in FPSs alot of what you see the AI do is not necessarily scripted, and even if it is if you cannot tell then so what? spar, how can you comment on HL2's AI? I though you hadn't played it. There were moments in HL2 (and 1) when the AI did stuff that was pretty impressive and if it is scripted it's very well done since in some of the harder sections that it took me a while to get past (in HL2) the AI seemed to adapt to my changing strategy.
And I really don't think Doom3 should ever be mentioned when talking about a good FPS. The graphics are of a high standard but the gameplay and the design, even the art direction, is pretty mediocre.
sparhawk on 24/3/2007 at 18:53
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Whilst there are scripted elements in FPSs alot of what you see the AI do is not necessarily scripted, and even if it is if you cannot tell then so what?
Obviously you didn't read what I wrote. Of course you can easily detect when AI is scripted. Just save, play, reload and see if the AI reacts exactly the same. And my point was that it is easier to script AI, because you don't need much effort to do this compared to programming a believable behaviour that works under essentially all circumstances.
Quote:
spar, how can you comment on HL2's AI? I though you hadn't played it.
You thought wrong. I never said I haven't playe it, I said I didn't buy it, because I don't want to support Valve and Steam.
Quote:
There were moments in HL2 (and 1) when the AI did stuff that was pretty impressive and if it is scripted it's very well done since in some of the harder sections that it took me a while to get past (in HL2) the AI seemed to adapt to my changing strategy.
If the AI would be completely scripted, it would be pretty boring, so of course they have some behaviour. But the more "impressive" that behaviour is, the more you can be sure that it was scripted. Depends on how easily you are impressed though.
Quote:
And I really don't think Doom3 should ever be mentioned when talking about a good FPS. The graphics are of a high standard but the gameplay and the design, even the art direction, is pretty mediocre.
I don't remember ever saying that Doom 3 was a good game. Either you made your opinions up, or you deliberaltey didn't read what I wrote, because I never said anything that you posted here.
Vigil on 24/3/2007 at 19:11
Or it could even be he was referring to someone else's comment!
PS try to avoid dismissive bullshit like this:
Quote Posted by sparhawk
What does a shooter AI need to do after all? Call comrades, search cover, shoot back. That's about it. Even a three year old can implement this in a few weeks.
It doesn't do your otherwise accurate argument any favours.
Ziemanskye on 24/3/2007 at 20:48
HL (and 2) are masterworks of that kind of smoke and mirrors - there's a lot of scripting, and an okay bit of AI, but the real trick is that the scripted stuff can be interupted (and in 2, I think some of it can resume, but I'm not sure).
By the same token though, F.E.A.R. pulled the same kinds of things, just on a smaller scale, like the last guy in a squad calling for backup: cheap way of making the next wave of enemies feel more than just level-designer-being-a-git.
But that kind of thing falls apart quick(er) in less linear games.
KingAl on 25/3/2007 at 00:19
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I'm not so sure I agree. In order for a shooter to be any good it must fulfill more than just having guns, enemies and maps. And due to the nature of stealth games you'll likely have less enemies and more intimate maps. They are just different - to say that one requires more effort than another is a little condescending imo. The best stealth game I've played is Thief 2, the best shooter Half-Life 2. Are you telling me making Thief 2 required that much more effort? It may have, and I may be wrong, but it doesn't look like it to me.
I don't believe he meant to say that "all good stealth games involve more effort than good shooters", because that's just asking for a counterexample: you can obviously put in as much extra effort as you want in any genre. However, I do believe that the cutoff point for a good stealth game is higher: a shooter which is good enough for someone to waste a couple of hours on is a simpler proposition than the stealth genre equivalent. A First-person stealth game like Thief requires many of the same features as an FPS, but also places a greater emphasis on features which are less significant for a competent FPS - sound, level design, AI etc.
SubJeff on 25/3/2007 at 10:18
Quote Posted by sparhawk
I don't remember ever saying that Doom 3 was a good game. Either you made your opinions up, or you deliberaltey didn't read what I wrote, because I never said anything that you posted here.
I mentioned Doom 3 in response to someone else's comment, as Vigil correctly pointed out.
As for scripting - people say that HL2 AI is all scripted. It is certainly "set" to go at certain times but beyond that even in parts that I played lots of times the firefight was never quite the same. Often I was really surprised at how things turned out.
I'm a stealth fan too (natch) but I feel that we are seeing some elitism here as regards which sort of game is harder to make. I know what you mean be the level of AI involvement but thats just a part of the game.
sparhawk on 25/3/2007 at 10:39
Quote Posted by KingAl
I don't believe he meant to say that "all good stealth games involve more effort than good shooters", because that's just asking for a counterexample: you can obviously put in as much extra effort as you want in any genre. However, I do believe that the cutoff point for a good stealth game is higher: a shooter which is good enough for someone to waste a couple of hours on is a simpler proposition than the stealth genre equivalent.
That's exactly what I meant. IMO Farcry seemed to have a pretty good AI in that regard, because they didn't feel to mechanical, but most "big" games don't have that great AI, and usually do a lot with scripting. Call of Duty was heavily scripted and it shows. It was still a very nice game (at least the first part), so scripting doesn't mean that a game must become bad, but it definitley limits replayabillity a lot.
sparhawk on 25/3/2007 at 10:55
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I mentioned Doom 3 in response to someone else's comment, as Vigil correctly pointed out.
You did adress me directly in the same post, so how should I know? ;)
Quote:
As for scripting - people say that HL2 AI is all scripted. It is certainly "set" to go at certain times but beyond that even in parts that I played lots of times the firefight was never quite the same. Often I was really surprised at how things turned out.
Of course. Scripting just provides help to the AI. This doesn't mean that the endresult also is always the same. Would be quite pointless if it were. Scripting is used to trigger events, and to make the start of the fight (or whatever it is used for) appears more believable. Once you start to interact with the AI, it should be stopped. Much like an opening library in a chess game. Once you disrupt the pattern of a well known opening, the computer is on his own.
Quote:
I'm a stealth fan too (natch) but I feel that we are seeing some elitism here as regards which sort of game is harder to make. I know what you mean be the level of AI involvement but thats just a part of the game.
I'm also a shooter fan, and I liked HL2 quite a lot. But people interpret to much into the perceived achievement, and think it is the actual engine, which it is not, because poeple confuse the game content with the engine. A good example is the size of a map. People believed that D3 can not do open spaces, because in the game D3 they saw mostly corridors. Well, I don't expect to much open spaces in such an environment, because a space station is built with extreme effeciency in mind. HL2 played a lot in outdoor areas, so of course it is to be expected that you see open areas. But from that, it doesn't neccessarily follow that the engine can not do one or the other. You have to observe very carefully to see wether an engine can really do something, or if it just has been faked. As an example - From such observertion I definitely know that HL2 can not do shadows well, even though it looks ok in most cases.
