jreezy wrote...
No, it isn't. Programmers shouldn't strive to do a half-a**ed job when it comes to the AI. If squadmates are so insignificant that they can provide no help on their own why bother even including them at all?slimgrin wrote...
DTKT wrote...
Both ME1 and ME2 had terrible AI. I don't think anything is going to change in ME3.
AI in ME2 is meant to be minimal. You're supposed to control your team's special attacks yourself, and that's all the AI you should need.
Kind of my point. If you're meant to play a "Commander" of a "Squad" then the "Squad" should at least be able to follow the orders given to them. Half of the time my "Squad" ends up dead or simply failing at every single task. I shouldn't have to direct them every two seconds; if you see a target with shields use the appropriate weapon and power/tech to disable the shields! If you see a heavily armored target then bust out armor piercers or light the bit*h on fire! Instead of doing the smart thing my squaddies run straight in and barely do anything except die OR they crouch behind cover instead of entering it - then remain in this "Tea Bag" stage as I call it until death.
If you are forced to use a Squad; make them worth it. Garrus was the leader of what, an eight man squad? Yet he can't make a single decision in combat for himself - that isn't story breaking.





Retour en haut




