85 réponses à ce sujet

[elemental150]

there are always going to be problems with AI, the fact that the game isn't trying to outsmart you at every turn is what makes it fun...Enemy spell casters running from your melee fighters and archers trying to take out your casters seem pretty good.....I am willing to bet that melee enemies try to flank as well.....and it makes since for them to charge in and try to mess stuff up



I played a NWN mod where AI was boosted and the battles were really tactical...it was fun but I went looking for something like that......the average joe isn't going to want that much strategy...



As long as it is a decent challenge then it is all good



I rarely listen to reviewer because I have yet to find any that share a similar idea of what makes a game fun that I do.....I almost always look at metacritic...because at the very least I can see the spread of like to dislike and in between

[knownastherat]

SheffSteel wrote...

If the enemies used decent AI and tactics, would the game be fun?

You spot some Darkspawn ahead and send your sword/shield and two-handed weapon fighters forward to kill them. Unfortunately, they trigger a trap that slows them down. Meanwhile, a larger number of Darkspawn rush past your fighters to attack your mage and archer rogue, while enemy ranged troops and spellcasters target your stranded warriors.

Does that sound like funto you?

Going by the number of players involved in online "competetive" gaming - the ultimate AI of today - it's safe to assume it is fun.

IGN
Enemies feature little in the way of
tactics. In fact, they just charge at you and that's about it.

If nobody "charges" there is no inter-action. We would need to define what tactics, in team based games, are before passing judgements. In chess one or both sides "charge" - are foreced to make "move" - at  all times, and the difference is in how?  - tactic and strategy, and  this determines the outcome.


In short, that AI in todays games is hardly challenging does not prevent it from functioning as a puzzle.

Modifié par knownastherat, 02 novembre 2009 - 10:25 .

[foolish_sagacity]

All I feel needs to be added to this is that great games are often given several poor reviews. Planescape: Torment got a 7/10 from EuroGamer. My favorite game of all time got a 70%, a C-, from them.



Why? Apparently because the Immortal main character shouldn't have been, well, immortal. Which was sort of central to the game. What we have here is an incompetent reviewer, much like the Planescape on, who jumped too far off base and bashed things that others praised as amazing.



We'll all know tomorrow what's what ourselves.

[Arttis]

When you fight a bunch of melee fighters and they are far away the only thing they can do is charge at you to close the distance...If they are ranged they run close enough so they can shoot.

[kazic284]

I'm a bit confused because more than a few reviewers have mentioned that the AI was quite challenging. One guy wrote a very detailed description of how tactical he had to get to defeat a pair of ogres. Also, I believe I heard it mentioned that the game ramped up in difficulty signifigantly at around the 10 hour mark.



I don't know how many of the people who are accusing the game's AI of being simple have actually played it, but if you have, maybe you aren't at this point yet? And if you haven't played it, you really can't talk yet. I am holding off on my judgements till tomorrow, you know, when I actually play the game. Until then, this is all speculation isn't it?

[Dam Wookie]

Enemies may charge in, the reviewer and the poster may have a point.



The idiots who then went on about consoles don't.



Although I remember trying to catch groups of enemies with a few fireballs in BG and with friendly fire I think charging in might be the best bet for an enemy. At the same time it might come across as a little simplistic in AI terms. A number of games have a more complex initial plan of attack. It doesn't mean the AI is simplistic all round though.

[Danel4k]

It could easily be that enemies are stupid but many; you have to be smart in order to overcome their advantages of numbers. The enemy may not have good tactics, but you still have to.

[Ischkwezrn]

Maybe someone has pointed this out already, but charging blindly into the enemy with an axe raised ready to cut something in half or many many pieces is a totally legitimate "tactic".



It's probably not a strategy though.. Many games that claim to be "strategic" aren't either.

[Ravenshrike]

Jacks-Up wrote...

Luckyluke03 wrote...

Jacks-Up wrote...

krol146 wrote...

Guys, they didnt dumb the AI down on the consoles, just the number of enemies. And its not like youre only facing 3 or 4 enemies on the console, ive already seen gameplay with at least 10 enemies at a time.

Well reguardless if they did that than shame on them.

If Uncharted 2 can have a helicopter firing at you, bad guys firing at you all while the building you're in is literally collapsing than there was no need.

I liked Uncharted 2, it was a great game, but I think having a helicopter shooting at my character in Dragon Age would be a little...anachronistic. Seriously though, the AI wasn't that smart in Uncharted 2 either. If it had been, they would have been a lot more effective with the freaking grenade launchers.

Honestly, it doesn't sound like you're complaining about the AI so much as what kind of game this is going to be. Unless you think that it's reflective of great AI when bad guys are shooting at you while a building is collapsing rather than, oh I don't know, trying to get out of the collapsing building?

Honestly it doesn't sound like you actually read the conversation.  I was commenting on the fact that the power needed to do such a screen is proof that the AI and enemies is not or should not have been dumbed down for the console versions.  I was not suggesting they add helicopters in DAO. /eyeroll

Have you done any actual programming? Not scripting, but programming. Preferably in something besides BASIC or C#. Somehow I think the answer is no. The AI's in U2 progressed purely upon a linear memory usage expansion. That is, they did not really interact with each other or your characters based upon observed abilities. Whereas the memory progression for enemies in DA:O is anything but linear, because they change tactics based upon the party composition and enemy composition. As such, the larger the group, the more AI decisions per enemy and ally must be made.

Ischkwezrn wrote...

Maybe someone has pointed this out already, but charging blindly into the enemy with an axe raised ready to cut something in half or many many pieces is a totally legitimate "tactic".

It's probably not a strategy though.. Many games that claim to be "strategic" aren't either.

Technically speaking, every RTS I've seen was actually a RTTS(Real Time Tactical Simulator).

Modifié par Ravenshrike, 03 novembre 2009 - 12:34 .

[VaxiusStorn]

Black_Warden wrote...

Murphys_Law wrote...

Sorry, I lost all respect for that reviewer the moment he mentioned Mass Effect and KOTOR as "revolutionary" games.  Apparently, putting RPG elements in a science fiction setting is "revoluntionary".  Frankly, my biggest issue with both of those games is the combat severaly lacks RPG-style depth and I am hoping Mass Effect 2 puts a lot more "deep strategic RPG" elements and less "ZOMG PEWPEW GEARS OF WAR FPS" elements.  I don't see how either game is "revoluntionary", as that title should only be reserversed for a select few games for it to make any sense (apparently he thinks a "revoluntionary game comes out every 6 months).  Also I had a hard time finding the review parts in that "review". 

i actually agree with just about all of what you said, except the part where you state your issues about ME and KOTOR. I understand that you didn't like the combat, but i think judging an RPG based on it's combat doesn't make that much sense. To me, i see RPG and i think "ok, this game is story -focused, not action/combat/killing focused." The combat in either of those games may not have been revolutionary, but i still think of KOTOR as one of the best stories told in a game ever (opinion, not statement of fact) and i thought ME did a very good job of taking inspiration from other sci-fi stories without copying them, and itself was also very well done plot-wise.

And to bring it back on topic, i believe the combat in this game will be quite satisfying, and that the enemy AI will be pretty good (again, opinion) but for me, that's not even at the top of the list of why i think this game will be great. i think judging this or any game based on only one aspect of it is shortsighted and pointless.

I don't think Kotor was very revolutionary, but it was solid, fun, and told a great story (one of the best in VG history).  ME may not have been revolutionary from a combat perspective, but I think the dialogue side of it was very revolutionary.  How many games have been fully voiced with that many options in terms of dialogue?  ME was like playing a movie, and that is pretty darn revolutionary.  Seeing as the topic is AI and combat... I can understand saying that ME and Kotor weren't anything too special.  However, to flat out say they weren't revolutionary may be a bit much.  Particularly ME.

Now, to the point of the thread.  I think that the game will be very satisfying in terms of AI.  Especially on the higher difficulty settings.  I don't see how bioware could have given us such indepth control over our NPC companions(with the combat tactics skill), and not used something similar for the monsters we run across.  I expect the enemies to go after the healers, rogues and fighters to work together to maximize their damage output, and so on.  I am the first to admit that I am a bioware fanboy, and if they tell me this game is a spiritual successor to BG then I believe that they have tactical combat in mind.  I haven't played a bioware game that I haven't enjoyed (even tho I enjoyed some more than others), and on that note they haven't failed me before.  So, to sum up, I doubt they have failed me this time with a single player game they have had in the oven for 5+ years.

On the note of reviews... I rarely listen to them.  Everyone is biased, and as I have already stated I am incredibly bias when it comes to bioware.  I read reviews after I have played the game, watched the movie, or listened to the album.  I only read them to see if the reviewer had the same qualms that I did, or if he/she agreed with my favorite aspects, and sometimes to see if the website/magazine is paying a chimp too much to toss something mainstream a high review (EG  Rolling Stone giving Metallica's St. Anger a perfect score).

[Salaciouschicken]

Wait, I don't see the IGN review. Can someone post a link please?