By that I mean artificial intelligence relating to the gameplay itself. Not the artificially intelligent characters, such as Geth, Reapers, EDI, and the Moonbase artificial intelligence, etc... Although... I may breach the idea of the AI of AI later if my thoughts go that direction.
**Turns out this post is really really long, so: Too long, didn't read: I want the AI of the enemies and squadmates to be significantly improved intelligence-wise. Meaning they should have better strategies, as well as goals during a fight to augment their "intelligence." I want to believe they are people or people-like constructs. Please correct me if I'm wrong; I accept criticism. Note sig: I don't actually think this is groundbreaking stuff, it's just that nobody seems to talk about it.
A lot of people apparently are concerned about new Features of the game. Like the Mako, and the new planets, and the new galaxy, and the new races, motivations,plot,continuity,graphics,etc,etc. This goes for most game announcements where people just look at the graphics and other "feature" improvements/additions. If you know what I mean.
So, what I'm getting at is: will the AI of the enemies and allies of the game be significantly improved (during gameplay)? As of now I feel most AI in games don't give me the sense that I am fighting a sentient being, which ought to be one of the goals. Especially for RPG's where I am supposed to believe my teammates and enemies are people, with personalities, military training, fear-of-death, feelings, yada yada.
For example, in ME3 multiplayer, the AI enemies' strategy was to slowly walk at you and shoot. Occasionally certain units would take cover, but they would eventually leave cover so you could kill them. Cerberus didn't use their sheild generators which were a big component of their SP strategy. Also in MP they don't seem to bother waiting for reinforcements. I recognize some of that is to keep the game fun, and some of that is how hard it might be to run AI server-side for hundreds of matches simultaneously. Even in single player (mostly. Exceptions excluded 
), the enemy's goal was just to kill you. Not to defend an area, or to take an area, to destroy or capture an item, etc.
So, in order to facilitate 'better AI', I propose that ME:A puts in more scenarios which would allow for different strategies by the AI. Such as:
--I am invading their base, to kill them. AI goes all out to protect their base, and their equipment.
--I am invading their base, to retrieve or destroy an item. AI takes defensive positions around the item. This is accomplished in single player already.
--I am escaping a base, AI takes defensive positions around the exit and certain pathways. Possibly some dedicated squads to attack or flush me out. This makes me think they don't want me to leave, and they have the intelligence to flank me.
--They are attacking my base, to kill me. Nothing changes, I guess. Suicide mode enemies?
--They are attacking my base, to get at something. I and my squad must stop them. Friendlies take defensive positions while my squad kills everyone / drives them back.
--Someone doing something. possibility of retreat from either side.
Ok, now that I've said that, I can say: If an enemy has a shield or barrier, and it is low, or broken, their artificial intelligence should tell them to scramble for cover. Mass Effect has historically made excuses by creating "mentally deficient" characters. Like Cerberus being mind-controlled cyborgs, Collector/Reaper forces being mass killing machines engineered to be expendable, Geth having their consciousness downloading upon 'death', Vorcha being a less-than-intelligent/hyper-violent species, and various mind-controlled or feral colonists. Etcetera. Dragon Age does this too with Darkspawn, demons, and Red Templars. So if I'm fighting against an enemy which is not designed to be suicidal, please keep them from being suicidal! Does that mean that shields need to be weaker so cover doesn't equate to invincibility? Does that mean cover should be destructable? I don't know. The execution is in Bioware's hands and I don't propose to tell them- "dudes, just put destructible environments in, it'll be totally easy and solve all problems"
Idea: what if the individual units were still relatively dumb, but they operated in squads, with the squad being it's own AI unit, providing the additional intelligence? The squad of enemies would act like a squad. Move between cover spots. Provide covering fire for their teammates.
Enemy omniscience. Enemies always know where you are. Of course there's inter-enemy radio communications, and radar... So that makes sense and is OK I guess... But, if they know where I am, then shouldn't they be able to form a better attack/defense strategy? Including flanking and ambushing?
And now, about the artificial intelligence of those characters and factions whose intelligence is artificial. It's hard to think like a Geth. Do they have fear? (( Note: Geth, specifically, have functionality which allows their minds and memories to be downloaded to nearby 'servers' if their chassis is destroyed.)) Do they recognize the economic and strategic downfall of losing one or more troops, even if the component AI consciousnesses are saved? Of course they recognize it, but what value do they place on those things? If a Geth knows it has been cut off from the downloading process, how will it react differently? If the Geth forces have a legion of chassis to pull from, will their troops become careless? For another AI character which has nothing to do with the Geth and their design, how would that respond differently than a Geth unit in the same situations? Would it mimic fear, like the Earth moonbase AI in ME1? Would it literally have fear or other ambitions?
*Pre-post edit: I recognize some of my ideas/reasoning/facts/assessments will be wrong. That's why this is on a forum and not my official letterhead to the Bioware offices. So pick one of the things I'm right or wrong about and run with it 
Retour en haut
