NFL Head Coach to be released Tuesday, 6/20

[Bushead]

The only thing i dislike about madden is, even on All-Madden, the game becomes way too easy for me. I begin to realize what plays give me a very high precentage of completeing because the AI will do some pretty stupid stuff. QB Vision made me take one step back, but then i become good at that too so it was no trouble if my first route broke down.

Final point: i can play the game like made for about a few months, but after that, i can't because it becomes to easy. I wish they would be one step above All-Madden.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Bushead

The only thing i dislike about madden is, even on All-Madden, the game becomes way too easy for me. I begin to realize what plays give me a very high precentage of completeing because the AI will do some pretty stupid stuff. QB Vision made me take one step back, but then i become good at that too so it was no trouble if my first route broke down.

Final point: i can play the game like made for about a few months, but after that, i can't because it becomes to easy. I wish they would be one step above All-Madden.

its not a problem with all madden, its a problem with crap ai in general. take vick, and run for 800 yards a game every time. even a speed 80 qb can get 400 a game without any trouble (15min quarters, w/ sped up play clock). then just rush your SS while either all out blitzing or all out cover and you'll always hold the other team to negative yards.

Their are just certain things that madden lets you do that the AI just doesn't get. Run straight back with any QB about 10 yards and you'll never get sacked. Take a scrambling QB and run left and right until your OL pickup the guys trying to get you, then dash right past them. The list is pretty much endless.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by That Guy

its not a problem with all madden, its a problem with crap ai in general. take vick, and run for 800 yards a game every time. even a speed 80 qb can get 400 a game without any trouble (15min quarters, w/ sped up play clock). then just rush your SS while either all out blitzing or all out cover and you'll always hold the other team to negative yards.

Their are just certain things that madden lets you do that the AI just doesn't get. Run straight back with any QB about 10 yards and you'll never get sacked. Take a scrambling QB and run left and right until your OL pickup the guys trying to get you, then dash right past them. The list is pretty much endless.

Not to wax philosophical about video game design, but AI is the problem with most games today. The graphics have gotten to the point where we're just a few years from photorealism. Everyone is totally focused on graphics and eye candy but completely miss whether the game is good or not, or whether the AI is good or not.

I'm an avid PC gamer and in the past two years I've played nothing but online, multiplayer games like Battlefield 2. Once you play in an arena with 63 other humans, all actively thinking, plotting, planning and adjusting to the changing battle, Artificial Intelligence as competition just seems pathetic.

I got a couple of PC games recently where I played the AI - got bored after a few hours. There's just no challenge in playing a computer. Human vs. Human is where it's at.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by mheisig

I'm an avid PC gamer and in the past two years I've played nothing but online, multiplayer games like Battlefield 2. Once you play in an arena with 63 other humans, all actively thinking, plotting, planning and adjusting to the changing battle, Artificial Intelligence as competition just seems pathetic.

I got a couple of PC games recently where I played the AI - got bored after a few hours. There's just no challenge in playing a computer. Human vs. Human is where it's at.

except its not. if you've got 64, i gaurantee at least 20 suck, and you can win by just picking on them. MMOs are even worse because you're skill level is deeply related to time played (or money used to buy stuff). I've done that and I find UT bots FAR more challenging than most of the humans i've met. The guys that compete for money are generally pretty good, but they rely on memorizing maps and playing 8 hours a day to get there, and i'm just not willing to do that... that's boring. The best games tend to be old ones like total annihilation, alien soldier, civ, xcom, BG/2/planescape etc.

Some new games (like rome total war or unreal tournament) do have good AI though. UT is still path based, so it depends entirely on the mapper, but the illusion works well and at max it's better than 99% of human players.

Huge multiplayer games aren't new though. neverwinter nights (the original one) was up in 1987/88 or I played hundred years war on aol (with 300+ other people) as far back as 1994.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by That Guy

except its not. if you've got 64, i gaurantee at least 20 suck, and you can win by just picking on them. MMOs are even worse because you're skill level is deeply related to time played (or money used to buy stuff). I've done that and I find UT bots FAR more challenging than most of the humans i've met. The guys that compete for money are generally pretty good, but they rely on memorizing maps and playing 8 hours a day to get there, and i'm just not willing to do that... that's boring. The best games tend to be old ones like total annihilation, alien soldier, civ, xcom, BG/2/planescape etc.

Some new games (like rome total war or unreal tournament) do have good AI though. UT is still path based, so it depends entirely on the mapper, but the illusion works well and at max it's better than 99% of human players.

Huge multiplayer games aren't new though. neverwinter nights (the original one) was up in 1987/88 or I played hundred years war on aol (with 300+ other people) as far back as 1994.

The difference in playing humans is that unless you're playing a complete F-in' retard, they'll learn. Sure, you might pick some "n00bs" off over and over, but they'll catch on and learn from their mistakes.

I'm not talking about twitch skills. Yeah, AI can jump super fast and can be given perfect aim, but that's boring to play against because the only way to win is just "be faster." Games like BF2 actually de-emphasize twitch skills in favor of teamwork and strategy. Watching a dozen defenders hold a building against attack, and then watching the attackers adjust their tactics, use surprise, diversions, etc. is truly a great gaming moment. AI is decades away from being that intelligent.

"Great AI" is currently when the computer opponent will seek cover or toss a grenade around a corner. Occasionaly the really good AI will try to flank you. Human players can recognize overall strategies and apply the necessary team tactics to adapt. I'd love to see the current crop of AI recognize that it's being dominated from the air, organize an attack on an airfield effectively utilizing armor, air and infantry assets, secure the airfield and hold it from counterattack. Even if it WERE able to do this now, a human player could eventually recognize a pattern in the AI programming and exploit it. Humans can adapt - AI can't (yet).

Games like X-Com (one of my all time favorites) and Civ are great games in their own right, but at this point I like them more for nostalgia's sake as opposed to the challenge offered by the AI.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by mheisig

The difference in playing humans is that unless you're playing a complete F-in' retard, they'll learn. Sure, you might pick some "n00bs" off over and over, but they'll catch on and learn from their mistakes.

I'm not talking about twitch skills. Yeah, AI can jump super fast and can be given perfect aim, but that's boring to play against because the only way to win is just "be faster." Games like BF2 actually de-emphasize twitch skills in favor of teamwork and strategy. Watching a dozen defenders hold a building against attack, and then watching the attackers adjust their tactics, use surprise, diversions, etc. is truly a great gaming moment. AI is decades away from being that intelligent.

"Great AI" is currently when the computer opponent will seek cover or toss a grenade around a corner. Occasionaly the really good AI will try to flank you. Human players can recognize overall strategies and apply the necessary team tactics to adapt. I'd love to see the current crop of AI recognize that it's being dominated from the air, organize an attack on an airfield effectively utilizing armor, air and infantry assets, secure the airfield and hold it from counterattack. Even if it WERE able to do this now, a human player could eventually recognize a pattern in the AI programming and exploit it. Humans can adapt - AI can't (yet).

Games like X-Com (one of my all time favorites) and Civ are great games in their own right, but at this point I like them more for nostalgia's sake as opposed to the challenge offered by the AI.

have you ever played UT2004? cause the AI does all of that. and no, some n00bs never learn or they leave and more n00btards take their place. Uscript is open for ANYONE to improve the AI, and people have. the AI for UT came from the guy who made reaperbot for quake 1, so good single entity ai has been around in 3d games since 96, and since then a lot of focus has been put on teamwork. Which you'll see if you try CTF or assault or domination or whatnot. Just cause the battlefield guys write the worst AI known to man doesn't mean everyone else's sucks as equally. Farcry's AI is pretty good too. in fact, if you start attacking a base there, the AI will helo in reinforcements very quickly as well.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by That Guy

have you ever played UT2004? cause the AI does all of that. and no, some n00bs never learn or they leave and more n00btards take their place. Uscript is open for ANYONE to improve the AI, and people have. the AI for UT came from the guy who made reaperbot for quake 1, so good single entity ai has been around in 3d games since 96, and since then a lot of focus has been put on teamwork. Which you'll see if you try CTF or assault or domination or whatnot. Just cause the battlefield guys write the worst AI known to man doesn't mean everyone else's sucks as equally. Farcry's AI is pretty good too. in fact, if you start attacking a base there, the AI will helo in reinforcements very quickly as well.

Played UT2004 extensively for about a year or two - completely unimpressed with the AI, including 3rd-party add ons. In all my time of battling UT2004 bots I never saw problem solving skills that even approached those of a n00b in BF2. Have you actually played BF2?

I still think you're confusing Artificial INTELLIGENCE with faster bots. Bots in UT2004 are incapable of using creativity to concot a strategic plan and can only respond as they've been preprogrammed to respond. That's not really "Intelligence." HL2 with all it's scripted events comes about as close as any game has to portraying Artificial Intelligence, but you play it through a 2nd time and it's the same thing. Same deal with Unreal. Far Cry did a good job with unscripted AI, but even that got really predictable in no time.

Bots in BF2 (even if they had the magical UT Uscript) would never have thought to take a hummer, pack it full of C4 and make a car bomb with it, let alone be able to target the appropriately weak portion of the enemy. They never would have thought of it because it requires creativity, which can be preprogrammed.

Rome: Total War (one of my favorites of the past few years) had pretty good AI, but even that showed gaping flaws. On the hardest level the AI seems incapable of probing for weaknesses in a defensive line or using spies appropriately.

To each his own - I'm glad you enjoy competitions with the AI. Personally I find it incredibly dull when compared to something like BF2. The designers of BF2 didn't need to bother programming good AI because the multiplayer aspect would blow any AI out of the water.

I guess I'm a bit baffled how someone could be endlessly entertained by AI that can eventually be predicted perfectly, but be bored competing with humans who offer an infinite number of different possibilities and challenges that will never be the same.

Different strokes for different folks - I guess in my mind it's as simple as playing something that can't adapt or playing something that can.