Triggered by AI is too hard for devs

[Rocky]

I'm so triggered when I see people post that one reason why we don't have a team AI anymore is because AI is prohibitively difficult to code.

No it is not.

We don't need a team AI that is so intelligent we can actually believe we are playing with humans, we just need a friendly team to do two things.

1. Do not blindly walk in front of enemies or into crossfires.
2. Go where I tell you to go, and do what I tell you to do.

That's not hard, you know why? Because in 2001 Ghost Recon did it.

And people would have you believe its "too difficult" 18 years later with monumental processing power at our disposal?

Let us path our friendly AI and give them ROE, just like GR1 - it was unbelievably cool how well the team AI responded to situations, that's all I want.

Also....

Ever notice how very few shooter games have doors that actually open? Think about it. Not many, right?

A developer once told me it's because it is actually extremely hard to achieve this - and I believe him - because that's what he does - code games. And if he tells me he HATES doors, then I believe him.

But guess what - WE HAD THEM IN AN EIGHTEEN YEAR OLD GAME, and nobody bitched about it being so hard they couldn't be bothered putting it in the game. 

The point being, don't tell me that somethings is too hard, or you are progressing a series with natural evolution, when what you are really doing is removing features.

/Rant over

[Zeealex]

I'd make a counter argument from experience and say AI is a ###### to code at the best of times, however I've only coded hostile AI. 

basically the crux of AI is "if this situation occurs do this" and for a large open world there are a lot of factors to consider. On the surface, it's not difficult at all. However it's worth noting that just because a game did it 18 years ago doesn't mean that it's not difficult now. There's been little progress on that portion of game dev. whereas things like door opening got easier with time, and a couple of considerations can be made to make it work.  

I wouldn't be surprised if this was both a situation of time and narrative not fitting in with the need for allied AI. Hopefully the enemy AI is well polished enough to feel challenging while not outright cheating in which case I'm likely to forgive the lack of friendlies, as the implementation of both would likely lead to it being subpar and unpolished.  

Edited May 14, 2019 by Zeealex

[Lightspeed]

Maybe now you'll make the switch to Arma3 Rocky 😉 they have a pretty comprehensive set of AI commands, and generally speaking, do less dumb ######.

But it's very disappointing to see this design decision. It's all but killed off the SP GR experience.

I didn't think the team AI were great in GRW, but at least, they were there to provide support. Don't improve if it's too hard basket, but don't scrap it! Terrible decision.

[5timechamp]

I agree 100% with the rant..

its as if the processing power available in later generations is focused more on graphics vs AI..... It is why I always insisted that I would take a less visually polished version of a game if it meant it could support greater number of characters onscreen with decent programming.....It is why I hated all the recent Clancy games programmed so that bad guys would "spawn" on to the maps mid-match in small groups (Recon 2, Summit Strike, Graw etc) thus effectively negating any tactical navigation or clearance done thus far (Vegas Terrorist Hunt stands out as guilty of this)....

On the topic of doors...I remember how "excited" people would get with the throwback packs in the Graw console games because classic maps were being "upgraded"...I remember 2 things:

-In OGR the maps were amazing because they had ambiance, atmosphere, and personality that combined with the excellent gameplay to create a sense of tension...the remakes with their bright simplistic geometry, pulled back camera and simplistic gameplay robbed the maps of their personality

-As if the crap AI and gradually spawning enemies werent bad enough...somehow the increased horsepower wasnt enough to allow interiors/doors to be functional.

 

How is it that Codemasters a company focused on racing was able to create Flashpoint Dragon Rising and on their first try have: Large Squads, ability to break into fireteams, ROE, Formations....including AI or player led door breaches...player and/or AI vehicle driving....Ironically the vehicle driving was ASS

 

How is it that the racing company made a more logical progression of Recon than the house that built the market in the first place!!!!

 

Sorry Im all over the place since the announcement of a game I admittedly dont have all facts about.

 

[AlexKimov]

Quote

The point being, don't tell me that somethings is too hard, or you are progressing a series with natural evolution, when what you are really doing is removing features.

devolution, i can see it in games, movies and presidential elections. AI is not an easy thing but let's call a spade a spade, it's not about game, it's about business. If they think, they can sell enough copies without modding support, optimizations, AI, whatever they will do it. Nothing personal, it's just...

[nyleken]

As I've said before, the whole "lone survivor" theme they've got going is directly at odds with everything else we've seen in Breakpoint and only applies to the solo campaign.

Was the playerbase so harsh on the Wildlands squad AI that they've elected to get rid of them altogether? I remember how adamant they were about not giving players the option to disable them since that would go against the squad-based gameplay they were striving for. Jump forward to Year 2 and they give players the option to disable them.

Looking back at some of the complaints, a lot of the instances that were noted are usually the result of player error. The squad AI literally cannot be seen by enemies unless you give them a move order or are engaged in combat, so I'm generally skeptical of cases where they ruined somehow stealth infiltrations.

Edited May 15, 2019 by nyleken

[bugkill]

The problem with Ubisoft is that they created Far Cry 5 and gave that game a significantly better squad control mechanic than GR:Wildlands, which made absolutely no sense. They borrow so much ###### from The Division for Breakpoint, but they didn't even think to bring over the squad control in Far Cry 5. I don't really mind them making it a solo survival game when playing PvE, but GR is team based. That is what makes the game unique, but Breakpoint looks like a male version of Tomb Raider with COOP.  Why didn't they have proper squad control in Wildlands and then enhance it for Breakpoint? 

The game requires an internet connection to even play and I'm trying to figure where in the world did they get the idea that GR is best known for it's MP? Seriously, how can any dev of GR game not know that it is mostly a PvE game. The game is not worth buying until a deep discount because it focused on COOP and PvP. I hope people resist if there aren't any changes to the PvE side of things.   

[PercyS]

Do we at this point know for sure what the AI is going to look like in Breakpoint or is this all speculation?

Edited September 19, 2023 by PercyS

[Rocky]

4 minutes ago, PercyS said:

Do we at this point know for sure what the AI is going to look like in Breakpoint or is this all speculation?

We know there is no friendly AI in Breakpoint, this is fact announced by Ubi.

[Zebrahawk]

Annnd this is why I still mod/play Ghost Recon pretty much exclusively to get my FPS fix. It's really depressing looking forward and seeing an endless slog of mediocrity and misery ahead. Not to get off-topic, but I wish Ground Branch had gotten fleshed out more but despite the lofty goals, development seems to have petered out pretty hard awhile ago. Once the dummy-friendly modding tools are released it might be worth it for me though.

[Jack Wachter]

Not having AI squadmates doesn't bother me much (granted I'm not sure if I'm even going to get this game around launch time).

As for Ground Branch, they are working on an engine update and other content stuff. They're still moving along, but small team with limited time means that things will progress relatively slowly.

[Lightspeed]

Without going off topic, GB failed for me as soon as they said there would be no SP campaign or missions in the foreseeable future. There are hundreds of mp coop games, and GB is just another one, but I like to command my squad of AI.

So this is disappointing to say the least.

[Lightspeed]

By the way, xcom 2 is great!

[Zebrahawk]

4 hours ago, Lightspeed said:

Without going off topic, GB failed for me as soon as they said there would be no SP campaign or missions in the foreseeable future. There are hundreds of mp coop games, and GB is just another one, but I like to command my squad of AI.

So this is disappointing to say the least.

Yup, pretty much. I'll just stick to OGR or Arma 2 if there's no campaign (SP or co-op) pulling me in.

 

Anyway, back on topic, I like how the new GR installment looks so recklessly antithetical to the series that even Rocky, bastion of Ubi-optimism, seems upset about it. The future looks great B)