So are A.I. Bosses going to be a thing now?

Thinking on it, this has done very interesting potential.

Far more so than the A.I. companion shit in pubg. That seems to early doors for mainstream.
 
March Climber said:
You guys are immediately going to 'It's going to be ultra difficult' because you're probably thinking of F.E.A.R. or something, but O owandeseis is describing something much more complicated than that.

I've brought this up before on this forum, but something building on the foundation of Virtua Fighter 4's quest mode would be where I could see A.I. enemies in the future, each with their own individual flaws and strengths, but nothing to the point of unbeatable or aimbot(like old school bots).

Honestly I have been thinking about this idea since as old as Perfect Dark's multiplayer, because you could have bots in that game which acted upon certain conditions (like revenge-bot or nade-bot) and they would all interact with each other during a match in such a chaotic yet extremely functional and fun way, that came close to mimicking an actual match with real people and their randomness.
Click to expand...
Counter-Strike RealBot I mentioned earlier did this too, you could set different personalities and skill levels for the bots so they'd prefer certain gear or tactics on top of the machine learning of the map routes and where they die to be careful or avoid altogether etc.

Probably far from the only one to do this either, I just remember messing around with it like aeons ago.

Also default UT2004 bots were pretty good and fun, I wasn't much into arena FPS but got into it for a period back then and liked practicing my DM skills with bots and especially duels in higher difficulties 1 on 1 in small maps etc.

Of course you could make them godlike also if you were that good.
 
Last edited:
March Climber said:
You guys are immediately going to 'It's going to be ultra difficult' because you're probably thinking of F.E.A.R. or something, but O owandeseis is describing something much more complicated than that.

I've brought this up before on this forum, but something building on the foundation of Virtua Fighter 4's quest mode would be where I could see A.I. enemies in the future, each with their own individual flaws and strengths, but nothing to the point of unbeatable or aimbot(like old school bots).

Honestly I have been thinking about this idea since as old as Perfect Dark's multiplayer, because you could have bots in that game which acted upon certain conditions (like revenge-bot or nade-bot) and they would all interact with each other during a match in such a chaotic yet extremely functional and fun way, that came close to mimicking an actual match with real people and their randomness.
Click to expand...
Yep, also creating enemies so good that you have no chance against them doesn't require any advanced AI, that exists already, just make them detect you quick and have an aimbot, several games do stuff like this already.

What i want is an AI that copies different human patterns for combat, so each enemy is unpredictable, this is what makes multiplayer combat games so much better than single player ones.

Stalker and Dayz just to name a couple "survivals", after a couple hours you know how's the enemies going to react in the first one and which routes they'll take to try to kill you, while each encounter in Dayz, or in ARMA game etc is completely different.

TLOU and Stalker are a couple games famous for their combat, i liked it, but yes, it's extremely predictable after some time and you can see the same patterns so easily, if AI could help change that, it'd be a revolution for me at least.

Same goes for racing games, i prefer playing offline chilling, but once you are in a race, in Formula 1 for example which has the best AI in a racing game IMO, it's still too boring compared to multiplayer (there are some kamikazes here, but i haven't found many tbh)
 
owandeseis said:
Yep, also creating enemies so good that you have no chance against them doesn't require any advanced AI, that exists already, just make them detect you quick and have an aimbot, several games do stuff like this already.

What i want is an AI that copies different human patterns for combat, so each enemy is unpredictable, this is what makes multiplayer combat games so much better than single player ones.

Stalker and Dayz just to name a couple "survivals", after a couple hours you know how's the enemies going to react in the first one and which routes they'll take to try to kill you, while each encounter in Dayz, or in ARMA game etc is completely different.

TLOU and Stalker are a couple games famous for their combat, i liked it, but yes, it's extremely predictable after some time and you can see the same patterns so easily, if AI could help change that, it'd be a revolution for me at least.

Same goes for racing games, i prefer playing offline chilling, but once you are in a race, in Formula 1 for example which has the best AI in a racing game IMO, it's still too boring compared to multiplayer (there are some kamikazes here, but i haven't found many tbh)
Click to expand...
Scripted single player enemies have different priorities and fun factor than multiplayer, good multiplayer mode bots already do a lot of what you want so that know how could of course be applied to campaigns, but that's not what makes good single player game AI and it's not what most want.

And racing games already exist which take online player behaviours and put them in single player modes too. I think Real Racing 3 was among the first I saw (2013 and hated it after RR2 but yeah, some like it I guess, more games do it nowadays).

Not that it's desirable to have kamikazes when mimicking sports with relatively rare accidents, if you want crazy action don't play racing sims/simcades.
 
Last edited:
I never beat this son of a bitch.

81b4faa5-5f73-4ff0-9a26-e9413eeadec6.jpg
 
The disconnect between NVIDIA and gamers is matched only by the GPU technology to be affordable to play them in the first place. They should've just stuck with GPU features instead of finding ways to "replace" game developers.
 
AI controlled NPC's will be the equvilant to procedurally generated environments. Until someone improves both in a way that makes it good it'll be flat ass.
 
Good learning AI for enemies in games would be the equivalent of those memes where stormtroopers actually have good aim and the good guys in Star Wars get shot before boarding the Falcon.
Just imagine the latest Indiana Jones game with good AI. You couldn't even get to the meeting with your first NPC ally.
 
I don't think it would be a good thing to implement everywhere, but the idea of a boss learning and improving is quite cool for say an MMO. Would force guilds to always stay on their toes and not just repeat a raid recipe to farm items.

I don't want this in a From Software Souls game though. Imagine if any enemies/boss learned from the hundreds of thousands of deaths of all players to learn...
Maybe a boss rush toggle for those games yes, but not as a baseline.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, an ai boss doesn't need to be optimised towards beating the player. It could be optimised to make the battle the most engaging, thrilling or fun, where it can take actions that will result in memorable moments.
 
Is the VoiceOver AI, because it's bad

I mean, ranking which player to hit first seems like something achievable decades ago and not needing a modern AI?
 
Last edited:
owandeseis said:
Fuck bosses, imagine a shooter like TLOU, STALKER 2, Killzone, Far Cry, whatever, where each enemy has a different AI with different patterns? That's my dream for single player games.

Same would go for other genres like racing.
Click to expand...
I was hoping this was the approach the Xbox One could have used with their Azure Cloud integration, but it never materialised.
 
Yes, some day we will all be working in the mines for our robot overlords... Wait, was that not what you meant?
 
Doesn't matter if it's A.I. attacks and actions or a set amount of presets, in the end the player has to have the ability to beat the boss, or they stop playing the game.
 
Drew1440 said:
I was hoping this was the approach the Xbox One could have used with their Azure Cloud integration, but it never materialised.
Click to expand...

Or with Stadia! I was thinking we would get huge persistent worlds and cities, where everybody had for example an actual home in the world instead of instances.

But yeah cloud gaming was is only about streaming and backing up saves...
 
Men_in_Boxes said:
Game invented in 1869 is peak game design and we shouldn't progress or improve.
Click to expand...
so many games now take a lot of game design and ideas from sports, so why complain at me and not the general gaming industry? The folks making these games seem to agree with me more than you

You seem to know so much better than the entire gaming industry so why not hop on this tech and make the most revolutionary AI boss ever, Miyamoto 2.0?
 
I feel like you give the Boss an "intelligent" AI that problem solves to change patterns or randomness and behavior. But then you just neurter it becausae you need to make the boss beatable.

So you have to program the AI to act like whatever creature you want which means it is dumber than the player. You sort of end up with the same problem as before AI.
 
Last edited:
chakadave said:
I feel like you give the Boss an "intelligent" AI that problem solves to change patterns or randomness and behavior. But then you just neurter it becausae you need to make the boss beatable.

So you have to program the AI to act like whatever animal you want. You sort of end up with the same problem as before AI.
Click to expand...
make the boss a player character controlled by AI and give them a set of 2-5 moves they can use throughout the fight
they unlock more as the health is depleted, so they start off with 3 attacks, but by 25% health they get an overpowered 4th attack

the randomness of an AI but with the predictability of a scripted moveset. Like an online player. Problem solved.
 
Personally, if this AI tech can work offline maybe it might be a great concept. As it is though this just doesn't sound all that efficient- imagine having to be connected to the internet just for your bosses to function
 
64bitmodels said:
so many games now take a lot of game design and ideas from sports, so why complain at me and not the general gaming industry? The folks making these games seem to agree with me more than you

You seem to know so much better than the entire gaming industry so why not hop on this tech and make the most revolutionary AI boss ever, Miyamoto 2.0?
Click to expand...
I have no issue with McDonalds selling their crappy fast food. I'll eat McDonalds once every few years. I'm just saying there's vastly better food out there.
 
When I think of examples of where AI in games could be incredibly helpful, what comes to mind is games that rely so heavily on procedurally generated content (i.e. Bannerlords, Battle Brothers. Dwarf Fortress, etc).
Imagine a Mount & Blade where AI would help generate a population of lords and warchiefs that can have distinctive personalities, less repetitive and predictable dialogue patterns, more consistent behavior.

I'd also love to see more games where different types of enemies have different behaviors (i.e. humanoids, monsters and animals should never "aggro" and engage the players in the same way).

Conversely I don't dream of being crushed in combat by, say, the AI equivalent of a "Let Me Solo Her", a routine that through a million repetitions learns how to curb-stomp me out of its sheer inhuman levels of skill, even when controlling a level 1 naked NPC with a little parry shield, because it will never fail its timing once.
I KNOW that's not a fight humans are going to win on the long run.

This concept that "better AI in games" should equate to "more challenging enemies" is faulty to begin with.
You can already have enemies that are challenging to the point of complete unfairness without a single hint of modern AI tech being involved and just the most basic scripting. For example in most FPS bots are usually programmed to have some degree of DELAYED reaction to spotting the player in the their line of sight, otherwise they'd be almost unbeatable. We don't do it because it's just not fun.

What the players ACTUALLY want when they ask for "better AI" is a more human-like and organic behavior. For example in an FPS what's human like is the "ability" to make WRONG (but reasonable) assumptions about the player's position when they have no visual contact... and consequently to be mislead when they are attempting to surround him, which can lead to greatly enjoyable moments.
 
I don't like that the boss learns form previous fights... since every game works around the player learning and trying to make a perfect run... is like the lives and continues let us build our luck... so in the eyes of the enemies we are skilled lucked guys that can read their movements since all they remember is we beating them first try....

Another thing is recurrent bosses that doesn't die... that learn how they lost the fight
 
Last edited:
mdkirby said:
To be fair, an ai boss doesn't need to be optimised towards beating the player. It could be optimised to make the battle the most engaging, thrilling or fun, where it can take actions that will result in memorable moments.
Click to expand...

That's true. It could learn not only how to outsmart opponents, but how to entertain them as well.

So it could do that annoying thing where it jumps at the debuffer first to ruin the strategy, but then when it does that, it could then change its own strategy to give you/your team a chance. So maybe it gives a little extra time to its weakpoint-heavy fighting moves or maybe it does more taunts than usual or just just changes up the timing enough that players who don't panic aren't in a world of shit when their battleplan goes up in flames.
 
Danny Dudekisser said:
There are huge, fundamental differences between how single-player and multiplayer games tend to be designed, so I don't think MP is particularly meaningful as a comparison here. With single-player games, you don't want the difficulty to be "fair" in the way that MP games are. It just isn't fun that way. The player needs to have an advantage, however counterintuitive that might seem.
Click to expand...

I remember when Punch-Out was out, and people would like it but say, "Man, it sucks that you can't move around the ring or throw an uppercut whenever you want or not get all tired out from just regular punching. Future boxing games will be so much more realistic than this!" And now, 40 years later, Punch-Out is still one of the best boxing games ever (...partly because it's secretly not exactly a boxing game, it's a puzzle-action game of timing and rhythm.) The game identified its take on the sport, it created its own defined rules, and it didn't throw in any aspect of reality which wouldn't add to the fun and challenge. We have VR boxing games now with real punch motions and body tracking around the ring and near-photorealistic opponents, and yet it's still hard to find one as fun to play as good old Punch-Out.

Gameplay is king. Reality is only useful if it can be bent to serve.
 
N30RYU said:
I don't like that the boss learns form previous fights... since every game works around the player learning and trying to make a perfect run... is like the lives and continues let us build our luck... so in the eyes of the enemies we are skilled lucked guys that can read their movements since all they remember is we beating them first try....
Click to expand...

I mean, of course this could be cool, especially for competitive games (where it already is being used) to simulate human opponents where players don't want to go online, but it would change what we know of as "gameplay", for better or worse.

You know what this is kind of like? Open-world games changing everything.

"You know what would be cool is if I could go anywhere I want in this whole city at any time and do whatever I want!" Yes, of course that would be cool, but what does that do to game design? It takes the bones of linear structure out of the play experience and disperses the ground-up bones everywhere on the map. It abandons the directed narrative flow in order to allow players to string together their own timing and flow of story (which usually is accomplished by a string of starts and stops of cutscenes and context points at the checkpoints on the map.) And it throws out the arena of a planned-out combat scenario (although many open-world games still funnel big fights into literal canyons or locked rooms because it's just hard to do it any other way) in order to let encounters play out wherever the player takes the fight.

Not only is it incredibly hard to design gameplay when all the rules are thrown out like this (even if new rules eventually get written to accommodate,) but the paradigm changes when something so concept-expansive comes along. Some games can do this really well, and some tech advancements have been added over the years to allow enemy AI to adapt as well as the player does as the battlefield moves about the map. Some games and genres of games, however, don't make it so well. Yet gamers (and game producers) keep thinking that what's cool about open-world games is the "next-gen way" to do game design, so they keep trying to fit the square peg into the round hole. And meanwhile gamers who actually like tightly-designed games with well-written rules and smartly structured narrative get left cold because all their favorite franchises must adapt or die to the new way games are made to play.

Yes, of course it's cool, but be careful what you wish for...

 
Last edited:
Johnny Concrete said:
At some point you'll need AI driven companions to be able to beat the AI driven bosses.
At that point AI will be playing our games.

They'll not just take our workstations, but also our playstations! 😞
Click to expand...
You won't really need ai companions, but the ones peddling it will tell you how much easier and confortable it would be to have them. Just like irl.

I can stand an ai taking my job, but it will never take my fun
Who's joining the menpile ??

FavQHvz.png
 
It remains to be seen how this will turn out, but I like the idea of a boss so hard that most players can't beat and only some truly skilled managed to do it. The idea that as time goes on the boss reacts better and predicts better means everytime you fight it, you have to think on a new strategy is really interesting. Mmo boss get really boring after beating him once, the idea he will do anything new everytime I come up to him is really intriguing. But it's also important that the first time I fight him, he is on a basic level of intelligence, and only evolves when I try something new.
 
justiceiro said:
It remains to be seen how this will turn out, but I like the idea of a boss so hard that most players can't beat and only some truly skilled managed to do it.
Click to expand...
You don't need jacket's "AI" for that, more to it it's much easier to make unbeatable, unfair boss than balanced one.
 
Thief1987 said:
You don't need jacket's "AI" for that, more to it it's much easier to make unbeatable, unfair boss than balanced one.
Click to expand...
Why so many of you are so against this concept? You didn't even played but are so certain about how unconvincing this is.

This is a nft web3 game, is highly unlikely you will ever see on the games you usually play in case this fails, so stop the overreacting. Some boss are not for you to beat, deal with it.
 
CamHostage said:
I remember when Punch-Out was out, and people would like it but say, "Man, it sucks that you can't move around the ring or throw an uppercut whenever you want or not get all tired out from just regular punching. Future boxing games will be so much more realistic than this!" And now, 40 years later, Punch-Out is still one of the best boxing games ever (...partly because it's secretly not exactly a boxing game, it's a puzzle-action game of timing and rhythm.) The game identified its take on the sport, it created its own defined rules, and it didn't throw in any aspect of reality which wouldn't add to the fun and challenge. We have VR boxing games now with real punch motions and body tracking around the ring and near-photorealistic opponents, and yet it's still hard to find one as fun to play as good old Punch-Out.

Gameplay is king. Reality is only useful if it can be bent to serve.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's a really good example.
 
Danny Dudekisser said:
This demo was clearly designed by someone who has never considered what makes a video game fun. Why are they painting things like "being able to anticipate a boss attack" and "learning how to properly approach encounters" as a bad thing? THAT IS THE FUN. Of course you want some variability in there, but at it's core, being able to readily understand the rules of the game and the rules that you and the enemies must follow is what allows it to be fun.

Do you know what they call it when you make a game the way they're describing it here? Cheap. Frustrating. Bullshit. They're selling anti-fun.
Click to expand...
They aren't gamers.
 
Sentenza said:
I doubt it.
It's interesting as a tech for what it could lead to under better uses and implementations, but the idea that a game boss needs to be "constantly learning and adapting to the player" is bullshit and a serious misunderstanding of why they are designed the way they are.

"Bu-but the way it is now, fighting a PVE boss is basically just pattern recognition".
Yeah, pattern recognition, learning and mastery is the entire point, not a flaw.
Click to expand...
I 100% agree with this, the fun bosses is interesting attack pattern and mechanics behind it.

Overly smart A.I. will just make the boss more frustrating rather than fun to fight.

This even true with A.I. party members, I don't want them to be too smart that they can beat the boss for me, what's fun in that?
 
Last edited:
Given the ongoing trend of making games easier and more accessible, I don't see something like this becoming the norm. Not in the AAA space, at least.

I doubt developers making harder games will be all that excited either. Balancing a boss is already a pain in the ass when you have full control over their abilities and behavior, introducing an additional factor that's hard to plan for just makes it worse.
 
Last edited:
Sentenza said:
I doubt it.
It's interesting as a tech for what it could lead to under better uses and implementations, but the idea that a game boss needs to be "constantly learning and adapting to the player" is bullshit and a serious misunderstanding of why they are designed the way they are.

"Bu-but the way it is now, fighting a PVE boss is basically just pattern recognition".
Yeah, pattern recognition, learning and mastery is the entire point, not a flaw.
Click to expand...
Meh, i dont know if AI is the way but i'd rather have boss fights be more reactive. I want to react to what the boss is doing, not react to what he is gonna do in 3 seconds. Especially in games that are meant to be replayed over and over again.
 
I'd say in something like Left 4 Dead which had the "director" this could add some unique situations but I don't know if gamers will be able to tell the difference.
 
I'd rather ai used in other ways such as rpg or open world games. Really make it feel immersive and interactive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Next Generation is going to be really strange because of A.I
2
65
4K
SportsFan581 replied
Guess the old computer game cover, using A.I
2
52
2K
Sakura replied
  • Poll
Are you going to buy The Duskbloods?
2
73
1K
SlimySnake replied
The Last of Us Ellie A.I.
10
1K
adamsapple replied
  • Locked
I think both are going to be fantastic characters
31
1K
Outlier replied
Top Bottom