cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
This looks interesting.
So are A.I. Bosses going to be a thing now?
- Thread starter cyberheater
- Start date
Sentenza
Member
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.
P.S. Hell, for the sake of argument, let's stress that having the boss that always recognizes the weakest element in the party and nukes it first )aka "target the healer" in the given example) is something you could already do with just basic scripting.
That's not what developers do for a very clear reason... Because it isn't fun for any of the classes involved. The healer who can't basically do shit, the tank that feels like its entire presence is pointless, etc.
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.
P.S. Hell, for the sake of argument, let's stress that having the boss that always recognizes the weakest element in the party and nukes it first )aka "target the healer" in the given example) is something you could already do with just basic scripting.
That's not what developers do for a very clear reason... Because it isn't fun for any of the classes involved. The healer who can't basically do shit, the tank that feels like its entire presence is pointless, etc.
Last edited:
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
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.
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.
ReyBrujo
Member
Making bosses feel like a multiplayer game shouldn't be that bad though, and many think multiplayer games are more fun than single player ones where bosses are deterministic.
We use TDD for development, however our boss now uses ADD (AI-driven) and send us mails like "Chat GPT suggested using this library for that, can you check it out?"
Last edited:
metareferential
Member
Next-gen rubber banding.
Johnny Concrete
Member
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!
At that point AI will be playing our games.
They'll not just take our workstations, but also our playstations!
owandeseis
Member
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.
Same would go for other genres like racing.
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
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.
fart town usa
Banned
ZoukGalaxy
Member
Yes, your Boss at job is going to be replaced by AI Cats Bosses.
Good luck.
Sorry, I already punished myself, I leave the thread in peace right meow -->[ ]
Good luck.
Sorry, I already punished myself, I leave the thread in peace right meow -->[ ]
Last edited:
ReyBrujo
Member
I am thinking way ahead the path. Remember that there are already patents by Sony and Nintendo about adjusting the difficulty level in order to make the game fairer so you could in theory have an overconfident boss that can learn your techniques and best you but that not slay you because of their own overconfidence opening a window for you to improvise, or a boss that becomes harder the more time you spent with them as to force you kill them in fewer turns or a boss that gets nervous the closer to they are to victory, etc. AI is not necessarily only about beating the player but making the experience more realistic, making every battle feel unique.
And games like Street Fighter or Zelda 2 or so many others have "shadow bosses", bosses that are a copy of your own character... wouldn't it be cool if that character did the same combos and used the same techniques as you did during the game? One that forced you to think out of the box? Or a race like the Borg where knowledge is shared between members, imagine the thrill of fighting them knowing you can only use every technique five or less times before they become invulnerable to that one? How could you carry that effectively through a game without using learning techniques.
For the record, AI in other "sports" like chess, shogi and go have similar AI presentations where you have a program like AlphaZero using a neural network with a set of rules and simulating millions of matches against themselves to build a neural network which are able to beat the best masters in those games. It was kind of obvious that eventually it should reach (online) games. Sure, they are extremely hard to beat and probably only the best in the world together could but that begs the question, should every boss be winnable by anyone? Why some bosses could defeat everyone but the best of the best?
By the way, gotta love the low importance of damage dealers, I heard so many hearts broken when that appeared on screen :V
Last edited:
kruis
Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
Where's the fun in fighting an AI powered boss who'll become absolutely impossible to beat after a few failed attempts? The whole idea is that these bosses ARE beatable once the player gets familiar with a handful of predictable attack patterns. That's what makes beating a difficult boss ultimately rewarding.
FunkMiller
Banned
It'll be your dream right up to the point you realise you can't play the game at all, because the AI is smarter than you.
Last edited:
Halo is Back
Member
Nvm, my mistake. Didn't understand what this actually was.
Last edited:
Karak
Member
I love the idea but far in advance of this. Even the devs we recently had on, who happened to talk about encounters, were explaining things far in advance just with scripts. The issue of course with the scripts is interrupts and soft checking and forward assumptions(assume what a player MIGHT do). Which is interesting. But overall this is like "hey thats...something"
But you would need to really identify a reason.
But you would need to really identify a reason.
bender
What time is it?
Get back to work, Fry.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
It becomes a flaw when all the bosses attack using the same 5 abilities. "The boss is about to swing wide! We better role back or parry!"
Gee, where have we seen that one before?
Last edited:
Zuzu
Member
There might be some exciting potential with it. It may be able to offer fun gameplay variation and challenge if it's implemented well but for now it would be best to keep it as an optional difficulty level rather than bringing it in as a replacement for traditional AI and difficulty levels. I'd like to see some developers experiment with it.
Last edited:
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
Angry_Megalodon
Member
A few competent writers can do this infinitely better than any AI. Disco Elysium is a prime example.
This discussion about AI just misdirects attention from the actual issue: how bad writing and game design have become.
The AI-boss is also a terrible idea. It makes it random and reduces players' achievements to random luck.
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Nothing new here, fan-made Counter-Strike 1.x bots did this shit aeons ago, learning paths, choke points, where they're likely to die and how etc., lol, like they could never before program a boss to go after the healer (then overriden by your tank's aggro skill anyway), yeah right, so revolutionary 
Last edited:
a multicultural team of v
Member
A Mario game where the Goombas actively try to not get jumped on would be fucking awful. Could you imagine SMB where when you jump the enemies just move out of the way? The Mario series would have been dead in one game.
MayauMiao
Member
Maybe just use AI as assisting to help out with multiple branch storytelling, like adding more NPCs that will talk and act differently or some environment changes.
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Yeah, stealth action game AI is made dumb on purpose, I dunno how some people still miss that fact, like, even without "AI" as the current buzz word they could easily already make it so they more "realistically" see/hear/react and it'd be impossible to get past like 1-2 already aware of your coming guards stationed in a conveniently protected spot (before you have your hands on massively overpowered weapons that would destroy their whole building). The tricky bit is making it dumb and fun, like MGS from early on added elaborate routines and reactions and interactions allowing you to do all kinds of shit that wouldn't work in real life but are fun vs "serious" games like Ghost Recon or Rainbow Six that previously had AI either idle or insta kill you around a corner/across a yard, maybe with handicaps like it takes x ms to react after they see you or miss a % of shots to make it viable.
Well, that goes for more than stealth action games, even in a racing game they could easily make it so the AI just laps like the best drivers in the world leaving the majority of folks to dust with essentially perfect acceleration/braking and racing line and the only tricky bits making them react better to obstructions normally not on the track, ie random player crashes in the middle of the road or a player that keeps bumping them when in real racing you drive safely instead so as to not damage your car/cause accidents. The realistic reaction to that would be to stop the race and arrest the player, lol.
Last edited:
nikolino840
Member
Is like playing chess/go with computers that only high skill players and pro could playing against
drotahorror
Member
Is that fuckin Sseth narrating?
IAmRei
Member
1. you might never play Mario Kart 8D
2. There is a genre callled roguelike and old style gamer hate it
3. Your dream will makes the game is not fun for some
The Cockatrice
Banned
For once I'm not opposed to having better AI in games because lets be real, that shit has not been the focus for devs since FEAR? RAGE? Fuck knows. In certain games like From that would be a big no because in those games learning the attack paterns is part of the getting gud, if the AI always is different it'll make it tedious. In FPS games tho? Fuck yeah!
March Climber
Member
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.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
One benefit would be the difficulty slider in a game. On easy mode the enemies would be slower and stupid. On ultra mode they could be as smart and fast.
Also the game could auto adapt to how the player is doing.
Also the game could auto adapt to how the player is doing.
Last edited:
CamHostage
Member
Yeah, they're basically taking the "game" out of gameplay.
Games have rules, for reasons. It's what's fun about games, that you agree to the rules and then you play to the best of your abilities to maximize results from your play under those ruled conditions.
What this is doing is interesting and could be enjoyable, but the point of playing a game is mastery of mechanics and strategy. Opponents who break the rules aren't better opponents. (Yes, this opponent rewrites the rules on the fly, which again is interesting and could ultimately lead to a really cool interactive experience, but player skill is honed around mastering the rules, not playing to the reality of the scene.) Tight gameplay and masterful skill development is based on games being fair and accurate to the rules. We're not fighting actual dragons here, we're playing a videogame.
I see this all the time, the "wouldn't it be cool if...?" about if games weren't so "videogamey" or restrictive, and I'm apt to try those interactive experiences too, but fun in games is by design.
Yep, there's that too. You don't need AI to make a boss annoying and "unfair". It's cool to be surprised, especially in repeat play to avoid stagnation, but again, game rules are what make games games We have decades of game combat design based on expectation that the enemy is placed there to be defeated. It becomes something else if the enemy is given more "will to survive" than the player has means to defeat it.
Again, cool ideas to mix it up or provide a more "lifelike" experience (although there's nothing lifelike about combat played with buttons and mouse strokes, except I guess drone warfare,) but the AI tends to need to be trained anyway to be "dumb" no matter how much it learns. Gran Turismo's Sofy could run laps around you all day if it really wanted to, but it'd be no fun to play against a machine which has literally learned over time absolute perfection on every corner of the track.
Last edited:
CamHostage
Member
...Well-designed games.
"The quarterback is about to drop back to pass! We better blitz or send coverage down on those receivers!"
Gee, where have we seen that one before?
Last edited:
hyperbertha
Member
I think there can be a balance. Obviously we don't want from game bosses get any harder. But most aaa games out there could use a major boost in intelligence. Both normal enemy and boss ai is so incompetent it's a snoozefest
Sakura
Member
I think depending on the game it could be interesting. Obviously something like a souls game you probably don't want it, but if you are trying to make a game in a dynamic world it might be fun. Imagine a goblin encampment in a world that scouts and learns which villages are undefended, and when. Or maybe word gets around the world about your character's build/play style/etc and they try to put strategies in motion to deal with it.
Or maybe it could be useful in one of those RPGs where the AI controls the non-protag party members, and it adjusts to your play style throughout the game making it feel more alive.
Not that I actually expect any devs to do any of that stuff.
Or maybe it could be useful in one of those RPGs where the AI controls the non-protag party members, and it adjusts to your play style throughout the game making it feel more alive.
Not that I actually expect any devs to do any of that stuff.
hyperbertha
Member
But isn't adaptation to newer scenarios also a skill to be challenged? I don't think we want all encounters to be fully predictable and 'masterable'. There needs to be a balance. Like 80 percent rules and 20 percent unpredictability.
CamHostage
Member
Sure, but it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the craft of game design to point at recognizable patterns and familiar timing as the flaw which ruins games. Bad use of patterns and timing is bad. Good use of patterns and timing is great!
This ability for AI to adapt gameplay on the fly for players will ultimately have many benefits and could ultimately be very cool, but then again, pretty much all of what's shown here can be done already by game developers, and they just don't go down that route because it tends to sounds better in concept than it actually plays. Maybe this will lead to different paths once it's been explored enough, but if the fundamental design of its core patterns isn't fun enough without introducing ways for the boss to break out of the script, you don't have a good game and the boss will not learn to make it better.
GymWolf
Gold Member
If used right this could help giving every game infinite enemy variety, if not mechanically, at least visually.
Stupid example, tsushima has very low enemy variety, but you could have at least mongols that all look different, so at least it would not look like you are fighting an army of fucking clones, give the ai the guide line that they have to be human, mongol race and the materials\colors of the armour and then let the ai make all the different models even if they move the same.
Stupid example, tsushima has very low enemy variety, but you could have at least mongols that all look different, so at least it would not look like you are fighting an army of fucking clones, give the ai the guide line that they have to be human, mongol race and the materials\colors of the armour and then let the ai make all the different models even if they move the same.
Wildebeest
Member
In MMO the fact that bosses use predictable patterns makes the demands on the players scale to ridiculously high levels as groups of people have to follow synchronised routines of where exactly to stand and what to do at different times. If the boss is just going to attack optimally at all times, then all you have is a DPS race.
Guardian Monkey
Member
It would be awesome for dialogue during fights. Free flow speaking adaptations would always be unique.