[BloodEagle]

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/04/22/x-coms-creator-julian-gollop-on-modern-blockbuster-game-development-overdesigned-uninteractive-paper-thin-illusions/

In a genial interview, strategy-game elder statesman and creator of the original X-COM Julian Gollop talked to us about his imagined alternate history of gaming, his preference for procedural systems, and how he feels modern games have abandoned the promise of advanced AI in favour of shinier visuals and reward mechanics designed to massage players’ egos.

It's way too short, but it's nice to hear the opinions of someone who's been involved in some of the more interesting parts of the industry.

[An4ximandros]

 I agree with the sentiment that games lack "soul" today. Important things (Such as AI and gameplay being at the forefront) are ignored in favor of cheap drug graphic based games as the natural result of the oppressive and destructive capitalization of gaming. Which is why we should improve the FSO AI

[Lorric]

I agree with the sentiment that games lack "soul" today. Important things (Such as AI and gameplay being at the forefront) are ignored in favor of cheap drug graphic based games as the natural result of the oppressive and destructive capitalization of gaming. Which is why we should improve the FSO AI

Exactly, and I hate it. Urrrrgggghhhhh!!! 

 

AI has regressed badly. When's the last time you saw anything praised for it's AI? Mainstreaming strips games of soul and personality.

[Phantom Hoover]

Er... how is AI any worse than it was in the '90s?

[General Battuta]

Er... how is AI any worse than it was in the '90s?

FEAR had the best AI, and it was super simple and elegant.

[Suongadon]

Er... how is AI any worse than it was in the '90s?

FEAR had the best AI, and it was super simple and elegant.

Wasn't it just nothing-special code propped up by excellent level design and enemy-announced scripted ambushes/'reinforcements'?

...abandoned the promise of advanced AI

What promise? I remember 90s gaming being just as focused on bigger, better, more shiny graphics as it is now.

[General Battuta]

The code was special in that it did precisely what it was supposed to do in concert with the audio and level design. Game AI is nothing like 'real' software AI; it's a set of parlor tricks to provide the illusion of intelligence and the ability to surprise and challenge the player. FEAR worked so well because it built a set of apparently intelligent NPC actions out of a few very efficient, basic behaviors supported by other aspects of the design.

They immediately ****ed it up for the dreadful sequel.

[Swifty]

FEAR's AI was interesting in that it had a goals oriented approach to performing the next action. It would determine what it needed to do then decide on a series of individual actions that would achieve it.

http://web.media.mit.edu/~jorkin/gdc2006_orkin_jeff_fear.pdf

[BloodEagle]

I'm pretty sure that the point he was trying to make was that almost no one invests in (Game) AI when making games nowadays; as opposed to back then, when AI was definitely improving over time.

Of course, that could have more to do with Mechanics Regression and / or Reinventing The Wheel than any particular distaste for spending more resources on AI.

[Dark RevenantX]

Galactic Civilizations II had some impressive AI.  Half-Life 2: Episode 2 had some really solid AI as well.  XCOM: Enemy Unknown's AI is fairly competent as well.

Can't really think of any others that haven't been mentioned.

[MatthTheGeek]

The problem is not that developers/producers (put the blame on who you wish) put the importance on shiner graphics as opposed to more in depth AI and gameplay.

The problem is that it's what the masses of consumers demand.

As long as they demand it, they'll keep making more. Consumers are the problem. And I don't think there is a solution to this problem.

[The E]

This is going to be a "HURR DURR Old games were so much harder new games are for noobs" thing, isn't it.

EDIT:

The thing is, I don't really think we need "better" AI. It is trivially easy to set up AI code so that it will give players an unbeatable challenge (Also known as "Cheating in the AIs favour"). What we need is more "natural" AI. The problem is that as graphics and sound and storytelling have advanced to make games much more real, the deficiencies of the AI become that much clearer. In an environment where we can expect things to feel real, moments where an AI opponent will do something clearly nonsensical (Like, say, storming in front of the player's gun barrel) will stick out like a sore thumb.

Of course, once you try to solve this problem, you'll get to another problem, namely "How do I make this a fun game again, now that the AI can kick a given human's ass pretty much all the time". Sometimes (See XCOM), that sort of thing is expected and taken into account by the fanbase. But elsewhere? I am not so sure if "Make games hard again" is really a good thing to do.

[MatthTheGeek]

More in depth gameplay != harder

[Dragon]

Consumers are the problem. And I don't think there is a solution to this problem.

In this case, all the hope is in indie game devs, who are "doing it for the art" not to make big bucks out of it. These days, that's where you get epic stories, memorable characters and unique gameplay. While most of the best games I know are old classics, I've also played a quite a few indie games that are up to the old standards (and what I consider my favorite series, ArmA, is actually getting better with each subsequent installment). My biggest complaint about many recent games is multiplayer focus. I'd rather have a good story, good AI and solid SP gameplay than MP balance. Making the game primarily focused on multi means the devs can weasel out of developing AI and writing a good story, and those (especially the latter) is what I'm looking for in a game.
Also, I really hate all those premiums and all that's designed to milk the player out of his money. They're there, because most people fall for it, but I prefer to pay for the game once. I only get DLCs if they actually add to the story.[/rant]

More in depth gameplay != harder

Pretty much true. Though in many cases, more in depth gameplay means the game may be easy to get into, but harder to master. Few games managed to pull off complex gameplay with a completely smooth learning curve. Also, since unlike in SP, in MP you get thrown into the game without much preparation, and many people play games for that, gameplay depth can put people off or never be experienced (if mostly confined to SP).

[Spoon]

Well I know from working at Ubisoft they have hundreds upon hundreds working on Assassin’s Creed – more than 400. Assassin’s Creed III is absolute bare minimum 600 people, probably, were working on it for most of the time worldwide across many studios.”

This makes me feel pretty good at the stuff we produce here at HLP with the numbers we have.

[Phantom Hoover]

More in depth gameplay != harder

It's also not equal to complex, either, which is another common mistake. The simplest games can have an incredible wealth of strategy and depth, and the most complex can easily just collapse to a single strategy which completely dominates the metagame.

[Lorric]

For me it's not about making games harder, ideal AI is human-like AI. AI that will match and surprise you, not AI that has the intellect of a chessmaster, instant reflexes and perfect attacks.

Though I do like a hardcore type difficulty to be included in a game, just so the limits can be taken off the AI.

Someone mentioned Galactic Civilisations II, I remember that being praised for it's AI myself now. I have the game, but I've never been able to get into it to find out, but I remember reading some big articles on the game's AI, which is what made me buy it in the first place.

Some of today's game AI's seem either so dumb that they can barely even pose a threat to you at all, or have no more complexity to them than to simply charge at you. Or shoot at you when you come into range and not do anything else. Just dumbed down or underdeveloped so much. Play something like Streets of Rage 2 and crank the difficulty up on that and the enemy AI is pretty damn good and challenging. That game has surprised me on more than one occasion after playing some more modern game with inferior AI.

AI doesn't need to be complex, people praise the AI of the pacman ghosts a lot, but when it comes down to it, it's very simple, giving an illusion of intelligence. If you are under an illusion, it's just as effective as a complex AI. It makes you feel the same way about the in-game AI.

[Phantom Hoover]

TbH, the AI in the  article you're probably thinking of was pretty much an accidental parlour trick. The devs have said that they never programmed anything capable of that sort of high-level inference; it was all being projected onto the AI behaviour by the author.

[karajorma]

I guess I'm showing my age in that when I hear the name Julian Gollop, I think of Rebelstar Raiders, Laser Squad and Lords of Chaos.

[Lorric]

TbH, the AI in the  article you're probably thinking of was pretty much an accidental parlour trick. The devs have said that they never programmed anything capable of that sort of high-level inference; it was all being projected onto the AI behaviour by the author.

I have read that one before, but not before I got the game, as the expansion wasn't out.