Casual Gamer said:
We aren't far past them though, I wish we were, but the problem he mentioned is unique to all non-scripted games, not unique to Bethesda's games. There's no easy way to make videogame characters organically behave like human beings in an environment with so many variables. There will be, eventually, I assume.
Never played gothic, but I'd eat my hat if I couldn't confound any modern AI without really trying.
Your obviously not even trying while posting on a forum.
Or.
You've never played a game beyond Oblivion.
Which is entirely possible, and perhaps why you defend it so much, because you have no other experience and are therefore not particularly able to judge it on it's quality. You simply have no point of reference and assume therefore that's it's a good quality product.
I very much doubt creating effective AI is easy, in fact I bet it's quite hard to do, but that doesn't mean that some people don't actually apply themselves and get hard things done in order to make quality games.
Just not people at Bethesda.
There are plenty of great AIs out there, sometimes so good sequels based on similar engines are intentionally dumbed down to make the games easier because some whiner's cried top loud they couldn't win as easily as they liked.
I am put in mind particularly of Total War: Shogun which had a damn fine strategic AI based largely on old Sun Tzu cause and effect and was quite fun to oppose at times. An AI significantly dumber in all following Total War games, despite the improvements in graphics, units, and capabilities all the games play in easy mode no matter the difficulty when compared to old Shogun.
Christ man they have been writing Chess routines to challenge grandmasters since before you were likely born so whining about how hard AI is to master to give Beth an out for crappy design is pathetic.
Hell I'm military trained and I quite appreciated the Combat AI in the Original FEAR, although the plot broke down into supidity halfway through and the expansions were fit for little more than to line a dumpster the basic AI of fighting units was outstanding. They'd make coordinated pushes, flanking maneuvers, envelopements, and even attempt to flush you from cover if you took it. I'm not a big shooter fan but I found the AI amusing and challenging, at least the human AI, everythign else was boring.
The mobs didn't seem to run into or through walls like they do in Fallout 3 clips either which is just more the same from Oblivious.
Or should we only expect halfway decent AI from Shooters? Hell isn't Fallout suppossed to be at least half shooter for the console crowd it's intended for?
Mass Effect is largely RPG and extremely well done in my view, like damn near everything from Bioware - the last company I truly trust to deliver me a quality product anymore without any sort of investigation or hanging over their shoulder, and the AI there is far and away brighter than any Beth has ever managed. They even manage to implement a somewhat innovative system that Beth takes blundering stabs at with VATS and it works. You pause to cue up special abilities and your left to aim on your own.
I could probably go back as much as 20 years and pull out a hell of a lot better AI models than Beth produces, because it's not a new science in gaming despite what you think, it's just that Beth and many others are just plain lazy these days. They're going to get paid on hype anyway so why really devote the time to do something really well anymore when you don't have to? When you can throw all your resources into relatively pretty graphics and know you're going to make a profitl whether you bother to write an original story or just rehash one or two you already have in front of you and not even bother testing voice actors over who you already have on retainer then why wouldn't you?
jonnymstgt said:
I personally don't see it. I simply don't see a game out there that is giving me this perfect game that makes me don some helmet and turn off all the lights as I play. Not that I would want that but it does tell you a lot about the difference between those that play games and those that make games.
You don't see it because you're not even looking.
You like so many others don't really expect that kind of devotion to so many aspects of a game to truly pull you into it, so who's really going to fund something to give it to you?
You want it?
Look back to when some did.
Find System Shock 2 for one, good place to start.
I was a fully grown combat experienced Marine and I caught myself looking over my shoulder sometimes while playing that game in the dark. I don't know if I was so enraptured I really thought a zombie was creeping up on me or not but I was damn drawn into that game and I never played the first in the series. I was so drawn into that game it gave me physical reactions in response the fact that I would reflexively make sure I was safe outside of the game as well as in it.
THAT is quality in a game.
Oh yeah, and I never patched it, go figure.
, but when i say Whiff that means trying it out(as in picking up final version and playing it) , Plenty of things look bad or good, but when you actually experience it for yourself it plays out the exact opposite. I mean you can have your opinions, but they aren't worth crap until you have hard evidence after actually having played it. I'm not saying it's gonna be a great game, or a great FALLOUT game atleast, I'm saying play before you judge. 
