Why is AI so bad in many games?

[Custard Donut (In Space)]

I was thinking about how amazing graphics have gotten for games nowadays yet the AI for many triple-A titles is still pretty poor, i'm not going to name any names because i don't want this conversation to be about which companies are the worst, i believe it's an industry-wide problem, but i'm very curious as to why so little progress seems to have been made in this area.

Thankfully Kerbal has no need for AI, as of yet at least, and i'm very curious to see what sort of AI it may have one day, i think the games that suffer the most from a bad AI are strategy games, yet they are among some of the worst for this, or perhaps you disagree with me completely! I'd very much like to know your opinion.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Custard Donut (In Space)

[Kerbface]

Poor programming? Rushed schedules?

[Rage097]

Activision has a policy that say WE MUST RELEASE A SEQUEL EVERY TWO MONTHS AND MILK THE FRANCHISE TO DEATH! THEN WE TURN THE MILK INTO BUTTER! THEN WE TURN THE BUTTER INTO CHEESE! AND THEN WE SHOVE IT DOWN THE CONSUMERS THROATS UNTIL THEY HATE IT!

/end rant.

[OdinYggd]

Playability, and difficulty in making an effective AI.

If the AI was actually any good, beginners would quickly learn to hate the game because the AI would be too good for them to beat.

At the same time, making an effective AI is no easy task. So since it is given a fairly low priority in the development cycle what results is an AI that is theoretically functional, but in practice can be quickly and consistently overcome by even basic tactics.

[Rage097]

Playability, and difficulty in making an effective AI.

If the AI was actually any good, beginners would quickly learn to hate the game because the AI would be too good for them to beat.

At the same time, making an effective AI is no easy task. So since it is given a fairly low priority in the development cycle what results is an AI that is theoretically functional, but in practice can be quickly and consistently overcome by even basic tactics.

Unless you're playing Halo:combat evolved through Halo:reach on Legendary difficulty. Bungie is amazing with their games.

I remember playing Halo 3 through on Legendary. Dear lord...It was painful...And In Reach it's even worse because the A.I. Knows every move I'm going to make I swear!

[Sᴄɪɴᴛɪʟʟᴀᴛᴏʀ]

First of all, its a lot easier for the graphical quality of games to improve than it is for AI to improve. You can only make something so intelligent before it will start hogging a lot of resources and it has to be pretty intelligent to out-perform human players that are familiar with the game. Humans are unpredictable and the AI will always struggle to anticipate what we are going to do. Developers usually compensate for this this limit by "cheating" and give the AI more abilities/less limits than the player, e.g. unlimited ammo, faster movement, more HP and greater numbers.

That being said the basic AI should be a lot better with today's hardware. It all comes down to the available time and money at the developers disposal as well as the importance of the AI to the general gameplay.

[Person012345]

I was thinking about how amazing graphics have gotten for games nowadays yet the AI for many triple-A titles is still pretty poor, i'm not going to name any names because i don't want this conversation to be about which companies are the worst, i believe it's an industry-wide problem, but i'm very curious as to why so little progress seems to have been made in this area.

Thankfully Kerbal has no need for AI, as of yet at least, and i'm very curious to see what sort of AI it may have one day, i think the games that suffer the most from a bad AI are strategy games, yet they are among some of the worst for this, or perhaps you disagree with me completely! I'd very much like to know your opinion.

I wouldn't say that strat games AI is worse, but it appears worse because to be good you'd have to ask the machine to think tactically. There are so many options and strategies and possibilities that you simply cannot program a computer to analyse every single possible move and every situation and respond, in real time, without some sort of insane super-computer to run it on. It is limited by AI's inability to think. Whereas an FPS involves a lot less thinking and much more twitch reaction shooting.

[Person012345]

Saying that, human players are also often unable to think.

People suck at videogames...

[Crush]

The goal when programming enemy behavior in a game is not to make the AI strong. The goal is to make the AI fun to play with.

You could program a perfectly-playing AI which is unbeatable (It's easy in a first person shooter, but not so easy in a strategy game, unless the AI cheats). But that wouldn't be fun to play against. A good AI gives the player an interesting game experience, and in the end, lets them win, because winning a game is more fun than losing. A good AI makes mistakes, so that the player can feel smart when they exploit these mistakes. The art is making these mistakes look unintentional and "human".

Edited June 2, 2013 by Crush

[Person012345]

I mean, think about the fact that previously, lets take command and conquer as an example (one with a skirmish mode), you've been asking an AI to handle a few dozen units on a map that's a few km² and it still failed against a player that knew what they were doing. Nowadays, take the recently released Airland Battle, you'd be asking it to pick from over 800 unit types on maps of up to 250km² with all the different avenues of attack and strategies that leaves open. And it still fails against a player who knows what they're doing. Although it doesn't fail as badly as one would expect if one assumes that the AI has not advanced. It can ambush, it can counter with appropriate units, it can decide when to sacrifice units in order to take out more valuable ones etc. It doesn't do these things -well- necessarily (although I have had some nasty learning experiences due to the AI, when I didn't know what I was doing), but it can do them.

Of course, when you play something like microsoft flight simulator the AI by and large behaves perfectly (bar a bug here or there where it gets "stuck"). Because there's not a lot of thinking that needs doing. Flight is all about carrying out pre-defined routines. Which is what computers do best.

[Crush]

When it comes to first person shooters, I have the impression that AI improved tremendously in the 15 years I play them.

In the first games I played, enemies either just stood around while shooting at you, or ran around aimlessly. Today, you see them jumping into cover, giving suppressive fire and calling each other for help.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Crush

[Person012345]

By the way: When it comes to first person shooters, I have the impression that AI improved tremendously in the 15 years I play them.

In the first games I played, enemies either just stood around while shooting at you, or ran around aimlessly. Today, you see them jumping into cover, giving suppressive fire and calling each other for help.

I recall a few years ago that there was this lovely advance in FPS AI where if you just stood there aiming at the same spot they ducked down into cover 2 seconds ago, they wouldn't just pop their head back up into your sights and let you pop them. They would move. I don't play FPS all that much, I'm not very good at them, but it does seem like it's improved a lot from then.

[Vanamonde]

Among other reasons: You can a sell a game with a picture of its whiz-bang graphics, but a description of its formidable AI isn't going to make people flock to your game. Also, a lot of games seem to be disposable nowdays; you play it for a month, then move on to the next one. Selling to that market, companies don't want to spend a lot of time and money making the AI smart. But mostly, I suspect, it's just plain difficult. But I'll tell you the one thing that always drives me into a rage, and that's when the AI factions all set aside their grievances to gang up on the player. The ONLY reason they do that is to try to make the game harder, since they defeat themselves by making idiotic strategic decisions. Civilization and Total War games are especially bad about that. You'll be playing as the Roman Empire in 200BC, and then find China has sent one ship halfway around the flipping planet to start a war with you, even though they have no chance of profiting from it and Japan is kicking their heinies back on their side of the world while they're wasting resources on you. Holy expletive, am I sick of that!

[MGUARN]

Oh I know what you mean van After all it gets boring when the AI in Civi only have 3-4 towns ,and you have like 7-19 towns ,and control about 100% of North america ,and have them only have 5-10% of eroupe,asia ,and south america (if there are any civs down there)

[lukerules117]

I thing part of the reason is that good AI is hard to make, but the main reason is that it might make the game to hard.