Best AI you have come across.

[Peter Radiator Full Pig]

I have been meaning to ask this for a whilel; What is the best AI in a game that you have ever come across? I dont care about genre, though comparing an FPS AI to a strategy AI might be difficult.
Id like to hear your thoughts and share any stories/memories that you want about AI.

Which AI challanged you the most with its intellegence? Not hard games, but hard AI.
Ive never played AI wars, but that seems not to be great AI, but game balance that makes it hard.
I remember being impressed by both Half Life (Marines crouch when shooting, thats like real life!) and FEAR (Though looking back, many of these were set pieces).
Then some bad AI would be CiV on release. Archers out front, to protect the squishy pikemen.... (I hear they have patched this)

Of course, the creature in Black and White, for me, actually seemed like a true enough creature. Mine loved eating beachballs, even though it would puke afterwards, and Id smack it around. It never did learn. How I miss him.

Facade also gets a mention though Im unsure if it was interesting AI, or just programing in loads of words. Im guessing AI.

So, thoughts?

[Nalano]

I'm finding it easier to describe how devs have fooled us into not thinking how much AI sucks - from scripted moments to endless respawns to outright cheating on resources - than true examples of smart AI.

I mean, in Company of Heroes, just about the only advantage the computer has is the ability to micromanage lots and lots of directional weapons (which in turn leads the AI to build lots and lots of AT guns).

[Shane]

There was a lot of talk about the AI's awesomeness in Crysis 2, anyone who has played care to give their opinion?

[Tikey]

I really liked the AI in FEAR, it was surprising when it came out to find enemies outflanking you, trying to get you out of cover with grenades and those stuff.
I'm really impressed as how quickly the liir in Sword of the Stars are adapting to my strategies against them.
Gal CivII AI is quite good too. Never had the courage to play in higher settings.

[squirrelfanatic]

I remember reading somewhere that the enemy behaviour in FEAR was mostly scripted.

[hamster]

I think they said they "funneled" the A.I. into making seemingly intelligent decisions with map design plus positioning.

I wish programmers can make better A.I. I suspect the problem isn't technical but simply a lack of interest. Everyone talks about flanking maneuvers but i think i nice thing to shoot for is a cooperative link between the A.I. so you'd have cover fire from the Riflemen allowing the Shottie/SMG guys to come close and/or flank you, and if the A.I determines you are in a v. good position, they lob nades to draw you out. Of course only 1 or 2 bad guys should have a limited quantity of nades and the whole thing should be clearly signposted. Basically anything that stops you from remaining stationery and shooting. Then the player is engaged to react, not just duly pull the trigger and sidestep in and out.

[westyfield]

The Sorian AI mod for Supreme Commander is supposedly very good. I haven't played against it myself because I'm awful at SupCom even on medium difficulty. But I've heard that the guy who made it got hired by Gas Powered Games to do the AI for SupCom 2, so it must be something special.

[Sheps]

Counter Strike: Condition Zero had some of the most realistic player tendency AI at the time. Aside from that and your typical FEAR stuff, there hasn't been anything that I can really note that astonished me.

Brothers in Arms had some nice AI on both the friendly and enemy sides but nothing amazing.

[vinraith]

Sword of the Stars, especially with the newest patch, has some of the better AI I've ever seen in a symmetric 4X game. Similarly, Rise of Nations had some of the best developer-made AI I've ever seen in a symmetric RTS. If you're willing to take mods, the Dawn of War Skirmish AI for DoW1 (particularly DC and Soulstorm) is frighteningly good at times.

As to AI War, I certainly think of it as having strong AI, but I'll confess it's hard to tell when the game is asymmetric. Since the AI is playing by a set of rules different than those the human is playing by, it's difficult to assess how much of its strength is scripted/constructed advantage and how much of it is cleverness. I've certainly seen some brilliant emergent behavior in that game, though, there's even a thread for it on their site: http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,897.0.html

[Similar]

There was a lot of talk about the AI's awesomeness in Crysis 2, anyone who has played care to give their opinion?
I can't say I noticed anything particularly impressive about it. On the other hand, I also don't remember anything particularly bad, so I suppose that, compared to a lot of games, is pretty good.

[Peter Radiator Full Pig]

Ive read that FEAR enemies just move from cover to cover. Good map design means this flanks you, so they seem intelligent.
I remember playing GalCivII on the highest setting before the AI starts to cheat, it still wasnt good enough for me to notice.
I might check out Sword of the Stars, or AI wars, though is it any good in singleplayer? All ive read seems to talk about the co op.

I had forgotten about the Sorian AI for SupCom, but you are right. He modded the first AI, and was hired to do the second games AI. Supposedly it knew much more about tactics, though Id say proper tech tree researches and building timings help.

Far Cry had some fun enemies in the form of the Mercs, though I can remember a few mistakes where they would flank me... by swimming in the water, where they couldnt use their guns.

[vinraith]

I might check out Sword of the Stars, or AI wars, though is it any good in singleplayer? All ive read seems to talk about the co op.


Yeah, AI War is actually pretty great in SP, the single player game is identical to the co-op game so the only thing you miss out on is the conversation.

[Colonel J]

As to AI War, I certainly think of it as having strong AI, but I'll confess it's hard to tell when the game is asymmetric. Since the AI is playing by a set of rules different than those the human is playing by, it's difficult to assess how much of its strength is scripted/constructed advantage and how much of it is cleverness. I've certainly seen some brilliant emergent behavior in that game, though, there's even a thread for it on their site: http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,897.0.html

Whether it's true 'cleverness' or not, it's very good design: the AI in AI War has no problem in routinely out-foxing and surprising my Natural Stupidity. A game where victory feels very rewarding and hard-won if you get your difficulty setting right.

[vinraith]

Whether it's true 'cleverness' or not, it's very good design: the AI in AI War has no problem in routinely out-foxing and surprising my Natural Stupidity. A game where victory feels very rewarding and hard-won if you get your difficulty setting right.

No argument here, I've logged 400+ hours on the game and it continues to surprise me.

[DougallDogg]

Overall I'd have to say Civ IV. I really get the felling of playing against a competent foe all with unique traits.

Obviously shooter wise 2 come to mind and still hold up reasonably today compare to the weak offerings of today (I'm looking at you CoD grenade spam!).

When it first came out I'd definitely say Half-life. Didn't feel cheap but like the marines were using actual tactics (flanking, flushing you out with grenades). F.E.A.R. was also brilliant at the time of release more due to very cleave map design that created so truly memorable fight scenes. Not to keen on the expansions or F.E.A.R. 2 though.

[BobsLawnService]

I thought that the original Crysis when cranked up to high difficulty had some pretty devious, tenacious AI at times.

[Keep]

When it first came out I'd definitely say Half-life. Didn't feel cheap but like the marines were using actual tactics (flanking, flushing you out with grenades).

Oh, agree with that. I'm especially thinking of one area - tricky to describe and I can't find it on google images - which was indoors, but quite open and with a bunker in the middle. Anyone know the area I'm talking about.

First time I can remember AI genuinely surprising me, confounding, outwitting me. It was a great experience.


Getting to know Thief also involved a lot of AI-admiring for me. Until you figured out what their limitations and rules were, you sometimes treated the various NPCs with a genuine human caution. I think as much because of your unique relationship toward the guards - you weren't just running at them guns blazing - as anything to do with their sophistication or intelligence.

[Sheps]

Also, the ninjas in Half Life were amazing and I loved how they worked in teams. I'd replay those ninja/spec ops encounters dozens upon dozens of times.

[Plankton]

Let's not forget about Far Cry. The enemy guys were constantly doing their best to flank and encircle you... as long as they knew where you were. For its time it had very impressive AI.

[ntw]

Blood Bowl, oh no - hang on a minute, the AI in that is shite.

[Miker]

Halo's AI is pretty solid, although a lot of the time it boils down to just side-stepping every once in a while :-/

[agentorange]

The STALKER AI seems to have a multiple personality disorder. Sometimes it can be quite intelligent: while hiding in a tunnel (more like a drain I guess) I've had enemies stay out of my line of sight and throw grenades in after me; then other times I can just sit in the corner of a room, and shoot enemies in the face as they funnel themselves in through the one entrance.

Also one instance in Ninja Gaiden Black, for the Xbox, where you are fighting against your doppelganger. Surprisingly, for a hack and slash game, it felt like I was fighting against another human player. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLDdLXZ8HQw

[Kablooie]

I think the AI in Bioshock was pretty decent. Set splicers on fire, they run to the nearest pool of water to douse themselves. Wounded splicers seek out healing stations.

One oddity occurred during my last playthrough in B2. I spotted two splicers at a good distance away, down a darkened hallway. I crouched, then took out one of them with my speargun - the male. Instead of immediately turning and coming after me, as they usually do, the female splicer sank to her knees and covered her face, rocking and crying over the body of the dead splicer. Man, I felt so bad after that. I was pretty amazed by what she did, too.

[caljohnston]

Outcast probably had the best AI. They worked in teams, flanked, used cover (not sticky cover like in modern shooters, but real terrain), got in closer for the kill and further away when they were taking casualties. They shouted your name and waved to alert others to your presence. Sometimes they even ran away. As you progressed in the game you cut their supply lines and gained notoriety which made them run away much sooner. All in all they were the most 'organic' enemies I had ever faced in a game.

[Lukasz]

The STALKER AI seems to have a multiple personality disorder. Sometimes it can be quite intelligent: while hiding in a tunnel (more like a drain I guess) I've had enemies stay out of my line of sight and throw grenades in after me; then other times I can just sit in the corner of a room, and shoot enemies in the face as they funnel themselves in through the one entrance.

yeah. thats cool

some people are quite skilled and already experienced and some people are just morons and base their strategy on rambo movies.

one of the things which made stalker so awesome (bugs tough ruined it for me and i haven't touched it since 2008)

[Lambchops]

Half Life and Outcast are both good shouts that initially sprung to my mind (the non combatant AI in Outcast also deserves praise and was a big part of making the world seem alive).

Shooter wise I'd also remember SWAT 4 being particularly good, mostly because of the randomness of how the enemies would behave.

[Nova]

FEAR and the first FarCry are definitely the best in Shooters, in that order.

The FEAR AI was the only AI that really surprised me a few times.

[squirrel]

Bots for Command & Conquer: Red Alert multiplayer simulation (not the singleplayer). Seriously, I still dont figure out how to beat them. The only time I won was by editing a map to assign the enemies on an isolated island, and I was on the mainland with all the valuable resources. I played as Allied (if you remember, there are teams of Britain, France and Germany) and bombard the island like hell with cruisers, and overrun it with armored units like steamroller. That kind of victory is, of course, meaningless. So bots for Red Alert to me is unbeatable. I played MS-DOS version and I am not sure if there is any difference between DOS and Windows version.

[Land Squid]

I really like the diplomatic AI in Europa Universalis 3. I never feel frustrated or confused by it's decisions and I haven't yet seen it accept a proposal to it's disadvantage that it didn't need to accept.

[Drinking with Skeletons]

This is a really subjective topic, since your perception of a game's AI depends almost entirely on your grasp of a given game and/or genre. I think that Civ--as a series--has really good AI. I know that a lot of people loathe Civ V's AI, but I've found it pretty good. In one game, Suleiman declared war, moved one unit into my territory, saw my military strength, and then offered ridiculously good peace terms & retreated within the space of one turn, while in others AI factions have ruthlessly steamrolled me when I underestimated their capabilities; two extremes that together illustrate (to me) the AI's strength. NOTE: Firaxis has also added noticeable improvements with each and every patch, so please keep that in mind if you haven't played since launch.

I personally feel that Sins of a Solar Empire has good AI. I recently played a game for about 3 hours, only to instigate a vicious assault from a TEC faction that spammed torpedo ships to shred my defenses like paper. Completely and utterly devastating.

[Keep]

This is a really subjective topic, since your perception of a game's AI depends almost entirely on your grasp of a given game and/or genre.

This is very true.

Context counts for a lot. Exceeding player's expectations of the AI's ability can matter a lot more than AI that - while technically accomplished - presents itself as predictable or "graspable".

So should programmers aim to make AI that outsmarts the immediate generation of gameplay? Or should they try to make computer opponents that are genuinely clever, even if that means risking a lacklustre appearance?

[jp0249107]

Context counts for a lot. Exceeding player's expectations of the AI's ability can matter a lot more than AI that - while technically accomplished - presents itself as predictable or "graspable".

So should programmers aim to make AI that outsmarts the immediate generation of gameplay? Or should they try to make computer opponents that are genuinely clever, even if that means risking a lacklustre appearance?

I think it probably depends on what genre of game it is. I don't expect my strategy games to have breakthrough technology so I would be absolutely fine with sub-par graphics but an amazing AI taking up the rest of the development time. I'm not particularly concerned with graphics period.

Though I will say that I demand a great visual experience from the next Madden. I haven't bought one since 2009 and I think it's about time I upgrade my experience so I'm expecting the best of both worlds from EA considering the fact they're an evil large corporation with money to blow.

[Vague-rant]

I think it probably depends on what genre of game it is. I don't expect my strategy games to have breakthrough technology so I would be absolutely fine with sub-par graphics but an amazing AI taking up the rest of the development time. I'm not particularly concerned with graphics period.


I don't think he meant graphics, in terms of appearance. Things can look stupid, but without knowing the logic behind how the computer tackles the situation it can still be pretty clever. If you've ever done a multiple choice test, you can make crazy leaps of logic which seem insanely clever to rule out answers, but ultimately if you get it wrong you look like a moron who just ticked the first box.

I would really like genuinely clever AI, rather than "immediate kind", simply because I suspect a truly clever AI can be tailored to nearly every game (and of course a robot rebellion and the destruction of human kind). Actually I changed my mind. Tailored AI, with tricks and algorithms to make me think its clever is easier, and 90% of the time will hold up to reasonable scrutiny. And I don't have to worry about Skynet.

[Peter Radiator Full Pig]

Anyone know the state of AI that play Go? For those that dont know, its a large board where one person puts down white stones, the other black. You try to capture territory. It has simple rules, but the trouble with making AI for it (While for something like chess they can more or less brute force it) is the sheer amount of possible moves to consider.
We are very good at filtering some moves out (Though, of course, we might miss a hard to see intellegent move in doing this) but AI isnt. This would be relevant in games, where in CiV sending my second settler into the artic where Ill have useless terrtory is dismissed, the same move must be condiered by the AI, wasting processes. Add up all the useless moves, you will never have enough time.
So, an AI with a filter, any news on that?

[Althea]

GLaDOS, without a doubt.

[zookeeper]

I've been playing a lot of SWAT 3 lately and, while the opposing AI isn't particularly bright, I've found that it's one of the few games where I don't have to babysit my teammates. I tell them to clear a room or hallway and it most likely gets done properly, something which rarely happens in other games where having companions is usually more trouble than it's worth (I'm looking at you FO3 & NV).

Either it's good AI, or I just have it set to far too easy.

[Drinking with Skeletons]

Another thing that makes a big difference in the quality of AI is how dependent upon efficiency a game is. In many strategy titles, the AI can pose a real challenge for no other reason than because it possesses an inhuman awareness of the in-game economy, build rates, and other under-the-hood (or at least not immediately recognizable) aspects of the game. However, throw in the need for snap judgments and risk vs. reward behavior and AI is generally screwed.

A good example is Solium Infernum. The AI understands the objectives of the game, tracks the leading player, and performs the basic actions necessary to achieve success. However, it does not take the risks that Solium Infernum demands to create a truly enjoyable experience for the human player or one of consistent victory for the AI. The AI will almost always avoid combat, presumably because it's a relatively inefficient course of action with little guarantee of a net gain. Since Solium Infernum is a game in which combat can be easy to avoid, the general flow of the game against the AI is one where either the AI or the player dominates the game from early on, making an otherwise very tense, surprisingly quick game feel dragged out and dull.

I've often wondered whether it would be possible to create a game AI which had some degree of randomized behavior and which would track and update said behavior based upon the scores it accrued against the player; a sort of Survival of the Fittest AI Routine in which it organically became better at the game as it played.

[Jamison Dance]

I've often wondered whether it would be possible to create a game AI which had some degree of randomized behavior and which would track and update said behavior based upon the scores it accrued against the player; a sort of Survival of the Fittest AI Routine in which it organically became better at the game as it played.

Genetic algorithm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm) is the term you are looking for. A problem would be an AI playing enough games to determine whether its parameters were good or bad. Normally with genetic algorithms you run thousands to millions of simulations to "evolve" towards a better result. If you had to play a several-hour long game with a human for one permutation, it would take an intractable amount of time to converge on a better strategy.

[QuantaCat]

To all people complaining that the developers are "sidestepping making good AI by scripting": They do not have an obligation to make pure good AI. They have an obligation (even not really) to make a good experience. No more, no less. If the AI is poor, but it seems great, then who the fuck cares. The end result is what counts, they're not doing AI research or anything.


GLaDOS, without a doubt.

I concur.

[Doctor_Hellsturm]

Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri.
Best FPS-AI since 1996! I had to play some twenty missions before i could out do my own team mates. Loved to whole squad feeling. They were really helpful all the time, hardly any f-ups.

[R-F]

This. (http://overmind.cs.berkeley.edu/)

/10char

[Land Squid]

If the AI is poor, but it seems great, then who the fuck cares.

I don't know, it seems to me that a bad AI that seems great is actually a great AI. Like the tree that falls with no one around.

I think asymetry is probably the way to go if developers are having trouble making AI. Give the computer systems that a computer can easily understand and give the player systems that are more interesting to a humn.

[karry]

I constantly hear how HL2 and FEAR have this great AI, then i go on Youtube and watch trailers that have all these enemy soldiers working in teams and flanking and shit...except when i actually buy the damn game and play it - i never see any "great AI at work" myself. How does that work ? I dont remember a single time i was surprised by a Combine actions in HL2. I enjoyed the game, but certainly not because of the AI. FEAR is even worse because of its AI hype, all its enemies do most of the time is sit behind a crate or something. Cant remember the last time in FEAR when i saw a trooper run from cover to cover like in a trailer.

[Drinking with Skeletons]

Genetic algorithm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm) is the term you are looking for. A problem would be an AI playing enough games to determine whether its parameters were good or bad. Normally with genetic algorithms you run thousands to millions of simulations to "evolve" towards a better result. If you had to play a several-hour long game with a human for one permutation, it would take an intractable amount of time to converge on a better strategy.

I was thinking that it would be more useful for short, real-time games. In a turn-based setting--like Civ--it seems that it would be far easier for the AI to access and review important info and make decisions. After all, the game collects all of that for the player and gives the player infinite time to react; the AI should have all the tools it needs to put up a fight. In RTS titles with a heavy emphasis on economics and/or infrastructure, a la Sins of a Solar Empire, Starcraft II, or Dawn of War, the AI gets an advantage simply by being able to more easily grasp the long-term implications of any and all economic decisions and overcome tactical deficiency through money. But take a game that is almost purely skill-based--such as Dawn of War II--and the AI is hopelessly out of its league, unable to adequately adjust to shifting conditions, spur-of-the-moment skill usage, and quick pace.

Also: didn't someone do this for Starcraft II to find efficient but hard-to-identify (even counter-intuitive) strategies?

[fiddlesticks]

I dont remember a single time i was surprised by a Combine actions in HL2. I enjoyed the game, but certainly not because of the AI.
Part of the problem with the AI in Half Life 2 is that the enemy soldiers just die so quickly. No fight goes on long enough for them to actually show any advanced behaviour. Compare this to the marines in the first game, which many people in this thread remember rather fondly. They didn't have better tactics, but they had enough hp to actually put said tactics to use.

The other big point is map design. Yes, the Combine soldiers are quite capable of flanking and working together as a team, but how often does this actually matter in the game? Half Life 2 is very linear and there aren't that many fights taking place in open areas, so the possiblities of the AI are limited.

That being said, I can't really think of an FPS game where the AI really impressed me. It does its job well enough usually, but for the most part enemies are dangerous because they outnumber you, not because they outplay you.

[Casimir Effect]

The AI in FarCry 2 could often surprise me on the harder difficulty levels. Like people have mentioned with Stalker it seemed that there were clever and stupid enemies. Some would react to being shot at by taking cover and hiding for the entire fight, some would charge straight at you, and others (hereafter referred to as 'bastards') would flank you very quietly (their friends are all shouting and shooting) and then put some buckshot in you ass. There was only one thing worse than the bastards, and that was hearing the roar of a jeep engine behind you while you were looking through a scope.

[Althea]

Far Cry 2 had some good AI, I'll agree, but I think it was mostly overshadowed by seemingly random-spawning enemies in Jeeps.

I liked Bulletstorm's AI, i.e. run to the big sweary shooty man with the gruff voice.

[agentorange]

Forgot this in my first post, but Metro 2033 had some great AI. Especially in regards to the stealth segments; if you were spotted by an enemy they would seek you out and NEVER give up, unlike in Metal Gear Solid or some such where they promptly call it quits after a minute, these guards would just stay on the alert. It really made me rethink the way I use stealth, not as a way to just get by an area without fighting anything, but a way to get into a viable position from which I could ambush and hold off the enemies. I haven't played the game recently so I can't remember the regular combat AI, but that particular behavior surprised me.

[Ian]

Far Car 2 did sometimes genuinely catch me off-guard but it was hard to tell whether the AI had done something clever or if a baddie had spawned behind me. Not that it matters in terms of the game experience as it still has much the same effect. Suddenly take fire from an area you thought safe whilst behind cover, deciding you must have missed somebody sneaking around and thinking "Oh, you bastard...."

[Nalano]

Far Car 2 did sometimes genuinely catch me off-guard but it was hard to tell whether the AI had done something clever or if a baddie had spawned behind me. Not that it matters in terms of the game experience as it still has much the same effect. Suddenly take fire from an area you thought safe whilst behind cover, deciding you must have missed somebody sneaking around and thinking "Oh, you bastard...."

I hate endless respawns. They totally kill tactical planning, because you continually get the "but I already cleared that room!" disconnect. 's also why I can't play CoD games anymore. Why shoot at your enemies from a safe location if the only way to progress is to run through their gauntlet (and then watch your NPC squadmates mop up the remainder)?

[fiddlesticks]

On the other hand, I always felt that System Shock 2 did enemy respawning extremely well. Rather than having endless waves of enemies charge at you, the game slowly repopulated areas you've already cleared. Not only did it continually keep me on my toes, it also made backtracking more interesting, as you didn't walk through empty corridors.

It also ties in well with the survival horror aspects of the game. Since ammo is so limited, especially on the harder difficulties, killing an enemy suddenly might not be such a great idea, considering he'll respawn eventually anyway, meaning you just wasted some of your precious bullets. It made encounters more varied, as often avoiding the confrontation altogether was the better choice, which is further encouraged by the nonlinear design of the decks.

Bioshock did the same thing. However, it was less noticeable there, since you were almost always fully stocked on guns and health kits, which partly destroys the whole concept of having enemies respawn.

[Land Squid]

If you didn't have endless respawns in far cry 2 it would get boring fast, seeing as it's an open world game. Once you cleared out a route through the map, you'd never be in danger at all for the rest of the game along that route. The issue I had with far cry 2 was that they respawned so fast at the check points.

[Nalano]

If you didn't have endless respawns in far cry 2 it would get boring fast, seeing as it's an open world game. Once you cleared out a route through the map, you'd never be in danger at all for the rest of the game along that route. The issue I had with far cry 2 was that they respawned so fast at the check points.

You're right in that, but it would make sense to have a cycle.

- Checkpoint actually needs to check your vehicle first, not just shoot on sight.
- Checkpoint respawns maybe once an hour - or however long it takes for folks to radio the checkpoint, get nothing in response, formulate a reaction, and reinforce it from the closest town - not once every five minutes.
- Maybe after clearing out the checkpoint several times, the faction controlling it gets the hint and vamooses, leaving it to be taken over by a different faction.

Hey, maybe even stock up on battery packs and cigarette cartons for bribes so you don't have to keep blasting 'em every time you go through. Anything. Please.

[Casimir Effect]

FarCry 2 did have the endless respawns but it never once spawned people in my immediate vicinity, so I had no problem with it - a shooter game needs stuff to shoot. It'd be interesting to see if guys did appear around you if you set up camp in a cleared-out checkpoint and just waited.
For bad (re-)spawning, see Rainbow Six Vegas and the non-WW2 Call of Duty games. The endless respawning is fine in the WW2 setting because of the guns available, while in Vegas terrorists would blatently pop into being around you as triggers were set off.