My assessment of the Killzone 2 A.I. *WARNING* If you catch feelings, that's on you.

Sep 5, 2006
2,537
0
0
33
#1
Buckle your seatbelt folks, this is gonna be yet another long one from yours, truly.

I'd like to start by saying that I think this game looks fantastic, and despite my criticisms of the A.I., I have had every intention of buying the game since '05. I won't get into why it looks awesome, I'm sure most of you can relate.

Anyway, lately I've seen a lot of people on the defensive about the A.I. Fine with me, I just see things a bit differently. I do disagree with most of the criticisms saying it seems like just another shooter(let's be honest here, many "other shooters" haven't been treading the waters that Killzone has...9 months from release), but then again, I haven't played the game to see how it feels in my hands, but the video footage looks stellar.

Now, I'm certainly no tech wizard, so please excuse, and feel free to correct, me if anything I say is inconsistent with something you may know about A.I.

Now, before I begin, here are some responses that I don't care to hear, so I'll just entertain them right now before those of you who would make them know how I feel right now.

*****READ THESE RESPONSES BEFORE YOU RESPOND YOURSELF*****

You might find your question and my response within.;)

[reveal]"The game isn't finished yet, stop judging it as if it is! It'll be perfect upon release, there's so much time left, I swear!"

Well, that's why I'm clearly stating that this is my assessment of what I've seen SO FAR. Much like I don't, you don't know that it WILL BE perfect when it's released, so you can't assume such a thing. Compromises may be made from now to then, so I refuse to dignify such a claim as a viable argument. It's simply not concrete...at all. If you wanna pitch an argument about why you disagree with me, then use examples from a current build of the game, not these typical, taken-for-granted assumptions that everyone uses to comfort themselves.

"Other games have A.I. like this, so why are you roasting Killzone 2?"

Not roasting the game for one, and this isn't about other games, it's about Killzone. Furthermore, nowhere did I say that I condone it in other games either, so out the window goeth another foolish argument. In any case, this is one of my most highly anticipated titles. If I don't give a crap about a game, then I won't bother wasting my effort telling anyone what could make it better, because I either believe it to be a lost cause or not worth it. Killzone 2 is worth it, so before you accuse me of bashing the game, think about that.

"Quit complaining, you're just another troll I'm tired of hearing about, blah, blah, blah!"

Once again, not complaining. I don't complain about games I LIKE unless they have a nagging feature that hampers the gameplay. The lag issues that used to plague CoD4 for instance. Again, as I said before, I show no concern for games I don't like, so nothing I'm saying here is rooted in either b*tching or trolling.

"What are you talking about, the A.I. is just fine!"

Elaborate. Tell me why. Give examples.

"If the A.I. was as you described it, it would be too hard!"

Thanks for that one. I think Gamespot is taking applications, look for employment there. If you're scared of good A.I., then find another game, simple as that, and you had better not be playing multiplayer either, because the intelligence some human beings exhibit in those arenas is horrifying at times. Better A.I. provides for a more dynamic and unpredictable experience. I personally don't mind scripted and linear games, but the gameplay and A.I. better be spot on, otherwise it's a borefest. If you want a campaign that's handed to you on a silver platter, then by all means, cry about advanced and intelligent A.I.

I'll be sure to add more dumb responses....as they may come throughout the course of this discussion.

[/reveal]

Now that I got that out of the way, this link is the video I'll be referring to, which is the warehouse battle that I'm sure we've all seen before. Follow along, because I'm breaking it down by each individual firefight, so if you have a retort, you had better hit each one of my bullet points, because if you don't, I'll simply assume that you have no argument for it and continue on believing what I believe. If you can convince me otherwise, then believe me, I'm all ears, because nothing would please me more than knowing that this game has groundbreaking A.I. As of right no though, I'm just not seeing it. Here we go.

I'm sorry if my critique hurts your feelings. Actually, I'm not. If it does, then you need to either grow up or get comfortable in your own skin and quit taking ownership in games that you have no internal involvement with. Maybe both, but if you find yourself personally offended by my words that aren't directed at you, then that's your problem, because my intent is certainly not rooted in p*ssing people off right now. Believe that it is if you want..again I say that's your problem, not mine.

I'm breaking this off into sections so as to not disorient anyone with the length, I have a bad habit of doing so. If you do respond, pick and choose what you respond to, but clarify that it's all you care to respond to please.

*^*First firefight*^*

Begins at about 00:35.

Issue #1:
[reveal]

  • So right off the bat, instead of engaging the enemy whom they are obviously aware of(illustrated by the the fact that they yell "From that direction!", and "You're dead!"), the pair of Helghast decide to not only waste time by hopping over a fence, but also charging towards the player with no apparent intention of sending bullets in his direction. That's fabulous.
My take #1:

  • I'd be shooting at the b*stard immediately after gaining visual contact. Don't give me that they were trying to close in to get more accurate fire. That's a bunch of crap, illustrated by the fact that the player was able to accurately engage the enemy, and effortlessly at that. If that were in fact the case, there are more efficient ways of going about such a task. Fire and maneuver is one of them, which is simply where one element lays down suppressive fire while the other maneuvers to another location to gain a tactical advantage. Combined arms is another, which is a philosophy that's basically about utilizing multiple different fires so that to defend against one, the enemy must become vulnerable to another. A well placed grenade to get the enemy out in the open so that your machine gun can take him out is one SIMPLE example of such, but again, it's a philosophy. Any way you combine multiple weapons systems to influence your enemy's movement is right in line with the philosophy, and it's a d*mn good one, at that. I personally have a hard time believing that an organized, world class military such as the Helghast aren't up to speed on such simple, general tactics. Like I was saying though, I would have simply started shooting at the player. Either both of them could have done so, or one of them could have so the other could either get a better position or find some cover, THEN the initial shooter can move to some cover if he still wasn't able to take him out. Basic survival instincts people, sheesh.
[/reveal]
Issue #2:
[reveal]

  • The next genius runs right up to an obviously explosive barrel, guns blazing. Need I say more? Yes, b/c I expect to catch a lot of flak for this one. Yeah, Uncharted is one of my favorite PS3 games, and it has this. Difference is, and this may sound hypocritical at first, but hear me out. KZ and Uncharted have two completely different vibes going here, and certain things that work in some games, although FUNCTIONAL in others, simply don't fit the bill. Uncharted is a fairly lighthearted, pulp-esque action game. Killzone is depicting a bitter war between two VERY bitter enemies that are tenacious and highly motivated. I have a hard time believing that soldiers in this army would willingly run up to a dangerous barrel, on their own home turf, mind you, recklessly and inaccurately firing his weapon. Yeah, he seemed to only hit the player once, by the way. Even so, in Uncharted, I don't exactly remember the enemies RALLYING around explosives the way they do here. You had at least either get the jump on them(in this case, the idiot willfully ran right up to the barrel), or place yourself in such a position where their pursuit of you would put them within the blast radius. Even if you have to run by something dangerous, you've got no business staying anywhere near it, especially if you're in the military.
My take #2:

  • Do I really need to delve too deeply into this? Either get rid of the barrels, or make the enemy decision making more prudent and cautious, simple as that. The only reasons an enemy should be near an explosive barrel is because suppressive fire has pressured him to move in that direction, or if he's maneuvering about the battlefield. Sorry, but I don't consider taking initial cover well within the blast radius of an explosive tactical maneuvering. Explosive barrels, in a game like this, should be a tactical element that the player should STRIVE to take advantage of, not some cheap little gimme kill to show off your cool explosion effects.
[/reveal]
Issue #3:
[reveal]

  • Next guy, although he takes good cover and engages the player, doesn't attempt to call for backup, doesn't so much as YELL for backup, completely exposes his upper torso when he pops out of said cover, doesn't try to maneuver to a better position, and lastly, doesn't make a conscious effort to tactically withdraw(military euphemism for retreat).

My take #3:

  • I'm sorry, but simply popping(half whole upper torso) and shooting doesn't cut it for me. I know a lot of you are entertained by this new cover and concealment paradigm shift that shooters are taking these days, but it's a very basic principle that militaries around the world have been implementing for countless decades now. Part of said principle is to expose as little of your body as possible while allowing yourself to accurately engage the enemy. That didn't happen here, and again I say, I have a difficult time swallowing the idea that such an enormous organized force doesn't teach such basic principles to their GRUNTS. Simply taking cover is not tactical. It ain't exemplary, anyway, it's basic and expected. Seeking better cover, maneuvering about the battlefield, and manipulating the enemy to react to your initiative is at the heart of good tactics, not sitting behind a wall and randomly exposing half your body to gunfire. This idiot should have done any one of the things he DIDN'T do, or some other tactically sound action that I didn't mention.
[/reveal]
*^*Second firefight*^*

Begins at about 01:18

Issue #1:
[reveal]

  • Getting ahead of myself for a moment, it seems to me that there's some sort of delayed reaction glitch in effect here, because I notice that the enemy runs in a certain direction and then falls over...a second or two after being filled with lead. I'll simply dismiss that and give them the benefit of the doubt there, however, my issue is again with enemy reaction and response. Once again, like last time he obviously knows that the player is present and where he is. I can't imagine that this guy would be bounding over fences in such a manner if he didn't. If these guys are on security for this building, they'd be walking their routes and chatting with one another, not practicing gymnastics. Anyway, once this buffoon lands, instead of sighting in on the enemy, he looks in another direction. :speaking into a radio: WTF, over! How the hell do you justify knowing the enemy location and pointing your weapon at a wall? That may be a glitch as well...but until I find out, I'm still making note of it. If it is, it's a lot more subtle than the running death one.
My take:

  • Just fix this, it's inexcusable. The running death, I dismiss as a glitch, but if it's not, that's just pathetic. I'd love to see someone try to justify that. If the enemy knows where you are, and knows that you see him too, he needs to be engaging you, period. At the very least, he should be pointing his weapon in your direction, not at some wall. Case closed.
[/reveal]
Issue #2:
[reveal]
  • Our next enemy(on the high ledge) actually tried to engage the player. Fair enough, no complaint there. The guy after him, however, didn't BUT he was apparently looking at your ally. I will say this though, that idiot should have been SHOOTING your ally that was IN THE OPEN instead of running to cover. That's what I call a missed opportunity, not only because he ran to cover that crossed his enemy's sector of fire, but he ran right out into the open when he could have had the drop on him. Again, that's admittedly a bit of a nitpick, because at least he acknowledged his presence and was making a conscious effort to do something. I'll let that one go. The next guy behind the boxes, crate, or wood actually tried to engage but was gunned down beforehand. Fair enough. Like a prior enemy, he exposed way more of his body than was necessary. I'm getting tired of that.
My Take:

  • For the first guy, he had the right idea...I think. He seemed to be laying down suppressive fire. I say this because he had an elevation advantage while his comrades were moving. That's fine, but he still should have had a better position, because his bullets were hitting that wall the player was partially behind. Admittedly a minor gripe, but he had the right idea. My thing is he could have done a lot better with a tiny bit more effort is all. For the next, I said my peace with him. He should have shot your ally much earlier than he did. If he absolutely HAD TO run to that cover, he should have been firing in his direction on the move, or his other buddy should have been providing cover fire, it's that simple. For the third guy, should have been covering his buddy. That's just sloppy teamwork on his part. Otherwise, I already said what I think about his popping out of cover.
[/reveal]
Issue #3:
[reveal]

  • For the next dynamic duo(whom I have dubbed, tweedle dee and tweedle dumba**), they apparently like this little bounding trick that we've seen all too often and inappropriately used, I might add.
My Take:

  • Here's my beef with this crap. It's a beautiful animation. Fluid and looks very realistic. Problem is, these jerk-offs continue to use it when either shooting or running in a different direction would suffice. As far as I'm concerned, neither of these guys had any business hopping over this ledge(wasting time) so slowly when they could have been shooting the player. Again, they were too close for that lame excuse about getting closer for better accuracy. The only reason why one of them should have done it is if the other one was laying down cover or suppressive fire. The enemy needs to be more prudent in selecting their movement, actions, and TEAMWORK.
[/reveal]
*^*Third firefight*^*

Begins at about 02:24.

Issue #1:
[reveal]

  • First of all...the first genius runs away from good cover(the wall he came from), past more good cover(those two boxes he darted past), right behind some lower cover that only served to get him killed. Got him killed because it allowed the player more than enough time to TRACK HIS MOVEMENT with his sights until he finally settled on a position to sit. The next four men all hopped over a ledge(that stupid animation again), wasting time, and giving up superior elevation and a chance to accurately engage the player. Again I say, W...T...F, over! These idiots take so long getting down that the player has enough time to reload and stick his head slightly over his covered position to spot his targets...all without so much as being aimed at. Not to mention that they all kinda stood there for a split second upon landing instead of running to the nearest cover, or SHOOTING perhaps... Once the four stooges disadvantage themselves from an elevation standpoint, they all take cover while the only person bold enough to engage the player is the idiot that's the furthest away, therefore having the least amount of accuracy. I would TOTALLY GO FOR THIS had this guy been laying down suppressive fire, but his idiot fire team member didn't capitalize upon it, therefore it seemed like he was just the only one who had his wits about him. I can see where they may not have seen the explosive barrel this time, so I'll leave that alone. The last guy left alive throws an inaccurate grenade below the player and wide right. I'll be generous here...and assume that the player's gunfire disrupted his throw...
My Take:

  • First idiot should have started firing from behind that wall while the player was startled from the explosion. The eye is attracted to quick movement, so this guy running across his enemy's line of sight isn't exactly a sound idea even if there's a bunch of commotion going on. Yet another situation where they should have had the drop on the player, yet failed to capitalize on it. Now the next four...where the hell do I begin. Forget the jumping and bounding part. Already addressed that. The guy in the back should have been a base of suppressive fire. He couldn't have hoped to accurately engage while being so far away(even though the player did, I'm being generous here). Therefore, his allies should have been moving to better positions, shooting, and throwing grenades at the player, or something tactically sound. Simple as that, instead of sitting behind their own individual spots and waiting to die.
[/reveal]
*^*Final Enemy*^*

For this last guy, I don't even need to break it down. The guy hears you coming, knows where you're coming from, and this is before you make it through the doorway, and doesn't so much as turn around in your direction until you've gone down the hallway. That's pathetic, I know no other way to put it. Were it me, there would have been some bullets flying through that wall in your direction as you made your way around it. Assuming the wall was bulletproof, I'd have thrown a grenade behind it, immediately after which I'd be laying down suppressive fire on that entrance so that you had an ultimatum. Either get blown up or gunned down. Simple tactics dreamed up as I go along.

I'm sure that a trained soldier would be reacting to certain situations as if by habit or reflex. I'm not seeing that here. What I'm seeing is sluggish and confused imbeciles with gas masks and automatic weapons.

Here are some miscellaneous suggestions in addition to what I've already stated.

The enemies need to work together. I always see them in pairs or fire teams. Militaries have such structured teams for a reason...they work together and supplement one another's fire power and ability. Again, I'm not seeing that here, at all. When I'm witnessing four guys hopping over ledges...in fact screw that, that's what 90% of the enemies in this demo did, was hop over a ledge and bloody well DIE. If you don't believe me, the video is there for the world to see. By the way, the player was only shot twice for the duration of that playthrough, but I digress. When you have superior numbers on your own home turf, you should be controlling the battlefield, not one competent combatant(the player) who's paired up with some brain-dead lackey(your ally).

Another thing they'd greatly benefit from is agility. These people are so static in their movements. They don't even have a proper animation for turning around, it's that typical sliding turn that makes them look like they're standing on a swivel. If you've ever played F.E.A.R. on the PC then you know what I mean. Not only was the A.I. brilliant for FPS standards, but they were agile as hell. They did the following, and quickly, at that:


  • Bounded over obstacles
  • crawled underneath low doors/openings
  • crashed through windows and glass
  • kicked over desks, tables, and lockers to create their own cover.
  • ran, quickly, around the battlefield to gain better positions
  • dove into cover when desperate enough
  • quickly scattered when discovered. This is important because they wouldn't just turn around and sit there shooting at you like a group of human turrets so you could just throw a grenade in the middle of five of them and win the fight. No sir, dispersion and movement was fundamental for the enemies you faced here. They didn't let up, and this is what I NEED in Killzone.
The Helghast are some of the coolest, most intimidating looking enemies I've seen in a game today. It disgusts to me to see how slow and stationary they are. It's unsat, especially for an organized, worldwide military. There are a whole host of other agile moves that these guys did that I can't remember. Play it for yourselves and see, it's pretty breathtaking. Sad thing is, this was in 2005.

If you try to tell me that such a request is unrealistic because the soldiers are wearing heavy gear, I'll slap the crap outta you. The developers have stated NUMEROUS times that they're going for a slightly exagerrated, hollywood realism. Frantic, aggressive, and more importantly AGILE enemies is right in line with such a philosophy. If you don't buy that, then you need to watch more, and better, action flicks, period. Nothing about the universe or the game itself is staggeringly realistic anyway, and it isn't like I'm asking for the enemies to be equipped with rocket assisted pogo-sticks or anything similar. I'm simply asking that these guys run faster, dive, and move like they have a purpose. Once again, play F.E.A.R. on the pc(haven't played the console version), and PAY ATTENTION. Those evils SWAT types are out to get you. They're fast, smart, relentless, and very aggressive. The Helghast lack each one of those qualities, and I dare anybody to explain away why they don't.

The agility was half the reason why the F.E.A.R. troopers were as exciting as they were. Their raw combat aptitude and implementation of said agility was the rest of it. In the Helghast I see slow, inept terds that don't belong in any military force, in this world, and theirs.

In closing, again I say that on the whole, Killzone 2 looks awesome. Truly in a class all it's own by many criteria, however, if the A.I. stays in it's current state, or anything similar for that matter, it will cripple this game through boredom and repetitive, predictable enemy tactics, mark my words. If you think the critics and pundits are being too harsh now, HA! Wait until February, *if* things don't improve. This game will undoubtedly end up like Lair and Haze before it for the bloodthirsty journalists out there.

The technical issues that plagued the PS2 version are all but gone. With a silky smooth framerate, cool weapons, and slick visuals, this game is riding high right now, with this being the only real issue. I disagree for the most part about the scripted nature of the game. That's games in general, however, static and predictable A.I. only serves to divert your attention to said scripted sequence of events and become indicative of it in a very bad way. I promise you that if the game was literally a rail shooter but had dynamic, intelligent, and aggressive and resilient A.I., it would be infinitely more fun than how it is in it's current state.

In closing, I'm aware that many here will dismiss this as nitpicking. That's fine, but realize one thing: I've given very specific examples that you can see for yourself by the way, on why I feel how I feel IN ADDITION to providing very specific solutions and alternatives to said issues. As I've stated several times before, if you don't agree with, go ahead and tell me why I'm wrong. Otherwise, you may as well not waste your time in this thread, as I'm looking to either enlighten some folks, be enlightened myself by others, or have a discussion. I'm not interested in petty little "woe is Killzone" tirades.

Well, that's my peace, take from it what you will. If you disagree with me, that's fine. I'm not claiming my opinions to be fact. Tactics isn't an exact science, and everyone looks at them differently. I do believe you'll have a hard time making a case against this group of enemies that only managed to shoot the player twice though, but by all means, suit yourself. I'm all ears.
 
Sep 5, 2006
2,537
0
0
33
#3
[QUOTE="unicron7, post: 0]*blink* A.I. looks fine to me.[/QUOTE]
Oh brother...can you at least say why? Give examples? Something tangible? Fair enough if you disagree, I have no quarrel with you on that. That's your opinion and I won't try to disenfranchise you, but seriously, is that all you've got to offer?
 
Feb 11, 2008
40,317
430
83
South Carolina
#4
Without going through all of the analysis of the game play video, I would just say I hope the AI is challenging in the final release. It does seem a bit "magoo" in the videos that I've seen. It could be incomplete, on Infant level setting, etc. There are a number of reasons for it to look how it seems, but only the devs really know what's going on during those videos.

I don't think I can give a real assessment of how the actual game is going to look, feel, play, and sound, just by going off a few SD videos.
 
#5
lol I know I am going to sound like one of the examples of what you pointed out above, and I am very sorry for it, but I honestly believe they dumbed down the demo AI for certain presentations. I saw other streaming footage of a guy getting wasted every 30 seconds or so for a good 10-12 minutes. He seemed to have a tough time with the enemies, and he played extremely well. They would flank to different positions with speed. Duck, shoot, duck. Slide behind a crate. One would throw a grenade while his buddy ran to a better fighting position. It was fantastic footage. I wish I could find the link to show you, but I forgot. I'll try to find it for ya though. lol I will admit though that the newest videos do show moronic behavior on the enemies behalf.
 

UMGAWA

GUNS AKIMBO
Nov 6, 2007
769
0
0
34
#6
It makes me worried about the future of gaming when we have people having a whinge about games that havent been released and making judgements on the basis brief screenshots and videos.

talk about being anal.
 
Sep 5, 2006
2,537
0
0
33
#7
[QUOTE="unicron7, post: 0]lol I know I am going to sound like one of the examples of what you pointed out above, and I am very sorry for it, but I honestly believe they dumbed down the demo AI for certain presentations. I saw other streaming footage of a guy getting wasted every 30 seconds or so for a good 10-12 minutes. He seemed to have a tough time with the enemies, and he played extremely well. They would flank to different positions with speed. Duck, shoot, duck. Slide behind a crate. One would throw a grenade while his buddy ran to a better fighting position. It was fantastic footage. I wish I could find the link to show you, but I forgot. I'll try to find it for ya though. lol I will admit though that the newest videos do show moronic behavior on the enemies behalf.[/QUOTE]
Well, fair enough, thanks for your input. I don't think I've seen this video you're speaking of, but maybe I have and just see it differently. In any case, if you do find it, send it this way and I'll let you know how I feel about it.
 

Naxi

The Dawkness!
Sep 3, 2006
11,550
46
0
28
UK
www.last.fm
#8
[QUOTE="unicron7, post: 0]lol I know I am going to sound like one of the examples of what you pointed out above, and I am very sorry for it, but I honestly believe they dumbed down the demo AI for certain presentations. I saw other streaming footage of a guy getting wasted every 30 seconds or so for a good 10-12 minutes. He seemed to have a tough time with the enemies, and he played extremely well. They would flank to different positions with speed. Duck, shoot, duck. Slide behind a crate. One would throw a grenade while his buddy ran to a better fighting position. It was fantastic footage. I wish I could find the link to show you, but I forgot. I'll try to find it for ya though. lol I will admit though that the newest videos do show moronic behavior on the enemies behalf.[/quote]Well i hope so because that gameplay video was slow and boring.The enemies acted like headless chickens and were generally slow.The death animations were nothing that those old gifs suggested. I hope this was some kind of a helghast orphanage level.
 

Nunalho

Tekken Elder
Nov 13, 2005
7,102
0
0
35
#9
Actually the AI seemed pretty standard, they hide and shoot, toss granades and some times do stupid things, but i ll give it a discount because its easy mode, there is still 9 months and Gears 2 AI looked poor aswell, time to work on it. Or maybe in normal mode the AI will be more agressive.
We have to wait and see the final product, but the AI is always a relative aspect in FPS, few got a seriously challenging AI and there isnt one single shooter where we cant find a bot being stupid. That´s why they arent human.
 
Sep 5, 2006
2,537
0
0
33
#10
[QUOTE="UMGAWA, post: 0]It makes me worried about the future of gaming when we have people having a whinge about games that havent been released and making judgements on the basis brief screenshots and videos.

talk about being anal.[/quote]

Wow. Is that seriously all you have to offer? I specifically said that I didn't want responses like yours, yet here you are, but I'll entertain this one, since comprehension is apparently something you're lacking.

I clearly stated that what I'm judging is THE CURRENT BUILD, and not the final game. I also gave suggestions, which should send off a light bulb in your head saying "hey, this guy realizes that things CAN IMPROVE!" I guess not.

Secondly, in the title of this bloody thread, is the word assessment, which implies a detailed analysis. Last time I checked, analyzing something in detail meant going in depth, citing examples, and giving a critique. If what I offered wasn't what you were looking for, maybe you would do well to uh...pay attention to the title of the thread, read my disclaimer(aka, the first bloody sentence), and make some kind of conscious effort to comprehend the context.

If you were looking for something short and sweet, that's fine, good for you. However, don't come into a thread that's clearly indicated to be long and critical from the title alone just to be a condescending pr*ck about what you find. I could imagine someone like you freely walking into a gang war and getting offended when people start shooting at you.
 

SoulDude

Superior Member
Aug 9, 2007
634
0
0
46
#11
At the OP.

For comparison's sake, can you tell me which game ticks all of your AI boxes?

The AI relating to a demo is governed by the settings. End of. I just think we should wait until we can all play the game on its hardest setting, and then discuss. However, I do agree with most of your assessment.

Anyway, which game ticks all of the AI boxes that you've mentioned?

Good in-depth analysis by the way.:)
 

JVH

Apprentice
Jul 2, 2007
457
2
0
44
#12
Well, can´t blame the invasion forces on Normandie to be all that smart either.... They just ran into death and won because they where so many. So real life can be pretty stupid too ! ;)
 

Naxi

The Dawkness!
Sep 3, 2006
11,550
46
0
28
UK
www.last.fm
#13
[QUOTE="Nunalho, post: 0]Actually the AI seemed pretty standard, they hide and shoot, toss granades and some times do stupid things, but i ll give it a discount because its easy mode, there is still 9 months and Gears 2 AI looked poor aswell, time to work on it. Or maybe in normal mode the AI will be more agressive.
We have to wait and see the final product, but the AI is always a relative aspect in FPS, few got a seriously challenging AI and there isnt one single shooter where we cant find a bot being stupid. That´s why they arent human.[/quote]Standard? They did the standard things, but they did it at the wrong moments.Of course it's not ready and may be dumbed down for whatever reason.There's nothing to go by on Gears 2 AI since you're on a little platform.
 

Carsonal

Elite Sage
Jun 3, 2006
11,129
0
0
32
#14
I'm sure that a trained soldier would be reacting to certain situations as if by habit or reflex. I'm not seeing that here. What I'm seeing is sluggish and confused imbeciles with gas masks and automatic weapons.
LOL.
I read your thread and then saw the vid and I couldn't help but laugh.
 

psycho_rez

Dedicated Member
Mar 9, 2007
1,174
0
0
32
#15
Its Pre-alpha, i think one of the devs said they still have to work on AI and such, dont judge the game so early.

Plus it could be that its on easy mode for the demonstration.
 
Jun 10, 2007
319
0
0
28
#16
AI is lacking in some places, notably when the enemies fail to shoot at you, or they would rather jump over railings, instead of shooting at you from high ground.
I'm hoping these issues are just because the game is set on "easy" for the demo, and remember that the demo was the second level, so the enemies shouldn't be too hard. Even so, the Helghast do seem too dumb at times
Fortunately, it looks like Guerilla has hired a specialist to work on it.
 
Jan 11, 2008
8,100
60
48
31
www.Thetf.net
#17
I was under the impression that the settings for all of these 'hands on' experiences that these journalists had was on easy. Just like the Devil May Cry demo we got was on easy.
 
Sep 5, 2006
2,537
0
0
33
#18
[QUOTE="Nunalho, post: 0]i ll give it a discount because its easy mode[/quote]

Find me any official source that can confirm this. Otherwise, this ain't an argument...sorry to say.

[QUOTE="Nunalho, post: 0]there is still 9 months and Gears 2 AI looked poor aswell, time to work on it.[/quote]

I'm not concerned about Gears 2 A.I., I don't even own a 360. Secondly, another game having poor A.I. doesn't justify Killzone having it as well. The whole point of having a blockbuster, stand-out game is being BETTER than your contemporaries, not using them as an excuse for your incompetencies.

[QUOTE="Nunalho, post: 0]Or maybe in normal mode the AI will be more agressive. [/quote]

Once again, that is assuming that the A.I. is intentionally dumbed down. Until I get confirmation on this, I cannot take this seriously as an argument.


[QUOTE="Nunalho, post: 0]That´s why they arent human.[/quote]

I have to apologize, but I don't buy that. Check the examples I cited for F.E.A.R., and that's really just scraping the surface. If you can get your hands on a PC copy of the game, it's seriously around $30 bucks now, and I'd bet you can get it cheaper online, then you'll see what I mean.

I cannot say enough good things about the A.I. in F.E.A.R., but let me highlight the bad factors present within that particular game to put it into perspective for you how crucial good A.I. is.

Things that sucked about F.E.A.R.:

Level design. Utter Crap. Nearly every area was some office space, connected to another office with very tight corridors. Luckily, the devs were smart enough to put your most intense firefights in some relatively open areas that offered some tactical variation, but traveling about was boring and claustrophobic otherwise.

Weapons. Crap again. They were fictional, which isn't the problem, they were just basic and poorly done. The weapon progression was exactly like Doom and Duke Nukem. Yeah, the originals. Start out with a small, weak weapon and slowly get bigger, badder, better, more unstoppable weaponry.

Ability. The slow-mo thing made the game way too easy, which is a crying shame considering how stellar the A.I. is. My guess is that they purposely tried to undermine their own A.I. because it truly is that damn good. Sad thing is, they went a little too far with it.

Story. Convoluted and hackneyed as all hell(for some reason I rather enjoyed it though, but I reckon most people wouldn't). Cliches left and right, and coupled with the disposable level design...let's just say it didn't help matters.

Despite all of those things, the A.I. MADE this game because of how unpredictable, aggressive, agile, fast, and tenacious they were. I'll say it again, these guys were out to get you, and they don't let up. They use anything from basic tactics to some pretty advanced stuff, and they almost always take advantage of their environment, their elevation, and your situation(you're trapped, out of ammo/grenades, etc.).

If I were to rate the game, t would be a solid 8.5 considering all of those short comings. I'm telling you right now, the A.I. MADE that game, and without it, I'd have dismissed it as a pretty, but horribly flawed crapfest. If that doesn't say it, I don't know what will, but in short, Killzone, for everything that it has going for it, will fail without better A.I., period.

[QUOTE="SoulDude, post: 0]At the OP.

For comparison's sake, can you tell me which game ticks all of your AI boxes?

The AI relating to a demo is governed by the settings. End of. I just think we should wait until we can all play the game on its hardest setting, and then discuss. However, I do agree with most of your assessment.

Anyway, which game ticks all of the AI boxes that you've mentioned?

Good in-depth analysis by the way.:)[/quote]

F.E.A.R. ticks all of my boxes. Although they were fighting in urbanized terrain and used smaller scale groups, their tactics were flawless, and they were adaptive to your actions, yours and their situation, and pretty much anything else you could think of. The game itself is way below average, but like I said to Nunalho, the A.I. is the saving grace. You'll get into some gritty, heartpounding, fast and frantic firefights in that game, and while I was playing it, I often times went back to it just to experiment with the A.I.

It is the holy grail of FPS A.I., bar none. Truly a benchmark. While not perfect(I don't believe in such a concept, considering human tactics aren't perfect either :p), it's the best out there even today, three years later.

That's just my opinion though, and I'm sure others will tell you differently. For me though, killing the enemies in F.E.A.R. was nearly as satisfying as going toe to toe with human beings in multiplayer of ANY FPS. That's saying a lot.
 
Z

Zenun

Guest
#19
To the OP... So you're "reviewing" a PRE-ALPHA game and on top of that there's only criticism from your part?... Wow you're so smart o_O.
 
S

Soldier 95B

Guest
#20
Lord Arklon, you probably won't like my reply either, as it won't be long winded. I found some issues with the AI when I watched the video, but I didn't notice as many as you. After watching the video again, I put your post in context with the video. I see what you are saying, and I can agree. I think you have a well organized, well though out post.

You are much like me in that, you look for realism, and you notice hollywood mistakes in a game. Many of the things you pointed out was actually just common sense changes that need to be made, and obviously have been missed during this alpha/beta footage.

I hope the AI does indeed get a revamping prior to it's release. I will be buying the game either way though.

Thanks for the time and effort you put into your post.
 
E

Epic.Failz

Guest
#21
Yeah, I don't think you can compare a movie to a finished and patched game. Any comparisons on kz2 are null because (1) we don't know how unfinished the a.i is, (2) we don't know what difficulty the game video is set on, (3) we don't know if settings were turned on/off just for the video, (4) it isn't playable, it's just a video. You can critique kz2, but you shouldn't take it this seriously until the demo/open beta.
 
S

Soldier 95B

Guest
#22
[QUOTE="Epic.Failz, post: 0]Yeah, I don't think you can compare a movie to a finished and patched game. Any comparisons on kz2 are null because (1) we don't know how unfinished the a.i is, (2) we don't know what difficulty the game video is set on, (3) we don't know if settings were turned on/off just for the video, (4) it isn't playable, it's just a video. You can critique kz2, but you shouldn't take it this seriously until the demo/open beta.[/quote]

You obviously didn't read his post. He explained WHY he was posting his thoughts on the game.
 
Jan 24, 2007
2,114
0
0
28
#23
Send this stuff to the PS Blog or Guerrilla or someone, your wasting that good writing on us sir. At least try anyway.
Very well written and backed up etc. and I want it to be the way you have described. The only defense really is that at the end of the day it is allegedly Pre-Alpha and that the difficulty was put on retard as the journalists have not played this game before and they just wanted to show off the level and the graphics. I hope this is the case.
So yeah, well written. Good job.
 
Sep 5, 2006
2,537
0
0
33
#24
[QUOTE="Carsonal, post: 0]LOL.
I read your thread and then saw the vid and I couldn't help but laugh.[/quote]

:???: Does this mean you agree or disagree?

[QUOTE="psycho_rez, post: 0]Its Pre-alpha, i think one of the devs said they still have to work on AI and such, dont judge the game so early.

Plus it could be that its on easy mode for the demonstration.[/quote]

I'm not judging the game itself early, I'm simply critiquing the current footage. People keep telling me this as if I don't know it, well I do.

If I'm not allowed to criticize something that isn't finished, then neither should anyone else be allowed to praise it, because there's every possibility that it could worse. Compromise is always a factor in game development you know, like it or not. I'm not saying that will happen, and I sincerely believe that it won't, but it's within the realm of possibility.

[QUOTE="Zenun, post: 0]To the OP... So you're "reviewing" a PRE-ALPHA game and on top of that there's only criticism from your part?... Wow you're so smart o_O.[/quote]

*EDIT* I'm just gonna kill my response right now, I'm getting a little too abrasive.

All I have to say to this character is, believe what you want. Try comprehending what you read next time and adding something of value to the discussion. I hear this type of obvious, and misdirected, thing all the time, and people say as if it's some profound revelation that simpletons like myself just never released.

You believe that though. Believe that I didn't see the big white "pre-alpha" letter in this years and last years demos. Believe that I'm absolutely saying that the final game will be like this and there's no chance for improvement. You go right ahead.
 

cyclops

Apprentice
Oct 20, 2006
214
4
0
47
#25
From the very first time this game was playable at E3 last year, It was said to be on a type of GOD mode so that the reporters would have a good experience with it and see more of what the game has to offer. I think they have the game on a very very easy difficulty.
 
A

Ant-Lox-Forever

Guest
#26
Pretty in depth analysis for a 2 minute video. I sort of had the same reaction, the people were dumbed down and slow.

You know it's just a early build, but seems like you had fun breaking it down second by second.

Hey, in the end, you're paying a lot of money for this game, and you've invested a lot of time, and patience, so it better be up to your standards :).
 

Carsonal

Elite Sage
Jun 3, 2006
11,129
0
0
32
#27
[QUOTE="Lord Arklon, post: 0]:???: Does this mean you agree or disagree?


.[/QUOTE]

Agree.
Seeing the guys jumping over the railings was hilarious.
 
Jun 4, 2007
13,390
175
63
#29
Edit:I thought the A.I was pretty decent. It hasn't been confirmed what level it's being played on, but I would assume it's easy mode. They confirmed God Mode at e3 07', so I don't know why they didn't this year.

You should post it on the killzone boards. It would be nice if Eon or motherh would respond to this. As of late they have been m.i.a.

But I won't get too worked up over it yet. I'm still holding off until it leaves that pre-beta stage. I know you aren't judging the whole game based off this as you stated it in the op.

Take a look at the direct feed of the opening of the game before the warehouse. The A.I looks great to be in the pre-beta stage imho.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/34176.html

Edit 2: Well, concerning basically everything you have touched on L.A., it was in one of the off cam videos where one of the guys at GG said that the phyics would be improved, the A.I. etc by the time of release. Also in one of the previews(I can't remember what site) they asked about the cover system and they said that they are still tweaking it.
 
B

BioSonic

Guest
#30
I agree with most of your points, but at least acknowledge that some of the people who disagree with you have valid points.

(1) we don't know how unfinished the a.i is, (2) we don't know what difficulty the game video is set on, (3) we don't know if settings were turned on/off just for the video