On the subject of AI and "It's not hard, just do it"

+
I've been trying to tell you, man: the point of the post is education. You keep saying "some people are too stupid, just ignore their feedback, and include them as a basic statistic" but that's kinda crappy. Again, I have no idea what ya'll deal with over here in Cyberpunk - I'm not active on these forums - but educating the players on how things work is good, no matter which way you slice it.

Oh boy, I tried telling them that further back but they flat out said they don't see the point so... here we are I guess? :shrug:
 
In Cyberpunk it's more of a case of "a pedestrian forgot how to walk all of a sudden"...
I doubt that the developers were like "coding AI is difficult so we focused on pretty graphics instead. But it turned out that pretty graphics is difficult too, so we focused on adding Keanu Reeves to the game."
It's not like they don't know that their AI is broken. It's obvious the moment you walk out of Megabuilding 10. "Fix your AI" is not that bad of a feedback as in its current state literally anything you'd do to it would make it better.

Following on that above:
Feedback of "fix the game" is still important as the devs would say "they are not complaining about that element of the game anymore, case closed guys, well done!"
Also if only one person gives constructive feedback on a broken element of the game and the rest of 10 million players sits quitet because they have no higher knowledge on the subject, the devs would be like "ok, there is one unhappy guy out there, the rest seems ok with it, let's ignore it as it's too much effort to please one dude".

If we are not vocal about the state of the game, it won't be fixed. I'm sure that devs would love to make as good of a product as possible, but also they have to keep in mind that time and effort is money and perfecting certain aspects on a merit of "I can do better" is not very profitable.
I'm sure that after the game is "finished", there will still be a couple unhappy gamers on this forum complaining about a bug that they are still experiencing. And that bug will never be addressed as it seems to occur in only this guy's case. And if the bug is really hard to fix or management decides to not work on improving the game anymore...
Yeah, the squeaky wheel and all that.
 
But in this case it does supplant the feedback. What I read in your post was a lot of "sorry, too hard."

My counterpoint is that you do better service to the people sharing feedback if you try to understand the spirit of what is asked for, and consider how it might be accommodated within the available technical framework. I'm not saying that there is an obligation to consider all feedback or to treat it all equally. But it is far more constructive to look for compromise as a part of the process.


What about the communication wasn't clear or concise? How much education does the layperson need until they can offer feedback you'd consider valuable or actionable?


I didn't want to belabor the point, but frankly I don't see where you explained how to make feedback more useful. What I saw was a long list of "no can do." Which gets back to my original point, that the entire premise of this thread comes off more as deflection and making excuses for flaws in the game, rather than a basis for a more constructive dialogue going forward.

Bruh, you keep talking as if the OP was specifically about Cyberpunk or somehow a defense of CDPR.

It was literally not even a post from this forum, or even about this game. It was shared here as a point of discussion for the purpose of education. You can't take the tone and context from another conversation and apply it here.
 
It's a discussion forum. Discussion is the point. Pointing out some parts of development are "hard" (why in quotes?) is fair. That's not a "needless deflection" at all, it's another viewpoint, equally as valid.

It's okay to have opposing viewpoints. And pointing out the difficulty with developing features in games provides perspective to an audience, that frankly, tends to lack it.

"Make it better" is a common, common instruction, in one form or another. Perhaps it's obvious to you that is insufficient, but it is not at all obvious from forum, twitter and Discord posts.

There are multiple issues with 2077, and AI is a big one. It's not so simple to improve, which is why we still have quite limited AI in videogames. We really haven't gone far past Half-Life and F.E.A.R. AI, even now.

When I drive around NC, and ends up at the tail of a traffic-jam with vehicles refusing to move, I think, "Just like real life".
Post automatically merged:

I think one very important aspect of the original post reflects not on the investment (money and other recourse-wise) that was allocated to create the different systems but what the engine of the game is dealing with at any such time during the play of the game. Isn't it possible that a better AI is programmed right now but a simpler version, with less features, needs to be put in place in the actual game to support the city, lighting, sound, all the features that are being streamed at any given moment?
The sacrifices aren't just made when researching and creating code but also when allocating it all together or did I misread this part?

If they did as you suggest, they would have to spend time debugging the AI before swapping out the old with the new AI. It might be better to incrementally increase complexity of behavior from a 'simple' starting-point.
 
Last edited:
Oh boy, I tried telling them that further back but they flat out said they don't see the point so... here we are I guess? :shrug:
What I'm really getting at here is that this is not education. It's a litany of excuses, borne out of a defensive response to an unfortunate piece of criticism about a game.

I get it. The OP knows that a ton of work into the game, and doesn't like hearing it dismissed out of hand with "just fix it, it isn't hard." Obviously, people who leave feedback like this have made a mistake, the mistake of not taking the time to educate themselves and act with a little deference.

Where I stop seeing this post having a point is when a) no alternative methods of feedback are suggested, and b) the original problem presented with the feedback isn't addressed.

At the end of the day, there is still a problem with the game. And I believe a more constructive approach is to look at the issue and, if it is valid, consider how it CAN be addressed, rather than responding with a giant essay about why it just isn't possible to do anything about it, and the person should even feel stupid for saying what they did.

Bruh, you keep talking as if the OP was specifically about Cyberpunk or somehow a defense of CDPR.
???

It was literally not even a post from this forum, or even about this game. It was shared here as a point of discussion for the purpose of education. You can't take the tone and context from another conversation and apply it here.
Yikes, yikes, yikes. Is that where this is going? The OP of this thread thought it applied here, and I'm pretty sure my counterpoint applies in either case.

Making excuses =/ education, that's my final thesis. Prefacing it with "this isn't an excuse" doesn't make it less of an excuse. If you want to change that assessment, then a) provide a way that the layperson can provide feedback on complex mechanics that nonetheless suffer from legitimate flaws, and b) learn to look past feedback you find distasteful to see what you can in turn learn from it. Or don't, that's your prerogative.

Ultimately, assuming that an interaction only operates in one direction is going to limit your future opportunities. [...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When I drive around NC, and ends up at the tail of a traffic-jam with vehicles refusing to move, I think, "Just like real life".
When I drive around Night City and see a lot of cars in front of me I think to myself "wait, so this game can handle so many cars at the same time? So why isn't it like this ALL THE TIME?!" :D

I find the only people who think programming AI (or otherwise) is simple or they should "just fix it" are the same people who never wrote a line of code in their life.
I coud say the same about people who dismiss digital art as "a computer does all the work for you, it's not as difficult as real painting". :D

If they did as you suggest, they would have to spend time debugging the AI before swapping out the old with the new AI. It might be better to incrementally increase complexity of behavior from a 'simple' starting-point.
Maybe that's exactly what they are doing? Working on AI overhaul? But we don't know that, because- wait for it- there is no communication on what aspects of the game aside from obvious bugs are being prioritised right now! :D


I see the original message in this conversation as a start of much deeper one. It's not one-shot post as the topic goes farther than "oh, so AI is hard? Well, case closed I guess." It reminds me of that South Park episode with Captain Hidnsight. For people who never watched it: there was a super hero in South Park who would come in to a building on fire with people trapped inside, look at it and say "you should have installed more evacuation routes and the building should have designated zones for fire trucks with hydrants nearby", and the fire fighters were all like "Thank you Captain Hindsight, you are right! OK guys, let's go home!", living the building still burning.

Buying a dysfunctional piece of software is like buying a disfunctional toaster. Do I have the right to be upset with a brand new toster that is broken by design, or should I have a degree and experience in toaster design to have a say?

Explaining why something is broken is always a good thing. But that's only the first part of the conversation. The second part is doing something about it.
 
Last edited:
"Thank you Captain Hindsight, you are right! OK guys, let's go home!", living the building still burning.

Do I have the right to be upset with a brand new toster that is broken by design, or should I have a degree and experience in toaster design to have a say?

Mm hm. Exactly. Like, great job, you really showed up all the people who think game development is easy. Very Pog. But your game is still on fire.
 
I should have stressed out much more that I do indeed appreciate any and all insight into how games are being made. And I do admit that at the moment I'm almost completely blinded by how much upset I am about the state of the game. :(
 
That is enough with the personal skirmishing and attacks. You are required to always treat other with kindness and respect, as per the forum rules. If you cannot do that then kindly refrain from posting. Please follow the rules.
 
I find the only people who think programming AI (or otherwise) is simple or they should "just fix it" are the same people who never wrote a line of code in their life.
Lego City has better AI.


GTA 3 from 2001 had better police AI, system.
Obs: "The core development team of Grand Theft Auto III consisted of about 23 people at DMA Design in Edinburgh, who worked closely with publisher Rockstar Games in New York City."


Let that knowledge sink in.

Its not that hard to do as you are trying to make it out to be.
 
Last edited:
After gaming for almost 30 years and not being a complete idiot, all of this is 100% not new to me.

My idea is that sometimes, if you can't do things properly for whatever reason (time/know how) it's better not to implement them at all than doing it badly. You can't implement an acceptable police system? Don't put it in the game at all! I prefer a game that has few things but done properly than many things that are bad to mediocre at best. I'm more immersed if for whatever narrative reason you kill my character as soon as it does something illegal than having magic police who teleports on my location but can't follow me with cars. You can't do balanced and useful crafting? Cut it and use that budget to improve something else. Loot system is even worse? Simplify it removing all those useless stats, at least it is immersive. A good number of unlockable skills don't work? Remove them from the skill tree instead of leaving them there just to make me waste my points until I realize how broken the system is and get even madder with the game.
 
Last edited:
Could you let me know what games you have programmed?

Lego City, maybe? Perhaps he's promoting his own stuff!

I kid.

Not that you have to be a coder to criticize AI, but talking about how difficult it is to implement? You kiiinda have to be a coder to do that, yeah.

Gamers, we are very invested. Enthusiasm is not skillset though. I think that gets forgotten a lot.

Also, most of the AI comparisons I see (all, actually) are Ai just as flawed, in simpler, less ambitious systems and games. No stealth, or no hacking or no driving or melee/HtH or no level based gear and items or no super powers/cyberware/magic or no stat-based RP elements or no open world, or smaller or...

It sure is easy to cherry pick your cases. Pac Man had great AI - still does. Doesn't -do- much, but hey. What it does, it does great!
 
Not that you have to be a coder to criticize AI, but talking about how difficult it is to implement? You kiiinda have to be a coder to do that, yeah.
How about a computer scientist?

The game comparisons have been done to death, and it's pretty much an answered question as to whether the "AI" in Cyberpunk falls short of other comparable games.

As to whether it will be easy to "fix"? Clearly not with the amount of other critical work in the pipeline.

/thread
 
How about a computer scientist?

The game comparisons have been done to death, and it's pretty much an answered question as to whether the "AI" in Cyberpunk falls short of other comparable games.

As to whether it will be easy to "fix"? Clearly not with the amount of other critical work in the pipeline.

/thread
Well, one, not /thread.

2, no, not a computer scientist. A coder. Someone whose job it is to code. Probably an Ai-coder, but a professional with coding experience. At least someone in the field who works daily with coders and/or production. It's easy to armchair general this from the comfort of hindsight - try running it. Or anything.

It's also not an answered question as to whether 2077 falls short of other comparable games. What comparable games? GTA lacks more than half the features 2077 offers, for example. Borderlands? Far Cry? I see these comparisons and they are amusing.

The AI in those games is also very simple. Yes, some of them do a better job of hiding it, unless you look even slightly closer.

It's a pretty well acknowledged perspective that the AI in 2077 falls short of what people -expected- and what many wanted.

Also, this is a bit of an echo chamber. The big old world outside might just not care that much. Many products, slammed by devotees for being irredeemably flawed, simplistic, derivative or whatever, sell very well and make a lot of people happy. Call of Duty, the Many Maddens, FIFA, Borderlands, Assassin's Creeds...

Anyway, that's a bit off topic. Returning now.

AI in Cpunk needs work, sure, but that's unfortunately common.

The point of my first post copy of neatchee's piece is that the reason why AI isn't some next-level "thing" yet, is because it's really, really difficult.

Let's say the AI in 2077 was better. That it had the numbers of 2077 or AC and the population variety of same with the pathing/fake life of RDR2 and the faction/NPC border wars of STALKER or something like that.

What do you give up instead? For myself, I have a list. But not everyone wants to say good-bye to Badlands, Nomads, hacking, crafting, fancy clothes and even driving first.
 
2, no, not a computer scientist. A coder. Someone whose job it is to code.
Okay, let's go with both.

It's also not an answered question as to whether 2077 falls short of other comparable games. What comparable games? GTA lacks more than half the features 2077 offers, for example. Borderlands? Far Cry? I see these comparisons and they are amusing.
What features?
 
It's also not an answered question as to whether 2077 falls short of other comparable games. What comparable games? GTA lacks more than half the features 2077 offers, for example. Borderlands? Far Cry? I see these comparisons and they are amusing.
Comparing AI between Borderlands 3 and Cyberpunk ?
If someone compares them, either he has never played borderlands 3 or he is in bad faith :D
 
Okay, let's go with both.
Are you saying you are both a computer scientist and a coder then? Or you have a piece from someone who is that, talking about implementing AI in games and why it's easier than we think?

Also, I'm not going to list the features. Come on. If you think they have the same featureset, or anything even close, this is a waste of time.
 
Comparing AI between Borderlands 3 and Cyberpunk ?
If someone compares them, either he has never played borderlands 3 or he is in bad faith :D
True. I haven't seen the Borderlands AI have stat-derived dialogue and then combat/non combat response sets, I haven't seen a lot of hacking in BL, driving in BL doesn't seem to involve stoplights or pedestrians or police and I don't recall BL Ai swapping arms when wounded or tripping over fallen NPCs, for example.
 
Top Bottom