My few concerns with enemy AI

[-Tao-]

Let's face it... nobody wants smart A.I. in a game. A player, especially in a single player game, would be in a total disadvantage all the time...

I am not agree with you, maybe you want easy AI, but I don't, I want a challenging game, the harder the better.

So that's the reason of why we have different levels of difficulty.

Do you want AI running straight to you so you can easily kill them in the head? OK, CHOOSE EASY MODE
Do you want them to flank you and surround you with different tactics? Ok, CHOOSE REAL MODE.

Do you see? Both players happy.

Post automatically merged: Aug 25, 2020

The fact a game from 15 years ago (F.E.A.R) at least made the attempt and somewhat pulled it off tells me it should be possible to have respectable NPC behavior in a modern, interactive game. If instead we get bullet spongy goodness, 3 different ways to barge into the room and cyberpunk of duty gameplay, featuring dimwit NPC behavior, then I can definitely say I'll be disappointed.

You explained very well in this paragraph what are my thoughts and concerns about the game. I hope they are actually working on this.

 

[fridgeband]

I've heard a story somewhere that developers can make smarter AI. Example was that a shooter (you) is in cover and other enemies in front of you use cover efficiently, but the other enemy team is surrounding you and coming behind your back. And the testers complained how enemies just respawns behind your back and felt frustrated for dying by such cheesy tactics.
Shooter games and difficulty never compliment each other, unless it's old rainbow six or something...

Well that's the problem - the setup of enemies. If they respawn behind player without logical explanation ( like backup arrived or something), that would be annoying. But I think that would be cool if enemies did things, like flanking, surrounding etc).

Let's face it... nobody wants smart A.I. in a game. A player, especially in a single player game, would be in a total disadvantage all the time... running guns blazing into every situation vs 5, 10, 15, or more NPC's... the moment A.I. starts engaging a player in a tactical manner that would make sense, every single one of the people complaining about A.I. would be the first to bitch about A.I. cheating. Finding a balance between completely dumb A.I. and the one that makes it completely not fun to play isn't easy... the previously mentioned F.E.A.R. has an absurdly simple A.I. but it worked brilliantly in that game... a happy accident that's hard to replicate.

As for the two screenshots from OP, IIRC correctly, the first situation was ~2-second scene selected specifically to showcase dismemberment. Is it possible a player used an A.I. hack to freeze an enemy? Absolutely, because we know that feature is in the game. Is it also possible, they just set that character to idle? Also possible.

I don't recall the second scene, but it looks like the group was just standing there, when the player got a jump on them.. makes sense for them to all stand there. :dunno:

I want to take that demo at face value as just a vehicle for showing us how the weapons can be used. I would have some real concern if the AI were that special.

I'm expecting middle of the road AI that gives enough challenge that you need to think, but not so much challenge that you need to be thinking hard. Would I like to have to think harder about my choices? Definitely. If I go in expecting middling but and surprised with needing to really think, then it's win-win.

I am not agree with you, maybe you want easy AI, but I don't, I want a challenging game, the harder the better.

So that's the reason of why we have different levels of difficulty.

Do you want AI running straight to you so you can easily kill them in the head? OK, CHOOSE EASY MODE
Do you want them to flank you and surround you with different tactics? Ok, CHOOSE REAL MODE.

Do you see? Both players happy.

Post automatically merged: Aug 25, 2020

You explained very well in this paragraph what are my thoughts and concerns about the game. I hope they are actually working on this.

I like all the points everyone is bringing up, but I just wanted to say that there is a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE difference between good challenging AI VS cheating AI. I rarely ever experience, and can't currently recall the last experience I ever had with good challenging AI in video games. All of my experiences with AI in video games, to the best of my ability to recall at the moment has been
A. really dumb AI that were really boring and not fun
or
B. really frustrating cheating AI that spawn behind me or use other incredibly cheap tactics in an unfair way, and seem to operate on a completely different set of rules than the player and constantly frustrating the player to no end until they rage-quit
or
C. somewhat alright AI, but really not that fun, but just sort of good enough but still not that great

I don't recall a video game that was both challenging, fun, and simultaneously not frustrating or cheaty.

I rather Cyberpunk2077 get option C or A, if it helps it avoid being a B
hopefully it will be a better version of C than anything I have experienced in the past. I don't really know what to hope for, other than hoping to avoid what I know is bad. Because I don't know any good AI that made me feel good.

 

[Ecod3r]

NPC's AI must be smart, otherwise what is the point of customising weapons ?
no challange!

I said this for years now, no matter how good looking the game grahics, sound design, art.etc
if AI is dump!, the gameplay will be ruined. it will get boring after few hours.

NPC AI must be challenging.

 

[AsadaShino0821]

There is no smart AI games currently on the market

 

[fridgeband]

NPC's AI must be smart, otherwise what is the point of customising weapons ?
no challange!

I said this for years now, no matter how good looking the game grahics, sound design, art.etc
if AI is dump!, the gameplay will be ruined. it will get boring after few hours.

NPC AI must be challenging.

There is no smart AI games currently on the market

Games are just code running to give an illusion that something is happening. The whole experience is an illusion. Technically speaking, the AI doesn't need to be "Smart" so much as it only has to give the illusion that it's smart. Hopefully the AI is a good enough illusion of intelligence without being "cheaty" that it ends up being very fun. As long as the AI doesn't feel like it teleports around and does unfair things or cheat, but also has the illusion of being believable and smart, without being annoying, then I guess it's probably good, but I don't really know. I'm just gonna trust CDPR on this one. I will say though that the more I think about it, I really didn't like the AI in the Witcher 3 for example. It felt incredibly "cheaty" and unfair and also not very smart at the same time. It was just incredibly obnoxious and annoying.

 

[Guest 4406876]

We are still in a young age with AI so you would expect some issues with it even may be after a decade as well.

Young age my arse. Say thanks to 15 years of idiotic multiplayer games with just maps and people killing each other. Back in early 2000 and late 90s there's where games with better ai than any triple A nowadays. Devs just forgot how to develop games with AI because it's easier and cheaper to create empty world and populate them with players instead of giving them working single player games.

 

[AdamTaylor]

I would LOVE to see a really deep and adaptive AI.

As pointed out, FEAR had an amazing AI system. Not so much because it was super deep, but because it just happened to work well with the level layout and player actions. It had limited options, but made amazing use of them to really make enemies feel like a real threat that were reacting to you.

The first Half-Life was similar. The AI wasn't all that complex, but with only limited resources, they used them very well.

The more you add to a game, the more weapons, locations, armors, abilities, etc... the harder it is to properly build an AI to make full use of it all. When games are simple, AI often comes down to yes or no option. Shoot or not shoot. Cover or not cover. Attack or retreat. As options grow, it becomes attack with X, Y or Z, or attack with skill A, B or C? Balanced with moving around, where to hide, where to shoot from what part to aim at, etc.

Plus the fact it's all happening in real time. In a turn based game, it's vastly easier to have an AI that weighs the possible actions and pick the most effective move. But when everything's going on real time, that means the AI would have to be constantly reacting to everything, along with the exponential options available.

That's why we usually end up seeing enemies just broken down into super simple templates. The melee berserkers that just charge the player. The ones that way behind cover and attack when close. The enemies who stand in the open and shoot compared to the ones that use cover. They usually just stick to their basic tactic and never vary.

I would love to see AI that adapt to the situation as it changes. A guy with a shotgun taking cover because you're out of reach, waiting in a spot where you can't shoot him until you get close enough. A melee guy who dives for cover when you're about to shoot and tries to move cover to cover until he can get you. A sniper who drops his rifle and goes for a pistol or melee when you're too close. Stuff like that.

 

[Bloodartist]

All in all, I believe that advanced AI system is not a core feature of Cyberpunk.

Considering this is a singleplayer game, Id say it is very MUCH at the core of cyberpunk. You will be dealing with NOTHING but computer-controlled NPCs. Unless in a pre-recorded cutscene, AI is omnipresent.

 

[fridgeband]

Considering this is a singleplayer game, Id say it is very MUCH at the core of cyberpunk. You will be dealing with NOTHING but computer-controlled NPCs. Unless in a pre-recorded cutscene, AI is omnipresent.

this is a pretty good point

Post automatically merged: Aug 27, 2020

Say thanks to 15 years of idiotic multiplayer games with just maps and people killing each other. Back in early 2000 and late 90s there's where games with better ai than any triple A nowadays. Devs just forgot how to develop games with AI because it's easier and cheaper to create empty world and populate them with players instead of giving them working single player games.

Agreed

 

[StereoFlava]

I thought "open world RPG" was a clue enough to know the AI will be pretty standard.

 

[Kosciaty]

AI would have to be constantly reacting to everything

AI doesn't have to choose their behaviour every tick and that's not even realstic. You can give cooldowns ( 5, 10 sec) and give time to try strategy that enemy chose. Or even better, make an indicator, that will trigger when behaviour would have to be chosen again, like other npc death, large player movement etc.

I'd say that it's better to have more behaviours implemented that enemy will stick with for longer period, than have few behaviours that are switched between fast.

 

[northrop]

I thought "open world RPG" was a clue enough to know the AI will be pretty standard.

You're on the internet. That should be a clue enough to know that nobody is every happy about anything, and nothing is ever good enough

 

[BabalKabak]

There are so much wonderful things to explore with gaming A.I.

 

[fridgeband]

I thought "open world RPG" was a clue enough to know the AI will be pretty standard.

I actually spit out my coffee, this was pretty funny. I hope to be pleasantly surprised by Cyberpunk2077 though. I think it will be at least a little bit better than the usual open world RPG AI.

Post automatically merged: Aug 28, 2020

You're on the internet. That should be a clue enough to know that nobody is every happy about anything, and nothing is ever good enough

I'll be happy when the cows come home

Post automatically merged: Aug 28, 2020

There are so much wonderful things to explore with gaming A.I.

Did you ever read that old chan copypasta about the story of this one person who experimented with AI in this old video game they were playing, and they had it set up to make the AI learn from every battle and get better and better at defeating each others strategies in the next round to improve their kill vs death ratio or something like that, and they left the simulation running for two and a half days or something and they finally came back and caught the AI (4 of them I think) just standing there in a row next to each other. Essentially the AI has figured out that the best way to never get a bad death score would be to not have a high kill score, and essentially cooperatively all remain stationary and not shoot each other, thus having a no kill ratio and no death ratio. They got into this equilibrium and remained peaceful, which was really interesting that they arrived to that logical point. When the person tried to duplicate the results, it didn't happen again, and they were never able to repeat the same results.