Jake

Idle Thumbs 161: The Eyes of Luigi

Recommended Posts

FEAR'S AI is something to experience and I remember being blown away by it when it first came out.

I vividly remember hiding from the enemies and one of them had me pinned. I ducked behind cover and I just waited for the situation to calm down a bit. Out of nowhere one of them jumps throw a window, turn my way mid-air and blow my face away with his shotgun. I never expected something like that. The enemies take amazing initiatives to try take you out that is yet to be seen even now in modern FPS games.

Also Freddie Gibbs + MK 8 gifs = the best

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vividly remember hiding from the enemies and one of them had me pinned. I ducked behind cover and I just waited for the situation to calm down a bit. Out of nowhere one of them jumps throw a window, turn my way mid-air and blow my face away with his shotgun. I never expected something like that. The enemies take amazing initiatives to try take you out that is yet to be seen even now in modern FPS games.

 

This is sort of what was being discussed in the cast, right? In the situation you are describing it's not that the AI is necessarily better, all modern FPS games have AI that can sometimes try and move behind you, it's that in FEAR it takes weird and unexpected paths to do so.

Probably a big contributor to this effect is just having lots of pathable objects, by having the path nodes be allowed to go on top of cover/set decoration & inside windows, and having appropriate animations for mantling those kinds of nodes. Then setting up areas where what the player imagines the paths the AI can take don't 100% match what the AI can actually take, so as to allow the player to be surprised occasionally (but not constantly).

I don't know that it's an AI problem so much as it is a level design problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck it, Waluigi time.

 

gYgTsNB.gif

I just want to point out that seeing this in-game was the moment Waluigi became my favorite Nintendo character. It was just so far from anything I was expecting from a Mario game. Plus his special power in that game was summoning brambles or something absurd like that. Waluigi is the where Nintendo allows themselves to break convention and go full wildcard and I love it. I think that's why a Waluigi game is such a compelling idea, because what the fuck would it even be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's worthless to have some decent AI in an FPS where the player can take a few hits. Games, and FPSs more than most, are about creating a convincing illusion that you can lose yourself in effectively. Shooting-gallery grunts who pop up obviously from behind cover so you can head-shot them are an illusion breaker in themselves. I want covering fire and flanking in situations where it doesn't do the AI all that much good because it creates the illusion of determined, believable adversaries and a sense of constant threat.

 

Half-Life's marines definitely lobbed grenades in after you if you hid. That was one of those great moments in early FPS AI design, and quite a shock the first time it happened. That you could reverse the maneuver to real effect was wonderful icing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who's also never played FEAR and is thinking about it, would I have to go into the experience ready to forgive some clunky things that modern games have ironed out/abandoned from their designs?

Not really, my two biggest criticisms of it are that many of its environments are fairly ugly and generic, since the game really lacks in the visual design department. As well as some tedious bullet sponge enemy types that show up in the late game. Both relatively minor complaints.

Another virtue of F.E.A.R. that people usually pass over to talk about its A.I. is the wonderful job it does creating a tense spooky atmosphere despite being a game with both jump kicks and duel wielding pistols* I particularly loved the surreal horror movie environments that briefly pop up is a couple of the games pseudo-cut scenes.

 

*The dual pistols are amazing by the way, they're a viable weapon against almost every enemy in the game and as such were my weapon of choice any time I was able to find the inexplicably rare ammo for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I really want — and this may be hopelessly optimistic — is AI that can make a rudimentary evaluation of whether the action it's performing is actually accomplishing its goals. By which I primarily mean, when none of an enemy's attacks are hitting you (perhaps because you're hiding behind a piece of level geometry), it notices this, and tries to attack you from a different angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I really want — and this may be hopelessly optimistic — is AI that can make a rudimentary evaluation of whether the action it's performing is actually accomplishing its goals. By which I primarily mean, when none of an enemy's attacks are hitting you (perhaps because you're hiding behind a piece of level geometry), it notices this, and tries to attack you from a different angle.

 

Frankly I'd like more AI to think "Well they just killed all my friends, I guess I'm outta here."

 

 

Also I've always just thought of it as the idea that in games the artificial part of AI is more in the sense that it's a fake constructed appearance of AI, and better games AI is just about making it seem as if the enemies are thinking (even if it's purely visual/audio touches and creates no gameplay difference).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly I'd like more AI to think "Well they just killed all my friends, I guess I'm outta here."

 

I would love it just one, single time in a game the AI does the line from Iron Man 3, "Don't shoot! Seriously, I don't even like working here." and then runs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love it just one, single time in a game the AI does the line from Iron Man 3, "Don't shoot! Seriously, I don't even like working here." and then runs.

 

Then they ruin it by giving you an achievement for sparing him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is sort of what was being discussed in the cast, right? In the situation you are describing it's not that the AI is necessarily better, all modern FPS games have AI that can sometimes try and move behind you, it's that in FEAR it takes weird and unexpected paths to do so.

Probably a big contributor to this effect is just having lots of pathable objects, by having the path nodes be allowed to go on top of cover/set decoration & inside windows, and having appropriate animations for mantling those kinds of nodes. Then setting up areas where what the player imagines the paths the AI can take don't 100% match what the AI can actually take, so as to allow the player to be surprised occasionally (but not constantly).

I don't know that it's an AI problem so much as it is a level design problem.

it was.

For some reason I skim the thread first before I listen and saw people talking about their FEAR experience and I wanted to tell mine. Once I listened to the cast, I realized the ignorance of my post.

Oh well, that's what happens when you jump in without knowing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then they ruin it by giving you an achievement for sparing him.

 

Or an achievement for killing him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was a little funny that Nick ragged on The Forest or whatever for not quite having it all together and then later in the episode doesn't want to comment on having played Wolfenstein while it was still in progress because it was super unfinished back when he played it. I mean, I don't give one one millionth of a shit about The Forest - all I know about it is what was said in the podcast, because I don't like horror games and also it struck me as vaguely racist when I first saw it so I've been ignoring it - but a lot of Nick's criticisms seem sort of misplaced given that the game isn't even done yet. He would say stuff like "yeah there's some good stuff there but they really need to capitalize on it" and I'm thinking "presumably that's what will happen when the game is done."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was a little funny that Nick ragged on The Forest or whatever for not quite having it all together and then later in the episode doesn't want to comment on having played Wolfenstein while it was still in progress because it was super unfinished back when he played it. I mean, I don't give one one millionth of a shit about The Forest - all I know about it is what was said in the podcast, because I don't like horror games and also it struck me as vaguely racist when I first saw it so I've been ignoring it - but a lot of Nick's criticisms seem sort of misplaced given that the game isn't even done yet. He would say stuff like "yeah there's some good stuff there but they really need to capitalize on it" and I'm thinking "presumably that's what will happen when the game is done."

There's a big difference though between playing an unfinished game that has yet to be released, and playing an "unfinished" game that has been released and that you pay money to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the perspective of listing things that need fixing to make the game better I don't really see what the difference is. It just sounded funny to hear Nick say "here are some obvious flaws that need to get fixed for the game to get better" even though the game isn't done, then refuse to do the same thing later on. I'm not sure how having paid to play one game makes it any more sensible to list flaws that I'm sure the developers want to fix as much as anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he hasn't played the final Wolfenstein what is the point of him talking about a year+ old development build? The difference is that The Forest only exists in an unfinished state, whereas Nick's impressions on Wolfenstein are months and months old while thousands of people have long completed the finished version. It seems like a hugely different situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the point of him talking about a year+ old development build would be to get his opinions on it, which are just as relevant to me as his opinions on a current development build that I am also not going to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the point of him talking about a year+ old development build would be to get his opinions on it, which are just as relevant to me as his opinions on a current development build that I am also not going to play.

It's just impossible to rectify his issues against the final build without playing both himself. Nick talking to Chris about it would be as of they were both just talking in different directions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just impossible to rectify his issues against the final build without playing both himself. Nick talking to Chris about it would be as of they were both just talking in different directions.

 

I really don't see how that would be ridiculous or untenable. Example exchange:

 

Nick - "I remember this thing being this way and that thing being that way. I liked it a lot because it seemed to have potential, is it in the final game?"

Chris - "It works really well, but maybe they changed this and that because things sound different? I don't remember this one thing you said being in it. Instead, there was something else."

 

I can understand not wanting to dish hot scoops on one's former employer, and if that's the reason then it's totally fine, but having two people compare two different iterations of a game through the medium of conversation is one of the reasons I listen to the podcast. It's not like we're tuning in to hear the latest on 2014's hottest new games, we just want to hear what you guys think about stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I just assumed he didn't elaborate because what he saw while working at Bethesda was privileged info, and he didn't know how Bethesda/Machine Games would feel about him discussing it publicly. That's not really something you see people do. Would have been cool, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't see how that would be ridiculous or untenable. Example exchange:

 

Nick - "I remember this thing being this way and that thing being that way. I liked it a lot because it seemed to have potential, is it in the final game?"

Chris - "It works really well, but maybe they changed this and that because things sound different? I don't remember this one thing you said being in it. Instead, there was something else."

 

I can understand not wanting to dish hot scoops on one's former employer, and if that's the reason then it's totally fine, but having two people compare two different iterations of a game through the medium of conversation is one of the reasons I listen to the podcast. It's not like we're tuning in to hear the latest on 2014's hottest new games, we just want to hear what you guys think about stuff.

 

I think the complication is that a lot can happen in a year or more of development, the entire focus of the game could change and render some of Nicks thoughts redundant because the thing they're about doesn't even exist any more. I do think the idea of discussing the changes a game has gone through is an interesting prospect, however I think it could potentially come across as muddled or confused as Nick and Chris try to find common ground on two essentially different games which isn't normally what the Thumbs do. The deviation could unintentionally misrepresent the real game to listeners that don't entirely internalise the idea that Nick's experience is not what they'd have.

 

Also Nick might've just wanted to play the actual release before making a judgement and discussing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the complication is that a lot can happen in a year or more of development, the entire focus of the game could change and render some of Nicks thoughts redundant because the thing they're about doesn't even exist any more. I do think the idea of discussing the changes a game has gone through is an interesting prospect, however I think it could potentially come across as muddled or confused as Nick and Chris try to find common ground on two essentially different games which isn't normally what the Thumbs do. The deviation could unintentionally misrepresent the real game to listeners that don't entirely internalise the idea that Nick's experience is not what they'd have.

 

Also Nick might've just wanted to play the actual release before making a judgement and discussing it.

 

Maybe? I don't know, when more of the Thumbs were in journalism, they had no problem discussing a game which one of them was playing on release and another had played a year before at E3. Even today, they have no problem discussing a game that one of them's played if the rest have seen the marketing and Twitter responses. They just let the person with the most current and firsthand knowledge take the lead in the conversation, it tends to work out. In fact, once Nick moved past a lot of his hesitance, there were several interesting insights, like about the stage at which the music was built into the game.

 

And yeah, like anthonyRichard, I assume it was deference to a former employer or a desire not to be overly negative about major issues that might not exist in the game anymore, neither of which I'd begrudge him. But if the reason really is a concern that Nick's impressions would just be out of date and lack common ground with Chris, then that is very silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or an achievement for killing him.

One achievement for each, so you have to play the game twice, thus adding replay value. "It took me 120 hours to play to completion! 10/10"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic of convenient console power/video connectors which are the same on each console iteration, I think Sony has been silently doing this since the PS1. I don't have a PS4, so this may not hold true any more, but excluding any of the Lite Diet Slim models, the power and the video connector has been the same all the way up to the PS3 (Unless you're using HDMI). I always thought that was pretty neat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a difference between playing the earliest possible version of a game while working for the company vs. playing a press build as a journalist vs. playing an early access build that costs dollars. At the very least, I wasn't going to comment on anything I knew about Wolfenstein without having played the final version. Even then, it's often a bad idea to talk about privileged information gleaned from a place of former employment. I don't like lawyers.

 

Anyway, I have a lot I could say about this. I might address it the next time I'm on the podcast, if I remember. I guess I should also play Wolf, if I get the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now