Was AI better in old games?
 

Well? :hmm:

I feel this is much too generalized a question.

The strength of a game's AI is title specific, and depends on the complexity of the title and the skill and talent of the AI designers and programmers. Some old titles had a strong AI, many didn't. The same is true of today's contemporary titles. Unless you're comparing apples to apples, your question is akin to inquiring whether or not the horsepower was better in older cars.

In answer to your question: Yes. No. Well, it depends.

--

Humphs, ok was AI better in the old WWII subsims, let's compare Silent Service and Silent Hunter I vs. SH2 and DC vs. SH3 and 4?

I can't remember the AI from Silent Service II good enough to compare, but todays games load a lot faster than that one did!

I swear it took 5 minutes to load.

That sucked.

I don't remember the AI from Silent Service and SS2 (it's been a long, long, long time) but I remember other disappointments with those games; still loved them, though.

The AI in Aces of the Deep was nice, with escorts ranging from stupid to scary.

Silent Hunter's escorts were a bit too good, but its worst flaw was that if you were submerged and had escaped the escorts, going to a higher time compression too soon would make them hear you and come right back to the attack. Very odd.

I suppose its kinda relative, in older games theres less for the AI to do, and such its probably less to code its tactics, and as we get further in the future more stuff has to be programed, so if you take an AI coder and have him recode an older games AI, he might be able spend the same time coding an AI with more tactics and such, and have him code a newer game were theres alot more an NPC or whatever does and he might just get basic functions and such to work.


Though I admit I haven't played alot of Pre-2000 games.

Old games suck except for silent hunter and aces of the deep.

This :roll:, with time the complexities have increased.

RDP

Something about AI.

I forgot the term, but programmers are using it to describe the attempt the reproduce realistic human behavior, as oppose to creating a formidable opponent.

I actually prefer this sort of computer opponents over a super-strong AI. Opponents like these can be bluffed by feints or resort to erratic -- sometimes effective -- reactions when under pressure.

I dont think the AI was better before, its just that that part of the industry has improved the least.

oh please...don't give me any of that!

Total Annihilation!
Empire Earth!
Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator (1 and 2)
Medieval: Total War

Some ol' games.....TA is the best RTS this far, since it's so fast paced, brain dead and totaly enjoyable!

Really AI has stayed about the same. I have yet to play a game where my computer opponent will analyze and predict my moves. and effectively counter them. The only exception is the Chessmaster series.

I dont think so, but I think developers used to invest much more time into balancing and fine tuning the AI / gameplay which gave the player the feeling that the AI was just right because the level of difficulty was just right. Technically, the huge advances in CPU speed and AI algorithms should rule out any possibility that the AI nowadays could be worse than 10 years ago.

Generally my impression is that most new games nowadays come with pretty amazing engines (including AI) but completely lacking the last stage - balancing - which takes a surpisingly large amout of time - but is just absolutely crucial to the general experience.

Another thing I have not seen discussed here is the text-file variation
in most new games now. This influences the AI to a great degree.
Older games did not have this feature. You got the AI that came with the
game, period. Now the modders can make text changes and give the AI
different parameters. Like in SH4, you can adjust how the AI ships &
planes view the players sub and how they react to it....

JIM

There you go! That hit the nail on the head.