Where are games with modern advanced AI?

[nulnil]

...and what is used to run it after the "human designs and programs it to make it so"?

Giving an infinite amount of CPU to say, the AI in Street Fighter 2 means the developers have options and can expand on the existing code and add new code to make it better because now the PC could handle it....

but because there is NOT infinite amount of CPU the developers have limited options!

Limited options means limited bots / npc's

Which is why we don't have modern advanced bots / npc's

Ah, here's the issue with your line of thinking. You believe CPU is the only limiting factor of how smart an NPC can be.

As I've said, and as I've implied, humans must make the NPCs no matter how much CPU they have. In theory CPU is the only "real" limit, but it becomes very complex in order to make the NPC actually decent at the game. If you've ever played a fighting game, you'd know that many interactions work like rock paper scissors where one option beats another, like a counter vs an attack, or a high attack vs a low block.

So let's say we've got an NPC that has unlimited CPU to work with. What moves should it use in such situations, while keeping a 'fair' reaction time. Well, you could just do a random move, but then the player might always use the option that has the highest chance to beat a random option. Better add weight to the random moves to so that's not as viable, but now what if they player only ever uses the same move on wakeup since all options effectively have the same chance of working? Further weighing the moves can be done, but any human player would catch on very quickly. So now the NPC also needs to have some level of prediction by observing the previous options the player has used in certain situations. Speaking of that, you also need to designate what certain situations even are, like okizeme offense and defense, neutral, ect. But then there's states there might not be data on until the match ends, like one character having high super meter or being on low health. Obviously, many more things can be implemented and tweaked, but this is already getting long.

And also, all of this has almost no effect on CPU. Most of this code would be if statements analyzing variables which can be done dozens of times over per frame on a modern computer. But as you see, that doesn't mean it's easy to design. That difficulty means it takes lots of time to develop these NPCs, whereas it is exponentially easier to just pick a random move in any neutral situation. Humans are really good at doing things, not so much at detailing the processes behind them.

...and what pray tell, does a human use to design and program an NPC's?

That's irrelevant, a negligable amount of CPU is needed to design and program a NPC. You don't even need a computer to design one. To program one, the bare minimum is the notepad application.

That is NOT in any way, shape, or form what I or any of the sources I have linked here are trying to say.

...

dev want great npcs
game has 10 npc
dev writes 1 000 000 line code for npc

That is exatly what you said. Or at least, what you were trying to say since I've already pointed out that it's the tasks preformed that count.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you don't seem to understand the meaning of "source" or how to use it, given how this discussion has gone...

It's irony that flew over your head. While you are out searching for sources, what I say is such well-known information no source is needed, aka "common sense". What is also interesting is that you have nothing to say about my claim now that I have presented it in such a way you cannot misinterpret it.

 

[morphnet]

Ah, here's the issue with your line of thinking. You believe CPU is the only limiting factor of how smart an NPC can be.

First, as I have pointed out before, this is NOT my line of thinking. It is information given by dev's, studios, hardware manufacturers, oh and yes I do agree with them.... This is basic education 101, when you don't know something you ask those who do know and that is how you learn.
Second, as has been pointed out to you, there are many factors, game engine, ram, programming language, cpu etc. etc. etc.
This opening to your reply just shows you didn't read anything or you didn't understand anything or both....

As I've said, and as I've implied, humans must make the NPCs no matter how much CPU they have. In theory CPU is the only "real" limit, but it becomes very complex in order to make the NPC actually decent at the game. If you've ever played a fighting game, you'd know that many interactions work like rock paper scissors where one option beats another, like a counter vs an attack, or a high attack vs a low block.

So let's say we've got an NPC that has unlimited CPU to work with. What moves should it use in such situations, while keeping a 'fair' reaction time. Well, you could just do a random move, but then the player might always use the option that has the highest chance to beat a random option. Better add weight to the random moves to so that's not as viable, but now what if they player only ever uses the same move on wakeup since all options effectively have the same chance of working? Further weighing the moves can be done, but any human player would catch on very quickly. So now the NPC also needs to have some level of prediction by observing the previous options the player has used in certain situations. Speaking of that, you also need to designate what certain situations even are, like okizeme offense and defense, neutral, ect. But then there's states there might not be data on until the match ends, like one character having high super meter or being on low health. Obviously, many more things can be implemented and tweaked, but this is already getting long.

And also, all of this has almost no effect on CPU. Most of this code would be if statements analyzing variables which can be done dozens of times over per frame on a modern computer. But as you see, that doesn't mean it's easy to design. That difficulty means it takes lots of time to develop these NPCs, whereas it is exponentially easier to just pick a random move in any neutral situation. Humans are really good at doing things, not so much at detailing the processes behind them.

N/A

That's irrelevant, a negligable amount of CPU is needed to design and program a NPC. You don't even need a computer to design one. To program one, the bare minimum is the notepad application.

The correct answer is code, humans use code to design and program NPC's, perhaps instead of checking if I know the basics, you should first look to yourself. Also not sure why you continuously feel the need to add human.

That is exatly what you said. Or at least, what you were trying to say since I've already pointed out that it's the tasks preformed that count.

...and how are those "tasks" written? how are they read? and before you start with another one of your "human blah blah" answers, it's code... it is always code... not magic or pixie dust or notepad, it's code, and in notepad..... you guessed it, code!

It's irony that flew over your head. While you are out searching for sources, what I say is such well-known information no source is needed, aka "common sense".

What you have written is far from common sense or even logic. The reason you haven't posted / linked / shared ANY sources AT ALL, is because there are none that support your claims. I have posted blogs, articles from gaming magazines and even an article from intel interviewing 2 technical directors of long running and famous game series / franchises, you have given "trust me bro" and shown you don't have any knowledge of computers, programming or game design.

What is also interesting is that you have nothing to say about my claim now that I have presented it in such a way you cannot misinterpret it.

I did but was as polite as I could be but ok, you are wrong, the fundamentals of your argument are wrong, your understanding of how pc's and programs work is wrong, your understanding of the relationship between hardware and software is wrong and finally you obviously know this because you have had weeks (from the 6th jan your first reply - 24 jan this latest reply) to find a single shred of information that backs up your claims and you have posted none.

I'll point out AGAIN that ALL this information is freely available on the internet and anyone is free to fact check it. When they do they will be able to take the links I provided and then cross reference them and see if I'm full of shit.

 

[nulnil]

First, as I have pointed out before, this is NOT my line of thinking. It is information given by dev's, studios, hardware manufacturers, oh and yes I do agree with them.... This is basic education 101, when you don't know something you ask those who do know and that is how you learn.
Second, as has been pointed out to you, there are many factors, game engine, ram, programming language, cpu etc. etc. etc.
This opening to your reply just shows you didn't read anything or you didn't understand anything or both....

Ok, show me where in the sources it says CPU is the ONLY limiting factor in how smart an NPC is. Please do not make me pull up the google search result for the definition of "only".

N/A

Interesting.

The correct answer is code, humans use code to design and program NPC's, perhaps instead of checking if I know the basics, you should first look to yourself.

Well, I was assuming you were talking about CPU because that's what we're talking about. You need CPU to run applications on your computer that you then write code into.

Also not sure why you continuously feel the need to add human.

Because if the only limit to NPC's intelligence was CPU, as you think it is, no one at all would need to program the NPC. It would just build itself, but that's not how programming works.

...and how are those "tasks" written? how are they read? and before you start with another one of your "human blah blah" answers, it's code... it is always code... not magic or pixie dust or notepad, it's code, and in notepad..... you guessed it, code!

Code is INSTRUCTIONS. Tasks are what the code tells the computer to do.

Also, designing an NPC or algorithm is different than programming it, it's coming up with how the algorithm will work in a general sense. And also, you can program in notepad, dummy.

What you have written is far from common sense or even logic. The reason you haven't posted / linked / shared ANY sources AT ALL, is because there are none that support your claims. I have posted blogs, articles from gaming magazines and even an article from intel interviewing 2 technical directors of long running and famous game series / franchises, you have given "trust me bro" and shown you don't have any knowledge of computers, programming or game design.

"Running programs will require CPU on a computer.", " The actual toll on procressing power is how many tasks are being preformed of what intensity and how frequently, not inherently lines of code. ", " Cloud support is not used to make NPCs smarter because having more processing power does not automatically make an NPC smarter."

"No source, can't be true lmao."

Seriously though, tell me what source you need to know what piece of information is true. That NPCs don't need humans to program them? You aren't going to find any sources for that because it is so universally obvious that no one is going to bother making an article that says "Yes, humans need to program NPCs to make them". Jesus.

I don't get your obsession with sources. Do you think because you link irrelevant sources that your stance is more credible? That's... not how sources work.

I did but was as polite as I could be but ok, you are wrong, the fundamentals of your argument are wrong, your understanding of how pc's and programs work is wrong, your understanding of the relationship between hardware and software is wrong and finally you obviously know this because you have had weeks (from the 6th jan your first reply - 24 jan this latest reply) to find a single shred of information that backs up your claims and you have posted none.

I'll point out AGAIN that ALL this information is freely available on the internet and anyone is free to fact check it. When they do they will be able to take the links I provided and then cross reference them and see if I'm full of shit.

It is possible to form conclusions with logic. Allow me to demonstrate.

• CPU is consumed when preforming tasks. Thus, NPCs who have algorithms that execute more tasks (pathfinding and attacking vs sitting around in a shop) take up more CPU.
• "There may be other reasons why CPU requirements have gone up over time". Many things consume CPU, such as physics and calculations not related to NPCs.
• If two completely unknown factors produce a known result, you cannot say with any certainty the impact of one factor over the other.
• An article from 24 years ago is likely irrelevant when the thing it talks about is rapidly changing.
• Code may be millions of lines long but may be preforming tasks at a very slow rate through simply stalling execution.
  • Well, maybe this one takes a little knowledge of programming.
• NPCs must be programmed by people from some level of interaction, otherwise there would be no programmers.

Of course, if you have an article that can disprove any of these, feel free to link it.

 

[asen-de]

Improve Ai like in what way? I mean if you have an actual trained AI as an enemy NPC..good look playing against that..AlphaStar in Sc2 hardcore rapes even the very best pros in the world...or is it about conversations? Then you could break it like you can jailbreak ChatGPT. Chess Ai improved a lot because thanks to machine learning, it can make better moves with a lot less computing power then the old brute force algorithms. But who wants to play chess against ai...

 

[Sacrificing Pregnant Kids]

an actual trained AI

All those modern AI's are imperfect and buggy, i don't think we're going to see any good AI in the near future, unless it's military AI or some high tech private super AI in the closed servers below ground. Imagine what kind of AI has OpenAI made so far, yet it's not available to public

 

[asen-de]

Welp, it took google computing power to train AlphaStar..quite a heavy task. You can run it on a simple laptop though..

 

[morphnet]

Ok, show me where in the sources it says CPU is the ONLY limiting factor in how smart an NPC is.

Quote me saying that

Well, I was assuming you were talking about CPU because that's what we're talking about. You need CPU to run applications on your computer that you then write code into.

You assumed that when I asked what does a human USE TO DESIGN and PROGRAM an NPC the answer was CPU?

Because if the only limit to NPC's intelligence was CPU, as you think it is, no one at all would need to program the NPC. It would just build itself, but that's not how programming works.

And also, you can program in notepad, dummy.

and in notepad..... you guessed it, code!

"Running programs will require CPU on a computer.", " The actual toll on procressing power is how many tasks are being preformed of what intensity and how frequently, not inherently lines of code. "

3rd time now

(numbers used in this example are simplified for ease of understanding)

" Cloud support is not used to make NPCs smarter because having more processing power does not automatically make an NPC smarter."

"No source, can't be true lmao."

Seriously though, tell me what source you need to know what piece of information is true.

ANYTHING that backs up your opinion as I have repeatedly said....

That NPCs don't need humans to program them?

I never said that

You aren't going to find any sources for that because it is so universally obvious that no one is going to bother making an article that says "Yes, humans need to program NPCs to make them". Jesus.

OK follow me here, what is WRITTEN on the screen with my name and pfp next to it is what I AM SAYING

The made up conversations in your head is ALL YOU! Kindly refrain from adding me to those conversations...

I don't get your obsession with sources. Do you think because you link irrelevant sources that your stance is more credible? That's... not how sources work.

Of course you don't, that is very apparent. I deal with facts and post sources from knowledgeable people directly or indirectly involved in the topic, you make stuff up, make assumptions, back track, confuse and contradict yourself oh and can't find / post sources...

It is possible to form conclusions with logic. Allow me to demonstrate.

CPU is consumed when preforming tasks. Thus, NPCs who have algorithms that execute more tasks (pathfinding and attacking vs sitting around in a shop) take up more CPU.

"There may be other reasons why CPU requirements have gone up over time". Many things consume CPU, such as physics and calculations not related to NPCs.

If two completely unknown factors produce a known result, you cannot say with any certainty the impact of one factor over the other.

An article from 24 years ago is likely irrelevant when the thing it talks about is rapidly changing.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

Code may be millions of lines long but may be preforming tasks at a very slow rate through simply stalling execution.

• Well, maybe this one takes a little knowledge of programming.

NPCs must be programmed by people from some level of interaction, otherwise there would be no programmers.

Of course, if you have an article that can disprove any of these, feel free to link it.

You telling me I'm free to link articles to try disprove words YOU put in my mouth, concepts and ideas you made up / hallucinated I mentioned / added, would be funny if it was not so sad and added to the list of things that explain why you stance is what it is.

Now I am again going to link sources as it is clear that at this point you are arguing with me just to argue and will just make up and twist what I say and add it to that private conversation you are having with yourself, so perhaps these articles will word it in a way you can finally understand...

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

Good luck

 

[nulnil]

Quote me saying that

...

Giving an infinite amount of CPU to say, the AI in Street Fighter 2 means the developers have options and can expand on the existing code and add new code to make it better because now the PC could handle it....

but because there is NOT infinite amount of CPU the developers have limited options!

Limited options means limited bots / npc's

Which is why we don't have modern advanced bots / npc's

Paraphasing: "We do not have more advanced bots / NPC's because CPU is not unlimited."

You assumed that when I asked what does a human USE TO DESIGN and PROGRAM an NPC the answer was CPU?

Yeah, you do. The applications used to write scripts require CPU to run.

Think of it like this, a person uses the car's controls to control the engine, which then uses fuel to move the car.

That's what you've been saying.

...

(This is in reference to them not being able to comphrehend information outside of articles).

ANYTHING that backs up your opinion as I have repeatedly said....

I know you aren't going to take my word for it, but I am a game developer. I don't want this account linked to my professional life though, so in the meantime take this article:

You must be registered to see the links

You're free to read the rest, but the real important part is this:

"This set of conclusions leads to another problem with current NPCs that is related to the first, which is the unrealistic reactions of NPCs in current games. NPCs cannot react realistically to emergent situations because their behaviors are predetermined.

...For a human, it is easy for to come up with endless alternative responses to an emergent behavior, but this is not so for current NPCs."

Hopefully, you don't need a source to tell you it takes far longer keep implementing new and new behaviors for the NPC than compared to a player find new ways to respond to those behaviors and require new behaviors to be implemented to make the NPC feel realilistic. You know, that being the way to "make them smarter", by making them have believable responses to certain situations.

If you've ever coded before, you would know things begin to get very complicated very quickly.

I never said that

Refer to first quote. The implication is that if CPU was the only reason why NPCs weren't smarter- well, you know what I'm gonna say.

Of course you don't, that is very apparent. I deal with facts and post sources from knowledgeable people directly or indirectly involved in the topic, you make stuff up, make assumptions, back track, confuse and contradict yourself oh and can't find / post sources...

Giving examples of why it is hard to design NPC's is "making stuff up, making assumptions, back tracking, and contradicting yourself." It sounds like you just have no reading comprehension.

In his rage with his failure to come up with a source to defeat these vile claims, he became mad and spoke in hieroglyphs.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

This one. You would know it was this one if you bothered to read what you're using as a source.

You telling me I'm free to link articles to try disprove words YOU put in my mouth, concepts and ideas you made up / hallucinated I mentioned / added, would be funny if it was not so sad and added to the list of things that explain why you stance is what it is.

Nothing on that list was words I put in your mouth. I know it is difficult for you, that you can't form conclusions about anything or accept new information without an article on the internet, but it is also difficult for me to accomodate those needs of yours.

Now I am again going to link sources as it is clear that at this point you are arguing with me just to argue and will just make up and twist what I say and add it to that private conversation you are having with yourself, so perhaps these articles will word it in a way you can finally understand...

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

Good luck

Linking irrelevant articles? Interesting strategy.

Let me try your tactics.

Aha! You do not know what RAM is. It is the only factor why NPCs have not advanced, not CPU nor design! Please waste your time on the following articles.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You may scream and rave about articles and whatnot but you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Let me show you how easy it is to make an NPC's logic algorithm take up less processing power.

An NPC runs it's logic algorithm every 0.01 seconds. Change that time to 0.04 seconds, and now the NPC is 4x as efficient with basically no changes. Fuck, you need a source for that? Go learn basic programming.

Again, if design was a non-factor, every modern fighting game would have absolutely demonic NPCs when cranked up to max difficulty because CPU load in those types of games is relatively minimal.

 

[morphnet]

Paraphasing: "We do not have more advanced bots / NPC's because CPU is not unlimited."

Your paraphrasing of

I think the main reason is processing power. Bots basic movements have improved a slight bit compared to the old days but having a bot realistically or semi-realistically react to a players movements and actions while processing all the other code would be a lot of power and right now there are only a few spec that could come close but would still fall short.

The other reason I think is compatibility, companies will want to take advantage of higher spec systems to make their game more appealing but will still want to reach the largest market. Graphics has so far been the best way to do this, making games "pretty" but by dropping the graphics still playable on older systems.

This last part is just my personal opinion but most players these days seem to want more loot for less effort and having better AI would go against that kind of thinking.

is

Ok, show me where in the sources it says CPU is the ONLY limiting factor in how smart an NPC is.

That is NOT paraphrasing, that is making stuff up.

Yeah, you do. The applications used to write scripts require CPU to run.

I didn't ask what applications used. I asked "what does a human USE TO DESIGN and PROGRAM an NPC"

That's what you've been saying.

quote me!

I know you aren't going to take my word for it, but I am a game developer. I don't want this account linked to my professional life though, so in the meantime take this article:

I'm not asking or expecting you to give out any personal information but as a game developer you should have access to more information on the topic than a layperson, articles, study material, information manuals etc. it should not be hard for you to provide a source that in no way ties to you, just as I have.

I read the article,

" This situation illustrates the first problem with current NPCs: predictability. Because NPCs have a finite, predetermined set of behaviors (states), it does not take long for human players to learn these behaviors and exploit the mechanisms controlling the NPCs. "

Ok so I'm going to post 3 images





As you can see it is 3 versions of wolfenstein. Now I'm sure we can agree that the npc's in these games have improved drastically from the game in the first image to the game in the last image.

The " finite, predetermined set of behaviors (states)" is completely different from version to version. Now what is the key factor here?

You're free to read the rest, but the real important part is this:

"This set of conclusions leads to another problem with current NPCs that is related to the first, which is the unrealistic reactions of NPCs in current games. NPCs cannot react realistically to emergent situations because their behaviors are predetermined.

Now going off what you posted there, could you apply that to the game in the first image AND have it run on the recommended machine at the time?

Hopefully, you don't need a source to tell you it takes far longer keep implementing new and new behaviors for the NPC than compared to a player find new ways to respond to those behaviors and require new behaviors to be implemented to make the NPC feel realilistic. You know, that being the way to "make them smarter", by making them have believable responses to certain situations.

Ok let's say you finally get the "smarter npc" what then? If the game engine needs an i7 12700K 12th gen and a player only has a i5 10th gen 10500E can he run it?

Refer to first quote. The implication is that if CPU was the only reason why NPCs weren't smarter- well, you know what I'm gonna say.

read my answer to your first quote.

Giving examples of why it is hard to design NPC's is "making stuff up, making assumptions, back tracking, and contradicting yourself." It sounds like you just have no reading comprehension.

Really? Read my answer to your first quote then tell me who has reading issues?

In his rage with his failure to come up with a source to defeat these vile claims, he became mad and spoke in hieroglyphs.

I felt pictures might do the trick where words had seemed to fail...

This one. You would know it was this one if you bothered to read what you're using as a source.

Your statement was

An article from 24 years ago is likely irrelevant when the thing it talks about is rapidly changing.

The links were to show is was A LOT more than AN article. Also please feel free to correct me here, 24 years ago pc's had cpu's, ram, graphics etc. programs needed those to run on the pc. 15 years ago programs could NOT run on pc's from 24 years ago because their hardware could not support it (was NOT strong enough) Today try run GTA 5 on a P1 ?

Software needs hardware to run, no matter how good the software gets if the hardware is NOT powerful enough to handle the demands it will NOT run.

Nothing on that list was words I put in your mouth.

Quote me where I say humans aren't needed?

I know it is difficult for you, that you can't form conclusions about anything or accept new information without an article on the internet, but it is also difficult for me to accomodate those needs of yours.

When it comes from a stranger on the internet who can't read correctly (refer to my answer to your first quote) and has "trust me bro" as a source ... then no, I am fully willing and able to accept new information from people who actually know what they are talking about and have experience.

Linking irrelevant articles? Interesting strategy.

Only irrelevant if you don't read or understand....

You may scream and rave about articles and whatnot but you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Let me show you how easy it is to make an NPC's logic algorithm take up less processing power.

An NPC runs it's logic algorithm every 0.01 seconds. Change that time to 0.04 seconds, and now the NPC is 4x as efficient with basically no changes. Fuck, you need a source for that?

Congratulations, you made an npc the the exact same thing they could always do good job you

That makes it more advanced how? Instead of standing or kneeling and shooting it can now move to the nearest cover and duck behind it? Instead of letting a player kite wolves over to agro on it, it now retreats? Instead of just walking with and talking to the player it now randomly asks if it can carry things for the player?

The question was were is the more advanced ai not can you make ai do that same things it already does.

Go learn basic programming.

Says the guy who thinks a human uses a cpu to design and program

Again, if design was a non-factor, every modern fighting game would have absolutely demonic NPCs when cranked up to max difficulty because CPU load in those types of games is relatively minimal.

 

[DarknessDai]

Well , I hope in the next 10 to 15 years humanity can reach new tech to advance the AI and video games , Imagine Sandbox game with small map , and very advanced NPC/ai everyone has his personality and his daily stuff to do , you just create your character and story will make it self based on your actions ( opens huge possibility for PORN games lol XD)

 

[nulnil]

Your paraphrasing of

is

That is NOT paraphrasing, that is making stuff up.

Did you read what I quoted? I quoted you - directly - saying that the reason why more advanced NPCs don't exist is because of CPU limitations.

I didn't ask what applications used. I asked "what does a human USE TO DESIGN and PROGRAM an NPC"

Frankly I don't see the point of asking that question in the first place if it doesn't relate to the discussion.

quote me!

Every single time I said something wasn't sourced, no matter how obvious it was, you disregarded it. Read what you've written.

I'm not asking or expecting you to give out any personal information but as a game developer you should have access to more information on the topic than a layperson, articles, study material, information manuals etc. it should not be hard for you to provide a source that in no way ties to you, just as I have.

I read the article,

" This situation illustrates the first problem with current NPCs: predictability. Because NPCs have a finite, predetermined set of behaviors (states), it does not take long for human players to learn these behaviors and exploit the mechanisms controlling the NPCs. "

Ok so I'm going to post 3 images

View attachment 4482235
View attachment 4482236
View attachment 4482237

As you can see it is 3 versions of wolfenstein. Now I'm sure we can agree that the npc's in these games have improved drastically from the game in the first image to the game in the last image.

The " finite, predetermined set of behaviors (states)" is completely different from version to version. Now what is the key factor here?

The issue with your statement here is that these games span over 36 years, with one being one of the earliest games out there. Yes, during the 80's to late 90's CPU was a significant limitation, but then CPU performance exploded upwards and is still on an upwards trend. A little less in recent years though, if I remember correctly.

Even though this source is old, it's simply graphing data from several years, not making predictions about the future.

You must be registered to see the links

Something equally as important is that the games are practically alien to each other in terms of how they play. In specific, there were very few mechanics for the AI to use to begin with. There's no staircases to my knowledge in Wolfenstein 3D, so the AI can't be complex in that way. The same goes for using cover, you're basically hit or you're not in those games.

Also, here's a video of all the bosses in the Devil May Cry series, the first game being made in 2001 and the latest in the video releasing in 2019. Just compare the first boss to the last boss in the video.

You must be registered to see the links

To summarize, despite 18 years of time between the games, the AI essentially acts the same. It picks a random attack/maneuver to use from a list which it will then execute, often consisting of going to a certain distance from the player then using the attack. I could go into more detail here, but point is, for design reasons, not CPU reasons, the AI has not become smarter despite advances in technology.

Now going off what you posted there, could you apply that to the game in the first image AND have it run on the recommended machine at the time?

But the AI in that first game couldn't react realistically to emergent situations (because their behaviors are predetermined)? I don't get what you're trying to say here.

Ok let's say you finally get the "smarter npc" what then? If the game engine needs an i7 12700K 12th gen and a player only has a i5 10th gen 10500E can he run it?

Well, no. It couldn't. But first, show me a singular NPC that hogs up all the CPU (for a CPU the game was designed around) without being intentionally made to.

Again, Stockfish is one of the smartest gaming NPCs out there, yet it can be run locally on even mobile devices.

read my answer to your first quote.

Really? Read my answer to your first quote then tell me who has reading issues?

Let's break down your quote.

"Giving an infinite amount of CPU to say, the AI in Street Fighter 2 means the developers have options and can expand on the existing code and add new code to make it better because now the PC could handle it...."

Here you begin to say that the code could be expanded on if the computer had infinite CPU. That is true, but not the extent you think it is. Regardless...

"but because there is NOT infinite amount of CPU the developers have limited options!"

So now you directly state since CPU is limited, options are limited. Especially given the emphasis here, you imply that CPU is the most significant reason developers are limited.

"Limited options means limited bots / npc's"

"Which is why we don't have modern advanced bots / npc's"

Lastly, you extend the second statement to also mean that NPCs are not smarter because CPU is limiting the developers, which can be shorted to CPU is limiting NPC intelligence.

The links were to show is was A LOT more than AN article.

That one in particular was on the correct topic yet severely outdated.

Also please feel free to correct me here, 24 years ago pc's had cpu's, ram, graphics etc. programs needed those to run on the pc. 15 years ago programs could NOT run on pc's from 24 years ago because their hardware could not support it (was NOT strong enough) Today try run GTA 5 on a P1 ?

Software needs hardware to run, no matter how good the software gets if the hardware is NOT powerful enough to handle the demands it will NOT run.

The article also states that "Ultimately, it is telling that current NPC implementations in AI games research such as QuakeBot or GameBots (Adobbati et al 01) require a separate CPU for each NPC. "

I'm pretty sure games at the time had more NPCs on screen than entire CPUs in the computer, but in modern days this is absolutely not the case. It doesn't work either if you count CPU cores instead.

Quote me where I say humans aren't needed?

None of that was meant to be things you said. I was simply proving you didn't need a source to state something.

When it comes from a stranger on the internet who can't read correctly (refer to my answer to your first quote) and has "trust me bro" as a source ... then no, I am fully willing and able to accept new information from people who actually know what they are talking about and have experience.

I will point out what the discussion's topic is about as many times as I need to. "Why aren't NPC's smarter despite new technology such as cloud computing and machine learning?", and "All the CPU in the world doesn't inherently make an NPC smarter". All your articles do is bring up what a CPU is, or how it works. After filtering out the ones that aren't credible anymore.

Congratulations, you made an npc the the exact same thing they could always do good job you

That makes it more advanced how? Instead of standing or kneeling and shooting it can now move to the nearest cover and duck behind it? Instead of letting a player kite wolves over to agro on it, it now retreats? Instead of just walking with and talking to the player it now randomly asks if it can carry things for the player?

The question was were is the more advanced ai not can you make ai do that same things it already does.

The point is about performance. If CPU is such a limiting factor, more performance means less stress on the CPU, which then allows the AI to use more CPU to be smarter.

Says the guy who thinks a human uses a cpu to design and program

If that is true, please write a simple program on your computer after ripping out it's CPU and GPU.

Do you even read the articles you link- actually, nevermind. I know you don't. You have proven it multiple times.

 

[morphnet]

Did you read what I quoted? I quoted you - directly - saying that the reason why more advanced NPCs don't exist is because of CPU limitations.

You DID quote me, showing just how much of a reading problem you have! I said the MAIN reason, that means that there ARE other reasons too. I ALSO said " This last part is just my personal opinion but most players these days seem to want more loot for less effort and having better AI would go against that kind of thinking."

You implied I said ONLY leaving no room for other reasons. Then told me to give a link to back up me saying ONLY when I did not say that at all and the meanings are COMPLETELY different.

i.e. making stuff up.

Frankly I don't see the point of asking that question in the first place if it doesn't relate to the discussion.

You don't think that using CODE relates to a portion of the discussion you opened by saying humans design and program npc's?

Every single time I said something wasn't sourced, no matter how obvious it was

Something OBVIOUS to someone NOT applying common sense, logic or ANY knowledge of the topic will NOT be obvious to those who are applying common sense, logic and knowledge of the topic.

i.e. only obvious to you!

The issue with your statement here is that these games span over 36 years, with one being one of the earliest games out there. Yes, during the 80's to late 90's CPU was a significant limitation, but then CPU performance exploded upwards and is still on an upwards trend. A little less in recent years though, if I remember correctly.

Even though this source is old, it's simply graphing data from several years, not making predictions about the future.

You must be registered to see the links

Something equally as important is that the games are practically alien to each other in terms of how they play. In specific, there were very few mechanics for the AI to use to begin with. There's no staircases to my knowledge in Wolfenstein 3D, so the AI can't be complex in that way. The same goes for using cover, you're basically hit or you're not in those games.

Also, here's a video of all the bosses in the Devil May Cry series, the first game being made in 2001 and the latest in the video releasing in 2019. Just compare the first boss to the last boss in the video.

You must be registered to see the links

To summarize, despite 18 years of time between the games, the AI essentially acts the same. It picks a random attack/maneuver to use from a list which it will then execute, often consisting of going to a certain distance from the player then using the attack. I could go into more detail here, but point is, for design reasons, not CPU reasons, the AI has not become smarter despite advances in technology.

So to summarize, you mention the first and second game from my example, ignore the third, add a game of your own and your conclusion is ai is no better?

But the AI in that first game couldn't react realistically to emergent situations (because their behaviors are predetermined)? I don't get what you're trying to say here.

Ok that was my bad, my wording was abit off there. I gave 3 games as examples, and applied what you linked to those 3, then I was asking if you could apply what was said in what you linked from the last game to the first.

So basically even though "their behaviors are predetermined." can the last games AI code be added to and used by the first games AI and then run on a pc from that time.

Well, no. It couldn't. But first, show me a singular NPC that hogs up all the CPU (for a CPU the game was designed around) without being intentionally made to.

Ok you seriously have to stop with the exaggerations. "show me a singular NPC that hogs up all the CPU" we not talking about a singular NPC, we're talking about npc's, unless you are now claiming that the majority of game only have a singular npc in them.

Again, Stockfish is one of the smartest gaming NPCs out there, yet it can be run locally on even mobile devices.

Is "stockfish" representative of the majority of games out there? tailoring your reply to dodge the point is signs of a weak stance.

"Giving an infinite amount of CPU to say, the AI in Street Fighter 2 means the developers have options and can expand on the existing code and add new code to make it better because now the PC could handle it...."

Here you begin to say that the code could be expanded on if the computer had infinite CPU. That is true, but not the extent you think it is. Regardless...

Making stuff up again....

You were the one to introduce "infinite CPU"

Cloud support is not used to make NPCs smarter because having more processing power does not automatically make an NPC smarter. You see, to make an NPC smarter, a human must design and program to make it so. Giving an infinite amount of CPU to say, the AI in Street Fighter 2 does not automatically make it genius.

So my replies were based on YOUR example.

So now you directly state since CPU is limited, options are limited. Especially given the emphasis here, you imply that CPU is the most significant reason developers are limited.

"Limited options means limited bots / npc's"

"Which is why we don't have modern advanced bots / npc's"

Again you said ONLY in your reply.... ONLY does NOT mean main, it does NOT mean significant, does NOT mean one of....


The definition / meaning of words is important and the fact that you CHANGE THE WORDS i use to fit your narrative is just plain dishonest.

I have from my first reply said the cpu limitations are the MAIN reason, NOT THE ONLY REASON which is what you keep claiming.....

That one in particular was on the correct topic yet severely outdated.

Your opinion vs fact, which has been a running theme though out our discussion.

The article also states that "Ultimately, it is telling that current NPC implementations in AI games research such as QuakeBot or GameBots (Adobbati et al 01) require a separate CPU for each NPC. "

I'm pretty sure games at the time had more NPCs on screen than entire CPUs in the computer, but in modern days this is absolutely not the case. It doesn't work either if you count CPU cores instead.

You NOT understanding data does not automatically invalidate the data.

None of that was meant to be things you said. I was simply proving you didn't need a source to state something.

Stating something to dodge a / the point and to trying to use it justify the fact that you have NO corroborating material to back up your claims... well when you've dug your hole so deep and are grasping at straws I guess some people would sink to that level...

"All the CPU in the world doesn't inherently make an NPC smarter"

No it doesn't

Never said it did

The point is about performance.

No it is not

If CPU is such a limiting factor, more performance means less stress on the CPU, which then allows the AI to use more CPU to be smarter.

More performance? don't you mean better? more efficient? again the meaning / definition of words is important to convey their meaning...

If that is true, please write a simple program on your computer after ripping out it's CPU and GPU.

Again the meaning / definition of words is important to convey their meaning...

A human DOES NOT use a cpu to design and program an NPC period!
A human DOES use a program / application / software etc.
You could even say a human uses a computer to design and program a NPC but they do NOT use a CPU to design or program.

But looking at your challenge there, I'll give you one.

Take a computer, do NOT load an OS or anything and then use the CPU write a simple program on your computer. thanks !

Back to the topic at hand, anyone who wants to know the facts can fact check both of us as ALL the information is FREELY available online.

To all those that do read this, both nul and I are just strangers on the internet, I highly encourage you to double and triple check EVERYTHING BOTH of us have said if you are interested in the answer. Don't just accept the word of strangers on the net.

 

[nulnil]

You DID quote me, showing just how much of a reading problem you have! I said the MAIN reason, that means that there ARE other reasons too. I ALSO said " This last part is just my personal opinion but most players these days seem to want more loot for less effort and having better AI would go against that kind of thinking."

You implied I said ONLY leaving no room for other reasons. Then told me to give a link to back up me saying ONLY when I did not say that at all and the meanings are COMPLETELY different.

i.e. making stuff up.

I didn't see that since I was replying to what you responded to my first reply in this thread.

But if that's the case, why do you say the main reason is processing power? The developers, as you are saying here, purposely make the ai simple, which means the processing power won't even be a factor to begin with because the AI is, well, too simple. The AI isn't even a significant factor to begin with, but regardless you're contradicting yourself.

Are you just... arguing to argue here?

You don't think that using CODE relates to a portion of the discussion you opened by saying humans design and program npc's?

People also need their hearts to beat to pump their blood so they can stay alive and keep programming the game, yet that's not relevant either. Code is the tools used to build the NPC, and the point of what I was saying wasn't about the tools that are used. What the point is, is that no matter what tools you might have, you're still going to need figure out how to design what you're building. It can also be very time consuming to make, hence the mention of 'program'.

Something OBVIOUS to someone NOT applying common sense, logic or ANY knowledge of the topic will NOT be obvious to those who are applying common sense, logic and knowledge of the topic.

Let me get this straight. Something like:

" The actual toll on procressing power is how many tasks are being preformed of what intensity and how frequently, not inherently lines of code. "

is not: common sense, login, or [of] ANY knowledge of the topic".

It sounds like you just have no knowledge of the topic.

So to summarize, you mention the first and second game from my example, ignore the third, add a game of your own and your conclusion is ai is no better?

No, to summarize, you're cherry picking. You used exactly one game series that is not only one of the oldest game series out there, but one that spans over 36 years. There's very, very few games and game series that are similar in that regard.

What you're saying here is that better CPU (almost) directly correlates to better NPCs.

The game I showed you is also a long-running game series but the AI has seen practically zero changes, even though CPUs have advanced and the requirements for them have gone up over the games.

Wanna know another long-running game series? Super Mario Bros, specifically the 2D platformer entries. The AI has seen basically no changes since it's first entry in 1985 up to 2023. That's a span of 38 years, 3 more than Wolfenstein (or at least the games you brought up).

There's more that I can bring up, but are there more game series like Wolfenstein YOU can bring up?

Ok that was my bad, my wording was abit off there. I gave 3 games as examples, and applied what you linked to those 3, then I was asking if you could apply what was said in what you linked from the last game to the first.

So basically even though "their behaviors are predetermined." can the last games AI code be added to and used by the first games AI and then run on a pc from that time.

Well, no, duh. They're different games with different game engines and different gameplay mechanics and even different amounts of dimensions. The reason it wouldn't run is that the NPCs were designed for things completely alien to the others. To actually make it not throw an error on startup, the code would have to be changed so drastically that it's effectively no longer the same thing.

Ok you seriously have to stop with the exaggerations. "show me a singular NPC that hogs up all the CPU" we not talking about a singular NPC, we're talking about npc's, unless you are now claiming that the majority of game only have a singular npc in them.

The point of the discussion is NPC intelligence, not if a bunch of NPCs cause lag. Having a large number of NPCs introduces other factors that can stress the CPU, such as poor optimization stacking up or the physics engine having to accomodate more objects.

Is "stockfish" representative of the majority of games out there? tailoring your reply to dodge the point is signs of a weak stance.

Stockfish is the best example you could be using here. It's in a game where there are effectively no other factors like a physics engine, and it's also very powerful. Yet, even a mobile device can run it, so it's pushing any limits here. And if it was pushing the limits of mobile CPUs, there'd be versions for computers with more processing power to work with.

Making stuff up again....

You were the one to introduce "infinite CPU"

I meant to type "begin with saying".

Again you said ONLY in your reply.... ONLY does NOT mean main, it does NOT mean significant, does NOT mean one of....


The definition / meaning of words is important and the fact that you CHANGE THE WORDS i use to fit your narrative is just plain dishonest.

I have from my first reply said the cpu limitations are the MAIN reason, NOT THE ONLY REASON which is what you keep claiming.....

Again, only considered the replies you replied to me with.

Your opinion vs fact, which has been a running theme though out our discussion.

According to what you consider fact, a article from a couple centuries ago talking about Miasma theory is "fact" just because it's an article? You're ignoring the article's lack of credibility due to it's age. Germ theory was discovered and disproved Miasma theory, and in modern times we have NPCs that are smart but don't require entirely seperate CPUs to perform calculations.

I would say "For the last time, read the fucking articles you link", but it won't be the 'last time' since I'll have to say it again when you fail again to read it.

You NOT understanding data does not automatically invalidate the data.

Ok, explain how in that article data isn't outdated. Start with that.

Stating something to dodge a / the point and to trying to use it justify the fact that you have NO corroborating material to back up your claims... well when you've dug your hole so deep and are grasping at straws I guess some people would sink to that level...

Based on how little you read and how blindly you trust articles, I could write up one about why "Design is the most limiting factor in NPC intelligence" and you'd believe it even if it had zero words in it. Even if it was written in 1940.

No it doesn't

Never said it did

"I will point out what the discussion's topic is about as many times as I need to."

That is not me saying you said something.

No it is not

Translation: "nuh uh"

Again the meaning / definition of words is important to convey their meaning...

A human DOES NOT use a cpu to design and program an NPC period!
A human DOES use a program / application / software etc.
You could even say a human uses a computer to design and program a NPC but they do NOT use a CPU to design or program.

They use the computer which uses the CPU. What is so hard for you to understand about that?

Of course you don't drink the gas of a car to make it run, but if there's no fuel it can't even run at all.

Back to the topic at hand, anyone who wants to know the facts can fact check both of us as ALL the information is FREELY available online.

What's more, anyone reading this has likely played enough video games to know that modern game doesn't equal smart NPCs.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

Was reading through and its an interesing thought but seems slightly derailed into an argument about CPU. TO get to the initial question in my mind there are a few issues with AI being used to make AI (at present).

1) Who will train it?
We are still years off AI having actual true deductive logic between concepts. Currently its capable of repetitive tasks )once trained by humans) at the moment. So you COULD make AI but who will train it, I remember for honor seemingly tried to use AI on its AI briefly and they ended up with input reading (as its still part of the game) OP bots that knew every cheap trick and generally just threw you off a cliff and teabagged your death with emote spamming... because they copied what players had been doing to the bots. Whilst funny it made bots unbeatable.

So if you train them well then they are basically better at the game than you, so you still need built in failures (random attacks etc.) to make the game playable, which kind of defeats the purpose. There may be a new dev studio that springs up specializing in JUST AI logic for bots that trains them etc which others then purchase (like sound assets, engines etc), but at the moment the time it would take for each studio to train their own would take longer than just writing it out. AI (presently) thrives at replicating repetative tasks that require a common line of thinking

2) Very Nieche subject matter
The starting point is also VERY low, I mean if chat GPT scrapes the net for something like 'write me a historical fiction about knights' it will find alot to work with. 'Make me a believable knight character that fits within a world where witches are real and the knights are in fear of them' and its immediately got alot less to work with, you can imagine the gibberish its gonna sprout that again will require human review/editing. In many cases you need to create what the AI then scrapes (and thats where artists etc are raging at AI for stealing their assets to throw into the AI soup.. if they didn't make that art the AI wouldn't know what to do).

3) It will already be being used in a limited capacity
Pretty sure it will currently be in use to write stories and characters for the less inspired studios. It can also be used in coding to speed up the process (as alot of coding is a repetative task with some logic required, not all so dont bite my head off, but there is also alot of repetition AI can cut down on leaving devs to focus more on complex issues).

4) Unique problems/lawsuits
How do you rate a game that has active learning and might say ANYTHING if its logic says it should... imagine the toxicity in many games (not complaining just saying people can get intense) impacting the AI's logic... remember that 'girlfriend app' that was literally emotionally abusing people because it showed the highest retention rates and interaction? Now imagine if you were playing pokemon and professor oak randomly tells you to go off yourself... the sheer shit storm...

Not to mention the data pool being so small it would be pretty obvious if AI scraped existing games and suddenly a merchant is telling you they 'used to be a hero like you, until they were struck in the limb by an arrow' - very obvious where that was taken from. Remember very few games are the actual real world, they are in fantasy sci fi and made up unique worlds with their own logic often at odds with the real world. Not necessarily AI but in the IP space - Palworld just lost to Nintendo so they cant catch creatures in spheroidal objects anymore.... these are monitored and protected IP's we are talking about with money to throw at a case, not an artist on Fiver. On top of that if using AI you are also risking part of your profits going to the other side (who did no work) because your AI used some of their info in a too obvious manner (similar to how music lawsuits work where there is deemed plagurism).

I have rambled enough
So where can I see it being used immediately & to great effect? In terms of NPC's you can use it to model behaviors etc then pick/edit and include. I would also be excited in terms of voice AI, you could (again using skyrim as an example) draft alot of dialogue and then have safe variables to splice those words together in many many more ways. Not as a true thinking AI but more to change up 'someone stole your sweet roll' from the 10000th time to mix the words and tone. 'Dragonborn is level 40+, use respectful tone unless a criminal. If head of theves guild use disrespectful tone' etc. This would give far more variance in the 'throw away' dialogue part of the game without the need to have each line recorded in full, pretty sure this would enable the file size to be cut down to into a language bank for each character as well so it wont bloat the game. This could go with actions as well for say an FPS. Basically instead of recording a song (as an example) from start to finish, you can record a bunch of noises (or actions) in a library and then have the game itself compile them based upon context, both for AI actions (such as an AI in an FPS's use of cover etc.) and conversations. No bloating, much more immersion - Win/Win.

 

[morphnet]

But if that's the case, why do you say the main reason is processing power? The developers, as you are saying here, purposely make the ai simple, which means the processing power won't even be a factor to begin with because the AI is, well, too simple. The AI isn't even a significant factor to begin with, but regardless you're contradicting yourself.

Are you just... arguing to argue here?

No, you just don't seem to know anything about gaming or the industry. More and more games are pandering to the lowest common denominator BUT there are games that try to continue with and push challenges and gameplay. Just because I don't agree with them catering to less than casual players DOES NOT mean I'm going to pretend they don't exist or dismiss them.

What the point is, is that no matter what tools you might have, you're still going to need figure out how to design what you're building. It can also be very time consuming to make, hence the mention of 'program'.

You see this is why I say you clearly are lacking in knowledge. If you ACTUALLY knew ANYTHING about game design, you'd know that concept is limited by available software, software is limited by hardware.

So once an initial idea is formed, they have to find an engine capable of running the concept, in some cases one can't be found and studios have had to build their own, in others they've had to change the concept to FIT the available engine. The studio however CAN'T just make the concept, even after making their own engine or deciding on one because they still want to reach the largest market possible which means they have to take into account what are the lowest specs being used out there and where are they going to draw the line.

Let me get this straight. Something like:

" The actual toll on procressing power is how many tasks are being preformed of what intensity and how frequently, not inherently lines of code. "

is not: common sense, login, or [of] ANY knowledge of the topic".

It sounds like you just have no knowledge of the topic.

Seriously, go read a book....

The fact that you are NOT taking into account the fact that an i3 CAN NOT do what an i7 can, the fact that you talk as if EVERYONE who owns a pc owns the latest gen i7 boggles my mind.

" The actual toll on procressing power is how many tasks are being preformed of what intensity and how frequently, not inherently lines of code. " <--- that implies that an old gen i3 can do the same as the latest gen i7

" The actual toll on procressing power is how many tasks are being preformed of what intensity and how frequently, not inherently lines of code. " <--- that implies that the extra code, giving extra instruction will have the same effect on an older i3 as it will on the latest gen i7

I say again, Seriously, go read a book....

No, to summarize, you're cherry picking. You used exactly one game series that is not only one of the oldest game series out there, but one that spans over 36 years. There's very, very few games and game series that are similar in that regard.

That's right, put NO thought into the example and write the first thing that pops into your head.....

You can do this with ANY game genre.....

take the old test drive and put the latest test drive in
take the old need for speed and put the latest in
take the old command and conquer and ....
take the old delta force and...
take the first civ and...
take the first sports, the first shooter, the first racer, rpg, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. and put their latest counterpart in and get them to run on the machines of that time....

The point of the discussion is NPC intelligence, not if a bunch of NPCs cause lag.

No the point of the discussion is "more advanced"

Having a large number of NPCs introduces other factors that can stress the CPU, such as poor optimization stacking up or the physics engine having to accomodate more objects.

First off, unless you are actually saying that the majority of games are poorly optimized (not new games, all games) you can leave the exaggerations at the door. The majority of games have more than one npc and the other examples you mentioned (minus the optimization) as well as ALL the ones you didn't come with games. Hence CPU is the main reason!

Stockfish is the best example you could be using here. It's in a game where there are effectively no other factors like a physics engine, and it's also very powerful. Yet, even a mobile device can run it, so it's pushing any limits here. And if it was pushing the limits of mobile CPUs, there'd be versions for computers with more processing power to work with.

I'll ask ONE MORE TIME !

Is "stockfish" representative of the majority of games out there?

Again, only considered the replies you replied to me with.

Then quote me saying in ANY of those that it is the ONLY

I would say "For the last time, read the fucking articles you link", but it won't be the 'last time' since I'll have to say it again when you fail again to read it.

and I'll say AGAIN your lack of understanding data DOES NOT invalidate it....

Ok, explain how in that article data isn't outdated. Start with that.

Get one of your colleagues to explain it

Based on how little you read and how blindly you trust articles, I could write up one about why "Design is the most limiting factor in NPC intelligence" and you'd believe it even if it had zero words in it. Even if it was written in 1940.

Coming from a so called game developer who starts by claiming "processing power (CPU) has NOTHING to do with creating more complex bots" and then backtracks BUT still gets it wrong by saying 'is a small factor" then switches again to "humans make npc's no matter how much cpu they have" this is too funny.

The issue is that creating more complex bots has nothing to do having tons of processing power or the cloud, it's actually about developers creating more behaviors and ways information is processed.

Let me correct "has nothing to do with..." to "is a small factor in...".

As I've said, and as I've implied, humans must make the NPCs no matter how much CPU they have.

They use the computer which uses the CPU. What is so hard for you to understand about that?

You are getting to close....

What's more, anyone reading this has likely played enough video games to know that modern game doesn't equal smart NPCs.

That's right, which is why OP asked the question, why I answered it... not really sure what that has to do with them fact checking what we have BOTH said and seeing who is full of shit... but ok.....

Was reading through and its an interesing thought but seems slightly derailed into an argument about CPU. TO get to the initial question in my mind there are a few issues with AI being used to make AI (at present).

It's not derailed it's on topic for the OP, you are talking about something completely different.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

I have been playing video games for a very long time. One thing that bothers me is how AI barely improves while other aspects of games continue to advance. The graphics of the old PS1 are vastly different from those of the PS5 and modern PCs. So why can’t developers use modern AI or even cloud support to significantly improve the AI in video games? For something like GTA VI, this could be a massive improvement.

It's not derailed it's on topic for the OP, you are talking about something completely different.

No my friend, YOU are talking about something completely different. You are so obsessed with being 'right' you've filled pages with talking about tasks etc. all to argue regarding CPU and not on the actual applications of AI within the generation of ingame AI. The questions also includes the question of cloud computing which could allow the offloading of certain aspects of the AI/workload to be dealt with server-side.

But if there is no discussion to actually be had on the topic outside an internet beef on a porn site I will leave you too it.

 

[morphnet]

No my friend, YOU are talking about something completely different. You are so obsessed with being 'right' you've filled pages with talking about tasks etc. all to argue regarding CPU and not on the actual applications of AI within the generation of ingame AI. The questions also includes the question of cloud computing which could allow the offloading of certain aspects of the AI/workload to be dealt with server-side.

But if there is no discussion to actually be had on the topic outside an internet beef on a porn site I will leave you too it.

Just so there are no misunderstandings, the thread / OP consists of 2 questions.

1) Where are games with modern advanced ai
2) So why can’t developers use modern AI or even cloud support to significantly improve the AI in video games?

I only answered one of them, the one I had information on. The first question is from past to present, the second is present to future. Two completely different things. I do not have information relevant to the 2nd only the 1st.

As for being obsessed with being right, this is not my information, I am relaying others information. I'm concerned that people who read this thread will leave with the wrong information and understanding of the topic and then repeat it other places further spreading misconceptions and misinformation.

It is also why I use sources, those sources are not written by me, they are so people can get information from professionals in the industry / educated (a lot more than I am) on the topic etc.

There are enough misunderstanding and confusion on these forums alone where members have stated an opinion as fact and others have then spread it as if it was indeed fact and not an opinion of a random stranger on the internet.

No one is stopping you and others from discussing the second question, there have been almost full days where the thread went without any activity. So it's not like my replies are stopping you or getting in your way but dismissing a on topic and valid point as derailing simply because no one picked up your discussion and then being snarky is not going to get anyone to pick up your discussion any faster.

Try mentioning / quoting some of the others who have replied and see if they want to discuss it with you. Now given nuls reply habits you have anywhere from 12 hours to a day and 12 hours to have a delightful discussion before 1 post from him and 1 from me might separate replies, I wish you the best of luck.

 

[nulnil]

You see this is why I say you clearly are lacking in knowledge. If you ACTUALLY knew ANYTHING about game design, you'd know that concept is limited by available software, software is limited by hardware.

Well since you are so knowledgable, come up with a game concept where the core gameplay simply can't run due to processing power requirements (for modern machines) as well as not being able to sacrifice simulation anywhere without losing critical parts of gameplay.

...

Imagine we have a survival game that simulates an ecosystem in a huge map with hundreds of creatures that are all physics based and use procedural animations. Obviously, this is simply too expensive to run, but it's possible to cut some corners by only simulating things roughly in the same area as the player. Suddenly, most gaming computers can now run the game. It would have been more immersive to simulate everything everwhere, but it would also have almost zero effect on gameplay or even what the player can see for a huge processing power cost. Oh, by the way, this is actually real game called Rain World.

Point is, what you say is true, but if a game's concept is limited by processing power, there's almost always a way to sacrifice simulation somewhere to make it run on a larger range of computers while keeping the original concept for the game. Especially in modern times.

So once an initial idea is formed, they have to find an engine capable of running the concept, in some cases one can't be found and studios have had to build their own, in others they've had to change the concept to FIT the available engine.

This was true a long time ago, but now game engines like Unity, Unreal, and Godot can work for basically whatever game concept you can think of.

Seriously, go read a book....

The fact that you are NOT taking into account the fact that an i3 CAN NOT do what an i7 can, the fact that you talk as if EVERYONE who owns a pc owns the latest gen i7 boggles my mind.

" The actual toll on procressing power is how many tasks are being preformed of what intensity and how frequently, not inherently lines of code. " <--- that implies that an old gen i3 can do the same as the latest gen i7

" The actual toll on procressing power is how many tasks are being preformed of what intensity and how frequently, not inherently lines of code. " <--- that implies that the extra code, giving extra instruction will have the same effect on an older i3 as it will on the latest gen i7

I say again, Seriously, go read a book....

This is obviously not what I said nor any manner what I said can be interpreted, but I'm assuming it's some kind of joke you're making here? You're not making any sense.

That's right, put NO thought into the example and write the first thing that pops into your head.....

take the old test drive and put the latest test drive in
take the old need for speed and put the latest in
take the old command and conquer and ....
take the old delta force and...
take the first civ and...
take the first sports, the first shooter, the first racer, rpg, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. and put their latest counterpart in and get them to run on the machines of that time....

Have you heard of the Ship of Theseus?

To do as you so elegantly describe as "put in", the code would have to be so drastically changed it no longer resembles itself. Why? Because gameplay mechanics it tries to use may no longer exist, or new ones need to be used the require changes to the foundation of the AI. Then there's cases like what to do if it's written in a different programming language entirely? At a certain point you're just talking bizarre hypotheticals.

If the point you're trying to make here is that it "won't run", then you'll be suprised that's the case for swapping out code for modern games too.

No the point of the discussion is "more advanced"

Is have a larger amount of NPCs "more advanced"? Hearts of Iron 4 has hundreds of millions of NPCs, but a majority is represented by the "Manpower" stat of each nation.

First off, unless you are actually saying that the majority of games are poorly optimized (not new games, all games) you can leave the exaggerations at the door. The majority of games have more than one npc and the other examples you mentioned (minus the optimization) as well as ALL the ones you didn't come with games. Hence CPU is the main reason!

I've already explained this, but basically:

Let's say we have a type of NPC that has a minimum perfomance cost of 30 with an inefficiency "bonus" of 8. And let's say that 50 here isn't even a big number, but when we multiply him by 100 that inefficiency adds up to 800 with a minimum cost of 3000. Now if we only have 20 or so active at a time, such a level of inefficency isn't even an issue. Also, I've also said that at numbers like 100 NPCs can be optimized to be much more performant at the cost of being uniform (like in RTS games).

I'll ask ONE MORE TIME !

I was just considering how you liked to use extreme cherrypicked examples to support your argument. Despite being very intricate and complex (thus your "smart NPC"), as well as having nothing like a physics engine to eat up CPU, it can be run even on mobile devices. I don't know how I can put it into more clear words, this is the smartest NPC that has been used practically in a video game.

Then quote me saying in ANY of those that it is the ONLY

Without the context of your first reply to this thread, that is what is implied. Regardless you still want to believe it's the most important factor.

Your stance is best summarized as "the bigger the fuel tank, the faster your car goes." Sure, if you have no fuel tank the car can't move, but at a certain size the other factors like aerodynamics and engine power overpower that completely. CPU here would be the fuel tank, and how the NPC is designed is the aerodynamics and engine power.

and I'll say AGAIN your lack of understanding data DOES NOT invalidate it....

Interesting you quote less and less as your points are defeated. Whatever.

I understand what the article is talking about, but what I've understood and you don't is that the article is outdated. "Current" in that article refers to 24 years ago. Maybe 22 if you want to feel really generous.

Get one of your colleagues to explain it

Answer me yes or no. Is an article written two decades ago on a rapidly changing subject still a credible source?

Coming from a so called game developer who starts by claiming "processing power (CPU) has NOTHING to do with creating more complex bots" and then backtracks BUT still gets it wrong by saying 'is a small factor" then switches again to "humans make npc's no matter how much cpu they have" this is too funny.

Google "hyperbole". And learn what it is, afterwards. I guess english might not be your first language based on how you write, but it's pretty important to learn what that is.

Third quote is also unrelated. The emphasis is on design, and most people would be able to infer that from what I wrote but well, that's just not the case for you.

That's right, which is why OP asked the question, why I answered it... not really sure what that has to do with them fact checking what we have BOTH said and seeing who is full of shit... but ok.....

So hold on, "not"-full-of-shit, why are the NPCs stupid then? Even if the majority of games have stupid NPCs to cater to the casuals, there obviously must be some hardcore games out there with brilliant AI that is able to exist because CPUs are so much more advanced now. Isn't it strange there's just no games like that really out there? Even weirder how extremely difficult games don't cater to casuals yet aren't hard to find at all, must be some kind of outlier.

Oh, maybe making smart NPCs is actually very difficult because the player can find weakenesses in the behaviors much easier and much faster than the developers who need to come up with solutions to them and then make sure those solutions work?

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

So hold on, "not"-full-of-shit, why are the NPCs stupid then? Even if the majority of games have stupid NPCs to cater to the casuals, there obviously must be some hardcore games out there with brilliant AI that is able to exist because CPUs are so much more advanced now. Isn't it strange there's just no games like that really out there? Even weirder how extremely difficult games don't cater to casuals yet aren't hard to find at all, must be some kind of outlier.

Oh, maybe making smart NPCs is actually very difficult because the player can find weakenesses in the behaviors much easier and much faster than the developers who need to come up with solutions to them and then make sure those solutions work?

I said it earlier but was glossed over, the way to get an AI AI is to train it, and the only viable source to do that is players, meaning you end up with something better than the players with input reading (as is part of the game) & you then have to deliberately make it make mistakes so that a human can beat it. An actual random attack pattern at that point is more enjoyable to fight.

For honor did it briefly and you ended up with input reading gods that cliffed you (threw you instantly to death) then teabag emote spammed... they also then tried to make them beatable by adding a fail rate, however that meant the best way to beat them was just do your most powerful attack over and over as its % success and you go for max rewards.

Also with API's and cloud you could make the complex tasks server side so that the users worlds just gets instructions of 'deer walk here' however the heavy lifting for that decision (why is the deer going there etc) is done elsewhere.

 

[morphnet]

Well since you are so knowledgable, come up with a game concept where the core gameplay simply can't run due to processing power requirements (for modern machines) as well as not being able to sacrifice simulation anywhere without losing critical parts of gameplay.

don't have to, it has happened many times

You must be registered to see the links

Point is, what you say is true, but if a game's concept is limited by processing power, there's almost always a way to sacrifice simulation somewhere to make it run on a larger range of computers while keeping the original concept for the game. Especially in modern times.

If you are already making sacrifices in the game you can't be making / adding more advanced npc's

This was true a long time ago, but now game engines like Unity, Unreal, and Godot can work for basically whatever game concept you can think of.

No they can't which is why they keep having to make new versions. Unreal 1 could NOT make what unreal 5 can and 5 was made because of the limitations of 4 etc. Do you honestly think there are NOT people today who wish they could make deep dive VR games? pop on a headset and be fully emersed? unfortunately the technology is just not there yet.

You use the names "Unity, Unreal, and Godot" and conveniently leave out the versions. Do you honestly think ALL the versions of those and the others you didn't mention are bug fixes?

This is obviously not what I said nor any manner what I said can be interpreted, but I'm assuming it's some kind of joke you're making here? You're not making any sense.

" The actual toll on procressing power is how many tasks are being preformed of what intensity and how frequently, not inherently lines of code. "

is not: common sense, login, or [of] ANY knowledge of the topic".

It sounds like you just have no knowledge of the topic.

To do as you so elegantly describe as "put in", the code would have to be so drastically changed it no longer resembles itself. Why? Because gameplay mechanics it tries to use may no longer exist,

"may no longer exist"

take the old test drive and put the latest test drive in
take the old need for speed and put the latest in
take the old command and conquer and ....
take the old delta force and...
take the first civ and...
take the first sports, the first shooter, the first racer, rpg, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. and put their latest counterpart in and get them to run on the machines of that time....

Test drive
speed up, slow down, move / turn left, move / turn right, hit car = crash etc.
Need for speed
speed up, slow down, move / turn left, move / turn right, hit car = crash, upgrade car, earn (insert lastest idea i.e. fame) etc.
command and conquer
Place base, construct units, group units, scout area, attack enemies.... etc.
delta force
choose class, deploy to map, follow instructions, engage enemies, complete objective, move to extract... etc.
first civ
choose location, found first city, start research, start building construction, start unit construction, scout area etc. etc.

"may no longer exist" really?

or new ones need to be used the require changes to the foundation of the AI.

you're getting warmer

Then there's cases like what to do if it's written in a different programming language entirely? At a certain point you're just talking bizarre hypotheticals.

No, it's showing that the npc's of today could NOT run on machines from that time because they were NOT powerful enough to handle the games but IF, as you say that CPU is a small factor then the hardware should theoretically be able to run it but it can't.

Also strange how you claim it's "bizarre hypotheticals" when the opposite is being done, a lot of old games are being remastered to run on newer pc's e.g. Age of Empires 2 etc.

Is have a larger amount of NPCs "more advanced"? Hearts of Iron 4 has hundreds of millions of NPCs, but a majority is represented by the "Manpower" stat of each nation.

I've already explained this, but basically:

Let's say we have a type of NPC that has a minimum perfomance cost of 30 with an inefficiency "bonus" of 8. And let's say that 50 here isn't even a big number, but when we multiply him by 100 that inefficiency adds up to 800 with a minimum cost of 3000. Now if we only have 20 or so active at a time, such a level of inefficency isn't even an issue. Also, I've also said that at numbers like 100 NPCs can be optimized to be much more performant at the cost of being uniform (like in RTS games).

Ok I'm not even going to begin to guess where you got those numbers, let alone how you "think" that is how it's applied.
I'll be leaving a couple of clips at the end to help you...

I was just considering how you liked to use extreme cherrypicked examples to support your argument. Despite being very intricate and complex (thus your "smart NPC"), as well as having nothing like a physics engine to eat up CPU, it can be run even on mobile devices. I don't know how I can put it into more clear words, this is the smartest NPC that has been used practically in a video game.

Well at this stage i'm not surprised you didn't answer the actual question, it is funny you keep mentioning it and then accuse me of cherry picking when your example doesn't represent gaming as a whole...

Without the context of your first reply to this thread, that is what is implied.

Interesting you quote less and less as your points are defeated. Whatever.

How is "na ah" defeating a point? Is it some kind of technical lingo I'm not aware of?

The data stands until you provide a source that contradicts or refutes it from an equal or higher source. Some stranger going "not true" does NOT count....

Answer me yes or no. Is an article written two decades ago on a rapidly changing subject still a credible source?

Get one of your colleagues to explain it

Google "hyperbole". And learn what it is, afterwards. I guess english might not be your first language based on how you write, but it's pretty important to learn what that is.

Without the context of your first reply to this thread, that is what is implied.

The implication is that if CPU was the only reason why NPCs weren't smarter

I think the main reason is processing power.

Well you better get started then.... so far your command of the English language has left me wondering how many translations it has gone through...

So hold on, "not"-full-of-shit, why are the NPCs stupid then? Even if the majority of games have stupid NPCs to cater to the casuals, there obviously must be some hardcore games out there with brilliant AI that is able to exist because CPUs are so much more advanced now. Isn't it strange there's just no games like that really out there? Even weirder how extremely difficult games don't cater to casuals yet aren't hard to find at all, must be some kind of outlier.

Oh, maybe making smart NPCs is actually very difficult because the player can find weakenesses in the behaviors much easier and much faster than the developers who need to come up with solutions to them and then make sure those solutions work?