But can it play Crysis 3?

[1Kurgan1]

So, the issue is not their sight, but on their response time to the sighting. Quite a different thing.

I'm just going off what you say and you have swapped back and forth. Either way, thats a handicap, and improving response time isn't better AI.

Warhead has exacty the same AI, but if you think that's a card you can play, ok. No one's going to take it seriously tho.

And when you are in the middle of nothing (no cover closer than 1-2 m from you) and the enemy is aiming right at you. Yes retreating/running away or to cover is a BAD idea. You're dead before your first foot leaves the ground.

And that's the matter. In every of those situations, they are being caught off guard. In some the player is cloaked. In another one it uses superhuman speed and in others none of that, but they are caught offguard regardless, because again, Crysis is a stealth game, an there's a mechanism to delay/control the detection, which becomes slow and dumb in easier difficulties, which results in "skilled" players caughing the AI off-guard more often. And once in that situation Crytek took the time to code in several reaction, like being shocked so they do nothing. I'd like to see you if a 2m guy in that outfit aproached you at 150 km/h, and lifted your 75+ kg partner with just one hand (and the arm fully extended as in: "fuck you Archimedes"). I'd like to see what would you do. 99% of people would run and leave the island in less than you can say fuck, the rest would get shocked. But that wouldn't make a fun game isn't it? Alternatively, sometimes they spray the whole clip at you or where you were. They also sometimes actually attack you, you know. Etc. Crytek took the time to code in many many behaviors and that makes the AI good regardless of what you think.

If Warhead is the same, then link videos of that same enemy behavior in Crysis 1. I assume you can't find any, which is why Warhead was linked, so now I'm going to pull your card, the burdens on you here, prove it.

And that first group of enemies had a rock directly behind them, they were behind a bush and the player couldn't tell exactly where they were at, especially since he was busy hiding behind a tree. And no he wasn't using stealth when he moved behind that tree, so an intelligent AI (these guys wouldn't know these suits can stealth) would realize it's the perfect time to take cover, because the enemy is most likely reloading to assault you again, from cover, so to have cover of their own is very beneficial and they have a time window. 2nd engagement they were actually behind cover, so was nice to see that there. And engagement at 4:20, he didn't engage them stealthed, he went in pistols blazing and retreated behind the tree (not stealthed) to heal up. While he sat back there and healed, that enemy just fired his gun wildly for a bit, then stopped and stood there.

You say of course they won't run when you are 1-2m and in their face. But point of this all is he isn't, this player is taking cover, why you ask? Because thats called tactics. And the counter tactic for that is, when you know your enemy has taken cover, it's probably to reload, best tactic is to find cover of your own, it is not to stand there clueless and wait for them to attack you. And I rem,ind you, this is the video you linked as example of good AI, not one I linked. Thats crap AI, I don't see how that can even be argued. You say varied AI, but the exact video you linked as proof shows every enemy group acting in the exact same way, standing in the wide open, refusing to take cover, (I'm going to pull another line from your book here) and that makes the AI crap regardless of what you think (see the key word there, think, like I said this is all opinion, stop being so pious).

You can't talk about Crysis without caring about stealth. Period.

Yes you can, I'm talking about situations not involving stealth. your using the stealth as a loop hole out of everything. "well that gets messed up because how do you react to an invisible person?" Of course stealth causes AI issues, I'm leaving that out of this because it's your fall back answer to everything. The specific video you linked has many engagements where he doesn't use stealth until very late, and even with the enemies observing where he goes, they don't react tactically. I have friends in the military, and I can tell you, I doubt if they seen someone dive behind cover that they would just stand there and fire their gun, then look around cluelessly. They would take cover and sweep the area for movement (aka tactics).

And again show me a game where enemies don't do that please... you can't bash a game based on something that is the norm. Did you watch the BF3 video I posted, it happens a very similar yet worse thing. They are games! But none of them can be sub-par if all of them have the same issue. i could argue that a card sucks if it's not able to run at 500 Km/h, but my argument would never hold any water, because by that definition, every card would suck. And somthing just cannot suck unless something is several times better. And that's not the case.

And FEAR, it's already been mentioned. I already said thats really the only shooter that has ever impressed me. I haven't ever seen another shooter where if I injure a guy he leaves, gets buddies then they flank me, and none of them come back down the way I shot the guy. So I find myself spinning around checking all entrances to my location for them flanking me. Thats the kind of AI I'm talking about, but I already said all of this, and thats why I said you don't read my posts.

And by the way, you still haven't accounted for that video. You called me out on that scenario, and now you haven't answered to it, you basically made it sound like it was impossible and not repeatable, and there it is, from someone who isn't me.

 

[Benetanegia]

I'm just going off what you say and you have swapped back and forth. Either way, thats a handicap, and improving response time isn't better AI.

And bad response time does not mean worse AI. At no point the player gives the AI enough time to react. AGAIN, it's on easy, so time means giving them 2 seconds to react and the player never gives them that time. On Delta difficulty none of that happens.

If Warhead is the same, then link videos of that same enemy behavior in Crysis 1. I assume you can't find any, which is why Warhead was linked, so now I'm going to pull your card, the burdens on you here, prove it.

Before I prove anything, you have to prove that it sucks by providing something more than a bug or situational evidence. And it has to be repeatable as in consistent evey time. For example, for the burning barrel video to be taken as a proof of bad AI, you have to prove that everytime you shoot the barrel he will do the same. Which he doesn't, so yeah, dumb soldier, dumb reaction, excelent AI, because allows for something like that to happen, but it's only one of the multiple options. (BTW shooting barrels don't make them burn, and they certainly don't burn slowly and even IF that happened it would not explode, so maybe the AI was simply checking that distortion of reality.)

And that first group of enemies had a rock directly behind them, they were behind a bush and the player couldn't tell exactly where they were at, especially since he was busy hiding behind a tree. And no he wasn't using stealth when he moved behind that tree, so an intelligent AI (these guys wouldn't know these suits can stealth) would realize it's the perfect time to take cover, because the enemy is most likely reloading to assault you again, from cover, so to have cover of their own is very beneficial and they have a time window. 2nd engagement they were actually behind cover, so was nice to see that there. And engagement at 4:20, he didn't engage them stealthed, he went in pistols blazing and retreated behind the tree (not stealthed) to heal up. While he sat back there and healed, that enemy just fired his gun wildly for a bit, then stopped and stood there.

No. Enemy who's 3 m away, taking cover and probably reloading? 2 vs 1? The only totally smart thing is to finish him off. I guess it's a draw then? But they DID retreat tho even if slowly.

You say of course they won't run when you are 1-2m and in their face. But point of this all is he isn't, this player is taking cover, why you ask? Because thats called tactics. And the counter tactic for that is, when you know your enemy has taken cover, it's probably to reload, best tactic is to find cover of your own, it is not to stand there clueless and wait for them to attack you. And I rem,ind you, this is the video you linked as example of good AI, not one I linked. Thats crap AI, I don't see how that can even be argued. You say varied AI, but the exact video you linked as proof shows every enemy group acting in the exact same way, standing in the wide open, refusing to take cover, (I'm going to pull another line from your book here) and that makes the AI crap regardless of what you think (see the key word there, think, like I said this is all opinion, stop being so pious).

First of all. I didn't post that video to show good AI. I posted it to show behaviors that you almost swear Crysis doesn't have. And I proved you wrong. Same happened with my examples with the flare, screaming and bla bla. They were not meant to say they are examples of smart AI. They were counterarguments against your BS that Crysis completely lack those things.

Yes you can, I'm talking about situations not involving stealth. your using the stealth as a loop hole out of everything. "well that gets messed up because how do you react to an invisible person?" Of course stealth causes AI issues, I'm leaving that out of this because it's your fall back answer to everything. The specific video you linked has many engagements where he doesn't use stealth until very late, and even with the enemies observing where he goes, they don't react tactically. I have friends in the military, and I can tell you, I doubt if they seen someone dive behind cover that they would just stand there and fire their gun, then look around cluelessly. They would take cover and sweep the area for movement (aka tactics).

Stealth is ALWAYS present. It's a key aspect of the game to be able to hide from them and is not ONLY the cloak. It's hiding in the shadows, behind bushes, out of their sight, crouched or on the floor and all the other elements common to ANY stealth oriented game. Cloak mode is just an adition, not the ONLY stealth element.

And FEAR, it's already been mentioned. I already said thats really the only shooter that has ever impressed me. I haven't ever seen another shooter where if I injure a guy he leaves, gets buddies then they flank me, and none of them come back down the way I shot the guy. So I find myself spinning around checking all entrances to my location for them flanking me. Thats the kind of AI I'm talking about, but I already said all of this, and thats why I said you don't read my posts.

And you are comparing a corridor crawling game, no matter how good it is, to an open world game. Apples and oranges. FEAR was highly scripted, not really AI, even though it was effective. I don't want games to be like FEAR at all. I want games to evolve, and Crysis might not be the best move in the best direction, but it surely is a good move in ANY direction and that makes the AI really excel. The AI reacts differently to different situations and that sometimes make them do stupid things but that's what it is. I want you to think about this: how many times have you seen several people gunned down by the AWP, one after the other, in Counter-Strike, because the next guy WAS they guy that would headhot him? How many times you leave cover to pick up that tempting AWP or M4? Just 2 examples and it's humans we are talking about. No AI n the world is going to be more intelligent than that. The issue with the mounted machigun happens in every game, with mounted guns. The AI is coded to use the biggest gun and the mounted one is the biggest one, the slow animations does the rest. And it's stupid yes, but it happens with humans too, so don't act all "oh oh dumb AI". And I've been saying all the time "dumb AI" maybe. "Bad AI" no. They are 2 very different and distinct things. You are supposed to "outsmart" the AI, especially in a stealth oriented game and even if you are dumb and your skills are those of a turtle. That's what the lower difficulty modes are made for.

EDIT: Oh and BTW at 4:20 the other guy is not just standing there at all. The guy that he shoots from right lateral of the tree is the one coming from behind the other guy (the guy you think is just standing there all the time). While in the meantime, both the guy with the shotgun and the guy that is first shot are flanking him (but wait they don't flank). Look at the radar. They are doing what I said, try to finish him off, 3 vs 1 just nerby and far more close enough that they feel overpowered enough to beat that single enemy.

 

[1Kurgan1]

And bad response time does not mean worse AI. At no point the player gives the AI enough time to react. AGAIN, it's on easy, so time means giving them 2 seconds to react and the player never gives them that time. On Delta difficulty none of that happens.

They only react to your initial engagement slower, not to anything after that. Otherwise they could never hit you with a bullet unless you stood still for 2 seconds. So no, you are wrong.

Before I prove anything, you have to prove that it sucks by providing something more than a bug or situational evidence. And it has to be repeatable as in consistent evey time. For example, for the burning barrel video to be taken as a proof of bad AI, you have to prove that everytime you shoot the barrel he will do the same. Which he doesn't, so yeah, dumb soldier, dumb reaction, excelent AI, because allows for something like that to happen, but it's only one of the multiple options.

Already proved it with that turret video, being the fact that someone else had the same experience I did. Either way, this isn't even about that, you posted a video from the wrong game, I already done my work, you just refuse to accept anything, and I could careless. I know you can't find a video of AI behaving like that in Crysis 1, so I'm just chalking this up as a victory and you ranting.

No. Enemy who's 3 m away, taking cover and probably reloading? 2 vs 1? The only totally smart thing is to finish him off. I guess it's a draw then? But they DID retreat tho even if slowly.

If you think thats the smart tactic after you just watched him kill your buddies and you know he's reloading and you want to be all gunho and risk your life. then you should flank him, the absolute worst strategy is to remain standing in the same spot so he can shoot you once he reload, worst tactics in the world. I don't even know why you are arguing that standing in the same spot is a good tactic, please give it up, it's horrible.

First of all. I didn't post that video to show good AI. I posted it to show behaviors that you almost swear Crysis doesn't have. And I proved you wrong.

That video didn't show any of them having good "behaviors" "(that is AI, just another word, so I'm gonna go back to using AI here), so no you were wrong. The only "ok" AI in that video was the guys actually using cover in the river. The rest of it was all crap. Not taking cover, not flanking, firing randomly (when the guy wasn't even stealthed and they watched him retreat behind a tree). Sorry man, your wrong here, bad AI.

Stealth is ALWAYS present. It's a key aspect of the game to be able to hide from them and is not ONLY the cloak. It's hiding in the shadows, behind bushes, out of their sight, crouched or on the floor and all the other elements common to ANY stealth oriented game. Cloak mode is just an adition, not the ONLY stealth element.

No crap that taking cover (what have I been preaching this whole time?) is present. But you need to be a bit more clear, you can't keep saying stealth, stealth, stealth, when his suit has a cloaking mode then mean something else. Taking cover and using lighting is tactics. And the enemy doesn't seem to use them, and they don't react to the player doing it.

And you are comparing a corridor crawling game, no matter how good it is, to an open world game. Apples and oranges. FEAR was highly scripted, not really AI, even though it was effective.

The issue with the mounted machigun happens in every game, with mounted guns. The AI is coded to use the biggest gun and the mounted one is the biggest one, the slow animations does the rest.

/golfclap I already said that FEAR was scripted at the bottom of post #39. But that still doesn't mean that a push for that kind of AI in a sandbox world is a bad thing, I'm talking about types of things I want to see here.

I've killed AI on mounted guns in other games and not had others run over and jump on it instantly. Infact, I haven't ever had that happen in any game ever that I've played. So we'll go with the repeatable argument here, repeat it or I don't buy it.

EDIT: Oh and BTW at 4:20 the other guy is not just standing there at all. The guy that he shoots from right lateral of the tree is the one coming from behind the other guy (the guy you think is just standing there all the time). While in the meantime, both the guy with the shotgun and the guy that is first shot are flanking him (but wait they don't flank). Look at the radar. They are doing what I said, try to finish him off, 3 vs 1 just nerby and far more close enough that they feel overpowered enough to beat that single enemy.

I'm going to play you on this one and use broken logic to argue that. Those 2 that were coming around that left side of the tree (left from player perspective) were both originally standing on that side of the tree. It wasn't actually a tactic of flanking, it was just that that was the shortest pathing route to get to the player, so thats the route they took. If it was an actual flanking tactic, the guy standing there up front, would have also been sweeping right (player perspective right) to clear the back of the tree faster and surprise the enemy (since it was 3v1). So most likely just the AI using the shortest pathing route rather than an actual tactic, heck thats not even broken logic, that is pretty sound.

Either way man, I've proved my point numerous times here, posted videos, you can't find a good one for Crysis 1. I have accomplished my goals, and we have thrown this thread so far off topic it's unreal (I can't believe no hammers have been swung yet). So have fun arguing with yourself if you want, I've accomplished what I came to do, and talking to a brick wall that repeats itself is starting to lose my interest Later

 

[Benetanegia]

Don't worries. I'm leaving it too after this one. You interpret (wrongly, very wrongly) every situation in the game, so that it fits your view.

- First dead guy talking.

- The two first guys are not standing, but retrating to the rock and they are first hiding (using stealth) behind the bush to the right.

- 4:20 The guy that the player shoots first is not taking the shortest route, that would be going to right of the tree and not going to where the shotgun guy is.

You are so wrong and can't admit it, that you are making things up constantly. First they don't take cover, later they don't do it right. First they don't call for help or retreat, later they do it the wrong way. First bla and later bla bla.

At this point I could care less what you think or say. Everyone who has actually played the game knows you are so wrong that it's not worth continuing debating this nonsense.

EDIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhivQYxCzxw and of course remember that this video, which is from the same game, contradicts several times everything you say. And of course you have tried hard to dismiss the video. I have continued because I like having a good conversation, but only until it becomes stupid, and you made it to that point so.

I've killed AI on mounted guns in other games and not had others run over and jump on it instantly. Infact, I haven't ever had that happen in any game ever that I've played.

Well at the very least, congratulations for not ever playing a COD game. At this point in the series that's a compliment btw.

 

[yogurt_21]

ummm... cleanup plz.


on topic:

If they can manage to deliver amazing graphics i won't care how crippling it is, would give me a reason to upgrade (have zero atm) If it's just poorly coded and just tries to give poor performance for "look how crappy my game runs on the latest hardware" bragging rights I'll pass.

 

[purecain]

@1Kurgan1 and Benetanegia... youve succeeded in pissing each other off there... agree'ing to dissagree was a good conclusion...

discussing the ai in crysis 3, i can only hope its improved somewhat....

and i loved the ai in fear 1...btw

i'm with yogart on this one... as i think most of us hardware junkies are... we want a game which is worthy of our hardware.
what we dont want is tesselated oceans under the landscape and other effects which use gpu/cpu cycles that have no beneficial effect on visuals...