Tired Tyres
Premium
- 12,252
- West Yorkshire
- Tired_Tyres
- Tired Tyres
How about you don't tell ME what to do. That is none of YOUR business.
Is it time to let go?
- Thread starter robbyf
- 335 comments
- 23,616 views
How about you don't tell ME what to do. That is none of YOUR business.
- 5,344
- Ohio
Have a nice day. 
:tup:
:tup:
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Most racing sims use simplified physics and tire models for their AI and have no trouble making them on pace. Project Cars for example has been very open about this. It has been shown many times that the AI in GT are programmed to slow down and let you win most of the time. How is that a problem with processing power? It has enough processing power to get the AI in front of you, but not enough processing power to tell it to stay at the same speed, but somehow enough processing power to tell it to slow down? The AI are deliberately programmed to let you win, it has nothing do with processing power. It's a design choice.
Last edited:
- 1,637
- Melbourne
@Johnnypenso The problem in part is having a single difficulty level/not having difficulty levels. Everyone wants the A.I. To be competitive but player's times vary a great deal, I'm usually 10 seconds off pace from the Aliens that populate the top spots of the leaderboards. Not being able to choose how hard or easy you want to make it for yourself will necessarily mean that the game will need a rubber-band effect to let you win, it needs it to give a chance to players whose lap time's differemce will be up to +20 seconds.
I am not justifying it, I think it sucks but until they add difficulty levels it will always have to adapt on the fly to give everyone a chance to win.
I am not justifying it, I think it sucks but until they add difficulty levels it will always have to adapt on the fly to give everyone a chance to win.
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
My point was more on the way they drive and not the competitiveness.
As for rubber banding I agree, but I also know that it is necessary. I would do it differently by adjusting overall difficulty before each event based on players statistics.
It is easy to artificially make AI faster then the player but it is definitely not the right approach.
- 170
- Great Britain
I always want AI to be fun and realistic to race against, not the best.
A good example would be Snooker. If you're playing against an AI who is fun, they'll occasionally miss the shot, pull of some amazing feats and let you win. If you'r playing against the best, as soon as you miss a ball, they'll take over and pot every single ball and win the round.
I still class Codemasters and Bungie as the best creators of AI. Halo and F1 2015 have some stunning enemies and racers to play against.
A good example would be Snooker. If you're playing against an AI who is fun, they'll occasionally miss the shot, pull of some amazing feats and let you win. If you'r playing against the best, as soon as you miss a ball, they'll take over and pot every single ball and win the round.
I still class Codemasters and Bungie as the best creators of AI. Halo and F1 2015 have some stunning enemies and racers to play against.
- 1,637
- Melbourne
I fully agree, I wonder what fans will say if A.I. is this crap in PS4 since they will not be able to use the "PD are limited by the hardware" excuse.
AI itself has nothing to with overall design faults. The fact that rubber banding is used does not make AI bad. Ramming, early breaking and not adapting to situations does. All of those things depend on calculations. I'm not saying that they gonna improve those parts of the game, I'm just hoping.
Sad thing is that I can't think of a game that sets an example in those parts. Yes there are faster AI out there that "gives you challenge" but more or less they are stupid.
Sad thing is that I can't think of a game that sets an example in those parts. Yes there are faster AI out there that "gives you challenge" but more or less they are stupid.
- 13,728
- Adelaide
- Neomone
There's a way to have difficulty levels without having difficulty levels, if you know what I mean.
The game can adjust the difficulty itself after each race, in response to the player's results. If you stomped the AI, the game puts it up a lot for the next race. The opposite if you came at the back of the pack. Minor adjustments if you came at the front or somewhere near the middle. The more races, the more the game learns about your general pace and it homes in on the right difficulty for you.
And there you have it, adjustable difficulty that the player doesn't have to adjust (which is presumably Polyphony's point, make it as plug and play as possible). It's been done before, and it works just fine.
Don't you believe it. The limited by hardware excuse will be out in full force. It's always possible to try and make a computer do more than it's capable of doing.
The truth is that the AI on PS3 is fine, it's just crippled by the rubber bands and single difficulty. It's aware enough when it wants to be, it's fast or slow as it needs to, and it can make mistakes (although not that convincingly). It's fine, for it's time. It's just that it had both kneecaps broken before it was allowed to play.
Why? Nobody really knows.
- 1,637
- Melbourne
Have you tried pCARS? It Can be stupid sometimes (rarely) but drivers in real life often make stupid decisions. I'm not sure if you watched the Russian GP but you should have seen Raikkonen's stupid overtaking move on Bottas on the final lap. Well although A.I. In pCARS can make mistakes they are usually on pace, I raced there with A.I. On 70% and it was challenging and exciting. If you have a couple of slow laps, they are not going to slow down for you. If they can lap you they will do it. In the end you get excitement, you feel like you are actually racing, if you win it is because you deserved it.
With rubber banding it just feels that you won because the A.I. was easy on you, so rubber banding takes away all the excitement away and it is bad.
(@Imari quote below)
I had thought of that but that takes away the chance to choose the challenge level. I mean with that system you can't see what it would be like to have a full season fighting at the back of the middle of the pack, which is something I have been able to recreate in pCARS (actually just single races) and also in the F1 games by Codemaster. It assumes that you always want to be fighting for the lead. I'm a crap racer and never felt very realistic when I won five races in a row, having the chance to fight to just hold that p18 for a full race felt great in pCARS. I can do the same in Forza too although not in career mode because you must finish within the top three to advance.
Last edited:
I played it while it was in development (maybe now it has changed). But AI tend to drive like Maldonado (move out of your way or we crash).
You see the difference is that Raikkonen did that stupid overtake once and did not try to do it every lap of the race.
As I said rubber banding is not smart thing to do (They could adjust overall difficulty) but It is not the main problem (at least it is not the AI problem but Game design itself and I was talking about AI specifically).
You see the difference is that Raikkonen did that stupid overtake once and did not try to do it every lap of the race.
As I said rubber banding is not smart thing to do (They could adjust overall difficulty) but It is not the main problem (at least it is not the AI problem but Game design itself and I was talking about AI specifically).
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
They are design faults if you are "racing" and the AI is not racing, it's letting you win. That's a design fault.
It's not bad if your only goal is to win, then it's great. If you actually want to race, then yes it's bad.
Of course, that's part of good AI. But the first priority is and always should be, being on pace with the vast majority of the user base. That means adaptability, on the fly as @Imari mentions above, or by a difficulty slider as is common in all other racing games.
Then you haven't played enough other games. Grid Autosport on PS3 was very good on real circuits, not as good but still way better than GT on street circuits. I'm an above average driver and I didn't win a race in my first 22 tries. They were on pace and challenged for position and you had to be on your toes from flag to flag. Project Cars is also on pace and challenging but can be a little inconsistent. Even with the inconsistency, at least you are racing and the cars are on pace. If you cover the inside of a corner when they are behind you, as you would likely do in a real sprint race, you'll usually be ok. Most of the codies games have good AI. Assetto Corsa AI is on pace and quite challenging.
Last edited:
Again, I know that AI is slow but when I'm talking about AI, I'm talking about the intelligence and not game design.
If AI is fast it does not necessarily mean that it is intelligent. Yeah some AI can maintain the pace but usually they are blind to there surroundings (which makes it stupid and not intelligent).
Why can I race without incidents online (in normal leagues). But when racing offline (even those games listed above) you get pushed out, rammed etc.?
Again speed can be added artificially but you can't fake awareness.
We are talking about different things. When I say AI is bad that means it's stupid (it does the thing it should bad). When you say AI is bad I get the feeling that you are talking about the pace.
If AI is fast it does not necessarily mean that it is intelligent. Yeah some AI can maintain the pace but usually they are blind to there surroundings (which makes it stupid and not intelligent).
Why can I race without incidents online (in normal leagues). But when racing offline (even those games listed above) you get pushed out, rammed etc.?
Again speed can be added artificially but you can't fake awareness.
We are talking about different things. When I say AI is bad that means it's stupid (it does the thing it should bad). When you say AI is bad I get the feeling that you are talking about the pace.
Last edited:
- 13,728
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I agree completely. At best it should be used in conjunction with a "normal" difficulty settings system. The default can be this auto mode, or you can lock it into any difficulty level that you like manually.
I mentioned it mostly so that people don't think that having difficulty levels is necessarily giving up user-friendliness. There are ways to have your cake and eat it too, if that's considered important.
Depends on the game. Some games are aggressive. Some games just drive like real drivers and don't give you an inch.
I've been playing Assetto Corsa again this week after some time away, and had a number of moments where I felt like the AI spun me out. But looking at the instant replay (hooray for instant replay) it was actually the other way around, they were well alongside me and I was squeezing them off the track. They simply refused to drive off the track or brake for me (much like a real driver might) and I ended up crashing myself, even though it didn't feel like it at the time.
I think I've had one accident where they actually hit me, and that was when I spun my car sideways across the track and they just broadsided me. That probably would have happened in real life too, they had nowhere to go.
Seriously, next time you play a game that you think the AI is being too aggressive, take a look at the replay and see if you think that they really were. It can be very hard to tell from inside the cockpit.
I agree with you that the base AI isn't stupid, although it is stupid when you consider a lot of the behaviours that are forced on it by the rubber band. It brakes on straights, for example.
On the other hand, if you think all other games are worse then you're either not playing the right games or you simply don't know what you're looking for.
My benchmark is that a good AI should behave at least like decent rookie drivers in iRacing. Which means that they generally make correct decisions, but possibly can't execute perfectly, and sometimes will just be too aggressive or too passive. As long as I can adjust my driving style to compensate, I think it's acceptable. pCARS is acceptable. GridAS is acceptable. AC is pretty good. Game Stock Car is fairly incredible. I haven't played F1 2015 but I hear it's pretty good, certainly the old ones were decent. Even some older games like GTL are acceptable at times.
- 40,419
I don't think that is true, because PD has shown (and I've argued this for years) that they are able to do exactly that. It was hard to notice in GT5 due to the general lack of pace and the eventual change of the game structure to a crappy rolling starts, but GT5 AI did have spatial awareness to other cars and the environment being raced in. Especially noticeable in B-Spec, because although with enough scrutiny you could see how it was faking it (and I did a lot of B-Spec), the game could still play host to legitimately interesting races if there was a field with multiple competitive cars instead of just one or two rabbits. Dream Car Championship, for example could have four different cars in any given race that would lead to direct battles between them for the win; making each race different. Even the rubber banding in GT6 isn't traditional racing game rubber banding, and instead operates as an AI driver actively trying to let the player catch up instead of just artificially slowing the AI car down
This is an extremely hack-ish test, and I generally hate cherry-picked things like this:
But it is one that GT1-GT4's AI could not hope to pass; and I know of a few games with AI generally more competitive than GT5's that also wouldn't. The awareness, or at least the perception of it, is there.
GT1-GT3 had (generally) fast and "competitive" AI that was completely braindead. It varied widely how competitive it was, and how obvious it was that it was braindead (occasional and even believable mistakes that GT2 and GT3 AI made did a good job of hiding it, but there was never any notion that there was player awareness), as well as how obvious it was that rubber banding was in effect.
GT4 had AI that was probably the worst ever committed to a racing game short of something like OutRunners.
Stuff like this:
Was an extremely common occurrence; and it wasn't even competitive like the previous title outside of the races that had cars tuned higher than the player could do and/or rabbit chases and/or obnoxious track designs (like the Opel Speedster Cup). It was so badly done that it would run identical laptimes down to half a second on the Nurburgring for hours on end. You could literally plan entire race strategies over how the AI would consistently crash certain cars in certain ways in every race they were encountered. In some races the AI would crash the exact same way in every single lap. In two car races where the starting line was side by side, the AI would immediately charge to the driving line when the race started even if the player car happened to be there.
GT5 and GT6 don't suffer from any of that. They both do suffer from bad game design (like the atrocious AI car selection in both titles, and the rubber banding in GT6, and the terrible race structure in general since one of the middle GT5 patches that has only gotten worse in GT6); but the AI itself still has problems of its own that stems from lack of pace, and I think it comes more from a deliberate skew towards making the AI passive towards the player than it does any actual inability with what PD designed for the game to be competitive with the player.
Last edited:
- 3,411
- the bottom of my heart.
- kolio123
As stated before, I am not letting go soon. But to honest, it is starting to get boring. I have to drive MR cars with power and crap tires to have fun anymore sometimes. 
Because it is the 🤬 truth for some of us.
I don't know why, but I keep coming back to GT. It hooks me in a way I can't even explain - probably a huge bias.
Sure, other racing titles have better elements, but I think GT in general, has the best track selection out of any racing game. That, along with the encyclopedia of cars (I don't really care that all aren't premium, id rather have 1300 cars that are just 'there')
Physics wise, I do like how cars don't feel 'floaty'. Compared to for example Forza's physics. The game itself is not bad, don't get me wrong - the tuning / paint stuff you can do just dumps all over GT, but the cars don't feel 'snappy' and you dont get that snap oversteer feel like GT gives. It's probably just me.
Overall, I say bring GT7.
Sure, other racing titles have better elements, but I think GT in general, has the best track selection out of any racing game. That, along with the encyclopedia of cars (I don't really care that all aren't premium, id rather have 1300 cars that are just 'there')
Physics wise, I do like how cars don't feel 'floaty'. Compared to for example Forza's physics. The game itself is not bad, don't get me wrong - the tuning / paint stuff you can do just dumps all over GT, but the cars don't feel 'snappy' and you dont get that snap oversteer feel like GT gives. It's probably just me.
Overall, I say bring GT7.
- 1,474
- Florida, USA
- Formidable_LG
- Formidable77
Gran Turismo 3 was one of my first Playstation games growing up. I loved that game to death, and the same with GT4. I never played GT5 because I never got a PS3 until GT6 was announced. With all these next-gen games being shelled out, it does seem like its about time to let go and move on to others. However, this franchise is very unique. Forza and Project Cars don't have as many features most Gran Turismo games have. So for me, I'm not going to let go just yet 
I should have rephrased - I didn't mean every car, ha ha.
Well, the snap O/S aside, Forza's physics seem a bit more on the floaty side to me. That said, I haven't played six, but they seem to be improved on 5. Four just felt reaaaally floaty.
(fellow Melbournite I see ;P)
Well, the snap O/S aside, Forza's physics seem a bit more on the floaty side to me. That said, I haven't played six, but they seem to be improved on 5. Four just felt reaaaally floaty.
(fellow Melbournite I see ;P)
- 1,474
- Florida, USA
- Formidable_LG
- Formidable77
I don't say that everything in AI is bad. There are good thing in many games (and you can find challenge and fun). But to me it seems that AI in racing games are designed to be a pushover or overly aggressive they don't really adapt to the situation. Usually I try to be as far away from them as possible, because to me they are unpredictable.
AI is a difficult thing and is lacking overall in games but in some genres it really shows.
Overall if you increase AI speed (without dirty tricks like adding extra grip) those flaws will show more (that's why some of those tests that people do are flawed) .
The point of AI in games usually is to emulate a human but I don't feel that in racing games.
That's what I meant by improving AI.
Adding more challenge to the game is a different question to me.
As for GT itself. It has many things that are awesome but not utilized fully or at all.
AI is a difficult thing and is lacking overall in games but in some genres it really shows.
Overall if you increase AI speed (without dirty tricks like adding extra grip) those flaws will show more (that's why some of those tests that people do are flawed) .
The point of AI in games usually is to emulate a human but I don't feel that in racing games.
That's what I meant by improving AI.
Adding more challenge to the game is a different question to me.
As for GT itself. It has many things that are awesome but not utilized fully or at all.
- 27,385
- Toronto
- NewAesthetic
- SlipZtrEm
Judging a game's physics by watching a video is sort of like determining how a burger tastes by watching someone else eat it.
I'm not going to discuss the physics of both games (because we've got a thread for that now 👍 ), but it's interesting to read this, if for no other reason than just earlier today, a long-time GT player posted this over in the Forza section. It seems people have very different reactions to the two series, and one has to wonder whether it's because of personal preference, or if they're measuring it against reality. Of course, either is acceptable, it's when one is presented as the other that arguments tend to start!
I've been jumping back and forth between the 6's of both GT and FM a lot this month (playing more GT6 in the past week than I probably have the previous year), and there are some big differences between them. I was reminded of a few neat features in GT that I'd forgotten about, and that brought a few smiles.
My bad for talking about the physics. What I should have said was, the 'feel' of GT to me, combined with the track selection & car list, makes me come back more and more. I did fire up Forza the other night, and for whatever reason, I only raced one or two races and switched it off. (I do believe it is because of their track selection not even touching GT's and a lot of races are over the same tracks) That said, last night when I fired up GT, I completed two championships back-to-back.
IT's like gravity, ha ha.
IT's like gravity, ha ha.
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
You should make it clear you're talking about Forza 5, not Forza 6.
As I mentioned above, the AI in Grid Autosport were very good on circuits. The street courses were a little tight and tougher to race on but so long as you covered the inside you were generally ok. They raced hard, they were well aware of your presence and they challenged for position without knocking you off the track. Your generalization of "AI is this or AI is that" just doesn't hold true, for the most part, outside of Gran Turismo.
Last edited:
- 239
- United States
- bluedragoon98
- 351
- United States
- GTP_Frenzyhero
edit
Last edited:
The tracks themselves, are better, IMO. In Forza there are quite a few that I just don't enjoy, and they appear in a lot of races I want to complete, ha haI find that funny to hear because GT3 has lots of races and championships over the same tracks and is the most successful sold GT.
Latest Posts
-
-
-
Car of the Week | Week 53: Yellow Devil (Lamborghini Diablo GT '00)- Latest: XSquareStickIt
-
-
