Welp. Someone has to say it.... (AI thread)

[P3nT4gR4m]

The thing about good "AI" is that most of the time it isn't, cunning level design and rails for the bots to run along with some very basic duck-n-cover logic and an aim modifier to give it a chance of missing is the order of the day in first person shooters. Rubber bands with some basic overtaking path modifiers seems to be how it's done in racing games. Anything else eats up clock cycles like they're going out of fashion and trying to make any bot actually think, strategically, is a hiding to nowhere.

I'd go as far as to say any time you think you've met a smart bot in any video game, with the possible exception of Chess, you've almost certainly been hoodwinked by lots of very well executed trickery. The only real alternative is to code some kind of neural net in there and let them "learn" by repeatedly racing against them and if you did that the PS3 might just be able to handle one AI opponent if you completely scrapped the physics model. Even then you wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting 60FPS out of it.

ETA: Ardius beats me to it

 

[Spagetti69]

They do overtake each other. Not regularly but it happens.

Thanks mate, probably find single race type of events rather than a race series. That's the easy way out.

 

[Ardius]

Well seeing as we haven't even made a decent AI in reality for any other system, I think a neural net for a video game is a little OTT The development time for that would go into decades! (probably)

Yes, PD could put more effort into simple game AI, as with the examples of other games. But its such a small little thing, improving the sound is more important in my opinion. Get the main experience perfected first, then worry about B-spec Bob's braking abilities.
As long as they don't have anymore bugs like the Le Mans bug (where the AI would quite often crash half way down the Mulsanne).

 

[RedBaron]

The thing about good "AI" is that most of the time it isn't, cunning level design and rails for the bots to run along with some very basic duck-n-cover logic and an aim modifier to give it a chance of missing is the order of the day in first person shooters. Rubber bands with some basic overtaking path modifiers seems to be how it's done in racing games. Anything else eats up clock cycles like they're going out of fashion and trying to make any bot actually think, strategically, is a hiding to nowhere.

I'd go as far as to say any time you think you've met a smart bot in any video game, with the possible exception of Chess, you've almost certainly been hoodwinked by lots of very well executed trickery. The only real alternative is to code some kind of neural net in there and let them "learn" by repeatedly racing against them and if you did that the PS3 might just be able to handle one AI opponent if you completely scrapped the physics model. Even then you wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting 60FPS out of it.

ETA: Ardius beats me to it

Stop with that nonsence, atom heart of PS3 with eight cores is just waiting for the real code to do this calculations even for 100 cars and many more tasks while it runs. No, we are surely not in the times of Intel PIII or PS2, not even in times of PC AT 386. In fact, AI engine of Prologue is so simple and boned that even 8bit ZX Spectrum could drive like that and crash all that's staying in the way. Crazy Cars I-III were enough smart not to do it

 

[Spagetti69]

Time is something they have with an indefinate development time. AI has been their achilies heel in this series and I'm not holding out any hope for good AI. Sound and AI is what they need to catch up on and it's a learning curve for them.

 

[Coiler]

Time is something they have with an indefinate development time. AI has been their achilies heel in this series and I'm not holding out any hope for good AI. Sound and AI is what they need to catch up on and it's a learning curve for them.

Sound seems to be ok, but the AI, well.. NO

 

[NLxAROSA]

+1

And +1 again. Does it look like GT5 AI will suck? Yep. Do I care? Nope. Online (and free run while tuning bits) is where I will spend most of my time. I spent about a week or two in the offline bit in GT5P, while I spent 1.5 years in online. It will probably be different for GT5, with so much more content, but I still expect the online part to be where I spend most of my time. I hope that's where PD's focus is.

 

[Dravonic]

Stop with that nonsence, atom heart of PS3 with eight cores is just waiting for the real code to do this calculations even for 100 cars and many more tasks while it runs. No, we are surely not in the times of Intel PIII or PS2, not even in times of PC AT 386. In fact, AI engine of Prologue is so simple and boned that even 8bit ZX Spectrum could drive like that and crash all that's staying in the way. Crazy Cars I-III were enough smart not to do it

Uhm, it's hard to tell... I don't have the background to be able to answer it with certainty yet, but since I am studying Hopfield's neural network model I think I know enough to say that a neural network for 15 cars running at 60fps together with the physics engine and now the dynamic damage engine seems far fetched even on the six cores available on the PS3.

Neural network controlled AI in video games is unheard of as far as I know anyway. There was a game named black&white which supposedly had some advanced, learning capable, AI. I'm unsure if it used a neural network though. I don't think so.

 

[Sureboss]

Being pedantic, technically video game "AI" is not true AI. Its just programming objects to react a certain way in certain situations in order to give the illusion of intelligence. Of course, we could argue how we define intelligence but its certainly not the most complicated form of AI.

But I agree, even "simple" AI is extremely complex and very difficult to get right, no surprises that PD cop out in this area especially if they are intending to push the online side more (which appears to be the case).

Thus the "scripted" Luckily I don't encounter too many customers regarding this, I think we'd lose quite a lot if they realised how it actually worked. But then again, a video game is all about imagination, isn't it?

When you get good "AI", particularly in the more complex games, appreciate it for what it is!

 

[ADEuk]

What I know about computer programming could be written on the back of a cigarette packet, but how about this?

Career is done online against online bot's whose AI is processed deep in the heart of a very powerfull processor/ server

Would that work?

 

[Stonemonkey]

What I know about computer programming could be written on the back of a cigarette packet, but how about this?

Career is done online against online bot's whose AI is processed deep in the heart of a very powerfull processor/ server

Would that work?

Just stick to smoking.

J/K, how many people around the world playing at the same time, and about lag........

 

[P3nT4gR4m]

Not to mention what happens when, at 2:14 a.m, the bspec barney becomes self aware and sees the human race as a threat

 

[Sureboss]

That would re-define Trojan infected software.

"It's done an ARNIE!"

 

[ADEuk]

Not to mention what happens when, at 2:14 a.m, the bspec barney becomes self aware and sees the human race as a threat

OK I'll stick to smoking

Now, about those 3d ashtrays...

 

[Tornado]

Just name a game with better AI and i will definately find videos that show how the AI is unable to avoid a crash.

Being unable to avoid a crash is completely different from not even bothering to do so. Better PC sims do the former, and have been doing the former since at least 1998. GT games have always, without exception, done the latter.
And to those of you who are acting as if AI isn't a big deal because you'll just play online anyways, kindly remove yourself from the thread.

 

[RedBaron]

Not to mention what happens when, at 2:14 a.m, the bspec barney becomes self aware and sees the human race as a threat

As I know PD's simplification of many codes, you could be very soon in secure circumvention of 15 cars then.

 

[Dravonic]

Being unable to avoid a crash is completely different from not even bothering to do so. Better PC sims do the former, and have been doing the former since at least 1998. GT games have always, without exception, done the latter.

Not true. The AI in GT5P tries to avoid crashes to a certain extent, as it was already shown in this thread.

 

[Tornado]

It slows down to a lower speed...and then plows into you anyways. And you have to come to a complete stop to even get them to do that much.

 

[Dravonic]

It slows down to a lower speed...and then plows into you anyways. And you have to come to a complete stop to even get them to do that much.

It avoids you just fine provided you don't stop in the middle of the track or pull out some dumb move out of nowhere. Look at this:

Wrong again.



I can go find more if you so desire.

That's "bothering to do so" in my book. I've seen things similar to this happen in real races and human beings crashed. GT's dumb AI didn't.

 

[Sm0k3:D]

AI does not exist. This is my conclusion. If bots are programed to do always the same in a particular situation, this is no inteligence.
AI will born when bots try to do a diferent thing if the programed thing doesn't give a good result. Then learn about it.
Call AI to "this-thing-they-call-AI" is the problem... Then we expect a inteligence that doesn't exist...

 

[Tornado]

That's "bothering to do so" in my book. I've seen things similar to this happen in real races and human beings crashed. GT's dumb AI didn't.

And yet, on any track with a long straight, the AI will just draft and draft and draft until it crashes into the back of the car it was drafting. And then it tries to pass.

 

[blademask]

Stupid work getting int he way of GTplaneting! (also, enjoyed a few Expert races last night with maybe some of you on fuji? GTR vs S2000's 750p).

//Trolls

I took a moment and read through the comments here. Firstly, Trolls. Go away. Don't use this thread as an opportunity to blindly bash GT. GT is still the best console racing sim franchise out there, nothing comes closer as an entire package. You know who you are. We all know what you're doing. Its as apparent as the day is long.


//A.I & Attitude against Change:

Ok, with that out of the way. I really hate to see quite a few type of attitudes here regarding the game/users. Mainly calling people out as crybabies who complain about everything under the sun, which granted is plenty annoying. But, Don't confuse GT's pitiful A.I attempts as one of those complaints that has no solid base grounded in truth. The A.I is terrible by todays standards, it would be nice to see it change, but it probably wont be changed. There is no defending it compared to other titles. GT has a presentation which is second to none, and I'm sure the online fidelity will be amazing, even prologue provides a decent experience with its limited scope. But which online standards is GT pursuing? Let me guess, the standards set in the simulation world & online gaming today. Many of you are excited to learn things about GT5 which stems from PC simulations. Yet, the same people pretend that the demand is too ridiculous to ask for the A.I to be tweaked along side the basic functions of sims from past and present.

There is this total over reactive condemning of people bringing it up. I'm not excusing it by pretending its just going to be the demo. GT has had 5 games to do it, its just clearly not the focus of the series. I can accept that, and I can acknowledge it. I just know that GT5 could have been the GT that I actually felt challenged to play the single player mode, as I've been challenged in all sims. No, its looking like yet again I'll have to just do hotlaps and whatever else you have to do to make money. I'm just hoping that there are more ways to win money than just the A.I competition. I have no problem with that. Its still interesting to see why people think GT is the way it is, not going into defense mode over it. The most fun is had online and racing with real people, but GT's A.I doesn't hit the minimum requirements of A.I for games in its class.



//A.I Expectations

No one is demanding to have Skynet run Gran Turismo's A.I, no. I think I'd be happy with the basic A.I that we've played and have seen in all titles out there, thats all. Basic A.I in the PC simulation world has provided challenges that no GT released to date can reproduce. Sure online can be the savior, but lets remember that its been 5 releases with it getting up to speed.

I don't want skid marks, I don't want reverse lights, I don't want anything silly or useless to a car simulator. No, I just expect the same basic A.I, its not a ridiculous terrorist demand. I really don't think its too out of school to discuss. I understand the knee jerk responses, totally tired of these types of comments, but that doesn't make the comment any less valid. Seeing the more and more recent builds aren't indicating the gigantic change we've seen in all other facets of Gran Turismo.

People keep making the case by finding problematic issues in other titles A.I. Great! Thats inherent to gaming, you will always have bugs. Now, back to GT's terrible A.I, its still worse than the other game that has bugs in its A.I is to begin with. Other games have nothing to do with GT's A.I failures, they are only examples of what can be done without the budget and gigantic awe and franchise that is GT.

I usually don't get riled up about much. But I know there is a problem with the A.I in the franchise. I was hoping to see it improved just as we've seen everything else improved. Closing my eyes to it and pretending that the online is solving the issue isn't really the heart of the problem. I'm sure it can be corrected with different ways to make money in single player. At the end of the day though, the only 2 problems in the single player are solved by other developers quite easily. The overpowered 1 car that always wins, and the problematic A.I shouldn't be issues in the GT franchise any longer. Removing rubberbanding as a global option would be great. And I'm hoping other changes will have been made. At the same time I cant help but see other demo's showing of basic A.I, and become wary of the upgrades GT's seen.

Sure Schumacher won all the time, which is why it was news. Because it doesn't always happen. GT's pre-determined winning grid isn't based on skill. Again, real life fluke examples have nothing to do with GT's A.I. I'm sure its that detailed and self aware, yet always spins out at the same exact time.

It would be shocking to see GT5 ship with the improved a.i, a better system for single player racing, winning by memorizing the pack of cars is dead in 2010. No one really touched on that, more so just focused no the A.I comments. But outside of the A.I, GT's single player methodology has stayed intact. Does GTPSP shed any light on a different direction? From what I've seen it might?

 

[Dravonic]

And yet, on any track with a long straight, the AI will just draft and draft and draft until it crashes into the back of the car it was drafting. And then it tries to pass.

I don't recall it ever happening to me. At daytona the AI seems to draft past me without issue if I don't try to block it at the last second. Still, I won't claim it doesn't happen. I've played GT5P enough to know that the AI has problems I want fixed.

My only problem with your claim, and with a lot of other people's claims in this thread, is that while the AI needs to be worked on, it's definitely not as bad as you and others are saying it is. For the most part, if you drive like you should, the AI will avoid you as it should.

EDIT: I'm wondering if you never played GT5P since what you are saying is true for GT4 and below. However, the AI in GT5 will be as the AI in GT5P at the very least, so that problem has already been worked on.

 

[Coiler]

PD just need to teach the AI to detect the player's car and if needed try to avoid /break out. Just that would look /feel much better.

 

[Dravonic]

PD just need to teach the AI to detect the player's car and if needed try to avoid /break out. Just that would look /feel much better.

Are you also stuck at GT4? It's an honest question. The AI in GT5P will avoid you in most cases.

 

[Lucas]

//Trolls

I took a moment and read through the comments here. Firstly, Trolls. Go away. Don't use this thread as an opportunity to blindly bash GT. GT is still the best console racing sim franchise out there, nothing comes closer as an entire package. You know who you are. We all know what you're doing. Its as apparent as the day is long.

I have yet to see a troll in this thread, but for the looks of this comment, it seems everyone who points out an error from GT is a troll... We can play the same card too, most of the people who praise something about GT are fanboys.

I don't want skid marks, I don't want reverse lights, I don't want anything silly or useless to a car simulator.

*spits coffee*

Seriously, what? Lack of reverse lights just shows how little attention does Kazunori Yamauchi actually pays to the GT series. Don't tell me there isn't a use for the reverse button in GT4, otherwise, we wouldn't have it in the first place. That some of you people don't want to accept it's an obvious error that should have been fixed from GT2 onwards doesn't mean it's something silly. Even this piece of crap has it.

This kind of comment is what bothers me in this particular section of the forum.

 

[Tornado]

EDIT: I'm wondering if you never played GT5P since what you are saying is true for GT4 and below. However, the AI in GT5 will be as the AI in GT5P at the very least, so that problem has already been worked on.

I admit that I haven't played it a lot, refusing on principle to buy it, but when I do play it I have experienced both the drafting stuff and the bit before that about slowing down but still crashing into you. And even without emergency maneuvers taken into account, the AI simply by itself racing wasn't near the quality of the game I consider to be the gold standard. That isn't to say it isn't better than in GT games of the past, particularly coming off of GT4 (which I find has the worst AI ever in any racing game), but it is still very substandard.

 

[Dravonic]

I have yet to see a troll in this thread, but for the looks of this comment, it seems everyone who points out an error from GT is a troll... We can play the same card too, most of the people who praise something about GT are fanboys.



*spits coffee*

Seriously, what? Lack of reverse lights just shows how little attention does Kazunori Yamauchi actually pays to the GT series. Don't tell me there isn't a use for the reverse button in GT4, otherwise, we wouldn't have it in the first place. That some of you people don't want to accept it's an obvious error that should have been fixed from GT2 onwards doesn't mean it's something silly. Even this piece of crap has it.

This kind of comment is what bothers me in this particular section of the forum.

I believe the only reason you got offended is because you think it was directed at you. The bold kinda confirms it to me. Saying that Kazunori pays little attention to the GT series appears to be the work of a troll when it's arguable that no other game is as detailed and ambitious as GT is. It lacks 2 details but has thousands of others. You're telling me that a lot - 2 = sloppy job? Doesn't make much sense to me.

I admit that I haven't played it a lot, refusing on principle to buy it, but when I do play it I have experienced both the drafting stuff and the bit before that about slowing down but still crashing into you. And even without emergency maneuvers taken into account, the AI simply by itself racing wasn't near the quality of the game I consider to be the gold standard. That isn't to say it isn't better than in GT games of the past, particularly coming off of GT4 (which I find has the worst AI ever in any racing game), but it is still very substandard.

I agree. The AI isn't nearly as good as it should be but escalating it to "[the AI] not even bothering to [avoid a crash]" is going too far.

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

I believe the only reason you got offended is because you think it was directed at you. The bold kinda confirms it to me. Saying that Kazunori pays little attention to the GT series appears to be the work of a troll when it's arguable that no other game is as detailed and ambitious as GT is. It lacks 2 details but has thousands of others. You're telling me that a lot - 2 = sloppy job? Doesn't make much sense to me.

Sorry but what are you exactly trying to say?

 

[Dravonic]

Sorry but what are you exactly trying to say?

That I don't agree with his statement that Kazunori shows little attention to GT since I can't find another game that reflects better the attention of the author.