Artificial Intelligence

[Helios]

I suppose this is directed at the more programing knowledge-able of you.

I was surfing around and found out about an old programming format called LISP, once initiated LISP could modify it self in real time there were also several other programming languages like LISP they were the result of early experimintation with AI.

I know its early versions were antiqueted because it couldnt run variables very well so you had to add in solvers quite often. Besides its high inefficiency the execution of self modification seems like it would be ideal for AI tasks. So my question is are there any programming languages out there that resemble this feature in LISP, more importantly in game development.

Sure I realise the limited scope AI in a game isnt quite the same as a theoretical full scope AI but still.

[cliffbo]

imagine though a team that spends all their time creating animal simulators so that other devs can just drop selected animals into their games and forget about them. lions hunt and reproduce. birds build nest.. etc... just think about how the world would look.

[Arnaud_M]

Besides its high inefficiency the execution of self modification seems like it would be ideal for AI tasks.

Actually, a lot of AI work nowadays is done in object-oriented langage (like C++ or Java) because the support these langages offer for rapid prototyping, easy GUI creation, thread creation and more generally ease of development is appreciated by researchers. That does not mean that the research "concepts" being manipulated does not allow for some amount of "self-modification" but then it depends on how your interpret it (for instance, artificial neural network modifies their weights and connexions during training).


So my question is are there any programming languages out there that resemble this feature in LISP, more importantly in game development.


Several langages support some forms of dynamic modifications (such as SmallTalk) but I doubt games developpers use them. Too difficult to test, validate and debug, and AI-wise, not that useful. Probably the closest you would find in current research would be Genetic Programming (a research domain about the generation of evolving programs other several "generations" following the biologic methaphor of the evolution of life on Earth), but this is probably not use in any game, as far as I know.

Arnaud

[Z]

I have a very general question about AI:
the only AI model I know of (in games) is the one where multiple options are given for each situation and the subject pics one or more either randomely or systimatically.

my question is, how many other AI model types other than this one are there?

[Arnaud_M]

Your question is very general, I am not sure to understand exactly what you mean. If you question is "is there some kind of learning in games, or are all behaviours the results of carefully crafted (=predetermined) algorithms ?", then I guess that most games do not use any form of learning (think about it: how would you test a game which can evolve indepently following user's inputs ? It's very difficult). Some of them do, though, such as Black & White, and the old Creatures game. I am not aware of FPS or RTS using learning though (which does not mean they do not exist).

Arnaud

[cpiasminc]

Yeah, typically, learning algorithms of almost any kind tend to have ridiculously slow convergence rates... assuming you play it safe, that is. Things like reinforcement learning take ages to learn optimal solutions (sometimes it gets stuck because of the shape of the "error curve"), though you can kick it around with some random variations and hope that you get back on track, but that can lead to momentary stupidity when you see it in game.

Often times, because the baggage of complex AI is heavy, we try to keep as little AI on the NPC itself, and put more out in the world and some just statically located irrespective of everything. Take for instance, something like a guy in FEAR leaping through a window to flank you. It doesn't work by the NPC checking for ideal conditions... rather the window object will have a trigger that is "turned on" when the player is in the trigger volume, and then when an NPC comes within range on the other side, it sends out a signal to that NPC saying -- "Hey, the player's on the other side... flank him."

Of course, this does shift a fair bit of AI responsibility to the level designers, but who gives a damn about them, right? ;)

[Smokey]

but that can lead to momentary stupidity when you see it in game.
is that like those times when you have to lead some character & they get stuck on everything but the kichen sink :) or is that more of a follow the dot program in the game.

[Arnaud_M]

In Sims 2, they used exactly that approach, and to great effect. They called it "environmental intelligence" or something like that: the furnitures (say in the kitchen) where constantly broadcasting orders (or at lesser level, only influence, that is, order biases) to the Sims to direct their actions. Such as "Hey, I am the pizza, I am on fire, use the extinguisher on me !! HELP !! PLEASE SAVE MY POOR PIZZA SOUL !!".

Arnaud

[Smokey]

In Sims 2, they used exactly that approach, and to great effect. They called it "environmental intelligence" or something like that: the furnitures (say in the kitchen) where constantly broadcasting orders (or at lesser level, only influence, that is, order biases) to the Sims to direct their actions. Such as "Hey, I am the pizza, I am on fire, use the extinguisher on me !! HELP !! PLEASE SAVE MY POOR PIZZA SOUL !!".

Arnaud
LOL :) gotta save that pizza :err:

[Arnaud_M]

is that like those times when you have to lead some character & they get stuck on everything but the kichen sink :) or is that more of a follow the dot program in the game.

You are talking about PathFinding problems here, but Pathfinding does usually not make use of learning, so no, it's not the same problem. Pathfinding generally uses an algorithm called A* ("A star"), which is ran over an abtracted model of the environment of the game. For instance, you define a set of waypoints in each room (more waypoints = more precise and "fluid" movements but more time needed to compute them), you link them by straight paths, and A* will search in this representation the best path to the destination using some strategies usually of the form "first, try to find the path by going at each step as closer as you can to the goal, but if you are blocked, then consider less direct paths". Well, this is a really abstract definition of A* :-), but you get the idea: A* does not explore randomly the space, it uses additional information to guide the search so that the path is more likely to be found sooner than later (and thus using less computing resources).

Arnaud

[LaLiLuLeLo]

Another instance is, in MGS2. They explained this in the document of.
In a room with 2 floors for example, say an enemy is on the 2nd floor and you're on the 1st floor. If the enemy thinks he sees you and goes to investigate, he's got to know the quickest route to the stairs and to the point he noticed you.
The problem originally was, sometimes the npc soldier would get stuck, confused on which path to take, and the soldier would look like he was having a seizure, twitching really fast back and forth, but stuck in place. To solve this they divided the floors into zones consisting of 4 'panels' each. So if a guard is in panel x he'll take this route to the stairs, if he's in panel y, he'll take the other route down the stairs, and so on like that.

[Z]

my question was about how AI behaves under different situations. for example; in a shoot out, I can give a character a list of choices of what to do. i.e; if you run out of ammo, randomely chose one of three options:
-reload
-use melee
-do nothing

if the plaer gets near you, chose one of these:
-shoot
-use melee
-runaway

if a grenade falls near you, chose:
-through it back
-do nothing

and so on. my qustion is, is there any other AI routine or model than having to pic actions from given lists?

[The_One]

Hey Arnuad, great to see you active on the forums! Not a surprise you're hanging out in this particular thread, though :P.

As for A*... I don't think it's "way-points". It's more like "grids".
For example:
|-------|
|-------|
|-------|
This is a "open" room. Where no object currently exist.

Say, we place a few objects:
|-*---o-|
|*--***|
|*----+-|

* = Obstacle
+ = Player (or whoever is doing the moving)
o = target

The A* algorithm checks all the grids that are currently NOT occupied, and then checks to see which method is the fastest to get to the goal. In this case, there is only 1. Thus it will have to move left, then up, then right, finally reaching the goal. However, when there are multiple paths, the A* algorithm will be able to find the shortest way to the goal. That's very important, because, say one path is the shortest in terms of distance (lets say, by 25%), but the player will have to pass through mud, which slows down the player, on the other hand, the other path is through paved road, giving the player maximum speed (lets say it is twice the speed of the player traveling in mud). In this case, the A* algorithm will return the shortest route, but not necessarily the fastest. A* algorithms are generally quite slow, so game designers/programmers such as Blizzard came up with something called D* algorithm (or C*, can't remember all those letterings <_<) that's checks a small sector by sector, which speeds up the process.

Err, anyways, enough about that, I went totally off topic O.o.

[Z]

thnaks for the input The_One. wish you could hang out more often. @_@'

[LaLiLuLeLo]

my question was about how AI behaves under different situations. for example; in a shoot out, I can give a character a list of choices of what to do. i.e; if you run out of ammo, randomely chose one of three options:
-reload
-use melee
-do nothing

if the plaer gets near you, chose one of these:
-shoot
-use melee
-runaway

if a grenade falls near you, chose:
-through it back
-do nothing

and so on. my qustion is, is there any other AI routine or model than having to pic actions from given lists?

If you think about it, humans are the same way. We react to a certain thing in a certain way. X happens, and we react with A, B, C, or D choice. There's a rock there. I'm going to walk around that rock. If I have a rocket launcher (humor me) I'm going to blow it up. So on like this with infinitely broader scenarios. The only difference is the vastness of potential human reactions, versus a limited number of possible AI reactions. So, if the triggers aren't built into the environment (like cpiasminc mentioned the windows and flanking) then the npc's would have to be specifically programmed (I'm guessing?) with reaction after reaction after reaction. This must be difficult in constantly changing video game environments. A.I. is still in its infancy, and let's face it: in order for it to really grow, it's gonna take years of think-tank level development on solely behavioral programming.


To be honest I only want enemies in games to be so smart. I want them to be intelligent to a point, because it is exciting a lot of times when they react in amazing ways you didn't think they would. On the same token, half the fun of games is doing things you couldn't pull off in real life. If the enemies are realllllly humanly smart then games will be hard as a bitch (like, harder than devil may cry on dante must die mode + contra shattered soldier hard).:buldge:

Games won't just be about being a good, smart gamer. Think if teams start working collaboratively to outsmart you. Suddenly gamers will find themselves having to outsmart a team of 5 enemies who have you out gunned and possibly outclassed.

OOHHH SHIT SON!

[Helios]

Games won't just be about being a good, smart gamer. Think if teams start working collaboratively to outsmart you. Suddenly gamers will find themselves having to outsmart a team of 5 enemies who have you out gunned and possibly outclassed.

OOHHH SHIT SON!

Sounds absolutely fascinating.

my question was about how AI behaves under different situations. for example; in a shoot out, I can give a character a list of choices of what to do. i.e; if you run out of ammo, randomely chose one of three options:
-reload
-use melee
-do nothing

if the plaer gets near you, chose one of these:
-shoot
-use melee
-runaway

if a grenade falls near you, chose:
-through it back
-do nothing

and so on. my qustion is, is there any other AI routine or model than having to pic actions from given lists?

There's plenty of divergence that can happen. In a completely neutral environment these are the only availible options. But suppose you're on an oil rig and there happens to be quite a bit of oil on the platform. At this point when the AI depletes his ammo does he choose his remaining grenades even if it causes the platform to set ablaze, or choose the less risky option of the knife.

That could easily be a environment trigger however. Or for that matter any other environment with its own set of obstacles.

But when its all said and done is it easier to develop an AI that acts appropriately in any environment such as Euphoria designed by NaturalMotion (http://forums.e-mpire.com/showthread.php?t=55066), which could be dropped into any model or just load up on environment triggers and built in options.

[Smokey]

ok what about enemies that see you through doors & walls floors etc. (is that the momentary lapse of stupidity) plus they can shoot ya. or is it more of the collision detection thing?

[Arnaud_M]

To Z: picking actions from list of actions is not trivial :-) Consider that advanced AI dot not pick one action, then another, then another but instead try to plan in advance intelligent *sequences* of actions, possibly interleaved with other AIs sequences, that depend on player behaviour, environnmental opportunities and the other AIs own decision processes. But if your question is "are all the (atomic) actions pre-determined", then in games, yes I guess. If the action "light the oil with a flame" is not predefined in the game, the AI will not use it. In order to have an AI "creatively" invent new actions you would need a detailled model of object properties ("is inflammable", "is breakable" ...) and of objects possible effects ("can put fire on when in contact with" ...). A completly detailled model would indeed have to go down to the level of the laws of physics, but such a model would not be usable for real-time game, of course.

To The_One: actually, A* is a generic algorithm for graph of any kind, and grids are a specific kind of graph (each cell is a node, and each cell is connected to its four closest neighbours).

Arnaud

[The_One]

To The_One: actually, A* is a generic algorithm for graph of any kind, and grids are a specific kind of graph (each cell is a node, and each cell is connected to its four closest neighbours). Ah, thanks for the clarification there. You can obviously tell I'm not an AI programmer XD.

ok what about enemies that see you through doors & walls floors etc. (is that the momentary lapse of stupidity) plus they can shoot ya. or is it more of the collision detection thing? From my limited understanding of games, it's a collision detection problem. The AI cannot detect the wall (perhaps it's a fault with the level designer, he/she might have left a infinately small gap between walls that the human cannot see).

thnaks for the input The_One. wish you could hang out more often. @_@' Yeah, no kiddin'. I'd love to hang around more too, but... Life is tough :ohno:

[LiquidEagle]

I think it might depend on the game, Smokey. Some games I imagine enemies have what I've come to understand (through my WoW brainwashing) as an "aggro radius" so as soon as you're within a certain distance of them (obstacles being irrelevant), they start going for you. Also, it could be a collision detection problem in that the ray-casting of the enemy's line of sight goes through certain objects. If The_One has "limited understanding of games," then my extremely limited understanding of games/modelling has to guess it's a problem with flipped normals or something allowing it to be seen through in a certain direction/angle, but I'm sure somebody else has a better answer than that.

I think AI is cool & all but I firmly believe it'll never come close to the real interaction with other people. Aside from working as a team, there are so many subtle nuances in every person's playing and every real-life person's response that it would be impossible to really capture that. Of course it's great to see games like FEAR try, since the AI in that game really gives you a run for your money, but I'm not expecting it to ever truly be realistic. Too many factors keep that from happening.

[yoshaw]

I wonder if I were an AI character in a First Person Shooter. What would my feelings be towards the hero who's about to raid my level? Maybe something similar to the train of thought of an AI character's voice recorder found next to his dead body.

" This is John Paul, an AI character of Game A.B.C. It was just radio'd that the premesis has been infiltrated a few moments ago. The intruder is very dangerous and lethel, he never stops for cover, just keeps running towards us in a straight line like a bonehead without fear of death. No matter how many shots we fire at him, he'd plunge straight at us, maybe sometimes zig zagging his path but eventually not taking cover or using any smart tactics. Just simple run n gun. And they fucking blame US for being a retarded A.I?? What nonsense is that and how unfair of them hypocrits cum game journalists. Ahh.... Speak of the devil. He's breached the room. Christopher was shot right in the face point blank when he tried stopping the terrorist at the door.. OMG.... and Tom .... poor Tom was only trying to hide behind those oil barrels to save his ass. But that bastard ..... oh dear .... I wonder what I'm going to tell Jessica that his husband is now resting in .... pieces. Ahh, I'm gonna die. He's coming straight at me. I'm shooting but seems like all my bullets are slowed down as in the movie, Matrix. So fucking unfair, owww, two of his bullets just hit me in the chest while mine are still hanging in the air. WTF?! Ahh, I can't live with this shit. You cheating basta ..... pssssshhhhhhhhhsshhh" *Tape ends*

Kinda true that we blame our games A.I characters for being stupid, no? while at the same time we're more than willing to apply the same tactics to them. Maybe we as an industry ought to focus more on the aspect of how a user (us players) approach an A.I character rather than the usual methods of how an A.I should approach us.

[venomv]

Or maybe we shouldn't have practicly bullet proof characters.

[frosty]

yeah, i'm down with the get shot, have to react like you really just got shot thing. headshot=death, bodyshot=death or limp. must remove bullet and patch up to be able to carry on, and will still be slowed down for a while.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

Yeah...it's called Ghost Recon Advanced Warfare. and it's hard as a bitch.

[venomv]

Yeah, they are out there, but they are few and far between, and ussally extremely hard, but I like them better.

[Arnaud_M]

Realism in a game, and fun in a game, are different things for most people. What would you prefer:

* a game using AI to have behaviours for opponents as realistic as possible, even though it may mean they are really tough (hiding behind wall, shooting you through small cracks, flanking you each time, etc...) ?

or

* a game using AI to learn, from your reactions (how long do you play, after which in-game event do you generally quit playing, what sequences of in-game events makes you play longer, etc), what is fun and enjoyable to you personaly, and that then cheats with the opponents behaviour to make you entertained (even if it means dumber/unrealistic opponents) ?

Arnaud

[frosty]

a mixture of both, so it auto balances

[{Delta}]

Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity?


If they want to make games with more challenaging AI, there should be more "learning" capality of the AI. Sure, this is no small feat,but it would be a simmilar processes by which we get better at doing somthing.

[LiquidEagle]

Well there is some learning in the AI, but how exactly would they learn? Would they adjust and learn time after time when a player's trying to get past a certain part? Say a player's facing a really tough situation and the AI learns his tactics and becomes even harder -- not too fair. Also, AI shouldn't learn based on the experience of their comrades whom they didn't even see die, so how could they learn?

Anyways, AI that people love does seem to be a mixture of both. Nobody likes an AI that's completely out to get you and relentlessly tries to ruin your chances. I think people like being able to take sniper shots at AI too "dumb" to notice their presence, but then when a firefight goes down and hell breaks loose, they'll do some flashy things like prone under a fallen shelf or hop over a waist-high wall to get a better position. In MGS they dumbed down the guards intentionally because in the beginning they were too sharp. They noticed you too quickly and they were too efficient at killing Snake without giving him a chance to escape. It was no fun, so they made them a little dumber and a little less sensitive to their surroundings, and while the shootouts weren't mindblowing, the tension of the game was just perfect between being...well...really tense and still being managable by the player. The life of an AI programmer/designer sounds like a hard one, trying to get things "right" :-p

[martel]

Realism in a game, and fun in a game, are different things for most people. What would you prefer:

* a game using AI to have behaviours for opponents as realistic as possible, even though it may mean they are really tough (hiding behind wall, shooting you through small cracks, flanking you each time, etc...) ?

or

* a game using AI to learn, from your reactions (how long do you play, after which in-game event do you generally quit playing, what sequences of in-game events makes you play longer, etc), what is fun and enjoyable to you personaly, and that then cheats with the opponents behaviour to make you entertained (even if it means dumber/unrealistic opponents) ?

Arnaud

The former. Really tough opponents only seem intimidating because of the preconceived notion gamers have that there will always be lots of them or that they'll be stupidly tough (both of which traditionally compensate for a lack of intelligence). I'd rather play most games with a few smart opponents then 100 Doom Imps v2.0. No single player FPS has been anywhere near as absorbing for me as Battlefield multiplayer, crawling through under growth in the knowledge that 1-2 shots will kill you and that your opponents will (often) be as ruthless and inventive as you are.

Having done some AI (3/4 year Uni level), I'm all to aware that such an AI ain't an easy prospect, creating a simple mind in a restricted environment can be tough enough. Also character control in most games sucks too much to take advantage of truly dynamic battles.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

the problem is balance. Even the most responsive controls wouldn't be enough to engage and successfully defeat truly smart A.I. I mean, such a thing isn't even around yet in terms of a learning computer, at least one that can be applied to a game environment. And people don't seem to get that, well, reality sucks, which is the whole reason we play games in the first place. There has to be some level of escapism in order for it to work. There's game reality and actual reality. You make game reality too smart, to aggressive, and it's not fun anymore. It's homework. Too much of a good thing is no longer a good thing. Games have always predicated on the fact that the gamer understands the rules, the abilities, and the limitations of his opposition, and then exploits them. If the opponents are too smart, then it loses fun factor eventually. Some people like this, but it's a very niche market idea.

[venomv]

I persanlly want my games to be as hard as possible, within reason, realistic damage from bullets is great, as long as there arn't hundreds of them shooting at me.

[martel]

the problem is balance. Even the most responsive controls wouldn't be enough to engage and successfully defeat truly smart A.I.
Controls, as I mentioned, are an issue. On top of obviously restricting the computer to the same range of movement as the human player, speed and percision would have to be restricted to, if I'm taking a second to rotate my character I sure don't want enemies that can do so faster then me.


I mean, such a thing isn't even around yet in terms of a learning computer, at least one that can be applied to a game environment.

True enough, AI really doesn't get the dev support that graphics and physics do. It seems a dangerous one to invest in, as it seems to be one of those fields of computing where lots of hours of work can be put in with little final reward. It's a problem solving area, not an iteritive development area.


You make game reality too smart, to aggressive, and it's not fun anymore. It's homework. Too much of a good thing is no longer a good thing. Games have always predicated on the fact that the gamer understands the rules, the abilities, and the limitations of his opposition, and then exploits them. If the opponents are too smart, then it loses fun factor eventually. Some people like this, but it's a very niche market idea.

I can't really agree with this. We already have a situation where people fight opponents with equal (or there abouts) intelligence and character based abilities, its called multiplayer, and is the prefered way of playing most games for most people.

[Arnaud_M]

Controls, as I mentioned, are an issue. On top of obviously restricting the computer to the same range of movement as the human player, speed and percision would have to be restricted to, if I'm taking a second to rotate my character I sure don't want enemies that can do so faster then me.

How true ... A good AI may need only one configuration parameter accessible to the player: the number of allowed inputs per second, be it for a FPS as you said, or for a RTS. WC III is frustrating in this aspect, the computer seems to micro-manage all of its troops right in front of your eyes to dodge your massive spells attacks, while being not that smart strategically speaking at the same time. And it's very difficult, if not impossible, for the human player to individually control its own troops in the same way. This is frustrating for a player when a game is lost not from a lack of strategy, but from a lack of ... additional hands. I completly agree with you.

Arnaud

[Domination]

Realism in a game, and fun in a game, are different things for most people. What would you prefer:

* a game using AI to have behaviours for opponents as realistic as possible, even though it may mean they are really tough (hiding behind wall, shooting you through small cracks, flanking you each time, etc...) ?

or

* a game using AI to learn, from your reactions (how long do you play, after which in-game event do you generally quit playing, what sequences of in-game events makes you play longer, etc), what is fun and enjoyable to you personaly, and that then cheats with the opponents behaviour to make you entertained (even if it means dumber/unrealistic opponents) ?

Arnaud

Actually, I would rather be the AI. Imagine the kind of challenge you'd get then. :)

[LaLiLuLeLo]

I can't really agree with this. We already have a situation where people fight opponents with equal (or there abouts) intelligence and character based abilities, its called multiplayer, and is the prefered way of playing most games for most people.

Hmm, good point. The difference is playing with people is inherently more fun than just playing against, cold, unfeeling technology that just keeps spanking your ass..

[martel]

Hmm, good point. The difference is playing with people is inherently more fun than just playing against, cold, unfeeling technology that just keeps spanking your ass..

Also a good point, beating the computer lacks the satisfaction beating a person. Until AI says things like "Oh nooeess" or "Thsi is imba, you character is teh OP!", in response to messages like "Haha, me ftw" or "You are the pwned!" it won't feel like true, human, multiplayer.

[The_One]

The thing is, most games are simply "hard", yet the AI are still unrealistic.

Take Rainbow Six 3, for example (a game I hate with Passion :D), the AI are EXTREMELY stupid, sure, they'll take cover half the time, but most times, they just kneel down and start "trying" to spank your ass. Unfortunately, you have 4 HP bars, and there's a hundred "terrorists" per level. Are the AI smart, or are they just rigged? I say rigged.

I don't know about Ghost Recon, but since it's by Ubisoft, it probably has the same problem: Dumb AI, yet a crap load of 'em per level.

No to mention the fact that if you run towards an AI with guns-a-blazing, you'd expect them to run or dodge you, yet more often than not, they just stand their ground and try to kill you before you kill them. That, my friend, is what I consider "unrealistic".

[jaxmkii]

imagine though a team that spends all their time creating animal simulators so that other devs can just drop selected animals into their games and forget about them. lions hunt and reproduce. birds build nest.. etc... just think about how the world would look.
in the enginering world its called subleting... could subcontracting be the future of devs?

[LiquidEagle]

Ghost Recon's AI was dumb as a brick, and certainly took away part of the "next-gen" feel Advanced Warfighter had to it. Your 3 teammates are bipolar about their vision -- either they see something and shoot it spot on, or they don't see it at all and they get killed over the stupidest things. The enemies are very much the same, and I remember one part of a level (when you're trying to get the football in the end of the trainyard) where enemies just keep respawning to keep you from your rally point, they'll even respawn right behind you out of nowhere, take a position, and shoot you in the back. It was ridiculously frustrating to pass! In short, Tom Clancy AI has gone nowhere in the generation leap so far :(

[LaLiLuLeLo]

Yeah it's not that smart. But you die in a few hits so it's hard. So do they though. It at least addresses the issue of captain commando just run and gunning it.

[The_One]

lol... Captain Commando, love that name :D.

It's a good thing for a game to be hard, but not "retardedly" hard. In the sense that the AI should be able to outsmart you, not outnumber and outgun you. If that's the only "hardness" to the game, then I find it really tedious and boring (Which is why I hate Rainbow Six 3 with a passion).

[martel]

Take Rainbow Six 3, for example (a game I hate with Passion :D), the AI are EXTREMELY stupid, sure, they'll take cover half the time, but most times, they just kneel down and start "trying" to spank your ass. Unfortunately, you have 4 HP bars, and there's a hundred "terrorists" per level. Are the AI smart, or are they just rigged? I say rigged.


I have that game, and the add on pack Athena Sword :-P. Not sure what you mean by 4 HP bars, you have a circle for health which is either full, half (injured, impaired movement) or empty (dead or incapacitated). You can have up to 8 people on your team/s. As for bad guys, judging by the free play mode you can have no more then 35 terrorists per level.

The AI isn't all that smart to be fair, higher AI levels just make the computer more responsive. At a low level if you walk around a corner to find an enemy you may be able to duck or side step into cover, or aim and shoot him, before he responds. At high levels as you turn the corner, once your arm is visible to him you get shot at, so I tend to use grenades, crouch strafe around corners or the like. On certain maps, at the highest settings it can get pretty tough with even similiar numbers, but I'd put that down to inhuman reactions rather then human-like intelligence.

[The_One]

Hmm, you're talking about the PC version, then (since you're refering to an expansion pack).

On the PS2, you are 4 "HP bars", a "scrape" usually costs you 1 bar, whereas a body shot will cost you 2 to 3, and a fatal headshot will cost you all 4 bars.

Anyways, enough about Rainbow Six. We all agree the AI is really dumb in that game, so lets just leave it at that :tardbang:.

[cliffbo]

irrationality can't be computed.