Ubisoft Wants New Consoles For The Sake Of Better AI
See Full ImageOver the past few months, with all the rumors circulating about the next generation of consoles, developers and publishers have weighed in with their thoughts. For the most part, game creators and producers are content with what we have.
But one major publisher has made it plain that we definitely need new machines. Another Ubisoft executive - this time it's executive director of production services, Yves Jacquier - has once again asked for Sony and Microsoft to deliver new game consoles. He says his company wants them "sooner rather than later" and right now, their development feels "extremely limited." He says Ubisoft specifically wants more power for better AI, not necessarily for prettier and/or more realistic graphics:
"Our challenge with the PlayStation 3 and Xbox [360] is that we're extremely limited in what we can do. It's a challenge for the engineers to provide nice graphics and nice AI and nice sound with a very small amount of memory and computation time. We think that the next generation of consoles won't have these limits any more."
Well, that makes some sense, but we wonder why no other publisher has made similar statements. Obviously, AI is a major factor and we have seen increases in enemy intelligence this generation. But Ubisoft obviously isn't content with those advances; they want more, and apparently, they need more powerful machines to grant them access to "next-gen" smarts.
Tags: ubisoft, game news, playstation 4, game consoles
7/6/2011 10:33:07 AM Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (96 posts)
maxpontiac
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:52:26 AM
14 up, 2 down
TheAgingHipster
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 6:15:48 PM
1 up, 4 down
manofchao5
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 8:38:53 PM
1 up, 0 down
Dancemachine55
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 10:51:13 AM
Reply
Uncharted 3, Killzone 3 and GT5 are showing off what the PS3 can truly do, and hardly any other games have come even close to hitting the PS3's limit.
I think Ubi are just being too impatient, if they want bigger memory, make a PC exclusive game that caters for it.
Apart from Assassin's Creed, Splinter Cell and Ghost Recon, I don't see many games from Ubi that NEED a big RAM upgrade. If DICE can make the PS3 and 360 handle Frostbite 2 engine (scaled down though) Ubi should be able to make smarter enemies with the tech they have now.
Personally, I think Ubi want more RAM now because they are too lazy or impatient to tweak their engines to get a better performance, which is what others are doing.
16 up, 4 down
Jawknee
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:09:34 AM
BINGO! They certainly don't go the extra mile. Hence why every single game they release has screen tearing galore.
Last edited by Jawknee on 7/6/2011 11:09:49 AM
12 up, 4 down
jlch777
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 4:53:22 PM
By the way infamous 2 is awesome and there is not a single torn frame anywhere just like the AC series...(-.-)
0 up, 2 down
Nickjcal
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 9:44:15 PM
0 up, 0 down
Jawknee
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:08:02 AM
Reply
Last edited by Jawknee on 7/6/2011 11:10:14 AM
20 up, 3 down
Dancemachine55
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:12:51 AM
Ubisoft's appeal is only as deep as their aesthetic talent.
11 up, 1 down
Jawknee
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:20:56 AM
8 up, 9 down
maxpontiac
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:55:01 AM
Give me better PS3 games, thank you!!
8 up, 1 down
Beamboom
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:11:19 AM
Reply
The current consoles do indeed have a bottleneck that prevents an AI for going *beyond* your immediate surroundings. The shortage of ram and processing power is extremely limiting to the scope of the AI.
The specs on current consoles are too focused only on churning out graphics. *Everything* have to drop dead the second you are *not* watching it. The game can't keep them alive as well as feed you the visuals.
One good example of this is how the cars on the road completely change in GTA if you turn around a couple of times. Or if you try chasing a car you want to steal and it goes out of sight a second. You rush around the corner, and *poof* the car is gone.
I do not *want* a new playstation yet, though. But more ram and more CPU power, that's *really* needed.
Last edited by Beamboom on 7/6/2011 11:20:37 AM
6 up, 7 down
Dancemachine55
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:21:24 AM
The reason later titles excelled on PS2 wasn't because they magically found more RAM in the PS2, it's because they tweaked their engines and physics to take advantage of the whole console.
Same is happening with current gen consoles. Physics, AI and number of characters or moving scenery on the screen at once is limited by the hardware, but can be balanced to make great improvements for older hardware.
As I said before, Ubi are just either lazy or impatient. They want more RAM because they either don't have the talent to tweak their engines for better performance out of slightly older hardware, or their ideas for bigger games excel the hardware available.
I'm sorry, but there are only a handful of publishers and developers who want new consoles right now, and one of the biggest reasons is the outdated tech in the 360, with PS3 being blamed so as to avoid fan-wars.
I reckon Ubi should try a PS3 exclusive, THEN see if they still have the same problems as before.
13 up, 0 down
Jawknee
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:22:33 AM
14 up, 1 down
Beamboom
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:26:45 AM
I am using Rockstar's GTA as an example here. You don't think that the car issue is a result of lazy programming, do you?
Last edited by Beamboom on 7/6/2011 11:28:01 AM
2 up, 3 down
GuyverLT
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:27:40 AM
I don't get it, someone please explain this to me cause I'm lost.
8 up, 1 down
Highlander
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:31:58 AM
8 up, 2 down
Beamboom
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:34:38 AM
AI today decides how the characters and environment in your field of view shall behave. How *good* they behave within that field of view is indeed depending on how well it is developed.
But! AI *could* cover a lot more than just what you see.
AI could also cover how a group of enemies would behave *outside* of your field of view. Like, on the other side of the map, if you use a gun that's loud. All those things have to be scripted today, there's no true intelligence behind it.
Or in GTA the game could have let the different characters do real stuff in the world, you could have met one of the girlfriends walking along the street on her way to the clothing store - and no matter if you follow her or not she *will* enter that store and show up with the clothes she bought on the next date.
If you catch my drift? The AI could be *much* bigger and more complicated than what we see today could the hardware handle it, and that would have had a *huge* impact on some games. I think it really is the "next generation games" right there.
Last edited by Beamboom on 7/6/2011 11:38:42 AM
3 up, 2 down
bigrailer19
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:37:03 AM
Seems like that's what they are saying to me.
To me it's a matter of creating something at least on par with the best we've seen so far before saying something like this. Ubisoft hasn't done that yet and until then I don't think they have room to talk. But I still respect them, I love their games.
2 up, 0 down
Beamboom
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:43:33 AM
Guys! You all should just forget the current AIs, forget Ubisoft, forget brand names - and look at this from a broader perspective. Please, re-read what I write here. The AI in games could have been a *lot* more than it is today, in ANY game.
And why is it not? Could it be because the human breed has not yet produced a clever enough programmer?
Noo - it's because of the hardware!
Last edited by Beamboom on 7/6/2011 11:50:25 AM
3 up, 2 down
jimmyhandsome
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:52:01 AM
I'd also like to point out that I'm NOT in the camp that would like to see a PS4 or the next Xbox sooner rather than later. But I'm also not just going to dismiss what professionals who make games say in regard to what they can and can't do. I unfortunately know little to nothing about the technical side of game making, so I can't speak to it.
4 up, 4 down
maxpontiac
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 12:02:48 PM
To me, it sounds as if Ubisoft wants its cake (RAM) and eat it too (low cost).
That sounds like a perfect world if you ask me.
9 up, 1 down
Beamboom
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 12:58:33 PM
Why is it that in *every* game the AI only control what you see, what you interact with there and then! There is a *reason* for all this.
Or to turn it the other way around: Explain to me *why* all strategy games are so simple graphically? Why do *every* game that has a complicated brain-work running in the background suffer on the visual side? It is a *reason* for this too!
In order to explain this more in detail I'd have to go into the finer details of the challenges when developing multi-threaded applications as opposed to linear programming and that's meaningless unless you all know programming.
But it is a *reason* why in the old days, when resources were a fragment of what they are today, strategy games had to be turn based, where they *first* calculated their moves, *then* did the graphical changes accordingly, and *then* it was your turn!
It *had* to be linear back then, this is not just preferences or trends in game designs!
Last edited by Beamboom on 7/6/2011 1:04:52 PM
4 up, 1 down
Highlander
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 1:14:32 PM
Cars disappear in GTA when you look away because the developer chose not to bother implementing sufficient intelligence in the game engine to have cars that persist locally at least. That's not AI, that's game design.
Actually a lot of games do feature AI that controls enemies and objects that you cannot see. In fact the memory and processing requires to do that is far lower than that requires to handle what you do see since unseen objects movement need not be represented particularly accurately, nor visually. I can't think of many games that use the same trick as GTA with respect to something as simple as making local traffic in the game world persistent.
The complexity of artificial intelligence comes from the design of the rules that control behavior. Next up is determining whether a given enemy or agent in the game has the ability to detect others and act accordingly. the game engine doesn't have to do a fully accurate physical representation to determine this, it only need be a very basic line of sight and perhaps an audible range. The enemy or other agent in the game then has it's AI rules to apply and behaves accordingly.
You can add complexity by giving the AI of each agent the ability to adjust based on what it's allies are doing, even permitting the AI to exchange information, such as the location of enemies, so that the other AIs can act according to their own rules. You can even empower them with tactics, but all of this is simply very branchy code that involves tons of decisions based on very little actual calculation.
Object or agent persistence in the local environment is dependent on the memory available, but unless the designer has done a terrible job, objects and agents within the game should be locally persistent unless they move out of view or out of draw distance. Branchy code to interpret AI is not hugely computationally intensive, nor is it memory hungry, it does occupy a processor with lots of branches which bring their own performance issues, but on a 3.2GHz core, that should not be an issue.
I'm sorry, I don't buy their complaints on this.
As for strategy games, strategy games have evolved with the top down strategic approach like the Civ series, Sim City, Command and Conquer. Their graphics have continually improved, but the nature of the gameplay is what it is. It's nothing to do with the complexity of the AI keeping the graphics from being better.
9 up, 2 down
Beamboom
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 1:26:29 PM
Hold on I gotta google this and return to you. But they have commented on this particular issue prior to gtaiv, this is *not* something they wanted, but were forced to, just like in the earlier GTAs. But they stated that they have *tried* to eliminate this particular issue because it's *the* most commented "bug" in the earlier GTAs. They said it's improved in gtaiv, but they were unable to eliminate it cause the tradeoff was simply too much, they had to give up on features considered more important in order to free up the required cpu and memory alignments.
I'll get back to you on this, but in the mean time, if you can, please list some games you think are good examples of action games where the AI stretches far beyond the immediate surroundings, or are anywhere near "strategy game AI".
Cause surely, if it is possible, it must have been done?
Last edited by Beamboom on 7/6/2011 1:40:14 PM
4 up, 0 down
maxpontiac
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 1:30:45 PM
I am not a hardware/software expert by any means. However, I do understand enough to release that gaming machine that does everything (IE- graphics, AI, physics, etc.) will cost more then the average consumer is willing to spend.
The developers with supreme talent maximize their software for the platform they are on and it shows. My issue with Ubisoft is that I do not see them maximizing their software for the PS3. If they did, there Assassins Creed would be on three 360 discs just like Rage and FF13 were/are.
3 up, 1 down
Highlander
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 1:50:49 PM
I don't know of any action game AI that comes close to the complexity of the AI in a strategy game of the type I mentioned because they are so very different genre. I happen to think that the AI in Uncharted 2 ranges from OK to pretty good, but we're talking about the AI of a limited number of enemies in a specific space, that's not the same as a top down strategy game at all.
To me, AI is about whether the enemies and NPCs in a game can correctly identify good targets and act in an organized way to attack the target. In an action game that is a very different task to the same kind of thing in C&C or Civ - or even an RPG. But either way AI always follows the same pattern, what are the variables (local conditions, proximity of allies, proximity of enemies, priority of available targets, how threatening a target may be, cover available, enemy in cover, and so on) and then make some decisions based on those variables. Depending on how particular you want to be, I could see a discussion regarding the calculation of line of sight to allow an enemy AI to see the barest glimpse of the player behind cover, but personally I think that kind of precision is not really required in a game. The point is though, that the amount of hard calculation work needed to drive the AI is really quite limited. I just don't see the reason for their complaint.
0 up, 1 down
Beamboom
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 1:55:10 PM
But the "three disk" issue is more related to other content than pure AI. that particular code doesn't require much disk space, relatively speaking.
But please note I am *not* talking about Ubisofts code here.
Sure they can write better code, everyone can! Things can always improve, and had we "frozen" this generation consoles to last for 50 years, the games 20 years from now would be better than the games today. I have no idea of by how *much* better, but they *would* be better, that's for sure.
I'm just saying that the current hardware do limit the complexity (or more precise, the *scope*) of the current AIs, and that Ubisoft is absolutely correct in stating this.
I'd even say this is "stating the obvious", really.
Highlander, yes it is engine specific! Indeed it is. It is a deliberate design decision. But it's *not* because they "could not be bothered"!
Last edited by Beamboom on 7/6/2011 2:00:24 PM
3 up, 0 down
Beamboom
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 2:30:32 PM
However, I did come across quite a few forums where this is discussed, and the essence of what I read is that this particular issue is not so much cpu related as it is memory related. They simply can't afford to let these things stay persistent in memory longer than absolutely needed.
And, well, this is more or less exactly what Ubisoft, as well as yours truly, are saying too.
This bottleneck is of relevance also for other details regarding game design and AI in particular. The scope of the AI under these circumstances is simply *forced* to be limited to the "here and now".
... I'll leave this topic now and not spam y'all anymore. Thank you for your attention. :)
Last edited by Beamboom on 7/6/2011 2:35:47 PM
4 up, 0 down
LegendaryWolfeh
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 2:42:41 PM
1 up, 0 down
Beamboom
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 2:59:54 PM
I believe that's mainly due to one reason:
Portability. Yes. I believe the current consoles are the *main* brake also for the PC platform. The PC has taken the back seat as gaming platform now, sadly.
They can push graphics on the pc cause that's platform specific code anyways, but they can't create intelligence that can't be ported to the consoles.
Remember that the core elements of the code for one game is not only used in that particular game, but in several games. That also goes for memory handing and load balancing.
Last edited by Beamboom on 7/6/2011 3:06:12 PM
0 up, 0 down
wiley_kyotee
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 3:23:10 PM
I agree with you. I believe the AI for the cars in GTA would have to be maintained in memory. This is not something that can be streamed from the blu-ray. Since memory is still somewhat limited, persistent AI for the cars probably cannot be maintained. It would take too much away from what the player is actually viewing.
As far as Ubisoft, aren't they trying to make real living, breathing cities in Assassins Creed? With more memory they can probably make the city be more realistic. This should help draw the player in and be more emotionally attached to the characters, city, and game.
I do agree with other posters that Ubi should just make a game for the PC so they can show what can be done if consoles were more powerful. Sales may not be as robust but they would be able to actually prove their claim. They can always migrate the game to the new consoles as a day one release.
3 up, 0 down
maxpontiac
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 3:32:58 PM
You are missing my whole point. With PS3 exclusives such as GOW3, Uncharted 2, GT5 and Killzone 3, it is a well documented fact that the devs filled the Blu Ray.
Ubisoft has YET to do that, so why should I believe that they have maximized my PS3 game with content?
Yes, more complex AI would be nice, but it is completely necessary to enjoy the experience? Do the AI cars disappearing in game take the enjoyment down a notch?
Answer those questions, and while you are at it, I'll leave you with this: In the current global economy, do you actually see anyone (minus the hardcore and wealthy) spending $500 on a console that does everything?
Of course not.
Last edited by maxpontiac on 7/6/2011 3:33:54 PM
3 up, 0 down
Beamboom
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 3:48:55 PM
This is *not* about Ubisoft and their games. It's about the hardware bottleneck that *every* developer have to relate to. I have no problem accepting what you guys say about Ubisoft not using the potential of the current hardware. Sure, ok! But that's not the main point here.
Regarding the price tag, they don't have to increase the price to deliver better hardware *today* (if that's what you mean?). The PS3 hold as much punch as they could stuff into the box back then. But that's beginning to be a long time ago now, much has happened since. The PS4 *will* be better than the ps3 on these areas. That's for granted.
Regarding the AI, this goes way beyond just having persistent traffic in GTA. The possibilities are *huge* once they get rid of the current design limits that force the developers to throw shit out of the memory as fast as technically possible.
I realize that what I say here makes it look like I want the next generation asap. I do not! I hope the current generation last for many more years.
All I am saying is that Ubisoft *do* have a point here!
Last edited by Beamboom on 7/6/2011 3:51:22 PM
3 up, 1 down
bigrailer19
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 3:58:30 PM
What benefit as the player (main character) is there to AI hearing a gunshot across the map? The way AI react is what you see in front of you on screen and you react to that. If AI in general reacts out of sight that's great but it has no real effect until the consequence enters your view on screen. Personally your asking for much more than is really needed. Not to mention games are getting a long just fine with AI the way it is in that regard.
AI should only be judged by what you see on screen and nothing else because you dont get any benefit from it otherwise. "Awesome AI heard my gun shot across the map, but I didnt get to see their reaction, so what's the point?"
Consoles this gen are plenty capable of creating AI with advanced intelligence, and advanced procedures when you come into contact wether it be by sight, sound or physically with the AI and that's all that should matter. KZ is a perfect example of this.
Last edited by bigrailer19 on 7/6/2011 4:00:44 PM
2 up, 1 down
Beamboom
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 4:22:42 PM
But can't you picture how it could be if the games are *not* just that, but offer a more persistent universe where even pedestrians have an identity and a life of their own, and actually remembered you if you pushed them over on the streets a moment ago?
Or where your virtual opponents actually communicated with each other, and their decisions were much more based on your actions? Just think what that would do to the replay value!
What if you sneaked into a house and you firing a shotgun would make *everyone* in the house react to that shot, and not just the guys in the next room? And they did not all react the same way like some brainless zombies, but individually!
Or how about a jungle where the wildlife would react to the enemy movements, whose actions in turn depended on your activity?
I mean, AI could be so much more than the current hardware allow it to be. It would make the game come *much* more alive, and realism would be on an entirely different level!
There was a time where we were amazed by the AI of the ghosts in Pack-Man, but retrospectively I think we all can agree on that we are glad we moved on?
Last edited by Beamboom on 7/6/2011 4:30:02 PM
2 up, 0 down
bigrailer19
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 4:37:04 PM
I'll start with red dead redemption. Not only if you entered say a bar or tavern even a house and fired a shotgun would everybody scamper and the woman scream, eventually leaving the place vacated but it plays a huge role on your character and how you are viewed. More so even if you do this in the middle of a town, the whole town goes into frenzy, and it becomes a circus of AI that is reacting to the incident. As most te pedestrians are running away, some citizens will confront you, and from across the map, even inside a building of some sort, even a jail house, the sheriff and his officers will come and approach you in varying ways. Perfect example of what your asking for.
Now on to inFAMOUS 2. It has a morale system obviously as does RDR but the AI involved reacts accordingly as you do with them too. They remember things you've done, and if you provoke an innocent you soon could have a number of pedestrians chasing you down the street. It's opposite if your helping them, they will help fight along side you.
These instances already take place in games. When you talk about a single AI character remembering even a nice gesture you've done that also takes place; take Dragon Age for instance or any game where developing a romance in concerned. You give gifts, have certain conversation with characters and you relationship grows into something else, or it could become a hated relationship.
We could also use heavy rain as an example as every choice or encounter you make has a positive or negative outcome, and considerably different from the other had you made a different choice.
If you want every single AI character in the game to remember you stepping off a curb your asking the developers to abandon the story. Your asking the developers to abandon crucial parts of the game for a rather meaningless remembrance or experience that probably won't play an outcome in the end. I think that type of AI is pointless, and what we have now is more than enough and rather impressive.
Last edited by bigrailer19 on 7/6/2011 4:43:57 PM
4 up, 3 down
Beamboom
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 4:47:37 PM
But that aside, by all means, maybe todays games indeed are good enough for you and will always be that, also after the next generation and the generation after that! There's absolutely nothing wrong in that.
All I am saying is, lol, that Ubisoft are correct in that better hardware would give better room for improved AI, like it or not. Hehe!
But *now* I've repeated myself enough. I must have gotten on everyones nerves by now. It's close to midnight so I shall lay my head to rest. :D
Last edited by Beamboom on 7/6/2011 4:49:45 PM
3 up, 0 down
bigrailer19
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 5:04:27 PM
3 up, 0 down
Clamedeus
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 7:52:57 PM
I don't see why they just don't do it that way, unless it will be very time consuming with the programming.
0 up, 0 down
Beamboom
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 2:02:31 AM
It's as easy as this: In order to maximize performance on the current hardware, the developers can not have many parallel, persisting processes running in memory, they have to throw out as much as possible as often as possible, in order to make room for new immediate events. Everything has to be immediate, short spanned events, often started by scripted actions ("step on invisible line to make the guys next room start moving").
I can not see how anyone can not understand that this represent a *huge* limitation to what can be done within a games design?
... And good morning, all :)
Last edited by Beamboom on 7/7/2011 2:09:29 AM
1 up, 0 down
Clamedeus
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 8:49:07 AM
I'm trying to, but it's a bit difficult. I don't know anything about computers or programming, I want to learn how to build computers and all it's spec's and such, but it's going to take time. :/
0 up, 0 down
wano
Friday, July 08, 2011 @ 3:40:41 AM
But I think people are missing the big picture here. I dont think we need a new ps3 for AI. I think we need one because nintendo and microsoft will release one. And non of us wants the crap launch games we had at the start of the ps3 launch because devs were more use to developing on platforms that has been out for a year already.
Hope I made sense there, pretty tired my self :)
1 up, 0 down
Beamboom
Saturday, July 09, 2011 @ 8:09:17 AM
I still want to keep my ps3 for a few more years though. :)
Last edited by Beamboom on 7/9/2011 8:09:53 AM
0 up, 0 down
mexgeo86
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:20:42 AM
Reply
4 up, 1 down
Dancemachine55
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:25:00 AM
AC II is good, but no where near the quality of Uncharted in terms of graphics, physics and AI.
5 up, 0 down
Jawknee
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:27:45 AM
5 up, 3 down
FM23
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 12:01:12 PM
With that said, Ubisoft is being lazy it seems.
4 up, 6 down
Jawknee
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 3:07:34 PM
4 up, 3 down
FM23
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 4:06:53 PM
0 up, 0 down
Beamboom
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 2:18:34 AM
Not that there's anything wrong with this, but Uncharted is *heavy* on scripting, not AI. That's how they control how events unfold in that particular game, and this is why all replays of any given map is almost a blueprint of earlier replays. That's because there's not an AI making those decisions, but prewritten scripts.
Last edited by Beamboom on 7/7/2011 2:21:38 AM
1 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:27:07 AM
Reply
More memory and computation time? Please... I -highly- doubt they've even come close to using all the computation power the PS3 can deliver. They can't even perfect brotherhood's screen tearing (which isn't a big deal to me) or fix the multiplayer party issues. Until they tighten their current stuff up, they can go complain elsewhere, as far as I'm concerned.
5 up, 1 down
Jawknee
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:30:35 AM
Last edited by Jawknee on 7/6/2011 11:30:44 AM
7 up, 2 down
bigrailer19
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:31:36 AM
4 up, 0 down
FM23
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 12:03:00 PM
3 up, 0 down
bigrailer19
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 12:26:21 PM
4 up, 1 down
Fane1024
Friday, July 08, 2011 @ 8:05:48 AM
It baffles me how prevalent screen tearing is this generation.
There's an option to turn V-sync "on" or "off" in the LEGO games. Why on earth would anyone choose NOT to have it "on"? Why is it optional if TT could implement it?
Do you all who don't complain about it (like Jawknee and I do) really not notice it? If so, I'm envious.
Last edited by Fane1024 on 7/8/2011 8:08:00 AM
0 up, 0 down
bigrailer19
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:29:16 AM
Reply
I'm all for wanting to create better AI and I encourage Ubisoft to do so... But nobody talks about Ubisoft and says " oh wow the AI in this game is some of the best." at that point I think as a developer you can say ok there's not much more we can do with these machines. But you have to get to that point first Ubisoft! I still respect you though, especially your will to make things better! But if we get new consoles and your AI is on par with what KZ and GG have done this gen, don't expect me to back you up.
1 up, 0 down
Highlander
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:34:53 AM
Reply
7 up, 1 down
Temjin001
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:52:43 AM
Reply
4 up, 0 down
Fabi
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 11:57:03 AM
Reply
5 up, 0 down
NoSmokingBandit
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 12:23:12 PM
Reply
When Guerilla says they need more power for AI i'll believe them.
6 up, 1 down
FM23
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 4:08:37 PM
0 up, 0 down
79transam
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 12:30:23 PM
Reply
7 up, 1 down
maxpontiac
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 1:32:24 PM
Yeah. Makes sense.
3 up, 1 down
Jawknee
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 3:09:41 PM
2 up, 1 down
AshT
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 12:38:40 PM
Reply
4 up, 0 down
Pyramid
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 12:38:59 PM
Reply
3 up, 0 down
RadioHeader
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 1:42:35 PM
Stupid AI is not without its charms. When I'm playing a game on the highest difficulty and I find a way to exploit the AI's stupidity, I actually quite enjoy it :)
1 up, 0 down
Fane1024
Friday, July 08, 2011 @ 8:13:54 AM
And inFAMOUS really suffers from the sort of "short memory syndrome" Beamboom mentioned.
It's still awesome, though.
0 up, 0 down
Bloodysilence19
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 1:46:56 PM
Reply
Last edited by Bloodysilence19 on 7/6/2011 1:48:15 PM
1 up, 0 down
Danny007
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 1:54:02 PM
Reply
4 up, 2 down
Lawless SXE
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 1:55:19 PM
Reply
Yeah... Ubisoft are right to cry about their AI, but not about needing new consoles. If Hitman: Absolution delivers on what it promises, and Skyrim is half as good as what they say, then I'm reasonably certain that the issues do not lie in the system.
3 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 2:41:22 PM
Reply
3 up, 0 down
Excelsior1
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 3:19:20 PM
Reply
they want more memory for ai. that's fine, but they should also concentrate on the technical aspects of the game engine. maybe they should ask sony for help to get rid of the screen tear.
Last edited by Excelsior1 on 7/6/2011 3:21:30 PM
2 up, 0 down
Highlander
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 4:03:29 PM
6 up, 0 down
mehrab2603
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 3:37:06 PM
Reply
And Ubi has said that too. They have said that the power of current gen consoles let them create something like Assassin's Creed series which features cities with lots of people (and lots of AIs). They said that this wasn't possible in the PS2 days. But when you look at the crowd AI system, you'll see that they aren't that much random, at least not even close to reality.
Maybe that's why they want more power. With more power they can create a truly realistic-behaving virtual cities with crowds acting more random and stuff. Maybe that isn't possible on current gen hardware.
There are some games with very good AI this gen like KZ. But KZ doesn't have to control hundreds of individual AIs at a time like AC.
With power of current gen consoles you can create very good AIs on smaller scales, but for bigger scales you need more power.
3 up, 0 down
Highlander
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 4:02:57 PM
3 up, 1 down
JackDillinger89
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 4:53:19 PM
Reply
Last edited by JackDillinger89 on 7/6/2011 4:54:43 PM
0 up, 0 down
bigrailer19
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 5:25:27 PM
Reply
Pretty excited for new games coming out such as rage to see what those developers can do.
2 up, 0 down
StangMan80
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 7:47:46 PM
I don't see Gears of War, Forza MS, Halo, left4dead do any thing out wild over a game on both consoles. look at Uncharted, Infamous, Gran Turimo, Kill Zone. It's parent either Microsoft can't figure out how to use there console or that the wall multiplat game developers are hitting is the 360's.
That's how I see it.
But don't get me wrong. I know they're still ways to improve the AI and everything else including Graphics on both consoles even. Just need the coding, along with good engineers. Great if you want to compete with Sony's.
0 up, 0 down
bigrailer19
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 8:54:24 PM
But the PS3 exclusives are still advancing, and as I said multiplats are starting to slow.
2 up, 0 down
Excelsior1
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 9:07:35 PM
sony has done a great job of creating exclusives for ps3 owners, they have a lot of talented developers working for them. why this doesn't seem to close the gap on the 360 is somewhat of a mystery to me,
i guess only a handful of exclusives really drive console sales. most gamers know that the multiplats perform better on the 360. ps3 multiplats have improved a lot, but i think those first impressions formed at the start of this console cycle had a lasting effect.
i'm hoping ms push of kinect will turn off some hardcore gamers. maybe that will give sony an oppurtunity to pick up some those gamers.. who knows how next gen will turn out? it's exciting to think about a ps4 luanch with all the talent they have lined up. kz4 at 1080p 60fps sounds pretty great to me.
1 up, 0 down
StangMan80
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 9:23:02 PM
@Excelior1; Actually the PS3 has been out selling the 360 on average per month. The PS3 came out some 16 months after the 360. the PS3 will pass up the 360 in sales soon enough even though the PS3 has been the better system from day one, the price, and the hole blue ray thing didn't catch on. And the exclusives are rolling in like crazy lately.
1 up, 0 down
Excelsior1
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 10:16:01 PM
i was refering to na sales where the 360 has conistently outsold the ps3 despite sony's great exclusive library. there was an article on the sixth axis that tracked worldwide console sales. there was a trend of sony catching up with ms until the last fiscal quarter when the 360 actually outsold the ps3 in worldwide sales by 600,000 units. the best way to see the article is do a google search for sixth axis 360 extends lead on ps3.
it's a pretty interesting read with all kinds of charts tracking worldwide console sales. they got the numbers from the financial documents released by the companies. the 360 slim and kinect seem to be driving a lot of those sales. i think i read that over half the 360 sales were kinect bundles. i guess the surge in the 360 sales is not that surprising considering the amount of money ms spent on marketing kinect. the real question is that surge in sales sustianable. probably not.
anyways, i hope the ps3 overtakes the 360 soon. i will literally scream for joy when that happens. i do watch the console sales closely...especially the na numbers. still puzzeled how the 360 manages to outsell the ps3 despite sony's great library vs hardly anything recently for the 360. last month the 360 outsold the ps3 by 46% according o the npd. the 360 had a 39% increase in sales comapared to the same month last year. ps3 had a 13% increase. that's prety good but i still wonder how the 360 is managing to extend its lead in na despite sony's great lbrary of exclusives. that's kind of why i feel that only a handful of exclusives really drive console sales. i think if sony does a price cut on the ps3 when uc3 luanches you would see that drive a lot of console and game sales.
this ix off topic but i heard resistance 3 will have some kind of online pass like ea does.
Last edited by Excelsior1 on 7/6/2011 10:30:41 PM
1 up, 0 down
StangMan80
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 5:56:18 PM
Reply
They can improve AI.
Make a better engine and learn how to use this gen's consoles!
You can also try finding new game developers.
1 up, 1 down
___________
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 3:47:00 AM
Reply
as the saying goes, got bigger fish to fry.
0 up, 0 down
Ash33
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 2:31:01 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Caanimal
Thursday, July 07, 2011 @ 7:00:33 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
monkeypunch
Friday, July 08, 2011 @ 7:54:59 PM
Reply
But the problem is when I install that on my Android device the frame rate drops to 12-15fps, the color is down sampled to 16bits on some phones (Android OS limitation not software) and if any other programs are running it can be shut down (crash to the user) by the Android OS because it has 384MB total rather than 8000MB that my Mac has or 1500MB that my PC has. And not that it's using all that either. It only uses 32MB.
The problem is that with games and live AI. If you have a program like photoshop you can apply a filter and it happens in 1 to 15 seconds in super general terms. In a game you *have* to do that in 16 milliseconds because to achieve 60 frames per second you have only 1000/60 = 16.
So its not that they can't do a lot of these things it's just that there is only this small slice of time to do it in.
And I don't think that they are talking their current line of games when they make this statement.
Let me put it another way, there is "fake" AI and "real" AI. Has anyone heard of Watson?
Quote,
Watson is made up of ninety IBM POWER 750 servers, 16 Terabytes of memory, and 4 Terabytes of clustered storage...These ninety POWER 750 servers have four POWER7 processors, each with eight cores. IBM Watson has a total of 2880 POWER7 cores.
...Without an efficient memory sub-system, no amount of compute power will yield effective results. ...At 3.55 GHz, each of Watson’s POWER7 on-chip bandwidth is 500 Gigabytes per second. The total on-chip bandwidth for Watson’s 360 POWER7 processors is an astounding 180,000 Gigabytes per second!”
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/what-makes-ibms-watson-run/8208
I think the real issue is people don't want to pay for another console when they are happy with the PS3??? Thoughts?
0 up, 0 down
Beamboom
Saturday, July 09, 2011 @ 8:24:10 AM
I don't think people truly understand how immensely more complicated, challenging and system demanding it is to create a "living world" compared to a heavily scripted game like Uncharted.Then you can allow yourself to load the system with intense graphics, cause there really isn't much more for it to do than that.
Last edited by Beamboom on 7/9/2011 8:38:35 AM
0 up, 0 down
beebs83
Friday, July 08, 2011 @ 9:35:21 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Kai200X
Reply
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 @ 10:50:50 AM