Is Crysis a good game? YOU decide!

[Zixinus]

SHEP: You actually have three modes, a passive Power mode that combines speed and strength, then the Armor and Stealth mode. This means that in Power Mode you jump and sprint by (likely) holding the needed buttons down (or perhaps combining those actions with another button). From that you can switch on Armor or Stealth. That actually sounds good, as it would mean that the controls are streamlined, ie, better.

As for how "dissapointing" the developers found piracy: goddamn, the leak is their fault, they should know that something like this would happen. Valve got it too. If they can't accept piracy as a fact of life, they are in the wrong business.

[adam_grif]

To say they "combined" speed with the other modes is being generous, they completely removed speed and made the regular sprint drain power. It's actually the same speed or slower than the regular sprint from Crysis 1, and you no longer get the super speed bursts or the indefinite sprinting pace from speed mode.

This is probably due to smaller levels making speed mode unnecessary, but this is very disappointing because speed mode was always my favorite for intense combat (I spent 80% of my time in my recent delta playthrough alternating speed and cloak).

[Zixinus]

How do you know? I only know what Wikia tells me.

[adam_grif]

Like I said earlier, leaked videos are up and down on youtube constantly. I've only seen the first level put up on youtube (and some douche posted a clip where he just no clipped around the level for some reason. Thanks dude, that's what we wanted to see!).

This is apparently the only video currently up (I doubt it will be up for long), you briefly get to see the sprinting draining energy near the end of the clip. We know speed mode has been taken out, so putting two and two together... The older clips that used to be up featured the sprinting much more prominently and showed all of the suit modes available from the radial menu (default, armor, cloak, weapon customization thing, visor mode ).

[Sarevok]

In terms of FPS games FEAR infantry AI is by far the best. If you know of another game with better soldier AI please do share it's name. I am sincerely interested.

And you're using exactly . . . what criteria to define the "best" AI with?

Ability to defeat players while resorting to as few cheating methods as possible. The FEAR Replicas used same guns as the player, had less health and none of the superhuman strength and ability. They still could hold their own. A lesser game like CoD would give its AI soldiers X-Ray vision and ability to spawn in unending waves.

[Sarevok]

In terms of FPS games FEAR infantry AI is by far the best. If you know of another game with better soldier AI please do share it's name. I am sincerely interested.

And you're using exactly . . . what criteria to define the "best" AI with?

Clearly someone here hasn't played Far Cry 2 or Halo: Reach.....

I played Far Cry 2 until the AI made me ragequit. The AI was infuriatingly bad as opposed to a entertaining challenge. It made the worst of Far Cry 1 AI behavior seem tolerable.

As for Halo:Reach one word - stupid team mates with invincibility modes on.

[General Zod]

In terms of FPS games FEAR infantry AI is by far the best. If you know of another game with better soldier AI please do share it's name. I am sincerely interested.

And you're using exactly . . . what criteria to define the "best" AI with?

Ability to defeat players while resorting to as few cheating methods as possible. The FEAR Replicas used same guns as the player, had less health and none of the superhuman strength and ability. They still could hold their own. A lesser game like CoD would give its AI soldiers X-Ray vision and ability to spawn in unending waves.

By that reasoning Gears 2 should have the best AI ever. I'm certainly not aware of any other shooter where the enemy heals their own downed teammates.

[weemadando]

By that reasoning Gears 2 should have the best AI ever. I'm certainly not aware of any other shooter where the enemy heals their own downed teammates.

Doom 2. 1994.

[xthetenth]

Ability to defeat players while resorting to as few cheating methods as possible. The FEAR Replicas used same guns as the player, had less health and none of the superhuman strength and ability. They still could hold their own. A lesser game like CoD would give its AI soldiers X-Ray vision and ability to spawn in unending waves.

By that reasoning Gears 2 should have the best AI ever. I'm certainly not aware of any other shooter where the enemy heals their own downed teammates.

Think you've got it backwards. FEAR has great AI because it gives the bots fewer capabilities while still being a serious challenge. Healing downed teammates is an added ability, not making better use of the abilities they have.

I agree that Crysis had quite good AI, it's part of what made the open world aspect come together that the AI could react reasonably and well while still sticking to the confines of a decent feeling visibility system and a really good feeling sound system.

[Steel]

Ability to defeat players while resorting to as few cheating methods as possible. The FEAR Replicas used same guns as the player, had less health and none of the superhuman strength and ability. They still could hold their own. A lesser game like CoD would give its AI soldiers X-Ray vision and ability to spawn in unending waves.

By that reasoning Gears 2 should have the best AI ever. I'm certainly not aware of any other shooter where the enemy heals their own downed teammates.

Think you've got it backwards. FEAR has great AI because it gives the bots fewer capabilities while still being a serious challenge. Healing downed teammates is an added ability, not making better use of the abilities they have.

I agree that Crysis had quite good AI, it's part of what made the open world aspect come together that the AI could react reasonably and well while still sticking to the confines of a decent feeling visibility system and a really good feeling sound system.

Crysis AI was fucking terrible.

If you're firing a silenced weapon at someone and you hit them, then a bullet hits something behind them they'll forget you just shot them and turn round and look where it landed. They will do this for ages.

You can just sit in one place and have dozens of enemies wander aimlessly into a bug open area and massacre platoons of them.

At best they can... swarm you!

Revolutionary!

[xthetenth]

Crysis AI was fucking terrible.

Crysis AI was generally competent in a very demanding environment. An open world shooter that tries to make a decent spotting system is a far more confusing environment for an AI than a corridor shooter where you can just keep posting in the same places behind the same cover. No, I'd reserve fucking terrible for games like, say, Far Cry 2, with it's fucking borg enemies and their goddamned hive mind, or other games where the AI cheats horribly, runs around like headless chickens or both.

If you're firing a silenced weapon at someone and you hit them, then a bullet hits something behind them they'll forget you just shot them and turn round and look where it landed. They will do this for ages.

This I didn't notice because I tend not to use silencers because they butcher your guns' effectiveness. Still, that's only one buggy behavior. This does not mean that it can't put up a decent fight if it can't spot you and generally do a pretty reasonable job of spotting you. I may have to test that though, but I don't even remember that.

You can just sit in one place and have dozens of enemies wander aimlessly into a bug open area and massacre platoons of them.

And? That just sounds like you were using sniper tactics properly. Snipers suck to track down. There's a reason for those computerized systems after all, and frankly, expecting proper anti-sniper tactics from a video game before it ceases being terrible is a tad much and it's still a far sight better than games which equip every infantryman with a built in sniper locator. I'd love to come to your universe where you can get a truly militarily accurate open world shooter.

At best they can... swarm you!

Swarm you from different sides while tending to at least have one member laying down fire at you. A less negative description could use terms like flanking and covering fire. Look, you are a goddamn regenerating superman. Allowing you to pot away then pop behind cover to regenerate is bloody stupid. Assaulting you and trying to flank (I do think they should try to flank at longer ranges, but that'd be a bear to get working if I'm thinking about the problem right) makes sense, and they have decent intel on your suit's capabilities.

[General Zod]

Think you've got it backwards. FEAR has great AI because it gives the bots fewer capabilities while still being a serious challenge. Healing downed teammates is an added ability, not making better use of the abilities they have.

Make enemies soak up lots of damage and they're a serious challenge. Give them access to cheap tactics and they're a serious challenge. If you suck at the game it's a serious challenge. Being a serious challenge doesn't mean they have good AI.

[xthetenth]

Think you've got it backwards. FEAR has great AI because it gives the bots fewer capabilities while still being a serious challenge. Healing downed teammates is an added ability, not making better use of the abilities they have.

Make enemies soak up lots of damage and they're a serious challenge. Give them access to cheap tactics and they're a serious challenge. If you suck at the game it's a serious challenge. Being a serious challenge doesn't mean they have good AI.

Well duh. How in any way is this any different from what I said? Being able to soak lots of damage is a useful capability, so is cheap tactics, and randomly assigning player skill is tremendously useless for actually determining anything about a game's difficulty. Seriously, games get harder for worse players? Whoever would've guessed that? Being a challenge for a reasonably/consistently skilled player with as few capabilities as possible is a hallmark of good AI because what governs how enemies actually use their capabilities? The AI. So if you play a game where the enemies can give you a serious challenge without resorting to just being hideously powerful just because it uses what it has, it likely has good AI.

[General Zod]

Well duh. How in any way is this any different from what I said? Being able to soak lots of damage is a useful capability, so is cheap tactics, and randomly assigning player skill is tremendously useless for actually determining anything about a game's difficulty. Seriously, games get harder for worse players? Whoever would've guessed that? Being a challenge for a reasonably/consistently skilled player with as few capabilities as possible is a hallmark of good AI because what governs how enemies actually use their capabilities? The AI. So if you play a game where the enemies can give you a serious challenge without resorting to just being hideously powerful just because it uses what it has, it likely has good AI.

That sounds like an incredibly subjective way to measure whether or not an AI is good to me.

[xthetenth]

Well duh. How in any way is this any different from what I said? Being able to soak lots of damage is a useful capability, so is cheap tactics, and randomly assigning player skill is tremendously useless for actually determining anything about a game's difficulty. Seriously, games get harder for worse players? Whoever would've guessed that? Being a challenge for a reasonably/consistently skilled player with as few capabilities as possible is a hallmark of good AI because what governs how enemies actually use their capabilities? The AI. So if you play a game where the enemies can give you a serious challenge without resorting to just being hideously powerful just because it uses what it has, it likely has good AI.

That sounds like an incredibly subjective way to measure whether or not an AI is good to me.

Subjective measures are kind of needed for a subjective quality with absolutely massive amounts of uncontrolled variables. It makes sense to me. What do you propose instead? Because really, an AI is an algorithm designed to provide an enjoyably capable opponent in a game by using a fair/balanced set of capabilities well. The best test of that is seeing whether or not they do stupid stuff that reduces their ability to pose a challenge.

[General Zod]

Subjective measures are kind of needed for a subjective quality with absolutely massive amounts of uncontrolled variables. It makes sense to me. What do you propose instead? Because really, an AI is an algorithm designed to provide an enjoyably capable opponent in a game by using a fair/balanced set of capabilities well. The best test of that is seeing whether or not they do stupid stuff that reduces their ability to pose a challenge.

I consider an AI decent if it actually changes its tactics according to how I play. Anything else isn't very meaningful.

[adam_grif]

That sounds like an incredibly subjective way to measure whether or not an AI is good to me.

As opposed to all of those non-subjective measures you use to determine quality A.I.? Whether the A.I. is challenging without obvious cheats or not is a pretty obvious measure of A.I. quality since the whole point of A.I. opponents in games is to replicate the experience of facing down intelligent persons. If it feels like you're facing down people that behave plausibly then it has succeeded in its goal.

If they are doing obvious bullshit like seeing and shooting you through walls (unless they have a gun that does exactly that ofc), spawning behind you in areas you just cleared and in which there could not possibly be anybody, attacking in infinite waves, telepathic communication alerting the base that there is an intruder even though the guard only saw you for 3/4 of a second before you shanked him and he didn't make any noise, having preternatural accuracy and the mystical ability to instantly identify you as hostile three clicks away even when you're driving one of their own goddamn cars, at nighttime, coming from the direction of one of their own bases (LOOKING AT YOU FAR CRY 2), then it takes you out of the experience. Crysis was partially guilty of that last one but at least CryVerse has the excuse of advanced IFF systems being in common use for soldiers.

[CaptHawkeye]

Seriously? We're talking about the same AI that didn't notice the BLUE GLOWY MAN standing right in front of them. It doesn't matter what the AI is capable of. It was challenge less and easy to predict. I still encounter people who think the fact that Crysis' AI intentionally made mistakes was the sign of a revolutionary design.

[adam_grif]

Guards never noticed Sam's glowing green goggles, worst stealth A.I. ever.

[CaptHawkeye]

Too bad I don't give a shit about Splinter Cell.

[adam_grif]

What I'm saying is that perceptual fallibility in opponents is desirable. The cloak looks like it does so human players can see it, if you notice in the cutscenes where the KPA nanosuit guys uncloak they were totally invisible until they were right in your face. This is why I made the splinter cell comparison - Sam Fisher doesn't really have giant glowing green goggles, or huge glowy shit on his back, it's there for the player's benefit. As it happens the KPA troopers do see you up close, they just take a second to react (or maybe you play on easy or some shit). When you cloak and duck out of sight into the bushes they fire at where they think you are, but give up maybe 10 seconds later when it becomes clear you're not there anymore, and start patrolling around to look for you.

If you want to play a game where the enemies see and shoot you straight away even when you're invisible, go play the Predator campaign in the 2010 AvP game. Thirty minutes in you'll be on your knees begging for Crysis to take you back

[MKSheppard]

Seriously? We're talking about the same AI that didn't notice the BLUE GLOWY MAN standing right in front of them.

Actually, in the cut scenes, you don't see glowy blue stuff when Jester Cloaks.

That said; the AI in crysis/Warhead was decent; but nothing earthshaking.

[xthetenth]

Subjective measures are kind of needed for a subjective quality with absolutely massive amounts of uncontrolled variables. It makes sense to me. What do you propose instead? Because really, an AI is an algorithm designed to provide an enjoyably capable opponent in a game by using a fair/balanced set of capabilities well. The best test of that is seeing whether or not they do stupid stuff that reduces their ability to pose a challenge.

I consider an AI decent if it actually changes its tactics according to how I play. Anything else isn't very meaningful.

Can you actually name a shooter that has the AI meaningfully shift its tactics to how you play? The AI taking control of the situation and giving you a tense, challenging shootout is about the best you can ask for.

[adam_grif]

Left 4 Dead's A.I. director does this to a certain extent. It isn't really the enemies that change though, just the situations.

[xthetenth]

I guess, but l4d's director is pretty simple in my mind. It basically just asks "are the humans tits-deep in zombie?" If the answer hasn't been yes for a while, it finds a bunch of valid locations, picks one or two or three and makes them hemorrhage zombies. It doesn't really feel like it shifts horde composition in response to anything but just to keep it fresh, and the spawn patterns seem to just be designed to keep players on their toes and keep enough pressure to keep them moving and off balance. Sure it's a bit more complicated than that, with a bunch of work to compute a stress level or the like, but generally it all boils down to keep the players swimming in zombie most of the time without swamping them. It's an awesome system but at heart it's a really advanced spawn system rather than an enemy AI system.

Considering that zombies are about three lines worth of AI in general (specials not so much) it's needed to keep the game interesting. I would say that the special infected are generally handled well, but a linear shooter is a lot easier than one which tries to simulate spotting and the like.