We need a new game model without AI

[SpencerH]

I've been thinking about this for a while so I thought I'd post it here for discussion.

In the old days (pre-PC) we had games and wargames that were played human v human. One problem was that you needed other people who were also interested in the same game. That's OK for monopoly, but it was especially problematic if you played complex wargames. Then came the computer revolution that allowed us to play games without another human player. Great, but while fun, the games were not as mentally challenging as the previous boardgames. Now we are getting human v AI games where the AI's are getting better. Unfortunately, the best AI's today still only have the thought processes of an ant. Therefore, the complexity of these games are 'dulled down' in order to make the AI competitive without too many 'cheats'. The 'game' becomes learning a set of moves that virtually beat the AI every time. Once players understand how to beat the game, many look for ways to make the game more challenging such as the civ 1 city game etc or stop playing until the next version is published.

What I'd like to see developed are human v human games that are only playable MP. NO AI. Without the restrictions of the AI, I believe that civ-type games and wargames could be created that eliminated the necessary over-simplifications that are so irritating to some of us. Broadband internet connections already make it possible to interact with people from around the world so it's no longer a problem to find other game-players. Imagine playing the old SPI board wargame "The War In The East" with someone (or a group) somewhere across the world without the tedium and problems of casting die, checking rules, and moving precariously balanced stacks of armored divisions. I envision the computer and game, without AI, as a facilitator for complex human v human competition built around the game rules, rather than a competitor itself. For me, that would be a great improvement over the current (repetitive) game choices.

[pg]

what's so wrong with games like civ, or eu2 in multiplayer? imo strategy games have been and always will be primarily single player games so even if you did design a game like you described i doubt you'd find many players(but i may be wrong). while the games we have today might not be as complex as what you described as your ideal they are plenty competitive and very intense when played versus other humans. i don't see what you are complaining about frankly.

[SpencerH]

Is that your expert opinion?

[Asmodean]

spencerH: You should give Galactic Civilizations a try. It has some of what you request, although it's AI is just that: An AI.

Furthermore, I happen to disagree with you. I always thought single player was more fun. I never liked tha hassle of trying to get schedules to match, finding substitute players, if one couldn't make it that day, or just rustling up enough players to get a decent game going.

But that's just me. If you have a steady supply of people waiting that are always ready to play whenever YOU feel like it, I totally understand your opinion. But personally, I like to play more than once or twice a week. MP never seems to provide more than that.

Asmodean

[SpencerH]

I'm not saying that they should do away with SP games. Its just that MP versions of SP games are often inadequate for human v human because of the AI restrictions in the SP versions.

I'm gonna give Galciv a try as soon as I get another PC (I'm not sure when, money is tight). For now I'm learning to beat RoN with the demo and an old, slow, PC that craps out about half way through the game.

[Sore Loser]

Spencer, look at my thread named "Massive Multiplayer Civ?" and tell me if that's getting closer to what you're thinking of. One of the key ideas there is to do replace the AI with human opposition.

[SpencerH]

Yes, it appears to be an example of a MP game-type that is possible once you exclude AI. If we go back to my "war in the east" example it might be possible for different players to be army group commanders playing MP, just as we did while playing the board game.

[Inverse Icarus]

i've pondered that myself, but then your entire game rides on the availibility of a community.

if it's too complex for a lot of people to like, you have less sales.

if people can't / don't play multiplayer (connection, time, etc) you have less sales.

if you were going out to make a profit, making a MP only game wouldn't be in your best interests. a small dev house that wants to build a community might be able to do it though.

[SpencerH]

I dont play much (any) doom type games but it seems to me that they are built around a similar if not the same model as I'm suggesting. AFAIK the most popular use of those games is as a vehicle for online human v human play without the limitations of the AI (which is what I'm suggesting for strategy games).

You're right though that the gaming industry might not see a profit but I disagee with them.

[pg]

fps type games are extremely different from civ. the biggest difference is probably the length of the game(20mins per duel or teamplay game in most fps) and the fact fps games are much more social. fps games also have dedicated servers so people have a place to meet up(the most popular servers are always busy 24/7). observing or sitting on the side lines of these games is also quite easy. most servers usually have a capacity for 16(but many have more now) and usually only 8-12 play max per game. many servers have 8 or more spectators waiting to join the game quite a bit. also i'm pretty sure the people who play fps games are much different than civ players and much more inclined to be competitive and try multiplayer gaming.

civ could have a much stronger multiplayer community than it does now if it took a clue from fps games or battle.net. setting up a civ multiplayer game is a pain in the ass and patience seems to be the most important skill a civ player needs.

[Inverse Icarus]

exactly. not everyone can (or wants) to devote 4-72 hours of gametime.

[SpencerH]

What does time of play have to do with removing AI-based game limitations?

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by SpencerH
What does time of play have to do with removing AI-based game limitations?

removing AI means you need 2 (or optimally, 4-8) people to sit down and play at the same time.

take civ. we had a lan, and in 15 hours we were still in the ancient age.

not a lot fo people want to do that, and without an AI, thats the only way to do that.

unless you love PBEM, which i don't.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Uber KruX


removing AI means you need 2 (or optimally, 4-8) people to sit down and play at the same time.

take civ. we had a lan, and in 15 hours we were still in the ancient age.

not a lot fo people want to do that, and without an AI, thats the only way to do that.

unless you love PBEM, which i don't.

The answer is to be able to save MP games that can be re-started later.

My ideas about removing the AI came from CIV3 PBEM. The AI civs were squashed quickly by the humans. Then all that was left was game played human v human with AI-based limitations about how the game functioned.

[Jac de Molay]

I wouldn't necessarily rule out an AI, but have a completely programmable one where you could set the parameters of what you want it to build, more exact strategy paths, etc.

This would work great in SMAC.