We need a new game model without AI

[Blaupanzer]

I agree with SpencerH about the limitations the presence of the AI places on the direction of strategy games. These games must be limited to basic understanding. This is why Civ IV has no real naval game. This is also why there is no battle board option when two forces meet. Further, the intelligence and diplomatic possibilities must be limited to that which can be programmed, or the players turn these subgames into exploits. Further, logistics and supply distribution are kept city-based solely due the difficulty of programming cooperative strategy with a massive number of what-ifs. The human gets this quickly with a little explanation, but the programming runs away in seemingly infinitely nested if statements.

However, I also don't have the time in my adult life to set aside more than a few scheduled hours for gaming. (Note, I play almost every day, but not on a fixed schedule, due to work and life obligations.) So I don't do multiplayer. Hence, while understanding that programming the AI for aerial and carrier-based warfare is almost beyond comprehension, I wouldn't really be in the market for MP-only sophisticated games anymore. I too played AH and then SPI board games endlessly in another era. I miss it, but would be a hard sell to try to return in an MP-based computer game world.

There may be a market. However, we old grognards were only a few hundred thousand in the best of those times. That is not, as I understand it, a sufficiently sized market for PC-based games today.

[Willem]

I'd never buy a game like that. I don't play MP, ever. I've tried a few times with games like Command & Conquer but didn't really like the experience.

[Forwarn45]

I think the future for a game with so many players is a better AI - as someone noted, the ability to learn by at least recognizing patterns is an option. It's probably not so far off. One of the problems with a game of more than 2 players is that most players don't want to continue if they don't have any chance of winning. Not having an AI to pick up the slack is no fun in an 8 player game when those who are lagging just give up amd quit. This is even assuming every player is available and willing to play for a while.

[Dauphin]

Wow, bump and a half for second time for this old thread.

I only noticed the age of it after a second take seeing Inverse Icarus posting. It was started in a September so it looked recent.

[SpencerH]

Yeah its a zombie all right (just keeps comin back from the dead).

I think there would be a market for 'real' strategy games (with no AI) from the already existing community of online gamers who've played CIV, TW, etc. More importantly from a commercial POV, as long as players could choose the level of complexity they wanted to use, I think it would attract the hordes of RTS players. Its a market just waiting for the next game. The 'skies the limit' if such a game could be ported to the consoles.

Its a risk but I think the selling point for a game company could be that games without AI should be much less costly to develop than those with AI so its a small risk. Hell, it's possible that CIV or TW could simply be modified to produce such a game.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
I agree with SpencerH about the limitations the presence of the AI places on the direction of strategy games.

Could you (or SpencerH) expand on this a bit?

Civ4 was designed as a MP game first; the AI was added much later in development.