Ah Hah! Figured good combat A.I. wasn't all that hard

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by platinumking320 (667 posts) -

Quote: So getting back to this "new generation" business: I have never seen a combat-type game where the AI required anything remotely special in the way of processing power.

Shamus Young - " Next Gen AI & Next Gen BS"

The rest of the escapist article ....

Made a post months ago questioning how tough it was for games, AAA or Indie to make balanced and challenging video game enemies that weren't cheap.

Folks assume that F.E.A.R. or varied enemies in hack & slashers were nice tries at difficulty, and enemy variety but that CPU is cheap and multi-player with other people was all you could ask for concerning a good challenge.

Also I heard suggestions, that it would take another gen of advanced computer intelligence, and more CPU load, to make smarter simulated enemies and better adverse environments.

But I still think smart (non-cheap) CPU enemies and challenges isn't entirely a pipe dream, but more of a foundation design issue. and here's someone who agrees. If nothing else this is enlightening.

#2 Edited by Ish_basic (4062 posts) -

Well, we can look at games that came out over a decade ago and see that some modern games don't have AI up to that caliber. Expecting the next gen of consoles to herald in a new era of AI is silly in that ingrained in that expectation is the assumption that we were butting up against some kind of AI wall in the first place....the truth is, a lot of devs just weren't even bothering to try. They don't try because few care...but try to release a game this gen at less than 1080p 60fps and the interweb community gets all apoplectic.

If we stress it, then maybe we can get devs to focus on it more, and it'd be great if that stressing would start with game critics. The same game critics who were all too quick to effuse praise on Dark Souls 2...a game with enemies that will literally swing themselves off ledges, and sometimes just walk right off them. Dark Souls 2 pretty much bases its entire difficulty on heavy hitting enemies with tons of health and no brain, yet such an approach would usually earn you scorn from gamers. But in this case we praise the difficulty because it's a fashionable game, and if you dare to question where that difficulty is coming from, if you dare to suggest that complex and varied enemy types that actually do things like react to you being behind them would be better, then it just means you just couldn't handle the difficulty.

You don't always have to script singularly smart AI. You can take Halo's approach where you simply build complimentary AI and then script the enemy spawns so that these complimentary AIs augment each other on the battlefield. In this sort of set up the power required is more in the mind of the dev than the technology he/she is working on. Solid and varied simple AI coupled with good level design and sound enemy scripting (where and when enemies appear and how they behave within the given environment) can go a long way to creating the sensation of a smart CPU.

Another example would be Hitman 2. I loved how the enemies would react to you. If you get spotted, there's no "it's the wind." They know you're there and now they've gone from sentry mode to a more aggressive guard stance, possibly even trying to evacuate the VIP. This isn't singularly smart AI...it's just AI with separate moods creating variation that is set off by the player's actions. It creates the semblance of a more realistic enemy and so is very effective in my book. So, I mean, it doesn't always have to be about power, anyway.

#3 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

Too good of an AI could ruin a game, the entire point of the game is for YOU to be the best most powerful character in the game. If you are not then you are just playing some strange form of multiplayer. The key to excellent gameplay is not to make the most advanced AI but to make enemies that fit the rules of the game would, that give the player interesting ways to defeat them. The fun comes from how you defeat the enemies and how the game grows around that concept, adding new powers and tougher enemies that make use of those powers.

Don't get me wrong, AI can be an excellent tool but it should not be so good that it breaks the rules of the game. Case in point MGS, if the guards could actually see and react like a real human no one would be able to finish Ground Zeroes. It's a game, the fun comes from manipulating the rules of the game world.

#4 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

@Ish_basic said:

If we stress it, then maybe we can get devs to focus on it more, and it'd be great if that stressing would start with game critics. The same game critics who were all too quick to effuse praise on Dark Souls 2...a game with enemies that will literally swing themselves off ledges, and sometimes just walk right off them. Dark Souls 2 pretty much bases its entire difficulty on heavy hitting enemies with tons of health and no brain, yet such an approach would usually earn you scorn from gamers. But in this case we praise the difficulty because it's a fashionable game, and if you dare to question where that difficulty is coming from, if you dare to suggest that complex and varied enemy types that actually do things like react to you being behind them would be better, then it just means you just couldn't handle the difficulty.

Dark Souls never makes an attempt to have good AI, why do you bring it up? The way the game is designed is perfect for the kind of game it is trying to be. If the enemies did react like a player it would make the game more like DMC (which for me would be amzing) but this is an RPG, not a straight up action game. The PVP pretty much allows you to experience the "advanced AI" aspect of the gameplay, that is why its there. When a human invades your game you can view that as a super AI character attacking you. An entire game of that would be a pain in the ass.

DS is about learning enemy patterns, finding your best style to fight and above all exploration and discovering. The best parts of DS2 is an enemy hiding behind a corner and jumping out of nowhere and you in a panic desperately trying to stay alive. Or entering a new area where any step could lead to a trap, or there could be a super enemy in the next room. Its about the moment to moment gameplay, every step in that game is exciting.

#5 Edited by platinumking320 (667 posts) -

@Ish_basic: Yep there are so many ways to engineer and simulate a good difficulty balance in theory. This should be a stronger subject in op eds and podcasts outside of GDC panels. If the people talk about unique challenges in all types of games it'll only help the industry.

Its like outside of Unity, Cryengine Havok and Unreal or other 3d art applications, textures, or even different APIs theres obviously a wide propietary market for 'rendering the look and animation of a game'

but AI middleware did not evolve into a visible market of different advanced solutions. If the code was clean and uniformal, maybe some studios could've used it to add unique touches of intelligence to their games.

Sure there are options for learning bots in MP here and there, but they're probably not perfect, and sure everyone is going to program differently based on different game systems and goals, but a lot of it is just path finding.

And I'm noticing this as just a consumer with no strong compsci, or math background.

Like when Spec Ops brings up the issue. "You can't be a hero and mow down hundreds of opposing people", I'm thinking why can't we have a game, where the enemy are no more in size than a platoon or squad, have just as many moves or weapon faculties and follow you as far as a sandbox or open environment will extend like GTA cops or nemesis out of RE3, with the same initiatives and abilities to retreat and or heal themselves as the player has.

That way the combat could be just as extended, and narrative-ly get away with not having to be a mega mass-killer to keep the combat engaging.

#6 Posted by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -
@dvader654 said:

Too good of an AI could ruin a game, the entire point of the game is for YOU to be the best most powerful character in the game. If you are not then you are just playing some strange form of multiplayer. The key to excellent gameplay is not to make the most advanced AI but to make enemies that fit the rules of the game would, that give the player interesting ways to defeat them. The fun comes from how you defeat the enemies and how the game grows around that concept, adding new powers and tougher enemies that make use of those powers.

Don't get me wrong, AI can be an excellent tool but it should not be so good that it breaks the rules of the game. Case in point MGS, if the guards could actually see and react like a real human no one would be able to finish Ground Zeroes. It's a game, the fun comes from manipulating the rules of the game world.

This. AI isn't really a question of technology but rather the ambition of a developer to make a game that balanced the AI with the world.

FEAR nailed it because going toe to toe with the enemy was tough but you had powers that leveled the playing field. Yeah, the enemies were tough and would use cover fire, flanking, and other tactics but you could slow down time.

#7 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18775 posts) -

@dvader654 said:

Too good of an AI could ruin a game, the entire point of the game is for YOU to be the best most powerful character in the game.

Says who? Some games are about smashing your face against a wall of difficulty over and over and over until you eventually master it and outsmart/outperform the computer.

#8 Posted by platinumking320 (667 posts) -

@dvader654 said:

Too good of an AI could ruin a game, the entire point of the game is for YOU to be the best most powerful character in the game. If you are not then you are just playing some strange form of multiplayer. The key to excellent gameplay is not to make the most advanced AI but to make enemies that fit the rules of the game would, that give the player interesting ways to defeat them. The fun comes from how you defeat the enemies and how the game grows around that concept, adding new powers and tougher enemies that make use of those powers.

Don't get me wrong, AI can be an excellent tool but it should not be so good that it breaks the rules of the game. Case in point MGS, if the guards could actually see and react like a real human no one would be able to finish Ground Zeroes. It's a game, the fun comes from manipulating the rules of the game world.

Sure I understand its about simulation, and conditioning the environment. But many seem to put more emphasis on domination in combat and leave outwitting and deception more in the realm of stealth. It can play like something else but the battle should feel like a mid-hard battle in a fighting game. Like Ryu in streetfighter, when you're familiar with the system, you're just looking for a 'good exchange' a circular conflict to heighten the tension and suspense.

Levels of damage and failure could be adjusted to accommodate for new advantages given to the computer. There were times when I played MK Trilogy back in the day and I would lower all hit damage to 10% just to see how much 'simulated drama' I could get out of one round.

Look at tekken, opponents simulate their ability to manipulate the environment just as much as you can, through wall-hits buffers, tracking and lead on moves, so when you're ready to hit Heihachi Paul or Xiaoyu's blind spot, you may be walking into another trap. Like others, you dust yourself off, realize it's a bad option and change your approach.

As long as game worlds still have enough room as they currently do for varied approaches, it should be more 'okay' to fail. Crysis sorta tried that on their harder difficulties.

#9 Edited by lumzi32 (349 posts) -

@dvader654 said:

Too good of an AI could ruin a game, the entire point of the game is for YOU to be the best most powerful character in the game. If you are not then you are just playing some strange form of multiplayer. The key to excellent gameplay is not to make the most advanced AI but to make enemies that fit the rules of the game would, that give the player interesting ways to defeat them. The fun comes from how you defeat the enemies and how the game grows around that concept, adding new powers and tougher enemies that make use of those powers.

Don't get me wrong, AI can be an excellent tool but it should not be so good that it breaks the rules of the game. Case in point MGS, if the guards could actually see and react like a real human no one would be able to finish Ground Zeroes. It's a game, the fun comes from manipulating the rules of the game world.

AI can never be too good, imo. I believe so long as you manage the challenge and give players enough tools to work with you can make it as real as you like.

I am personally growing tired of the 'endless swarms of dumb enemies' school of game design. I wouldn't mind more games that feature a moderate numbers of bad guys, that are clever, competent and reasonably challenging.

To me AI succeeds when it succeeds in making me forget that I am essentially fighting/opposing a digital creation. It doesn't have to be 100% perfect (or even 80%) but it should be a convincing illusion.

#10 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

@lumzi32 said:

@dvader654 said:

Too good of an AI could ruin a game, the entire point of the game is for YOU to be the best most powerful character in the game. If you are not then you are just playing some strange form of multiplayer. The key to excellent gameplay is not to make the most advanced AI but to make enemies that fit the rules of the game would, that give the player interesting ways to defeat them. The fun comes from how you defeat the enemies and how the game grows around that concept, adding new powers and tougher enemies that make use of those powers.

Don't get me wrong, AI can be an excellent tool but it should not be so good that it breaks the rules of the game. Case in point MGS, if the guards could actually see and react like a real human no one would be able to finish Ground Zeroes. It's a game, the fun comes from manipulating the rules of the game world.

AI can never be too good, imo. I believe so long as you manage the challenge and give players enough tools to work with you can make it as real as you like.

I am personally growing tired of the 'endless swarms of dumb enemies' school of game design. I wouldn't mind more games that feature a moderate numbers of bad guys, that are clever, competent and reasonably challenging.

To me AI succeeds when it succeeds in making me forget that I am essentially fighting/opposing a digital creation. It doesn't have to be 100% perfect (or even 80%) but it should be a convincing illusion.

I agree in terms of tactics, I want the enemy to surprise me. But in terms of accuracy and the ability to quickly kill no thanks. I dont need virtual enemies to head shot me from half a map away.

#11 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@dvader654 said:

Too good of an AI could ruin a game, the entire point of the game is for YOU to be the best most powerful character in the game.

Says who? Some games are about smashing your face against a wall of difficulty over and over and over until you eventually master it and outsmart/outperform the computer.

Right eventually becoming better than the computer. But at the highest levels of AI that may not be possible. We have an AI that can beat almost anyone at chess, I am sure we can make AI that can destroy even the best multiplayer gamers out there if we really wanted to. But that would be stupid.

#12 Posted by platinumking320 (667 posts) -

@dvader654 said:

@lumzi32 said:

@dvader654 said:

Too good of an AI could ruin a game, the entire point of the game is for YOU to be the best most powerful character in the game. If you are not then you are just playing some strange form of multiplayer. The key to excellent gameplay is not to make the most advanced AI but to make enemies that fit the rules of the game would, that give the player interesting ways to defeat them. The fun comes from how you defeat the enemies and how the game grows around that concept, adding new powers and tougher enemies that make use of those powers.

Don't get me wrong, AI can be an excellent tool but it should not be so good that it breaks the rules of the game. Case in point MGS, if the guards could actually see and react like a real human no one would be able to finish Ground Zeroes. It's a game, the fun comes from manipulating the rules of the game world.

AI can never be too good, imo. I believe so long as you manage the challenge and give players enough tools to work with you can make it as real as you like.

I am personally growing tired of the 'endless swarms of dumb enemies' school of game design. I wouldn't mind more games that feature a moderate numbers of bad guys, that are clever, competent and reasonably challenging.

To me AI succeeds when it succeeds in making me forget that I am essentially fighting/opposing a digital creation. It doesn't have to be 100% perfect (or even 80%) but it should be a convincing illusion.

I agree in terms of tactics, I want the enemy to surprise me. But in terms of accuracy and the ability to quickly kill no thanks. I dont need virtual enemies to head shot me from half a map away.

Uhuh. And thats what the article was explaining was easy for programmers. So when 'simulated fallibility' isn't programmed well. Then they either put too much in, and the enemy is dirt dumb, or hardly any effort at all, and the game is so oppressive it's considered broken.

The game by default knows where you are at all times, and its easy for devs to just plot a trajectory from enemies to where your avatar is. Simulating fallibility just needs more programming nuance, so it allows the computer to miss or overclock, and leave itself open to punishment. When the cpu misses its just granting you time. How 'much' time or the cost of missing could be adjusted or tightened up a bit in some franchises.

#13 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

@platinumking320 said:

@dvader654 said:

@lumzi32 said:

@dvader654 said:

Too good of an AI could ruin a game, the entire point of the game is for YOU to be the best most powerful character in the game. If you are not then you are just playing some strange form of multiplayer. The key to excellent gameplay is not to make the most advanced AI but to make enemies that fit the rules of the game would, that give the player interesting ways to defeat them. The fun comes from how you defeat the enemies and how the game grows around that concept, adding new powers and tougher enemies that make use of those powers.

Don't get me wrong, AI can be an excellent tool but it should not be so good that it breaks the rules of the game. Case in point MGS, if the guards could actually see and react like a real human no one would be able to finish Ground Zeroes. It's a game, the fun comes from manipulating the rules of the game world.

AI can never be too good, imo. I believe so long as you manage the challenge and give players enough tools to work with you can make it as real as you like.

I am personally growing tired of the 'endless swarms of dumb enemies' school of game design. I wouldn't mind more games that feature a moderate numbers of bad guys, that are clever, competent and reasonably challenging.

To me AI succeeds when it succeeds in making me forget that I am essentially fighting/opposing a digital creation. It doesn't have to be 100% perfect (or even 80%) but it should be a convincing illusion.

I agree in terms of tactics, I want the enemy to surprise me. But in terms of accuracy and the ability to quickly kill no thanks. I dont need virtual enemies to head shot me from half a map away.

Uhuh. And thats what the article was explaining was easy for programmers. So when 'simulated fallibility' isn't programmed well. Then they either put too much in, and the enemy is dirt dumb, or hardly any effort at all, and the game is so oppressive it's considered broken.

The game by default knows where you are at all times, and its easy for devs to just plot a trajectory from enemies to where your avatar is. Simulating fallibility just needs more programming nuance, so it allows the computer to miss or overclock, and leave itself open to punishment. When the cpu misses its just granting you time. How 'much' time or the cost of missing could be adjusted or tightened up a bit in some franchises.

Ah so the best AI is one that is not super dumb but dumb enough, interesting. Well yeah in the end that just fits into what kind of AI fits your game best. I don't think super near human advanced AI is right for every kind of game. Though I agree many games that should have great AI don't, some games have AI that don't make sense in terms of the game rules.

#14 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18775 posts) -

@dvader654 said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

Says who? Some games are about smashing your face against a wall of difficulty over and over and over until you eventually master it and outsmart/outperform the computer.

Right eventually becoming better than the computer. But at the highest levels of AI that may not be possible. We have an AI that can beat almost anyone at chess, I am sure we can make AI that can destroy even the best multiplayer gamers out there if we really wanted to. But that would be stupid.

Sure, I mean, a developer being deliberately callous and making an AI that's impossible to beat would ruin the game, but at the same time I think the AI should try to beat you at all times within the limits of human possibilities. Unreal Tounament 2004 bots on insane difficulty are a great example.

Then again, I haven't seen proper AI since the first F.E.A.R., it's all scripted nowadays.

#15 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@dvader654 said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

Says who? Some games are about smashing your face against a wall of difficulty over and over and over until you eventually master it and outsmart/outperform the computer.

Right eventually becoming better than the computer. But at the highest levels of AI that may not be possible. We have an AI that can beat almost anyone at chess, I am sure we can make AI that can destroy even the best multiplayer gamers out there if we really wanted to. But that would be stupid.

Sure, I mean, a developer being deliberately callous and making an AI that's impossible to beat would ruin the game, but at the same time I think the AI should try to beat you at all times within the limits of human possibilities. Unreal Tounament 2004 bots on insane difficulty are a great example.

Then again, I haven't seen proper AI since the first F.E.A.R., it's all scripted nowadays.

And FEAR is a pretty crappy game so yeah. :P

#16 Posted by Ish_basic (4062 posts) -

@dvader654: Dark Souls never makes an attempt to have good AI, why do you bring it up?

that's exactly why I brought it up.

Any asshole can make something difficult by giving it lots of health and letting it do lots of damage. Creating difficulty in and of itself is not hard, and DS puts less effort into it than most games. But once you get some health and a decent shield, nothing is DS is hard specifically because the enemies are absolutely brain dead. If an enemy has a three hit combo and you get behind him on the first hit, he just performs the next two swings at nothing while you destroy his health bar from behind. It's a silly thing to watch.

Their whole concept of creating difficulty is forcing the player to hit something 30 times while only being able to sustain 2 hits. If you focus on developing the AI instead, then you have a fight that is difficult because it is dynamic...because the player is truly thinking on his feet instead of just repeating a pattern. This gives every confrontation variability and by extension replayability. It's just a better way to do things as it provides for a prolonged and satisfying single player experience. If you want to repeat patterns, why are your paying $400+ for a game machine when you can just buy a Simon?

#17 Posted by platinumking320 (667 posts) -
@dvader654 said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@dvader654 said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

Says who? Some games are about smashing your face against a wall of difficulty over and over and over until you eventually master it and outsmart/outperform the computer.

Right eventually becoming better than the computer. But at the highest levels of AI that may not be possible. We have an AI that can beat almost anyone at chess, I am sure we can make AI that can destroy even the best multiplayer gamers out there if we really wanted to. But that would be stupid.

Sure, I mean, a developer being deliberately callous and making an AI that's impossible to beat would ruin the game, but at the same time I think the AI should try to beat you at all times within the limits of human possibilities. Unreal Tounament 2004 bots on insane difficulty are a great example.

Then again, I haven't seen proper AI since the first F.E.A.R., it's all scripted nowadays.

And FEAR is a pretty crappy game so yeah. :P

I dunno homie. The package speaks for itself. I still play it for thrills.

#18 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

@platinumking320 said:
@dvader654 said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@dvader654 said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

Says who? Some games are about smashing your face against a wall of difficulty over and over and over until you eventually master it and outsmart/outperform the computer.

Right eventually becoming better than the computer. But at the highest levels of AI that may not be possible. We have an AI that can beat almost anyone at chess, I am sure we can make AI that can destroy even the best multiplayer gamers out there if we really wanted to. But that would be stupid.

Sure, I mean, a developer being deliberately callous and making an AI that's impossible to beat would ruin the game, but at the same time I think the AI should try to beat you at all times within the limits of human possibilities. Unreal Tounament 2004 bots on insane difficulty are a great example.

Then again, I haven't seen proper AI since the first F.E.A.R., it's all scripted nowadays.

And FEAR is a pretty crappy game so yeah. :P

I dunno homie. The package speaks for itself. I still play it for thrills.

Oh I know the combat is pretty fantastic, but the rest of the game (level design, pacing, length, the fact that you fight like 3 types of enemies the entire game, terrible scares that are telegraphed) I didnt care for and to me all those things together outweigh the good combat. But thats just me, just wanted to explain my stance.

#19 Posted by firefox59 (4432 posts) -

@dvader654 said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@dvader654 said:

Too good of an AI could ruin a game, the entire point of the game is for YOU to be the best most powerful character in the game.

Says who? Some games are about smashing your face against a wall of difficulty over and over and over until you eventually master it and outsmart/outperform the computer.

Right eventually becoming better than the computer. But at the highest levels of AI that may not be possible. We have an AI that can beat almost anyone at chess, I am sure we can make AI that can destroy even the best multiplayer gamers out there if we really wanted to. But that would be stupid.

Not necessarily. It's like you said, if the AI had to function within the confines of the game. We as players can still be unexpected and out think an AI. Many games have tried to do this though. The idea that you can't take on an enemy head on so you have to flank it or something like that. The problem with this is it usually gives you one path and once again the game becomes less exciting.

Yes the AI could insta-headshot you if it was programmed for it. That's not the point. The idea is AI that has multiple different options and reacts based on the situation but also reacts spontaneously. I can't really think of a game that makes you think on your toes cause you literally don't know what the AI will do. Most enemy AI can be figured out and future actions predicted based on a single encounter with the enemy. Fewer enemies like this rather than 100's that can be mowed down, ala COD would be preferable.

Mass Effect did a decent job of this on the highest difficulty. Almost any enemy can kill you if you aren't careful. Yes Dark Souls has a ton of enemies that can kill you too, but it does it in a stupid and ridiculous way. I'm not talking trial and error where you have to die to figure out the game. I'm talking dynamic AI that can be countered with skill, not because the in game character you are controlling is more powerful than the enemy.

Something like this should be possible but most games conform to what we are all used to.

#20 Edited by lumzi32 (349 posts) -

@dvader654 said:

@lumzi32 said:

@dvader654 said:

Too good of an AI could ruin a game, the entire point of the game is for YOU to be the best most powerful character in the game. If you are not then you are just playing some strange form of multiplayer. The key to excellent gameplay is not to make the most advanced AI but to make enemies that fit the rules of the game would, that give the player interesting ways to defeat them. The fun comes from how you defeat the enemies and how the game grows around that concept, adding new powers and tougher enemies that make use of those powers.

Don't get me wrong, AI can be an excellent tool but it should not be so good that it breaks the rules of the game. Case in point MGS, if the guards could actually see and react like a real human no one would be able to finish Ground Zeroes. It's a game, the fun comes from manipulating the rules of the game world.

AI can never be too good, imo. I believe so long as you manage the challenge and give players enough tools to work with you can make it as real as you like.

I am personally growing tired of the 'endless swarms of dumb enemies' school of game design. I wouldn't mind more games that feature a moderate numbers of bad guys, that are clever, competent and reasonably challenging.

To me AI succeeds when it succeeds in making me forget that I am essentially fighting/opposing a digital creation. It doesn't have to be 100% perfect (or even 80%) but it should be a convincing illusion.

I agree in terms of tactics, I want the enemy to surprise me. But in terms of accuracy and the ability to quickly kill no thanks. I dont need virtual enemies to head shot me from half a map away.

That is not what I am talking about. Notice I said 'reasonably challenging.' Obviously I don't what unnaturally skilled opponents. I don't want an opponent who can headshot me with a pistol from a mile away.

#21 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18775 posts) -

@dvader654 said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

Sure, I mean, a developer being deliberately callous and making an AI that's impossible to beat would ruin the game, but at the same time I think the AI should try to beat you at all times within the limits of human possibilities. Unreal Tounament 2004 bots on insane difficulty are a great example.

Then again, I haven't seen proper AI since the first F.E.A.R., it's all scripted nowadays.

And FEAR is a pretty crappy game so yeah. :P

Oh bullshit, it's a fantastic game, even 9 years later :P I still have to see another game where the enemies coordinate with each other, announcing where you are hiding and setting up flanking manouvers, flushing you out of cover and setting up ambushes using one of them as bait. They even have a hierarchy and if you kill the leader the grunts will shout orders at each other and sometimes they will refuse to obey and yell curse words back.

A 2005 game.