...But did the demo have to have *zero* AI ...?

[WretchedGnu]

I understand why you shouldn't judge the game's AI based on the demo. But why on earth would they release a demo with absolutely no operating AI?

In the custom scenario, my hero was repeatedly within striking distance of the opponent hero, whose army was at least 7 times the size of my own -- and he never bothered to attack. Then, when my still-underpowered army was wandering around his castle, his hero and his enormous army emerge from the garrison -- not to attack my little army just three inches away from his door, but to go wandering off, recapturing ore mines. I walk into his empty castle, and it's mine.

Why even play? Why release a demo that can only leave the player asking the question, "Why even play? There is no computer opponent."

It is precisely this kind of slapdash attitude, as regards the demo, that gives me no hope at all that the final product is going to be any different. If Ubisoft were interested in constructing any kind of AI at all, they would want it featured in the demo.

I didn't buy Heroes IV because everyone agreed there was no real AI. It's too bad I probably won't buy this one either...

[Rapier]

I haven't seen the computer making any mistakes like that... I can however give you some reasons as to why the demo is a bad showcase for the ai.

In the custom game, you can't build taverns, without taverns you can't run from combat. The AI knows that if it loses it's one hero, it dies. I think the AI is incorrectly prioratising this to prevent it from engaging unless it has overwhelming odds.

In the campains, the ai doesn't really showcase a standard game, the AI in the haven campain has lots of free heroes which are basically suicided on your castle, the normal ai in the game doens't really need to build up and attack.

Finally, the ai in the inferno campain just chases you, it doesn't do any building and flagging that I've seen.

So all in all, I don't think the demo is a good judge of the AI in the game.

[WretchedGnu]

I agree... but in the situations I have described, the AI hero's army was overwhelmingly larger and more powerful than my own. If the program has any kind of method of evaluating combat chances, wouldn't that be part of the "core" game code, and therefore be inherent in the demo's code? I mean, this kind of evaluation is the most basic, the absolute minimum one would expect of an AI.... It's a simple matter of the computer recognizing that his army is 7 times larger and more powerful than my own. Why would something that basic simply be left out of the demo?

That simple evaluation on the computer's part is the very core of the game, in fact -- without it, the whole program would be just an empty shell, capapble only of rendering images... It just seems beyond credibility that something so fundamental and basic wouldn't be able to be part of the demo. If it isn't part of the demo, what exactly is the demo demonstrating? That it can render images?

[Wildbear]

I agree with you. The most logical answer is that the AI was not finished when the demo has been released, but that in fact is a very bad omen for the game. Maybe I just don't understand anything in game designing, but in my opinion actually making it a game comes prior to make it look good. If it isn't in version 0.9, then it's unlikely to be done correctly when 1.0 is released (gold version) a few weeks later.

The other possibility as explained before is the AI was not tweaked for that map and its limitation, but it's probably not better. What good is an AI that has to be adapted for each different map made? If mapmakers have to deal with such things in the future I have no doubt the quality of user-made maps will decrease.

[Gaidal Cain]

There's a possible explanation that they were working on the AI, but that it was in such a state that they had to use an old one when releasing the demo. I'm not sure how likely this is, but I guess we'll know soon.

[ThunderTitan]

Maybe I just don't understand anything in game designing, but in my opinion actually making it a game comes prior to make it look good.

And that's why you will never make it in the current game industry. It's all about the SHINY atm.

[Saurus]

The most logical answer is that the AI was not finished when the demo has been released, but that in fact is a very bad omen for the game .

From what I have heard about comments by those who have played the "leaked" game, all the campaign maps more or less have 100% scripted A.I. So in fact it might well be there is limited or no A.I at all at this time.

This even makes sense when it comes to the map editor - they cannot release a mapeditor as long as the A.I is not able to do anything whitout scripting.

As you said, a bad omen, but in just a short week we will be able fully test the A.I in action.

[Romanov77]

I understand why you shouldn't judge the game's AI based on the demo. But why on earth would they release a demo with absolutely no operating AI?

Because they want you to buy the game.