Rage, F.E.A.R and Crysis 2 have pretty good AI. Enemies dont just run out at you, they duck behind cover and walls, they also scatter for cover when you throw a grenade. They will also flank you if you are holing up somewhere but move from cover to cover to get to you.

Same goes for Deus Ex Human Revolution, you get flanked and flushed out by enemies on that.

Now this is an interesting topic. I could list a tonne of all the genre's that have piss poor AI that's just easy to code like Call of Duty but good AI.... that's a tough one.

FPS: Halo does spring to mind... the ai in that has always got better and more tactical instead of just having the ability to magically hit you more & damage more (though that does go up too.) I agree with Crysis 2 as well. Also Half Life 2.

RTS... Well Supreme Commander's AI could be insanely good or insanely bad (I remember one match with my friend vs a hard enemy and he had all but destroyed our offensive abilities then he decided to waltz his ACU into our base unguarded and won us the game.) Rome Total War was good too if I remember rightly, unlike the newer game's who's AI just cheats.

Vehicle Sim... I always found the challenge from Forza Motorsport 3's AI about right on higher difficulties. Would you say rubber banding is a bad AI trait though? I can't decide either way on that one.

TBS- Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

Action: Uncharted 2.

Sports: I don't really do sports games but Deathrow on the Xbox had some good AI that acted like their rap sheet said (some being more focused on the game, others who were more aggresive would pursue you, knock you out & spend ages chasing you if you slapped them.)
RPG: Ultima VII

I finished the game two days ago. The AI is freaking terrible.

That's true I've noticed that equal situations (same plane vs. same plane and similar altitudes) the AI seems to be ever so slightly faster which points to them really knowing how to optimize their planes. So not technically cheating on that front, but I'm also starting to become convinced that they don't suffer from quite the same structural g-force issues or red/out blackouts. At high, though similar speeds to my opponent, I can sometimes have trouble matching an opponents maneuvers without a blackout or a fabric tearing sound. But the enemy plane seems unaffected in their maneuvers.

The kamikaze attitude can be annoying I agree - especially in the 'ace' AI (and they have really good aim I've noticed so especially when they go head-to-head against each other they often destroy each other). While the AI may be consistent across runs, it is often solid in its defensive/offensive decision making - with the exception for its predilection for head-to-head runs. And I understand it's decision making has gotten better, though again I haven't downloaded the latest patch myself.

That's why I do dogfighting in SF2. I've seen AI dodge me in a head-to-head attack, put a 30mm into my cockpit or miss, hesitate and fire a burst while passing by, run away, ignore my orders...
And I've seen this
And that

not only is the AI good, but it comes over has human like, it looks like AI in this game has a plan, and not just analyzes the situation every time

Chessmaster 9000 has a pretty good AI for a TBS.

Best AI?

Daikatana team mates.

They die from one bullet when they can't see you, but you can't kill them that way when they're firing at you. Their precision is incredible. They can see you through buildings, and most of the times, know where you are (just like in Crysis 1).

I don't recall them having variable amounts of health, but you might be right about that. That's hardly part of the AI, though. There's only one place in the game (as far as I noticed) where they can see you through "buildings" (tents, actually), and I'd bet money that that's because the tents aren't set up to block vision. Again, not the AI's fault. And knowing where you are all the time? Certainly not. If you go off and hide in the jungle, they will have to hunt you down (and they'll do so with surprising competence). If you go and hide in a building, they might lose track of you... but more than likely they'll understand where you went, and will remain on high alert (which is shown by the "visibility" meter being just below full).

And here's my question...why are you negatively judging this game for things that FEAR--your choice for the best FPS AI--does even worse? FEAR's enemies die easier if they haven't seen you...hell, the game even tells you that. And they remain completely aware of where you are once you've alerted them, regardless of how long you've been out of their sight. The only difference is that FEAR is a much MUCH more confined game.

When many people talk about AI, they neglect to take into account the magnitude of tasks that a given AI has to accomplish. The number of things that the AI needs to do in FEAR is really quite small when compared with Far Cry. In FEAR, they just have to follow some scripted actions (the same guy usually will jump through windows, for instance), maybe pull off some basic flanking, and take cover. The environments are pretty enclosed, so a lot of this could theoretically be accomplished without the AI actually having to react dynamically to anything. In contrast, Far Cry's enemies have to deal with huge environments with a huge number of potential attack angles/strategies. During gameplay, the battle site can move around and change. They have to be able to act convincing during firefights, and be aware enough and dynamic enough to make the game's cat-and-mouse stealth work (seriously... just watch them while they're trying to hunt you down. It's pretty frightening). And it does all this quite well, with only a few minor issues (seriously, it's not like being spotted it an automatic death sentence. It's easy to re-hide, or just fight your way out). So from a technical level, I don't think there's any question that Far Cry has the superior AI.

I know, that's why I said the 'good' AI mostly is there because the combat happens inside a building. A programmer has a lot less work to do to create a good AI.

But what you're saying is "this game is simpler, so its AI is better." I don't think that it's fair to say that "good" is simply "doesn't have any noticable issues." Because by that argument, games like Quake would have better AI than the NPCs of STALKER. The overall effect of AI in the game is very important. But when making an objective judgement of the quality of the AI, you really need to look at more than just the surface.

A simpler game could give "better" AI.

I think that the AI really just has to fit the game.

I found it annoying in Lords of the Realm 2 that your AI friends will always stab you in the back. They have to, b/c there can be only one victor. So the diplomacy AI really does well given its rules and objectives.

But the game design in Galactic Civilization is better because it allows the game to have multiple winner. In that case, the AI fits the game very well b/c its diplomacy is far more involved. The AI just wants to be on the winning team.

So, although Galactic Civ has far better diplomatic AI, it fits its game just as good as Lords of the Realm 2's AI.


In a similar way, Alpha Protocol's AI was really quite terrible. It had few options. Usually, a guy would just duck behind a crate and shoot at you. However, Skyrim's infinitely more complex and better AI is less of a challenge b/c the AI can't cope with the variables all the time. You can stand just on the other side of a fissure in a rock and the enemy will stand there, running in place toward you while you pelt it with arrows. Not too smart. Way smarter that Alpha Protocol's, but its task is harder.

So I can see where some disagreement might arise in defining how "great" an AI is. It really has to be an AI that fits the game very well.


As for the OP question, I'll name the best I've seen, but my playing is obviously limited:

Action Game
I have no idea. My favorite AI has got to be Thief the Dark Project. It just tries to kill you when it sees you and looks all over the place when it loses you. It's very fun. But I haven't played many modern single-player action games.

Adventure Game
Drawn games -- no real AI, just a counter. And when the counter lets you skip a puzzle, it's about the time you realize you either do or do not have the mental capacity to finish it.

Role Playing Game
Skyrim

Real Time Strategy
Rise of Nations (I'm very limited in experience, but RoN really had some great killers)

Turn Based Strategy
Gal Civ (1 or 2 -- they're about the same)

Vehicle Simulation
Mario Kart (not sure which one would be the best) -- they drive well and shoot enemies pretty good.
Forza -- they all drive better than me. Boo!

Sports Game
Madden 98 -- the newer Madden games cheat like terrible

I agree that an AI should mesh well with the game it's part of, and should fit it. However, the technical merits of the AI should NOT be discounted, especially when making a judgement of quality. Just like a graphical engine shouldn't be judged only by its use in a particular game. Imagine saying "The Unreal 3 Engine sucks because it looked terrible in *insert one of the myriad of Unreal III games that looks terrible*." That's not a fair judgement of the technology. It's a fair judgement of the technology's use. Saying "This AI is good" and "This AI is well implemented" are two completely different things. And this is a thread about which games have the BEST AI, not the best utilized AI.