Did they test the bots on a hands-on review?

(murphIV) #21

If Im not mistanken firist mp fps ever made were Quake 3 and UT. They both had bots and they worked fine in both games so this is nothing unusual. The fact that all good multiplayer games end up haveing bots (ET is no exception) is proof enough that bots are needed in multiplayer. To repeat myself, bots provide for the singleplayer component of the game but they improve multiplayer as well. Saying that mp shooters should have absolutely no single player is the equivalent of saying that singleplayer shooters should have no multiplayer.

but both of those shooters are death match games and not the objective style teamwork that ETQW is. Not a good analogy imho. Most singleplayer shooters multiplayer is crap and should have been left out as well anyways.

bots are uber aimers, they always know where i am. regular person cant understand if smb is sneaking behind him unless he looks back or hears footsteps. thats why bots are so unfair.

Thats why devs need to make them behave more human. The goal is that eventualy bots behave so naturaly that you stop noticing your playing against the computer. And since bots in games like couterstrike source have made good progress in that area, I see no reason why QW shoudnt.[/quote]

(Janolsen86) #22

We need bots because the bot (single player community) is very big. Battlefield have their own single player community for bots. The forum has over 3000 members now! Maybe SD saw this and maybe thought: We need bots!

(Flesh) #23

The analogy stands, regardless wether they are deathmatch or teamplay oriented, bots are needed in all mp games simply becouse those games are only playable in multiplayer. Practicaly every multiplayer fps has bots, why do you think that is? As I already said, battlefield, a team shooter, with absolutely retarded bot ai has a singleplayer community based around bots. Needless to say this is very good for game longevity and, ultimately, for game sales becouse you can market singleplayer.

I shouldnt even comment the idea of leaveing out multiplayer in singleplayer shooters since that is the origin of the multiplayer we know today.

(BiggaJigga) #24

I like the idea of bots. Sometimes bots do something smart that teaches you something. Also it’s a GREAT way for you to practice without losing ranks and kills.

If their bots are AS good as the one’s in F.E.A.R i will love it. The bots in that game are AMAZING. On Medium difficulty they are so smart. In most games when you throw a grenade all the bots go up to it like it was an alian space craft. In F.E.A.R they jump out of the way. I remember once i threw a grenade and one bot had no where else to go except out the window. He jumped out but GRABED the ledge, jumped back in and i had to take cover.

man that was cool, if bots in Quake wars are that good i will personally go to Splash damage company and give em all blowies :smiley:

(Janolsen86) #25

But FEAR is almost a 100% single player game. Multiplayer in games like is just a bonus (and the mp mode in FEAR dont have bots), but i agree that the AI in single player mode is good. But it has to be good when the developers want to focus so much on single player.

The rest of you can stop whining about that we dont need bots. If we dont need bots than this wouldnt be such a big issue to discuss. A game without bots will fade away because people move on to play new games after a while. With bots the game will live forever. Thats important for me…

(BiggaJigga) #26

Important for me too. I want bots and they have been making them for a while now so they wont stop. They might not be the best bots but they’ll be good.

(murphIV) #27

[quote=“Flesh”]

The analogy stands, regardless wether they are deathmatch or teamplay oriented, bots are needed in all mp games simply becouse those games are only playable in multiplayer. Practicaly every multiplayer fps has bots, why do you think that is? As I already said, battlefield, a team shooter, with absolutely retarded bot ai has a singleplayer community based around bots. Needless to say this is very good for game longevity and, ultimately, for game sales becouse you can market singleplayer.

I shouldnt even comment the idea of leaveing out multiplayer in singleplayer shooters since that is the origin of the multiplayer we know today.[/quote]

Wolf ET didn’t have them and that seemed to be pretty sucessful. Battlefield2, a single player community??

(Gringo) #28

Exactly, for anyone who loves ET and still plays it to this day (which I might add is a considerable amount of people), bots are not so important imo!

(Flesh) #29

Wolf ET has fritzbot. Perhaps it would have been even more succesful if it had bots from the start? Why else would SD bother to implement them in QW?

Battlefield2, a single player community?

http://battlefieldsingleplayer.planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/

(ayatollah) #30

SD are implementing it as a way for offline play, as well as online. W:ET would have had a single-player element but that fell through and the multiplayer only element was released. That is the only reason that SD are implemented bots, to appease people who may not have internet connections, or very bad ones. This is not because they think W:ET would have been more successful with bots in from the start. After all fritzbot was good but it had hardly a fantastic uptake.

(Flesh) #31

SD are implementing it as a way for offline play, as well as online. W:ET would have had a single-player element but that fell through and the multiplayer only element was released. That is the only reason that SD are implemented bots, to appease people who may not have internet connections, or very bad ones.[/quote]

Being able to play the game offline will attract more customers. Dont you agree that ppl with bad or no connection at all should also get a chance to play the game? Perhaps, when they see how good the game actualy plays, they will consider upgradeing their connection. It will also broaden the basis of QW community. Being able to play single and multyplayer will, if only by little, increase game longevity.

Will that not make the game more successful?
Face it, bots are a standard in today multiplayer games and for a good reason.

Edit: omg teh 200th post!
:banana: whoever said that spamming doesnt pay?:wink:

(zeh) #32

Bots quitting on the middle of the match because they’re losing would be perfect!

(murphIV) #33

SD are implementing it as a way for offline play, as well as online. W:ET would have had a single-player element but that fell through and the multiplayer only element was released. That is the only reason that SD are implemented bots, to appease people who may not have internet connections, or very bad ones. This is not because they think W:ET would have been more successful with bots in from the start. After all fritzbot was good but it had hardly a fantastic uptake.[/quote]

I don’t think the single player for wolf ET fell through as much as it became irrelevant to the multiplayer as it was the focus of the game. Maybe it only seems this way due to the popularity and success it achieved.

(ayatollah) #34

There is no single-player for W:ET…It was canned. RTCW is not W:ET single-player.

(B0rsuk) #35

Don’t worry, I heard they hired bunch of clans to test the bots. They should be pretty polished by now.

WHat do you mean ‘no single player’ !? You you aren’t trying to say Battery was designed with multiplayer in mind, are you ? I bet they just added multiplayer spawns to SP version and that’s how Battery was born.

(Janolsen86) #36

We just have to wait and see if these bots will be any good! Thats it!

(BiggaJigga) #37

SD are implementing it as a way for offline play, as well as online. W:ET would have had a single-player element but that fell through and the multiplayer only element was released. That is the only reason that SD are implemented bots, to appease people who may not have internet connections, or very bad ones.Being able to play the game offline will attract more customers. Dont you agree that ppl with bad or no connection at all should also get a chance to play the game? Perhaps, when they see how good the game actualy plays, they will consider upgradeing their connection. It will also broaden the basis of QW community. Being able to play single and multyplayer will, if only by little, increase game longevity.Will that not make the game more successful?Face it, bots are a standard in today multiplayer games and for a good reason.

I agree. Plus they already made them. There is no point in telling them to take em out or stop what they are doing. The game is finished and they are making sure its perfect for release date.

END OF DISCUSSION. Theres no point arguing, its over. The game is the way it is and they should not remove or add anything at last minute because that will delay the release date once again.

KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS SPLASH DAMAGE. If you delay too long other games will take over. Im sure if there are any problems a quick patch would fix them.

(kamikazee) #38

Quick patch = evil. :evil:
Seriously, they destroy your credibility and could turn off people who were just fine with the way it was.

@Topic:
I once was against bots if they would steal development time. However, seeing how they made it in and were (most likely) partially coded by Maleficius working for id, there is no point to take them out of the game. We’ll see what they look like, and if parts are written in game code, we can still have fun with changing their code for other malicious purposes.

(B0rsuk) #39

How can you be sure adding bots wasn’t the actual reason behind ET:QW being pushed into 2007 ?

(kamikazee) #40

True. However, why would they ask clans to beta-test only in 2007 then?

But speculation aside, it’s now too late to change it anyway, we can’t turn back time.
And is there a better way to kill time on this forum for now? How long till we see a thread of tic-tac-toe?