So have we concluded...

[alehm]

Originally posted by Aknot
How am I to believe something on blind faith? ESPECIALLY when it has been proven otherwise? If thats the case I have a bridge in New York to sell you. Well its not totally mine yet BUT in a few years it will be. Hopefully. If everything works out right.

If you believed AI was not scripted in HL2 then you were believing on blind faith.

The traptown video (with the infamous scripted soldier kicking the door in) was actually meant to show off physics not unscripted AI, and if I am not mistaken it was the strider and barricade video which was used to show AI not being scripted. Where Valve went on at length about how the Strider knows by AI it can go underneath the building arch, and how your teammates will follow and lay cover for you blah blah blah....

So if if Valve never said the door kicking in was unscripted how have they been proved otherwise? The only thing that has been proved is what people were believing which was the game was totally unscripted, which is a false assumption.

There are scripts in the game. Remember Dr Klieners lab how Alyx heard the scanners and when they were spotted and the Strider blew up the side of the wall? That whole thing was a script. You think that if the AI was totally random freeform that the scanners would came by exactly after Alyx is finished talking? And the Strider would blow up the same section of wall everytime? No it is scripted.


Regardless, all AI is scripted. Some may be a scripted event, where an NPC does the same thing everytime, some scripts may give the 'illusion' of being unscripted where one time the guy may attack, another time the guy may be taking cover. But in the end, it is all scripts.

 

[Stryyder]

Wouldn't it have been easier to say you agreed with aknot instead of quoting his entire post??

 

[|_HeLL_|]

I have a doubt.

Excuse my n00b point of view, but did you ever thing that maybe the e3 scenes were scripted because it were going also to be used in the benchmark? How is going to be the benchmark? a .dem file running a "fixed" demo in real time or something like this?

Again: I don't know deeply how runs the hl2 bench system.

 

[Stryyder]

Not a bad speculation as all of the E3 demos were part of the Benchmark shown at the Shader days.

 

[Aknot]

Thanks alehm for an intelligent reply appearing to prove me wrong. I do not have access to the E3 videos (with the people talking in the background) here at work, BUT I believe you to be correct. I will check of course when I get home. With that in mind if someone would have access to the barricade "map" and the bridge "blew up" with or without the Strider doing it would that be proof?

I have no problem with scripts being in the game. But if you come out and say that the game has "unscripted" scenes it should have unscripted scenes. Now how many and how much? Dont know. I guess in all actuality if JUST ONE scene is unscripted I guess they could be considered truthful.....

 

[junkie]

Originally posted by AAAAA1
I agree.
But then again, you have to understand that by showing the video, they probably just sold more copies to unfamiliar gamers.

Marketing...

I do understand this; however, I'm talking to someone who is and was always going to get the game. Too many 'momma's boys' want this game NOW! It is very childish and their parents need to beat some patience into them.

 

[AAAAA1]

Too many 'momma's boys' want this game NOW! It is very childish....

Again I agree with you. People should understand that valve is not delaying the game to piss us off. The have valid reasons in there choice.
And besides, Quality rather then Quantity is what I prefer.

I would much rather them release the game with no bugs and be awesome then them release the game with bugs and be glitchy.



Pardon my grammer.

 

[mickey]

Originally posted by Aknot
Thanks alehm for an intelligent reply appearing to prove me wrong. I do not have access to the E3 videos (with the people talking in the background) here at work, BUT I believe you to be correct. I will check of course when I get home. With that in mind if someone would have access to the barricade "map" and the bridge "blew up" with or without the Strider doing it would that be proof?

I have no problem with scripts being in the game. But if you come out and say that the game has "unscripted" scenes it should have unscripted scenes. Now how many and how much? Dont know. I guess in all actuality if JUST ONE scene is unscripted I guess they could be considered truthful.....

u can blow the bridge on d3_c17_13
As u might know the strider is triggered when u walk into the hole in the map ... it walks out and just stands there on the road. When u blow the bridge from the demo, u activate the second trigger, then it walks into the buildings. The strider fires left & right.

Now the thing is the movement of that strider sequence is unfinished, but it always shooting in the same angle and direction, so fully scripted.

Non AI involved.

 

[Aknot]

Originally posted by mickey


Now the thing is the movement of that strider sequence is unfinished, but it always shooting in the same angle and direction, so fully scripted.

Non AI involved.

So based upon that even the "nonscripted" portion of E3 was scripted. Did it look cool? Yes. Will I still buy the game? Yes. Does it appear that someone is telling nontruths? Yes. Does it notch down their creditbility? Yes.

With all this "stuff" floating around it is hard to believe what is truth and what is not when coming out of "Valves" team. Maybe that is why they have grown silent. Someone has "called their bluff" so to speak.

 

[theGreenBunny]

Originally posted by Aknot
So based upon that even the "nonscripted" portion of E3 was scripted. Did it look cool? Yes. Will I still buy the game? Yes. Does it appear that someone is telling nontruths? Yes. Does it notch down their creditbility? Yes.

There's still a couple of other things to consider:
1. This observation was made using a very old build, and the strider AI is obviously not working right. It wouldn't just stand there and do nothing if it was the final AI, it would at least shoot.

2. We don't know whether it (talking about the door-sequence now, as the strider thing isn't valid) will still be a scripted event when we get the game. Granted, it's something of a remote chance, let's hope they pull it off.

Compared to Gabe & co we're a bunch of ignorant fools jabbering about something we've hardly seen in (it's most recent state). I hope Valve will say something about this, but they probably won't *sigh*

Hard to decide what to believe, our eyes or Valve. The eyes sure have been telling us a lot more than Valve though.

 

[HeatMiser]

OK, I've been trying really hard to stay out of this and all other threads like it, but things are getting ridiculous. (I didn't read it all either, so sorry if this has been discussed already.)

Here's how I think it breaks down if people would just calm down and think for a second: every single movement, footstep, gunshot, grunt, EVERYTHING that an AI character in any video game ever made does is scripted. Everything.

You think they just provide NPCs with virtual bones and muscles and let them figure out walking for themselves? No, that's idiotic. It is SCRIPTED. You think they just provide AI characters with weapons and wait for them to accidentally pull the trigger (and hope the gun is pointing the right way)? Of course not. It's SCRIPTED.

What separates the AI in games like Half-Life and Half-Life 2 from the average shooter game is the number of BRANCHES in the code, which manifest themselves as choices allowed to the NPCs. In games like the original Quake (to take a random example), the monster attack logic was very simplistic (apologies to any real programmers out there):

If (player is in sight)
  do (roar and wave weapon and approach)
    and if (real close)
        do (melee attack)
    else if (not real close)
        do (ranged attack)
else do (just stand there)

Then you get a game like the original Half-Life and look at the military troops, and things get much more complicated:

If (player is in sight)
    and if (real close)
        do (kneel and fill full of machine gun lead)
             and if (cover is available)
                  do (peek out from behind crate)
             else if (cover is available somewhere else)
                  randomly do one of the following
                         - stay put and fire
                         - fire briefly and run for cover
                         - fall back and snipe
                         - fall back and toss grenade
                         - run out of the room
                         - etc.
             else if (buddies are nearby)
                   randomly do one of the following
                         - stay put and fire
                         - join buddies and fire
                         - run out of the room
                         - stand there and get blown up by buddy's grenade (oops)
                         - etc.

Of course it's more complicated than that, but you get the idea. NPCs have a "repertoire" of actions; a range of possible directions to travel in the map; obstacles; friends and enemies to approach/flee from/attack; and that's about it. Outstanding AI results from a large number of these choices (some of them more interesting than others) and clever/creative criteria for making these choices. Plus the right proportion of random chance.

So when a Combine soldier breaks through a door, do you really think it's because the AI is blessed with an understanding of game physics and the properties of doors and bookcases and tables, and puts it all together in his tiny AI brain? Or goes around mentally testing every surface in the game for its kickability quotient? Of course not. The actual mechanics of kicking in a door are, you guessed it, programmed or SCRIPTED into the game. What will NOT be scripted, though, is the full sequence of events in that scene surrounding the notorious door moment. And when E3 is not on the line, kicking in the door will be only one of several things that could randomly happen, depending on the circumstances and timing. This being an E3 demo, though, Valve of course wants to demonstrate the coolest thing happening so they temporarily eliminated the more boring choices. Big whoop.

---

This recent strider discussion is a different matter and potentially more troubling, I guess we'll see. Although it seems to me that anybody doing personal testing is executing a *.cfg in order to get things working (please correct me if I'm wrong there) and those *.cfgs are not necessarily representative of the (clearly unfinished) final game logic, and possibly won't be part of the final game at all; they may be something that was cooked up for E3.

 

[Stryyder]

good post (above)

 

[Hallucinogen]

We concluded that you are a n00b

 

[Aknot]

So if NPC 1 is coded to go into a, lets say barricaded building and his instructions (code) states to use the path of less resistance after evaluating each entrance, (Large breakable window, Door, Ladder to another window) are you stating that that is scripted in the sense that that same NPC ALWAYS goes to the door.

 

[iamironsam]

HeatMiser, good post, way to break it down for the people. Some folks seems to have computer game AI mixed up with like The Matrix's Mr. Smith AI.

Also, did it occur to anyone that the dude playing through the e3 demonstration had probably gone through it at least 25 times in that one weekend? What if he was playing through and he was accidently killed, became trapped, or things otherwise didn't go as planned? What's he gonna say "Oh crap, hold on, let me replay that map for you. Hold on while I restart." The e3 demo had to be scripted so the demonstrator could pay attention to what he was trying to show off and have time to talk about it, instead of getting gunned down by the AI.

And honesty, adding a couple lines to HeadMisers pseudocode to have the AI shoot through glass and kick in doors would not be incredibly hard. There's absolutely no reason Valve couldn't pull it off.

 

[Clush]

HeatMiser - great post

totally cleared it up for me

 

[theGreenBunny]

(Note: This wasn't entirely clear from your post HeatMiser, so I thought I'd post it)

There's a difference between programming logic and scripting in the sense of creating events to happen with special, and usually one-time-use, coding.

Like the alyx/scanners/strider-blowing-wall-apart thing mentioned earlier, that was what is usually referred to as 'scripted'. While the normal monster AI responding to different kinds of situations ("Look! A door! D'oh, can't open it. Let's kick it in!") is referred to as, well, AI or unscripted stuff, things that have an interactive-ness to them.

Apparently some people mix those things up, so good clarifying post HeatMiser

 

[HeatMiser]

Thanks for the generally supportive replies - after I woke up a bit more and looked again I saw more "cranky know-it-all" vibe than I intended, but that's just the way it goes sometimes...

Originally posted by Aknot
So if NPC 1 is coded to go into a, lets say barricaded building and his instructions (code) states to use the path of less resistance after evaluating each entrance, (Large breakable window, Door, Ladder to another window) are you stating that that is scripted in the sense that that same NPC ALWAYS goes to the door.

I'm not really sure what the decision criteria will be; "path of least resistance" sounds reasonable, although I imagine there might be other things. Maybe if you don't move the table they just walk in? Maybe if you stand by the window they just shoot at you and don't even come in at all? I don't really know, I'm just trying to kind of invent definitions for, umm, "micro-scripting" (pre-programmed actions such as kicking in the door) which I think is what some people are upset about even though it's unavoidable, and "macro-scripting" (chains of events which always occur in the same manner, such as the "disaster" sequence in the beginning of the original Half-Life, which always goes the same way no matter what you do) and distinguish between the two.

As a counter-example to the complaints of excessive "macro-scripting" in the HL2 demo, I've heard reports *cough* that it's possible to duplicate the buggy demo sequence in the stolen alpha, and in so doing sometimes lose the alien ship entirely and thus bypass the really cool rocket battle among the wrecked cars. So one could conclude that the very exciting climax to that segment that we saw in the official demos was not "macro-scripted" at all; it was just a product of the AI and good timing.


iamironsam - good point there. Yeah I'm thinking they got rid of the more boring outcomes, and freeing the demonstrator to not have to carefully follow a certain path sounds like a great reason.

theGreenBunny - thanks for condensing my wild ramblings into something a conclusion that makes sense and is short enough that people will actually read it.

 

[Mr. Redundant]

just a thought, but did anyone think that perhaps this leak was but a storyboard?

in other words, that this is a lot of placeholder stuff that was created to show things that they wanted to implement?

Do we know how old this is? nope
how dare we even speculate....
this arguement holds no logic. lets drop it like the mature adults we are.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

*SIGH* This is all I have to say, reading some of the stupid post on here have gotten me stressed out, at well...people's stupidy.
Frankly, I don't care what happened in the demo, it's the final game that matters to me. If you wouldn't have d/led the game, you wouldn't be bent out of shape, you little thieves. Just wait till the game comes out in the next month, or two.

-Ghost.

 

[indyjones]

First of all. dont' f*cking tell me I can't post questions -obviously my question sparked quite a discussion on this user FORUM !!! Quit being the little bitch ass hall monitor.

Second, I'm not dumb enough to ask Valve about a leaked demo, however you ARE f*cking dumb enough not to read correctly. I said based on the rumors, perhaps Valve could clear a few gameplay promises up for us. Do I care if its truly unscripted AI? Not really. But I would like for once to get a straight answer on something with this game. If we were led to believe something about the game that isnt true, as a consumer we have a right to know. Also, I was merely posing the question: Are people over reacting based on an early build or is this game more scripted than we thought.

You folks need to relax and let a fella ask a damn question without getting insulted. I'm done with this damn forum. Later.

 

[rafiki]

Originally posted by Aknot
OK. If Valve tells you the sky is red and they show you a picture that the sky is red you accept it. If Valve tells you the sequence is scripted and it APPEARS not to be you still believe them. I dont care if it was a Demo or not. I go by what people tell me. If they are proven incorrect (which it appears) they loose credibility. I start to question if the "product" is as good as they want us to believe. How am I to believe something on blind faith? ESPECIALLY when it has been proven otherwise?

i think the major point is that it hasnt been proven otherwise.

no matter what anyone says,until the retail game is released,ANYTHING anyone says about the game is pure and utter speculation.
noone KNOWS exactly what this smacked ass of a hacker actually got from valve(except of course the smackass himself) because the only thing anyone KNOWS is what the poopstain has said.
he could have everything and a side of fries,OR he could have a small portion and added a bunch of filler to make it seem more complete.

noone knows for sure what exactly he has/had/will have exept him.

edit: i dont want to seem as if i am picking on anyone, so please aknot,dont take this personally,youve just made a few points i wanted to address.

With all this "stuff" floating around it is hard to believe what is truth and what is not when coming out of "Valves" team. Maybe that is why they have grown silent. Someone has "called their bluff" so to speak.

or,maybe they grow tired of having everything they make public twisted and or misquoted.

 

[Peleus]

Can anyone give me ONE piece of evidence that the door in the E3 demo was scripted???

Secondly they never even said it wasn't, they said the barricade scene wasn't scripted.

Oh and just before anyone decides to point me towards the stupid beta that people try and use for proof, don't people realise ITS NOT THE SAME STAGE. It was either before or incomplete compared to the E3 demo so really whats in that as opposed to the real game.

Someone said ages ago, if valve said the sky was red and then showed me a photo of the sky being red, would I believe them? The answer, I would believe them, because I have NO reason what so ever that they are lying, and I would keep believing them until I could go outside and see for myself. (Assuming of course I've never seen the sky before)

No one at the moment can see for themselves so stop trying to use some incomplete hacked up old code as evidence for a flaw in a future game that isn't even finished.

 

[MultiVaC]

Here's my take on the E3 demo:

Each different scene shows off a different aspect of the game:

G-Man: facial expressions
Tech Demo: overview of the Source engine
Docks: graphics and t3h 1337 water shaders
Kliener's Lab: "Emotional characters"
Traptown: physics
Barricade: AI
Buggy: vehicle madness=fun! :bounce:
Strider: overall wrap-up/ain't it cool?

Our famous door-kick scene was in Traptown, the physics portion of the demonstration. It's purpose wasn't to demonstrate AI; it was to make the scene more dramatic, and to show off the door hitting the table, the table tipping over, the boxes falling off the table and the paint cans rolling out of the boxes. That's a pretty complex physical reaction, and the door-kick was the perfect way to show it off. Will the kicking of the door be scripted in the actual game? That remains to be seen. Remember, you guys are playing a really early beta. Either way, the E3 demo wasn't a big fat lie. The AI was shown off in Barricade, that's the only place they said "unscripted".

 

[Unnamed_Player]

Here's an idea. You know that part of the post where you're supposed to put a topic? How about you put a topic there! There goes a whole 10 seconds of my life I'll never get back!

 

[Kamakiri]

Originally posted by PiMuRho
and some people will never accept that most of us just don't care

If it's scripted or unscripted, does it stop it being fun? No.

Yeah I agree. Why is everyone so up in arms about this?

 

[Dr. Freeman]

Re: Re: So have we concluded...

Originally posted by Parasite
Btw, are you ****ing retarded? Do you really thing anyone at Valve is going to answer questions about an illegal, anauthorized LEAked demo of the game? Let me state once again...
VALVE DOES NOT OFFER TECH SUPPORT TO FVKING RETARDED THEIVES!!!!

this little bit of Parasite's post made me laugh.. especially the last sentence even im pretty sure he was being more sensible in that instance than comical

scripted events or not, the game will be fun regardless.. besides think of it logically.. u need scripted events so the story can move along... otherwise pple may not clear SP..

i think of scripted events as sort of like a guide through some parts of the game and don't mind them.. some of the ones in HL1 were neat

 

[Xtasy0]

Originally posted by ElFuhrer
Here's my take on the E3 demo:

Each different scene shows off a different aspect of the game:

G-Man: facial expressions
Tech Demo: overview of the Source engine
Docks: graphics and t3h 1337 water shaders
Kliener's Lab: "Emotional characters"
Traptown: physics
Barricade: AI
Buggy: vehicle madness=fun! :bounce:
Strider: overall wrap-up/ain't it cool?

Our famous door-kick scene was in Traptown, the physics portion of the demonstration. It's purpose wasn't to demonstrate AI; it was to make the scene more dramatic, and to show off the door hitting the table, the table tipping over, the boxes falling off the table and the paint cans rolling out of the boxes. That's a pretty complex physical reaction, and the door-kick was the perfect way to show it off. Will the kicking of the door be scripted in the actual game? That remains to be seen. Remember, you guys are playing a really early beta. Either way, the E3 demo wasn't a big fat lie. The AI was shown off in Barricade, that's the only place they said "unscripted".

in addition, gabe said that the Allie's were unscripted and their AI was deciding when they should advance, he didnt outright say the whole barricade part was unscripted.

 

[Parasite]

The AI needs hints to guide them, much like HL...Valve isnt boasting about AI in HL2 as much as they are boasting the source engines capabilities for AI. HL2 will probably be almost entirely scripted. (BTW, Valve hasent boasted the AI to nearly the extent that so many of you seem to think...its mostly hype thats been blown out of proportion)

AI DOES NOT mean that each NPC is a robot capable of analyzing a situation, weigh all possible outcomes of an action and act accordingly...its not designed to give them "virtual brains", and allow them to walk arounf the world gaining knowledge and memories. They cant do anything on thier own and they cant do anything they arent programmed to do. They have a set number of actions they can do, and they have a set number of actions they can respond to. Hint brushes help guide those actions and responses...scripting assures that a certian scenario will play out. Certian scenarios HAVE TO play out to guide the story, and make the game fun.

Mod authors will be able to design some incredible bots based off the source engines AI capabilities. HL2 may have an SP deathmatch option that really allows for unscripted AI, but the SP experience will not. It absolutely NEEDS scripting. REMEMBER, SP NPCs are not robots meant to act completely on thier own. Its simply not possible...the story needs scripting.

 

[Aknot]

Maybe someone needs to get a definition of what scripted and "un" scripted AI is? And then make sure it is the same definition that Valve is using. "WE" may think it means one thing where as a few others may think something else and some more may even know what they think is scripted/unscripted AI.

Using the barricaeded door scenerio.

To me Unscripted AI would be:
The "bad guys" (BG) would keep and follow a last line of sight of my character, up to a point. Meaning if I went down a street and turned a corner they would go down the street turn a corner if I was not visible they would "roll a dice" and randomly pick a viable path that was open. One time they may go to a door. Next time a window, a third time they may run past. Add in a "sound" factor that would increas their cjhances of a certain route. So they would hit the corner and if close enough to hear footsteps on stairs, door close etc. would tilt the percentage in that favor.

Scripted AI would be:
The BG would keep and follow a last line of sight of my character, up to a point. Then either would go to the same place EVERYTIME and do the same thing OR would always follow me regardless of sight and sound.

Any thoughts?

 

[Parasite]

To me scripted sequences and AI are seperate. In a scripted sequence the "script" overrides the AI for the most part, the enemies are meant to engage the player in a certian way and follow a certian path, usually to "shove" the player along a certian route that is essential to story. Remember, Valve tries to guide a story without cutscenes, voice overs or constantly reading crap or getting incoming messages with updated objectives and so on. Scripting is essential to the way they drive a story.

In the instance of the traptown door, imo that entire sscenario is scripted, in that the BG are scripted to force Gordon into that room and then figure out how to get into the room to get at gordon. I dont think they are scripted to "rattle door handle, shoot thru window, kick in door", but the AI has a fixed set of paramaters to play from, and that is the most likely set of actions they will try at that point in the game. But at that point it doesnt matter...the script has acheived its purpose...to get Gordon on the roof so he can proceed to the next part of the level. I think scripts will constantly try to persued the player to take the most interesting path as intended by the developers.

 

[Aknot]

The only problem I would have with that type of "script" is why force the player there. Leave it up to the player to figure that out. Give him one or two ways to get to the roof. Lets say the stairs via the building and possibly a fire escape on the outside. Forcing a player to an area makes the game (IMO) to linear. Imagine if you will two people talking aobut the same "area" with two or more different solutions. And it really does not take that much more effort.

 

[Parasite]

Well, "force" is a bad term...guide is more like it. The player will have alternatives Im sure. Hell, you can probably avoid the roof altogether, but then you miss out on the swinging beam and grenade dumpster thing. There will definatly be a most interesting path, as well as secret paths with hidden suprizes and whatnot I bet. But only one (maybe more, never know) that the developers reeaaaaaly want the player to take, and made a point of dropping fun obstackles for them and so on, and that path may not be as obvious without some scripting to guide you.


EDIT: We dont know that there isnt several ways onto the roof, so it we cant make that assumption. Also, any story driven SP game is linear, it cant be avoided...certian events are only going to happen in one place and Gordon needs to go there. there wont be any cutscenes showing Gordon get into a car and drive to that place. Its the designers job to get gordon there, so he will need to be guided down a fairly linear path.

 

[Aknot]

Yeah but getting there is half the fun. Within reason of course. I realize it has to be linear to a point but with (scripted?) points that you can have triggers at to spawn and or create different scenerios "at that time" makes it more "non" linear in a linear fashion. Did that make sense?

 

[Parasite]

Yeah, I follow you, I dont doubt the game will be that way. I am also pretty sure there will be multiple routes thru the game, as well as multiple endings...but I think the AI running the NPCs will be minimal.

I think the AI will really shine in TF2, or another game that is less about story and more about tactics. Thats one of the big things that bugs me about this conversation...HL2 doesnt need that level of unscripted AI. The enemies will engage the player in a way we havent seen before, but not "conseincly"(sp?)...not like they would if the needed to for tactical reasons. I dont think its nescessary for HL2 to be fun.

Also, and this is directed at you Aknot, but in general. I never heard Valve say anything to the effect that HL2 would be in any way unscripted. The AI is a source feature that isnt nescessarily exploited by HL2 to its fullest extent...but its not a limit of the engine, its just not usefull for the type of experience that HL2 is meant to provide.

 

[genocide604]

I think the scripted events will not stick out as much in the final version of the game... that was just for the e3 demonstration...

AI,Physics will take a major role.. but ai keeps the games storyline intact.

 

[Parasite]

Originally posted by genocide604
I think the scripted events will not stick out as much in the final version of the game... that was just for the e3 demonstration...

AI,Physics will take a major role.. but ai keeps the games storyline intact.

You mean scripting keeps the story in tact?

 

[iamironsam]

Bottom line is the e3 demo was exactly that, a demo. It was never ment to be analyzed and scrutanized like this. It's called a proof-of-concept or prototype demonstration. It doesn't have to work exactly the way they say it's going to at that point, just as long as they live up to the promise in the long run. Chip manufacturers show off engineering demos that perform incredibly, but that one chip costs more to fabricate than an entire batch of the retail version. Car manufacturers often show off prototypes of cars that are nothing more than superficial shells built around existing frames. You are allowed to do this.

When the game comes out, if it has scripted squences, then you have a reason to ride Valves ass. Till then, you can't hold anything in the never officially released version against them.

 

[Aknot]

Originally posted by iamironsam

When the game comes out, if it has scripted squences, then you have a reason to ride Valves ass. Till then, you can't hold anything in the never officially released version against them.

I can rides Valves ass (as you so eloquently put it) over anything I want. My speculation is based on their speculation. They speculate it will work "X" way I am speculating something else.

Do people purposely come in here with a sharp stick and jab people to provoke a reaction?

If a car manufacture shows me a prototype and I dont like the way the lights are I am going to say something about that if I am really interested in that car.

Input, feedback before the game goes live is the best way a consumer of software can voice their concerns. Cant buy the game get fed up with it and return it because "its crappy AI". SO I voice my concerns ahead of time.

 

[Xtasy0]

Originally posted by Aknot
I can rides Valves ass (as you so eloquently put it) over anything I want. My speculation is based on their speculation. They speculate it will work "X" way I am speculating something else.

Do people purposely come in here with a sharp stick and jab people to provoke a reaction?

If a car manufacture shows me a prototype and I dont like the way the lights are I am going to say something about that if I am really interested in that car.

Input, feedback before the game goes live is the best way a consumer of software can voice their concerns. Cant buy the game get fed up with it and return it because "its crappy AI". SO I voice my concerns ahead of time.

if you're basing your purchasing decision on AI then you're buying it for the wrong reason(s).