Replies

Having started with mainframes and punch cards, I am always in awe of these games.

Well, I come in a tad after punch cards (Paper Tape and Lear Siegler ADM-80s on a DEC PDP-8/M).

The best job I ever had was being a video game writer/reviewer for Video Games Magazine and Videogaming Illustrated in the early '80s.

After the great collapse home consoles (Atari 2600/5200, Intelivision, ColecoVision) of 1983, I lost interest when the Nintendo consoles finally came stateside with those miserable little controllers. I also noticed something else. While graphics inproved tremendously, game play sometimes got WORSE. Many of the newer games started to play more like the old laser games, a more-recorded movie with few options. As fire power increased for the user, the ways to die had to grew, and often became more amorphous and seemingly random (compare a death in "Asteroids" with anything that has a "Health" indicator). The first person shooter games are the main exception, but they also have the simplest gameplay. Given the insane amount of processor power, space, storage, and financial resources available for great programmers, I am wonerign where the AI went. Why are there no games (that I know of) that take, say, the old Zork series, and make it FAR more complex, and far more acapableof interpreting natural language? The games still seem to necessarily limit players abilities to break out of the box, because the boundaries remain there, but with higher resolution.

The single player games are highly scripted and I find them annoying sometimes. The multiplayer is really good because you are on your own for the most part. There are two teams divided into squads. There is no scripting at that point. It’s just your team against their team. Teams can be as large as 32 players for a total of 64.
Battlefield differs from Call of Duty in vehicles. BF has jets, helicopters, boats, tanks and other vehicles you can pilot around.

Fallout 4 sounds more like the AI you are referencing. It’s open.