The Main Problems of Arma/Arma 2

[vasmkd 12]

All those that love original flashpoint, just wait till Cold War Rearmed 2 comes out.

Operation Flashpoint CWC and Resistance in ARMA 2, can't beat that

[highfly 10]

is it in the pipeline ? any release date ? sounds pretty cool!

cheers

[Deadfast 43]

• You had to* wait for co-gamers ... you waited up to half an hour. There was time to talk and build up an atmosphere.
  
• You than *had to* stay in that game for not being banned on that server, if you would just leave without proper reason.
  
• There was something like group feeling for a two hours of a cti mission, no steady comin and goin.
  

• You had to pray you don't drop out of the game. If you did there was time to build up your anger level towards your ISP/drivers/Windows/bug :)
  

[nyran125 10]

As far as this post is concerned if you dont like BIS's campaign , make your own. Thats what the editor is there for. And as far as having loads of little islands, i think with Arma 2, if you picked one area and played that area over and over, you could get just as fimiliar with it , like you did in OFP.

Just make missions based around certain areas of Chernogorsk or something. And i dont understand the comment about "it looks like a bad real environment". It looks more realistic than any other environment ive seen in a video game thats fleshed out like this. When your sitting in a forest in Arma 2 , it almost feels like you could be sitting in one of your local forests down the road. And some of the clearings where the forest ends, i feel is incredably realistic the way the trees just fan out and stop. Well it is, if you live somewhere like i do, in New Zealand, most of my country looks like what they have created in Arma 2 so maybe it feels more homely to me, lol..

i disagree, i think Arma 2 looks realistic as hell. As far as variety goes, theres an expansion coming that SHOULD have some larger urban environments and be more variety your looking for. But i think Utes and Chenerus look very different to each other and alot of areas in Chenerus look completely different to other areas of Chenerus. (The churches and some of the buildings unfortunately look the same, they could of done some more church models)

Edited September 25, 2009 by nyran125

[vilas 473]

for me main Arma2 problem is :

- lack of realism althought BIS uses "ultimate...." words

weapons ranges and such like values of weapons are wrong, surrealistic sometime, not realistic

if it will be fixed than missions in SP will be realistic

- next problem is changed OPF/Arma1 menu of command, i like old

- next problem is lack of FLIR for modern sights, current engine of Arma is good for historic addons , not for modern, i like history, so i can live without FLIR untill i play with SKS, FAL, Leopard1 etc.

but top-modern vehicles without FLIR sound stupid

- lack of bulletproof materials to built addons according to realism behaviour of armored vehicles

what i would love to see in A2:

- fixed weapon ranges for realism

- fixed menu to old OFP/A1 style (example heal options and etc)

- OFP (not Elite) islands reworked :D

[Herbal Influence 10]

• You had to pray you don't drop out of the game. If you did there was time to build up your anger level towards your ISP/drivers/Windows/bug :)
  

Yeah, that was part of the excitement! ;-)

There is no instant-constant-immediate-excitement.

That was a real-life-like-danger! Real life lags and has it's bugs too ..... it's just another window and not the best one ! ;-)

[Arma-2-Guru 55]

It's a similar thing what happened to the Halo series, everyone complained that Halo 2 wasn't as good as Halo 1, but that was because they expected more and it wasn't as groundbreaking as Halo 1, ArmA 2 FTW!

[chefd261 0]

Was not going to touch this one but as I have been around since the start of OFP day one US release I feel I may have some insight in regards to one often overlooked point.When OFP started it was given some very harsh review's some people out and out hated it ,most people were looking at it along side Ghost Recon (they had very close release dates) it was not until the release of resistance that In my opinion things really changed in the minds of the majority (yes I realize that many loved the game pre resistance as well minus mods).I think that ALL BIS games take time to mature and all (ArmA 1 included) have something that just has not been seen since the days of SWAT 3 and The Original Rainbow Six series (point of note I do realize that the are new mod friendly games as well those two came to mind for a time reference),BIS Games are all VERY MOD FRIENDLY.As the game (OFP) became more popular the general feel of it and perception of it changed people who once said this game sucks and offers nothing changed to this game rocks and can be a milestone for squad mil sims (once again disclaimer I know This was not how most of you felt I am making reference to the community as a whole).In closing I think as long as the community remains strong and patient the same thing will happen again It.

Cheer's ChefD

www.Jsoc-gamer.org

P.S. Sorry for the long winded rant

Edited September 25, 2009 by chefd261
had to edit txt

[chris330 0]

I liked OFP's scenery alot. Now, it was very low tech and I believe it does need improvements but Arma 2 is in the Uncanny valley where its so good at being a video game environment that it looks like a bad real environment. I liked the simplicity of OFP. I saw the enemy and fired at him.

Someone pointed out that OFP had a cartooney feeling. I kinda agree but it made the game more enjoyable (at least on the xbox) and less serious.

Arma 2 seems to be in the Uncanny Valley...

There is an immense amount of wisdom in both these statements. It took me years to understand and be aware of this concept. I would agree exactly. To be honest I don't like ArmA or ArmA 2. Both to me feel like Flashpoint with just better visuals. In ArmA 2's case incredible visuals, the best I've ever played in my life.

I've always wanted to program my own game and I agree I would want it to look slightly cartoony to retain the fantasy element (i.e. it's not real life) and also keep system overheads down while focussing most of my time on rock solid playing experience quality. It seems once a game looks too good something changes in the mind and it starts almost to feel bad in some weird way because it's so far advanced the brain is now comparing it to something else.

I'd best describe it as saying I'm 100 times more excited looking at a model railway than I am looking at an exact replica of that model in real life 100% scale. Also I see no improvements whatsoever in the AI in ArmA 2 from OFP. It's all visual improvements with some bells and whistles added on. Tanks still crash into each other, there's no inside rendering of vehicles for crew anymore in some vehicles - BMP for example - it just feels hollow to me with hopeless AI but the visuals I could get lost in for days they're so nice.

If someone could release a setvector command for OFP or allowed game engine code access I'd have stayed with that to be honest cos I could have done whatever I wanted with it. I really think the time's come for me to get an engine and start making my own stuff outside of the bounds of using other manufacturer's products.

Really good post mate ignore the no brainer one-liner put down merchants. Counter Strike kids are sadly where alot of today's market is which is why games always skimp heavily on AI to produce brilliant graphics as this is the only real way for them to operate because otherwise they are running on a business model which is not viable and no company in a capitalist real world can afford to do that. As long as it looks and sounds good and gives good short term satisfaction the CS kids will buy it in droves. You can see that on here there is a clear distinction between intelligent players and players who just like the idea of playing a soldier.

It always follows the same pattern. The bright ones get annoyed at seeing something with so much potential under-achieve and try and do things to bring it up to standard through code and the like, whilst the others either just make fancy signatures and do loads of MP playing or make yet more addons to use within a game which does not need any more work done on vehicles but needs work doing on improving the game play experience.

Given the considered and generally far superior nature of those with brains - or those that use their brains - they often get very fed up with the attitude and one liner rude comments of those who are less gifted or enlightened at the time due to attitude or younger age or a combination of both.

BIS seems always to try to run the fine line by providing something for both uptight teenage internet warriors and genuine serving or ex soldiers whilst also giving something to attract more intellectual players too. I think most of the time however the status quo benefits mainly the less gifted shoot em up players. The brighter lads just get fed up and move on, occasionally dipping back in now and then only to be reminded why they moved on before.

Thanks for your post it was really good! ;)

[Herbal Influence 10]

There is an immense amount of wisdom in both these statements.

(...)

BIS seems always to try to run the fine line by providing something for both uptight teenage internet warriors and genuine serving or ex soldiers whilst also giving something to attract more intellectual players too. I think most of the time however the status quo benefits mainly the less gifted shoot em up players. The brighter lads just get fed up and move on, occasionally dipping back in now and then only to be reminded why they moved on before.

Thanks for your post it was really good! ;)

Thank you for sharing these quite deep thoughts on the subject.

I enjoyed reading.

But it left me with such a bitter taste.:o

Don't we hope there is that "fine line" you mentioned that makes it possible to enjoy the evolution of the game?

Also I am not sure whether we don't do this discussion on the "Uncanny Valley"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

in five years again, claiming that AA2 was quite a cartoon compared with AA3?

Didn't we consider OF as being quite video-realistic too? I did.

And I think I did in 1984 when doing games on my VC-64 ... :o

Because I think, I did compare that to ping-pong on the TV screen ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JyAICTiFMM&feature=related

Edited September 26, 2009 by Herbal Influence

[chris330 0]

Ya I would agree OFP at the time to me looked awesome. ArmA1/2 I would have preferred less graphics and much better AI or modd-able AI. I can tell just by playing very little has moved on since OFP in gameplay just some more upgrades no real change to the fundamental principles. To me it seems a dreadful waste. Also I still see poor viewing distance issues and lots of stutter when flying.

I do wish a setvector command could be made for OFP. I've been learning OGRE anyways. If I want a game to be what I want then there's a long road ahead :rolleyes:

I'm not even criticising BIS they have to make games to an established business model or they are finished. So much more could have happened in the gameplay since 2001 though, and it just hasn't. Anyways I've got nothing left to say ;)

[Herbal Influence 10]

And don't you forget about the new AI-intelligence - which therefore consumes a lot cpu-power.

The new AI-powers are really great - there are several threads about it.

It's really a thrill how they hide and seek nowadays ;-)

[grub 10]

Wow this is a great thread for absorption. Its been said already but I just want to say I agree.

ArmA2 is way more flashpointy (its a word) than ArmA. And again with the new AI and Islands it feels to me that its everything OpF wanted to be but couldn't.

BI, in my opinion are just getting it down pat with new technology at hand. I think as fans we can expected great things to come both from the community and BI.

Love BI, if they were female I'd be too intimidated to talk to them. I'd just head over to Ubisoft or Illusion and have a chat.;)

[Second 0]

And don't you forget about the new AI-intelligence - which therefore consumes a lot cpu-power.

The new AI-powers are really great - there are several threads about it.

It's really a thrill how they hide and seek nowadays ;-)

LOL yeah! In fact when it was barely broken in ArmA and was never fixed, now ArmA2 has taken clear signs of progress... They seem to have taken it away totally atleast from demo! AI leader doesn't give hide or take cover orders at all, not even for brief 0.1 second like in ArmA. BIS amazes me even more. :confused:

One probably still can script it... I've learned to hate that sentence.

[chris330 0]

I'm glad to see really good debate here. Remember however my post above, although long and well thought out, is just a point of view and nothing more. It might be shared by many and thus considered 'the truth'. It might be shared by few and thus considered 'false'. It's just a point of view that's all. It has value provided it is expressed without negative emotional drives and motives.

The last post by the way pretty much sums up my feelings on the game. It *could* be scripted. I'm not convinced ArmA 2 is up to a full AI re-work and by the time one considers a hopeless flight model such as that demonstrated by the Hercules in full flap config, and also the stuttering and far too low view distance especially obvious when flying around the ultimate question for me is...

Wouldn't I just be better learning C++ and building from scratch? As it happens I am. One thing this place has and always will have going for it though is how helpful & knowledgeable people are in the off-topic section shown in the replies by Balschiow and others in my recent threads. If I ever need a technical question of almost any form answering I head here first.

Some of the C++ forums stink of elite-ism. I also found the OGRE forums and implementation a tad over-whelming. Worth it I think in the end though.

I'd have preferred OFP with tidier and more optimised graphics and more scripting commands and possibly even the option to somehow compile code so it ran as fast as the engine code. You could have put that package together several years ago (not bothered with ArmA and ArmA 2) and put a price of £100 on it I'd have bought it if it meant total functionality access and continued developer optimisation of graphics engine.

To be frank I think with the community support Bohemia has had I don't know why they didn't even just release an expensive version with the engine code open. Christ this community would have made stuff for them to optimise and improve things and this could have been checked by BIS developers to ensure quality and stuff. So you'd have had loads of work done by the community which users wouldn't have even charged anything for and essentially increased the staff base of the game hundreds of times or more and made this by now the most user interactable and best game of all time.

By now if they'd followed that route it could have morphed into a serious platform producing whole game genres like role playing games and stuff as well as military games. Could even have used it to make puzzle games in some bizarre way. Stealth play could have been coded into it by now too.

The current format of producing a game as a stand alone product with basically almost unchanged AI (by comparison to where it could be) from the original but with more graphics and gimmicks yet denying users total game access yet also trying to tempt modders to buy it with more and more bolt-on afterwards yet still limited means of editing....... means basically it's got its feet partially in both camps. No good.

Either make 1)An uneditable action game (limited appeal) or 2)A fully editable yet unpolished game (not really attractive enough to sell) or 3)Do something novel like above by making it open source and accepting developer approved user made code into the game so as to produce something that can be made into anything - this can very quickly become anything you want it to be.

Given I'm mainly interested in making something how I really want it to be, I'm not interested in having to perform keyhole surgery on a half/half action/editable game like this one only to find a whole host of stuff I'd need access to, to make something good is barred from me because the Dev team were too short staffed to be able to include that functionality in the release.

Yes I could if I wanted to write a big script which made giving orders to tank crews alot easier with regards to having the tanks actually steer properly and sensibly from commander view, or write code to get AI drivers to avoid collisons much better than they do now etc... but what's the point sinking all that time and effort in; knowing that at some point in the future I'll hit something which is a brick wall - like the setpitch problem in OFP, which completely destroys my scope of making the game what I want. I'm better off going with my own engine, I understand physics engines well enough to develop my own with some good books I've read (Ian Millington's was good) and my education background. Given a year or two I'll be manipulating OGRE/Unity3D well enough and probably have begun to understand collision detection and the like.

So by the end what's a serious developer/gamer left with in ArmA 2? Not much really. The chance to add a few very sophisticated bolt-ons to the game which take the form of either yet more ultra sleek addons - said with sincerity not sarcasm - or some fancy scripts to simulate special graphic effects or one time unit behaviour which isn't transferrable to the game as a whole. Adding unit behaviour changing scripts is a waste of time because if you really want a complete solution you need to do it for all unit types in all environments, this means access to standard AI coding for all units, and collision detection and object detection etc..... Making more addons is pointless for me because they'll all still be limited to accessing the game through the same unsatisfying behaviour producing interface no matter how nice they look. Most addons in OFP were never even used in any missions, including some of the really sopisticated ones.

I did toy with the idea of using markers placed inside buildings for ofp. A certain marker type for a certain building, which means an AI unit nearby could access the nearest marker and work out where all the buildings walls were and so behave very appropriately. Why bother? I'd have to run this script for every AI unit. Would this be fast enough like the compiled engine code which defaults AI unit behaviour? Unlikely, I'm not sure tho, still it's no way to be having to go about things.

So for me it's either done entirely or not at all. The present format is too limiting and frustrating to take seriously.

Edited September 29, 2009 by chris330
Noob with spelling properly.

[txalin 2]

Let me repost the same text i posted on expansion thread, i thinks its apply very well here:

Let me make a positive critic, this is my personal point of view.

The biggest thing i think BIS needs for OA is not related to engine fixes or campaigns, it's a major improve of their internal beta testing procedures. All BIS games have been bugged on the release, but the problem is that the bugs where easily found by the users, so, it's obviously that the internal beta testing process is very very bad.

From my point of view, and my laboral experience, Marek and Ondrej should thake a deep look here and apply that to developmet process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_testing

I think this is a bigger problem than BIS and community thinks. Pc users have the feeling that BIS games are only playable after four or five patches, and i know about 30 people who says that they will buy the game after that patches were released, other people will simply download the game and other will not play the game and spread the fact that BIS games are bugged on main pc games forums (for example, if you know spanish, go to www.media-vida.com, one of the biggest spanish gaming community, forums and take a look to the arma2 thread).

For example, when i announce the expansion in an small community the first answer was: "Great, welcome new bugs, bye bye old bugs"

Thats a very bad propaganda for BIS games, and i think that should be priority number one on the internal BIS development process. A game/expansion without bugs is better than the same expansion with new features but with the old and new bugs.

Obviously distributors always want to have the game finished on the date specified on the contract, but it's always better to delay that date and finish the beta testing process, and if the distributor don't understand that (hi Morphicon guys) maybe you should find a new one who were more flexible on that point.

As i said before, this is my personal opinion, but based on my 8 years experience on system administration and my experience with "brand new software" uninstalled from my servers when i found critical bugs that make my platform unstable.

Regards.

[chris330 0]

That sounds like something I've thought of too. The releases are indeed very buggy and need fixing before release not after.

Things like proper AI coding though are I think beyond the scope of proper play-testing. A whole project is required to do this and I don't think BIS are up to it resources wise right now.

To be honest I heard they're making so much money with VBS that ArmA releases 1 & 2 were just afterthoughts released to make a bit of money which they aren't really taking seriously. The fairly obvious unchanged aspects of most of the game since the first great one in 2001 would tend to support the idea that someone noticed OFP then paid them to produce VBS and they've had almost all their resources aimed at that since. There was a time when the programmer's would post on the forums fairly often, not anymore I think.

If I get anywhere with C++ and OGRE/Unity I might just throw open my project all open source at the world wide web so folks can make a game whatever way they want.

I wouldn't buy any game made by someone else anymore for anything other than fun or a bit of entertainment along the way.

[froggyluv 2130]

Maybe it's just me but I'd rather BIS stay ambitious and make war sim games that maybe somewhat buggy and not totally optimized than scale everything down to OFP DR's standard of very optimized but lacking in features, size, and moddability -and they had the resources to make the game we all dream is possible.

Honestly I think people just expect too much. What are you comparing it to? What sets the standard in the world of wide-open milsims and is BI really that far behind? Some of ask for Crysis-like destruction physics, others for a Falcon flight simulator; Steels Beasts like Tank control and systems; Swat 4 like CQB and interior tactics; Sims 3 like domestic capabilities and the list goes on and on... They are having a hard enough time optimizing what they already have implemented so imagine the delay of giving us the Milsim we all want without bugs :eek:

I'd like to enjoy these games before my retirement and thats exactly what I'm doing :)

[chris330 0]

That is your point of view.

This is mine.

If you play Battleground Europe sometime (try it for free for a bit) you'll see there they have very good tank controls, good flight model and all that sort of thing implemented well without having gone off the deep end. Graphics are ancient though and they have the advantage of not having to code any AI - it's an MMOG.

It's not unrealistic to want two tanks to be able to drive down a road without stopping every 10m to re-adjust direction and not slam into each other and get stuck for ages in a game that's supposed to be 8 years ahead of its predecessor.

Implementing good and believable vehicle control is not impossible, and even just a reasonable flight model would be acceptable. You can't know much about flight models if you think the current one is acceptable with all due respect. Asking for MS Flight Sim/Falcon standards is unrealistic. Asking for something that at least vaguely resembles a flight model is quite acceptable.

It's unbelievably hopeless. If you're happy with it then great but believe me it's poor to say the least. This is not an excessive criticism of a flight model that's 75% accurate instead of 99%, this is an accurate statement that there is virtually no flight model for this game at all. If the coders at CRS (who make battleground europe) can code an acceptable flight model BIS should certainly be able to.

There is a culture of asking far too much of developers in modern times often due to lack of understanding how much work goes into even apparently simple things. A flight model which is more advanced than either throttle up, throttle down, most instruments not working and a Hercules not being able to achieve positive climb rate in a 10 degree pitch up full flaps down and full throttle is not an outrageous request.

One ends up chasing one's tail however. One group sees it's potential and says it should go further or be brought up to this standard or whatever, the other says be happy with what it is. It depends what the individual plays for.

It's clear nothing's going to move with the game so I think the best thing is those who wish to make something better/more suitable for them should go start working on something themselves whilst those who find its standards acceptable should just carry on playing and buying.

[froggyluv 2130]

If you play Battleground Europe sometime (try it for free for a bit) you'll see there they have very good tank controls, good flight model and all that sort of thing implemented well without having gone off the deep end. Graphics are ancient though and they have the advantage of not having to code any AI - it's an MMOG

Haven't played it although I did buy WWII Online when it first came out and underwhelmed would be an overstatement to say the least. It seems they have refined and polished it's core aspects throughout the years but still have yet to add the ability of AI, which is a huge part of what makes OFP/Arma series unique and imho, great, as well as demands much of it's development time and processing power. The developers of that series had strong backrounds in flight simulators if I remember correctly so it is little surprise that the game now excels in that category.

I've been gaming for the better part of 30 years and have never been attracted to the wham-bam, twitchy, self gratifying, mostly brainless genre of the modern day shooters. My interest lies in infantry combat in a large scale environment that includes AI. The AI driving issue is a problem as it was in Arma1's release but similar to WWII, it will addressed and corrected over time.

You have highlighted the weaknesses of Arma2's AI but it is still far better than any other large scale mil-sim I have yet to play that encompasses the sheer amount of possible units in a game. Think about how much is going on when I play a CTI solo, hundreds of units traveling around the map, guarding, holding, advancing, engaged in town battles, support trucks, civilians, air drops just to name a few. Sorry this doesn't do it for you, and I eagerly await whatever plans your are working on in terms of creating your own engine.

[chris330 0]

Sorry this doesn't do it for you, and I eagerly await whatever plans your are working on in terms of creating your own engine.

Your post up to here was good. The above however, is - I suspect - patronising and argumentative, which is why I've chosen not to reply in any depth.

I believe I see something you clearly don't. I also don't think your argument of large scale AI has any basis whatsoever when contrasted with the fact that the AI is no noticeably better than it was 8 years ago.

I have no wish to discuss further, I am completely confident my point of view is extremely well established from the place I see it from. If you wish to discuss further it will be to an empty space ;)

[froggyluv 2130]

*Speaks to the Void*

Well sorry I came off that way and yes, I was somewhat putoff that someone who claims to have some c++ under their belt could tackle the engine limitations more profciently then imo, the only tried and true creators of the standard in Milsims.

Improvements in Infantry since OFP are quite noticble to me. Set up an enemy squad in OFP and open up on them with a machinegun and you will not find them truly seeking cover. Neither do they really use bounding overwatch. These might be small potatoes for a linear shooter on rails but seem far harder to incorporate in a game of this scale -thus the reason other developers either use much smaller more controlled areas or eliminate AI completely. Had they not improved this aspect, even if they had added better armor penetration values and improved flight model, I would feel as you do now.

One thing I would really like to see incorporated would be a better understanding of both world objects, and a better ability for the AI to recoginize different types of threats ie. rifleman vs. Armor, and better realize when it is outmatched and take the appropriate measures ie.flee.

*Bows to Void and retreats*

[Bulldogs 10]

If you carry out enough battles you'll notice that the enemy AI will actually run for their lives if they're outmatched.

The one difference between Flashpoint and Arma 2 AI that I find a little annoying in some respects but good in the other is that the AI in Flashpoint had a full mind of their own. This was good in a way that they'd realized threats for themselves and act accordingly, but it also meant that if you told your men to go up agaisnt impossible odds they'd say "hell no, sir" and run for their lives (I usually shot them for treason), speaking of such, does anyone remember the flee slider that gave the AI's chance to flee, similar thing done through "careless" action in the editor now but it doesn't quite work right yet.

In Arma 2 this has changed in that the AI is fully subordinate, in the way that if you tell them it's "safe" then they'll stand up and take enemy fire thinking "but my commander told me it's safe". This being the cause of many threads of "Why are my AI so stupid that they just stand up and take enemy fire" til people started realising that maybe they should at least put the AI on "aware"

Most of the AI issues people notice are in the campaign because they don't realise that they have to control their men to the Nth degree. It's a little annoying, but thats why you can create scenarios where you're not the squad leader and watch how well your team mates operate. They'll run along freely but the moment someone spots an enemy the squad leader shouts "DANGER" and everyone hits the dirt, he manually orders each enemy he wants the AI to attack and yes, if overrun he even calls a retreat.

My only wish is that the AI would be more autonomous without the need of the squad leaders command, or possibly a command to make them act like they're their own squad leader whilst still staying in relative formation with their actual squad.

Well, that and the whole AI object pathfinding thing while driving.... how many times can you ram a truck before you figure out that you can't drive through it?

[4 IN 1 0]

As the matter of fact i think A2 did remove some of the "micro management" of the AI if you have enought battlefield awareness and given the correct orders, but sometime it just kind of......stop working......

[chris330 0]

*Bows to Void and retreats*

There is no need to bow or retreat. My post above contains ego as do many other peoples across the internet and the world. To feel the need to respond as I did in a superiorirty tone shows ego is being hurt and also defended at the moment the host mind in this case my own, senses it is being disagreed with. This is very common in my life and that of others.

That's all it is. I'm growing in elightenment but ego is a constant enemy. The posts prior to this all seem to have valid technical data to me from all posters. If the person dis-likes the game or some aspects they need not point it out in a public way. If the person desires to defend they may or may not choose to do so depending on their faith in their reasons and their own personal sense of morality and the many reasons that may be present.

It is ego, the ever present menace that causes defensive-ness and frequently incorrect or inflexible views.

With regards the technical aspects it may or may not be possible to improve the AI within games generally. If I feel strong enough about it I will journey into it to investigate and then find my answer during the course of my life.

Freewill remains exercised by those who enjoy to remain in the company of something that gives them pleasure and those who seek their own goals. Long may it be so.