Personally, I don't really think PG2 needs to graphically show AI. Okay, maybe if you're playing a tournament it adds to "immersion" and "reality" (the two most meaningless, nebulous words used by PC gamers IMHO) to have an AI player playing alongside you - as it is actually realistic players play in threes/pairs...
But even if you think showing AI players playing alongside you is a good addition that doesn't meet the main issue - and it's what put me off Tiger Woods Online although it was humans doing it - of unrealistic scores/accuracy. For those of us who remember Tiger Woods Online - how often did the "oh well, if they're that good (pressing buttons with 0.00001 accuracy hmmm are they using a programmed clicker or something?) I'll just eff off and play solitaire or some other single player game!"feeling strike? Who wants to go up against players who've got -20 after 18 holes!?!?
I don't mind losing - heck, I'd be more disturbed/confused if I won a game against a human/AI player I'm that naff - but I do mind losing to an opponent who's, as I say, -20 after 18 holes...
Actually, in thinking about it, the -20/18 Holes issue is, so far as I've seen in playing various PC golf games, purely a human thing but certainly the accuracy is an AI thing: I've created players in JNPG with 5s in every attribute and sometimes they get the ball within 1-2 metres of the hole, sometimes 8-10+. So their short game seems believable enough. But even with a 5 in putting, the AI player is disturbingly very accurate. Surely, with a 5 rating, you'd expect more variability in an AI player's game...
You seem to be interpreting 'good AI' in the title of this thread as low scoring AI. That is not what I meant at all. By 'good AI', I mean realistically playing AI with sliders to adjust them that also affect their game realistically. At the moment the AI in JNPG are frequently either far too accurate or really bad and the sliders are a bit of a joke when it comes to adjusting them! It doesn't have to be this way.
