OrangeRakoon wrote:Photek wrote:The Satisfaction of beating a real person at anything online is better than a bot or AI
I don't agree. With a bot there is a well defined and unwavering ability they are playing to. If you beat them you know it's because you are better than that level. With a person there is no easy way to gauge how good they are, and even if you do win you can put it down to them making a mistake and playing badly rather than you doing well. It's also unlikely you can get consistency in who you are playing against. With a bot I can repeatedly play against the same difficulty over and over until I improve enough to beat it, with online that isn't the case. That's what I find most satisfying in videogames - failing on the same thing over and over until I eventually learn it and get good enough to beat it.
I've felt similar in the past regarding a win being because of your opponent making a mistake and playing badly rather than through your own merits, however the same could be said the other way around; you were playing well such that you didn't make those mistakes. Unfortunately, as people, human error will always be a factor, but you'll find top players at games are generally better at consistency because of practice, and the ability to repeatedly win because of that is rewarding. In a lot of cases as well, human players are better than the AI of any given game. A limitation of AI, at least in a lot of games, is they don't always learn, or don't have the reasoning and fundamental understanding that humans have regarding pressure, reads or adaptability. As such, even the 'hardest' of AIs become easy when you find that one flaw to abuse.
Can't remember what the event was, but I saw online someone brought their modded TAS AI to a Melee event and literally everyone struggled to even take 1 stock. In cases like this, I agree that AI can be better for improvement, but at the end of the day, it's all about overcoming that 1 obstacle so you can move onto the next, regardless of AI or player.