[xibernetik]

I'm suspicious of the game being UT2k4. It's a fast game with a steep learning curve that's long past its glory days - meaning a small player base. To someone unfamiliar with the game, even the AI that came in the box could be mistaken as human. To an experienced player, it'll be easy to identify newbie-ish patterns and see where the bots are straying from typical new-player psychology once they start toying with them. If the bot is acting experienced... Even the movement during combat in the game is complex, and there are a ton of areas an AI could trip up in.

If the judges were at a competitive level, colour me impressed - but if it was their first time, or even their first week, I'm a little more skeptical. I don't think a novice player would understand the game well enough to judge well. It would be like attempting a traditional Turing test with humans who can't speak English fluently and were raised in a non-English culture: impressive, but no indicator of bots reaching human-like levels.

[pxlpshr]

I came here to post the same thing.

I use to play UT/CS competitively and worked for a startup that licensed our technology to id Software and Riot Games / League of Legends a long time ago.

UT2k4 was an amazing FPS game with a really steep learning curve. It's one of the only FPS games that I refer to as the "basketball" of online gaming. The diversity of movement, weapon tactics, and map control meant a seasoned gamer could really define their own style. But it also meant few people ever transitioned from public servers into competitive play because 1 pro could easily go Godlike and demolish an entire server, making it extremely frustrating and unexciting for casual gamers.

That being said, watching the videos included in this article signaled that these judges had no experience with UT2k4.

In a match with professional gamers, it wouldn't surprise me if those judges thought WE were the bots. 50%+ accuracy was not uncommon with prim shock or lightening gun.

[xibernetik]

Can't agree more with you. Just watched the video - definitely first-timers. Combine accuracy with (typical competitive) prediction of spawns and enemy movement - especially of novices - it would definitely appear to the uninitiated that there was a bot using autoaim and possibly hacks instead of a person - that is if they even survived long enough to see their opponent.

[omarchowdhury]

UT2K4 was awesome! I don't enjoy any games after that!

[ZoFreX]

> If the judges were at a competitive level, colour me impressed - but if it was their first time, or even their first week, I'm a little more skeptical.

There's a pretty broad area between those two extremes - I'm nowhere near competitive level, but I played (very casually, mainly with friends rather than online) a few hours a week for years, and I definitely understand the game well and can identify good and bad plays, and humans and bots.

I do thoroughly agree, though, that this is nowhere near the level of a true Turing test - but I thought it was still quite interesting!

--

Aside: I think these days with the rise of game spectating and commentary and analysis of matches, more and more non-competitive players are gaining deeper understanding of games they like even if they couldn't necessarily pull it all off themselves.

For a more modern game like Starcraft II for example I think you could find a very large number of non-competitive players that could reliably identify bots from humans.

[jimrandomh]

Actually, it's even worse than that - the judges weren't spectators, they were players, so they'd probably be too busy dodging to look closely at what the bots were doing.