if you can make an AI like that, why dont other games have such a thorough system?
They kind of do. GOAP (Goal Oriented Action Planning) is becoming more common.
http://web.media.mit.edu/~jorkin/goap.htmlI don't know how strategic I'll be able to make it yet, but I've found it's mostly how the goals are encoded. I kind of have a loose multi-layer design at this point. It may be too slow and I'll fall back on more conventional high-level thinking with goap for the tactical level. But we'll see.
Either way, if an NPC wanted to get into a house (the want already being decided in some way) and one of the actions he has available is "bash down the door" then that will be considered in his tactical planning.
Based on my understanding of GOAP, either actions need to be mapped as relevant to a certain goal by the designer, or the NPC needs to discover the relvancy through testing a success. For a FPS/TPS like F.E.A.R. this seems manageable because ultimately the actions of every enemy distills down to, kill the player. So the designers were able to specifically map certain actions to tactical (shoot, move to nearest cover) or objective (attack, vacate compromised position) goals.
I imagine that the list of actions available to an NPC are enormous. While preconditions can filter the list down, it's still an incredible feat to perform AI planning through a tangled web of destroying the door, finding a key, or even buying the services of a locksmith. And then all the tactics to accomplish such objectives.
How are you programming the NPCs to negotiate through their available actions? Are you limiting them to only certain sets of actions per goal? Or is there a web of action and goal relationships with heuristic values to determine their cost and effectiveness?