• Create Account

#Actualwodinoneeye

Posted 07 October 2012 - 03:28 PM

The current cost chokepoints of the ENTIRE game production may not stay the same in the future - bleak if they do as we are stuck in a Plateau of Lameness ™ or even a downward spiral as handhelds/$1.99 Apps steal more and more of the 'dumb' end games. --- "Part of that "human effort" is tuning and tweaking the behavior... not so much to make it "look right", but rather to make it match what designers want" Correct game mechanics (including the graphics) is a seperate problem. If its not done right, then no matter what the NPCs do it wont be right. Improving efficiency of that process is a seperate problem. Beyond that, you still have the same problem - NPCs to act/react right, behave right (beyond glitzy special effects and the needed animations being available/applied - once the game mechanics work right then NPCs use of the available mechanics is the problem - and ought to be a bigger/more enabling part of the game). A developer has to make the NPC do the right thing (goal would be to react correctly to whatever the player can do). Generating assets that look right is a different problem -- so much a problem (now) that there often isnt much money left over for better 'AI'. Someday the asset problem will be handled better (cheaper) and then we will be back to what I am talking about right now. It is going to take a while for game companies to maybe take enough risk to use a system like I propose and maybe the 'asset creation' task can be significantly streamlined by better tools/process also. (They WILL sometime soon be splitting hairs to improve the graphics/sound anyway) Eventually there will be enough cost improvement so that the AI can get a bigger cut-of-the-pie -- an component which seems to be lagging so far. --- "This is often not something that can be determined ahead of time, nor is it something that is static" Hence the developer working WITH the AI whenever the game itself gels enough to get productive work out of creating the AI logic. You are working in generally used code here - you fix it one time and not in some multitude of places in a mass of custom scripts. Some basic stuff (logic creation) may be doable early and some may have to wait til the final tweaks (or major redo surgery) is completed. Common behaviors should be doable from the start and elaborated on later (thats actually the natuaral process with systems like this). And that same problem exists with custom scripting - maybe moreso. Redo/Patching work done with AI assisted behavior development, may have its efficiency comparably sped up as for the task of the original creation. --- "They want it exactly the way they want it." A self fulfilling prophecy then for dumbed-down/stagnant games when the players never see anything better to compare with the current AI quality -- to KNOW they might want something better. Also 'better' (as many article have said) isnt neccessarily 'smarter' but instead 'more interesting'. Actually playing a 'dumb' NPC that is believably dumb takes as much AI 'smarts' as acting in any other 'believable' fashion. They may be making the worlds more complicated with more things for the players to do and the NPCs have to likewise manipulate those things(and/or react to them). How much more likely they will do it wrong and NOT be believable (no matter what low esteem a player has) if the AI cant match the new combinatorics of the situations complexity??? (at some point the combinatorics will exceed the "custom script it" paradigm.) --- Or will players just always want (and pay for) the same type of simple mindless shooting gallery games (but with more glitz-tastic irrelevant effects)? We have lots of those already - why make any new ones (*sarc-on* oh but the 'new' ones have 3 ounces more glitz and make the game you bought last year look totaly lame and useless - at least thats what the trailers and sycophant critics keep saying -- and it must be true... *sarc-off*) Im sure the game companies hope so, but that doesnt really help us players get better games.... -- Makes me wonder when the equivalent of 'computer publishing' will come about to cut the expenses for game production so that someone will risk giving the games significantly better AI logic (and need the AI assisted development and maybe drasticly increase the in-game AI too) #5wodinoneeye Posted 07 October 2012 - 03:21 PM The current cost chokepoints of the ENTIRE game production may not stay the same in the future - bleak if they do as we are stuck in a Plateau of Lameness ™ or even a downward spiral as handhelds/$1.99 Apps steal more and more of the 'dumb' end games.

---

"Part of that "human effort" is tuning and tweaking the behavior... not so much to make it "look right", but rather to make it match what designers want"

Correct game mechanics (including the graphics) is a seperate problem. If its not done right, then no matter what the NPCs do it wont be right. Improving efficiency of that process is a seperate problem.

Beyond that, you still have the same problem - NPCs to act/react right, behave right (beyond glitzy special effects and the needed animations being available/applied - once the game mechanics work right then NPCs use of the available mechanics is the problem - and ought to be a bigger/more enabling part of the game). A developer has to make the NPC do the right thing (goal would be to react correctly to whatever the player can do).

Generating assets that look right is a different problem -- so much a problem (now) that there often isnt much money left over for better 'AI'. Someday the asset problem will be handled better (cheaper) and then we will be back to what I am talking about right now.

It is going to take a while for game companies to maybe take enough risk to use a system like I propose and maybe the 'asset creation' task can be significantly streamlined by better tools/process also. (They WILL sometime soon be splitting hairs to improve the graphics/sound anyway) Eventually there will be enough cost improvement so that the AI can get a bigger cut-of-the-pie -- an component which seems to be lagging so far.

---

"This is often not something that can be determined ahead of time, nor is it something that is static"

Hence the developer working WITH the AI whenever the game itself gels enough to get productive work out of creating the AI logic. You are working in generally used code here - you fix it one time and not in some multitude of places in a mass of custom scripts. Some basic stuff (logic creation) may be doable early and some may have to wait til the final tweaks (or major redo surgery) is completed. Common behaviors should be doable from the start and elaborated on later (thats actually the natuaral process with systems like this).

And that same problem exists with custom scripting - maybe moreso. Redo/Patching work done with AI assisted behavior development, may have its efficiency comparably sped up as for the task of the original creation.

---

"They want it exactly the way they want it."

A self fulfilling prophecy then for dumbed-down/stagnant games when the players never see anything better to compare with the current AI quality -- to KNOW they might want something better.

Also 'better' (as many article have said) isnt neccessarily 'smarter' but instead 'more interesting'. Actually playing a 'dumb' NPC that is believably dumb takes as much AI 'smarts' as acting in any other 'believable' fashion.

They may be making the worlds more complicated with more things for the players to do and the NPCs have to likewise manipulate those things(and/or react to them). How much more likely they will do it wrong and NOT be believable (no matter what low esteem a player has) if the AI cant match the new combinatorics of the situations complexity??? (at some point the combinatorics will exceed the "custom script it" paradigm.)

Or will players just always want (and pay for) the same type of simple mindless shooting gallery games (but with more glitzy irrelevant effects)? We have lots of those already - why make any new ones (*sarc-on* oh but the 'new' ones have 3 ounces more glitz and make the game you bought last year look totaly lame and useless - at least thats what the trailers and sycophant critics keep saying -- and it must be true... *sarc-off*)

Im sure the game companies hope so, but that doesnt really help us players get better games....

#4wodinoneeye

Posted 07 October 2012 - 03:14 PM

The current cost chokepoints of the ENTIRE game production may not stay the same in the future - bleak if they do as we are stuck in a Plateau of Lameness ™ or even a downward spiral as handhelds/\$1.99 Apps steal more and more of the 'dumb' end games.

---

"Part of that "human effort" is tuning and tweaking the behavior... not so much to make it "look right", but rather to make it match what designers want"

Correct game mechanics (including the graphics) is a seperate problem. If its not done right, then no matter what the NPCs do it wont be right. Improving efficiency of that process is a seperate problem.

Beyond that, you still have the same problem - NPCs to act/react right, behave right (beyond glitzy special effects and the needed animations being available/applied - once the game mechanics work right then NPCs use of the available mechanics is the problem - and ought to be a bigger/more enabling part of the game). A developer has to make the NPC do the right thing (goal would be to react correctly to whatever the player can do).

Generating assets that look right is a different problem -- so much a problem (now) that there often isnt much money left over for better 'AI'. Someday the asset problem will be handled better (cheaper) and then we will be back to what I am talking about right now.

It is going to take a while for game companies to maybe take enough risk to use a system like I propose and maybe the 'asset creation' task can be significantly streamlined by better tools/process also. (They WILL sometime soon be splitting hairs to improve the graphics/sound anyway) Eventually there will be enough cost improvement so that the AI can get a bigger cut-of-the-pie -- an component which seems to be lagging so far.

---

"This is often not something that can be determined ahead of time, nor is it something that is static"

Hence the developer working WITH the AI whenever the game itself gels enough to get productive work out of creating the AI logic. You are working in generally used code here - you fix it one time and not in some multitude of places in a mass of custom scripts. Some basic stuff (logic creation) may be doable early and some may have to wait til the final tweaks (or major redo surgery) is completed. Common behaviors should be doable from the start and elaborated on later (thats actually the natuaral process with systems like this).

And that same problem exists with custom scripting - maybe moreso. Redo/Patching work done with AI assisted behavior development, may have its efficiency comparably sped up as for the task of the original creation.

---

"They want it exactly the way they want it."

A self fulfilling prophecy then for dumbed-down/stagnant games when the players never see anything better to compare with the current AI quality -- to KNOW they want something better.

Also 'better' (as many article have said) isnt neccessarily 'smarter' but instead 'more interesting'. Actually playing a 'dumb' NPC that is believably dumb takes as much AI 'smarts' as acting in any other 'believable' fashion.

They may be making the worlds more complicated with more things for the players to do and the NPCs have to likewise manipulate those things(and/or react to them). How much more likely they will do it wrong and NOT be believable (no matter what low esteem a player has) if the AI cant match the new combinatorics of the situations complexity??? (at some point the combinatorics will exceed the "custom script it" paradigm.)

Or will players just always want (and pay for) the same type of simple mindless games (but with more glitzy irrelevant effects)?

Im sure the game companies hope so, but that doesnt really help us players get better games....

#3wodinoneeye

Posted 07 October 2012 - 02:59 PM

"Part of that "human effort" is tuning and tweaking the behavior... not so much to make it "look right", but rather to make it match what designers want"

Correct game mechanics (including the graphics) is a seperate problem. If its not done right, then no matter what the NPCs do it wont be right. Improving efficiency of that process is a seperate problem.

Beyond that you still have the same problem - NPCs to act/react right, look right (beyond glitzy special effects and the needed animations being available/applied - once the game mechanics work right then NPCs use of the mechanics is the problem - that ought to be a bigger part of the game). A developer has to make the NPC do what they want, at the right time, for the right thing (goal would be to react correctly to whatever the player can do).

Generating assets that look right is a different problem -- so much a problem that there often isnt that much money left over for better 'AI'. Someday that will be handled better (cheaper) and then we will be back to what I am talking about right now.

It is going to take a while for game companies to maybe take enough risk to use a system like I propose and maybe the 'asset creation' task can be significantly streamlined by better tools/process also. (They WILL eventually be splitting hairs to improve the graphics/sound anyway) Eventually there will be enough cost improvement so that the AI can get a bigger cut-of-the-pie -- anaspect which seems to be lagging so far.

---

"This is often not something that can be determined ahead of time, nor is it something that is static"

Hence the developer working WITH the AI whenever the game itself gels enough to get productive work out of creating the AI logic. Some basic stuff may be doable early and some may have to wait til the final tweaks (or major redo surgery) is completed. Common behaviors should be doable from the start and elaborated on later.

The same problem exists with custom scripting - maybe moreso. Redo/Patching work done with AI assisted behavior development, may have its efficiency comparably sped up as the task of the original creation.

---

"They want it exactly the way they want it."

A self fulfilling prophecy then for dumbed-down/stagnant games when the players never see anything better to compare with the current AI quality -- to KNOW they want something better.

Also 'better' (as many article have said) isnt neccessarily 'smarter' but instead 'more interesting'. Actually playing a 'dumb' NPC that is believably dumb takes as much AI 'smarts' as acting in any other 'believable' fashion.

They may be making the worlds more complicated with more things for the players to do and the NPCs have to likewise manipulate those things(and/or react to them). How much more likely they will do it wrong and NOT be believable (no matter what low esteem a player has) if the AI cant match the new combinatorics of the situations complexity??? (at some point the combinatorics will exceed the "custom script it" paradigm.)

Or will players just always want (and pay for) the same type of simple mindless games (but with more glitzy irrelevant effects)?

Im sure the game companies hope so, but that doesnt really help us players get better games....

#2wodinoneeye

Posted 07 October 2012 - 02:47 PM

"Part of that "human effort" is tuning and tweaking the behavior... not so much to make it "look right", but rather to make it match what designers want"

Correct game mechanics (including the graphics) is a seperate problem. If its not done right, then no matter what the NPCs do it wont be right.

Beyond that you still, the same problem - NPCs to act/react right, look right (beyond glitzy special effects and proper animations being available - once the game mechanics work right then NPCs use of the mechanics is the problem - that ought to be a bigger part of the game). A developer has to make the NPC do what they want, at the right time, for the right thing (goal would be to react correctly to whatever the player can do).

Generating assets that look right is a different problem -- so much a problem that there often isnt that much money left over for better 'AI'. Someday that will be handled better (cheaper) and then we will be back to what I am talking about right now.

It is going to take a while for game companies to maybe take enough risk to use a system like I propose and maybe the 'asset creation' task can be significantly streamlined by better tools/process also. Enough improvement so that the AI can get a bigger cut-of-the-pie to improve that aspect which seems to be lagging more than the 3D look of the games.

---

"This is often not something that can be determined ahead of time, nor is it something that is static"

Hence the developer working WITH the AI whenever the game itself gels enough to get productive work out of creating the AI logic. Some basic stuff may be doable early and some may have to wait til the final tweaks (or major redo surgery) is completed. Common behaviors should be doable from the start and elaborated on later.

The same problem exists with custom scripting - maybe moreso. Redo/Patching work done with AI assisted behavior development may have its efficiency comparably sped up as the task of the original creation.

---

"They want it exactly the way they want it."

A self fulfilling prophecy then for dumbed-down games when the players never see anything better to compare the current AI quality -- to KNOW they want something better.

Also 'better' (as many article have said) isnt neccessarily 'smarter' but instead 'more interesting'. Actually playing a 'dumb' NPC that is believably dumb takes as much AI 'smarts' as acting in any other 'believable' fashion.

They may be making the worlds more complicated with more things for the players to do and the NPCs have to lilewise manipulate those things. How much more likely they will do it wrong and NOT be believable (no matter what low esteem a player has) if the AI cant match the new combinatorics of the situations ??? (at some point the combinatorics will exceed the "custom script it" paradigm.

Or will players just want (and pay for) the same type of simple games (but with more glitzy irrelevant effects -- which they WILL eventually be splitting straws to improve in any way)

#1wodinoneeye

Posted 07 October 2012 - 02:32 PM

"Part of that "human effort" is tuning and tweaking the behavior... not so much to make it "look right", but rather to make it match what designers want"

Still, the same problem - act/react right, look right (beyond glitzy special effects and proper animations being available. A developer has to make the NPC do what they want, at the right time, for the right thing.

Generating assets that look right is a different problem -- so much a problem that there often isnt that much money left over for better 'AI'. Someday that will be handled better and then we will be back to what I am talking about right now.

Its going to take a while for game companies to maybe take enough risk to use a system like I propose and maybe the 'asset creation' task can be streamlined by better tools also. Enough improvement that the AI can get a bigger cut-of-the-pie to improve that aspect which seems to be lagging more than the 3D look of the games.

---

"This is often not something that can be determined ahead of time, nor is it something that is static"

Hence the developer working WITH the AI whenever the game itself gels enough to get productive work out of creating the AI logic. SOme basic stuff may be doable early and some may have to wait til the final tweaks (or major redo surgery) is done. Common behaviors should be doable from the start and elaborated on later.

The same problem exists with custom scripting - maybe moreso.

---

"They want it exactly the way they want it."

A self fulfilling prophecy then for dumbed-down games when the players never see anything better to compare the current AI quality -- to KNOW they want something better.

Also 'better' (as many article have said) isnt neccessarily 'smarter' but instead 'more interesting'. Actually playing a 'dumb' NPC that is believably dumb takes as much AI 'smarts' as acting in any other 'believable' fashion.

They may be making the worlds more complicated with more things for the players to do and the NPCs have to lilewise manipulate those things. How much more likely they will do it wrong and NOT be believable (no matter what low esteem a player has) if the AI cant match the new combinatorics of the situations ??? (at some point the combinatorics will exceed the "custom script it" paradigm.

Or will players just want (and pay for) the same type of simple games (but with more glitzy irrelevant effects -- which they WILL eventually be splitting straws to improve in any way)

PARTNERS