Jump to content
Posted 18 January 2002 - 04:25 PM
Posted 18 January 2002 - 04:50 PM
Posted 18 January 2002 - 05:51 PM
Posted 18 January 2002 - 05:55 PM
Posted 19 January 2002 - 10:36 PM
Posted 20 January 2002 - 12:56 AM
Posted 20 January 2002 - 02:08 AM
Posted 20 January 2002 - 03:36 AM
Posted 20 January 2002 - 05:23 AM
Posted 20 January 2002 - 04:48 PM
Original post by Diodor
One advantage is that the object relevant code stays with the object while the NPC relevant code stays with the NPC.
Posted 20 January 2002 - 05:47 PM
Posted 20 January 2002 - 09:01 PM
Posted 20 January 2002 - 09:07 PM
Posted 21 January 2002 - 08:13 PM
Posted 21 January 2002 - 10:24 PM
Original post by MadKeithV
1. Object Exceptions: In a "magical" world, a conflict can exist between one object''s basic properties and the objects to which it applies.
An example: say you have a normal game world, with mirrors. After using it for a while, you decide to introduce a new NPC class into the game: vampires. However, you run into a problem, because all your mirrors have been programmed to reflect whoever looks into them. You have no means to override this behaviour for Vampires.
2. Observer-relative affordances are not always correct: most of the time, an observer will be interested in an object''s properties/affordances relative to itself. For instance, a bayleaf is a seasoning to a cook. However, there are instances, specially with more detailed reasoning, where an observer would like to know an object''s affordances with respect to another entity than itself! In a mystery game, it could be very useful for an NPC to know that to a horse, a bayleaf is in fact poison.
A possible solution for the second issue is parametrising affordances with at least two items: the observer, and the subject. The object being observed still does all the deciding on which information to give to the observer though.
For instance, if a cook would examine a bayleaf, with respect to horses ( so, bayleaf.Affordance( cook, horse ) ), chances are that he wouldn''t get much, because a cook knows little about horses. If a stable owner did so, he''d get "poison"! However, a stable owner would not get "seasoning" when examining bayleaves for himself, because he''s a crummy cook.
Thinking about this - perhaps it''s useful to NOT pass the "subject" to an affordance, but rather have a set of subjects for each observer, about which the observer may know less or more. Each object has a list of affordances, organised by subject. What you get out of the list depends on the observer''s subject list. Does that make sense?
Posted 21 January 2002 - 11:09 PM
Original post by Diodor
There is no way around hard-coding the vampire-mirror rule somewhere anyway.
Posted 22 January 2002 - 12:02 AM
Posted 22 January 2002 - 12:11 AM
Original post by Infinisearch
What a NPC can do with an object has more to do with the knowlege of the NPC than the object itself. If a caveman NPC came through, and there was a diamond and a steak... i''m betting he''d go for the steak.