How did it go? Who''s was the best presentation. What was discussed in the round tables. Anything new? How many people had to be turned away from the AI programmner''s nosh-up this year? Where do we get the top secret bootleg tapes?
GDC 2004 Impressions?
Author
mmm, this forum is unusally devoid of feedback from the GDC.
It''s not like you guys to be silent. Was there some new technique revealed that was so stupendously groundbreaking and awe inspiring that you''ve all been forced to sign NDAs before they let you back into the world?
How did it go? Who''s was the best presentation. What was discussed in the round tables. Anything new? How many people had to be turned away from the AI programmner''s nosh-up this year? Where do we get the top secret bootleg tapes?
How did it go? Who''s was the best presentation. What was discussed in the round tables. Anything new? How many people had to be turned away from the AI programmner''s nosh-up this year? Where do we get the top secret bootleg tapes?
I presume nobody got turned away from the dinner since they had a fixed number of invitations this year instead...
I got back and was immediately put in crunch mode. In fact, I have to compose this post across several builds.
My favorite AI session (other than my own roundtables of course) was the "Beyond Finite State Machines: Managing Complex, Intermixing Behavior Hiearchies" by Michael Mateas and Andrew Stern. You can go to http://www.cmpevents.com/GDx/a.asp?option=C&V=11&SessID=2181 or www.interactivestory.net or egl.gatech.edu for more information.
Actually, we had to turn a number of people away (unfortunately) from the 7th Annual AI Programmer''s Dinner. We sold out the very first day, and probably turned away half-again as many people (which would have brought our total up to about 70) over the following days. And then, we actually had one no show. So, we had 49 seated for an outstanding feast, coupled with great AI discussion over wines and stuffed chicken, baked salmon and prime rib roast, not to mention devilish deserts.
Since the GDC will be moving to San Fransico next year, we will have to start anew, the process of finding a venue for the dinner.
More later, I have to get back to work.
Eric
My favorite AI session (other than my own roundtables of course) was the "Beyond Finite State Machines: Managing Complex, Intermixing Behavior Hiearchies" by Michael Mateas and Andrew Stern. You can go to http://www.cmpevents.com/GDx/a.asp?option=C&V=11&SessID=2181 or www.interactivestory.net or egl.gatech.edu for more information.
Actually, we had to turn a number of people away (unfortunately) from the 7th Annual AI Programmer''s Dinner. We sold out the very first day, and probably turned away half-again as many people (which would have brought our total up to about 70) over the following days. And then, we actually had one no show. So, we had 49 seated for an outstanding feast, coupled with great AI discussion over wines and stuffed chicken, baked salmon and prime rib roast, not to mention devilish deserts.
Since the GDC will be moving to San Fransico next year, we will have to start anew, the process of finding a venue for the dinner.
More later, I have to get back to work.
Eric
Molyneuex's stuff was really cool. I definately want to go grab Fable and The Movies just so I can dork with them. The story about the wedding and tatoos in Fable was a riot!
The Mateas/Stern "game" is, indeed, more of a test bed. It could possibly lead to some more interesting things down the road. I would have liked to see them get to more of a multi-layered level with the behaviors... perhaps if they had 2 hours instead of one?
Brian Reynolds did a cool talk that I hope resonates outside the AI domain... the one on "How AI enables designers". Using the progression from the original Civilization through "Rise of Nations", he showed one particular track of how solving an AI issue generated new design potential. That has been my mantra - that AI should be done VERY early if not coupled with the design process. Unfortunately, when games are designed by artists, that isn't always the case.
The roundtables were interesting but they have really begun to attract a lot of noobs. I would like to have one really high-level roundtable and see what shakes out. I would have to agree, however, that a lot of the changes of late seem to be scope-based rather than technology based. That just falls into more of an engineering thing rather than pure AI discussion.
One funny point was the guy who talked about leading soldiers from Far Cry into the water. They get stuck in a "tread water" state and just stay there. He would lead whole squads into the water, leave, and then toss a grenade in. Wow... the things that sneak through the testing department, eh?
Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer
Intrinsic Algorithm - "Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"
[edited by - InnocuousFox on April 1, 2004 2:57:02 PM]
The Mateas/Stern "game" is, indeed, more of a test bed. It could possibly lead to some more interesting things down the road. I would have liked to see them get to more of a multi-layered level with the behaviors... perhaps if they had 2 hours instead of one?
Brian Reynolds did a cool talk that I hope resonates outside the AI domain... the one on "How AI enables designers". Using the progression from the original Civilization through "Rise of Nations", he showed one particular track of how solving an AI issue generated new design potential. That has been my mantra - that AI should be done VERY early if not coupled with the design process. Unfortunately, when games are designed by artists, that isn't always the case.
The roundtables were interesting but they have really begun to attract a lot of noobs. I would like to have one really high-level roundtable and see what shakes out. I would have to agree, however, that a lot of the changes of late seem to be scope-based rather than technology based. That just falls into more of an engineering thing rather than pure AI discussion.
One funny point was the guy who talked about leading soldiers from Far Cry into the water. They get stuck in a "tread water" state and just stay there. He would lead whole squads into the water, leave, and then toss a grenade in. Wow... the things that sneak through the testing department, eh?
Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer
Intrinsic Algorithm - "Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"
[edited by - InnocuousFox on April 1, 2004 2:57:02 PM]
I''ll present a different view of the mentioned AI talks at GDC:
- FSMs: it was interesting to see a language designed to handle simultaneous behaviours. Beyond that, the real problem with these approaches is managing conflicting behaviours. Not only was this handled as a hack (hardcoded numbers), but it felt to me like the lecturers consciously avoided elaborating on the problem. The results presented were indeed funny, but I believe the system was quite more chaotic and out of control than they made it out to be.
- The APF talk was a serious let down. Bryan apologized in advance for the lack of materials, but the fact remains that I left the room with little more info than what can be gathered from Craig Reynolds'' Boids page. The mention of Vortex fields and tangential repulsion was the highlight for me. I am sure Bryan has a lot more to say on this topic.
- Peter Molyneux used his presentation for little more than showcasing cool bits of his new projects. E3 / press material rather than a lecture aimed at developers. The beginning was quite promising, though. My main takeaway was more related to presentation than to content.
- Bryan Reynolds'' talk was by far the best and most thought-provoking of the AI-oriented lectures I attended. Opening the window to the interactions between design and AI, as well as between designers and AI programmers, it didn''t present any hard facts or techniques, but it brought to the audience an issue that they will have to face when developing their games.
Mixed feelings on Warren Spector''s talk (I found it confusing, and am not surprised that he has found people to misunderstand several of his points), and totally blown away by Will Wright''s rollercoaster ride of a lecture (impressive array of insights on the dynamics of the design process, and a great complement on last year''s description of structures in design).
- FSMs: it was interesting to see a language designed to handle simultaneous behaviours. Beyond that, the real problem with these approaches is managing conflicting behaviours. Not only was this handled as a hack (hardcoded numbers), but it felt to me like the lecturers consciously avoided elaborating on the problem. The results presented were indeed funny, but I believe the system was quite more chaotic and out of control than they made it out to be.
- The APF talk was a serious let down. Bryan apologized in advance for the lack of materials, but the fact remains that I left the room with little more info than what can be gathered from Craig Reynolds'' Boids page. The mention of Vortex fields and tangential repulsion was the highlight for me. I am sure Bryan has a lot more to say on this topic.
- Peter Molyneux used his presentation for little more than showcasing cool bits of his new projects. E3 / press material rather than a lecture aimed at developers. The beginning was quite promising, though. My main takeaway was more related to presentation than to content.
- Bryan Reynolds'' talk was by far the best and most thought-provoking of the AI-oriented lectures I attended. Opening the window to the interactions between design and AI, as well as between designers and AI programmers, it didn''t present any hard facts or techniques, but it brought to the audience an issue that they will have to face when developing their games.
Mixed feelings on Warren Spector''s talk (I found it confusing, and am not surprised that he has found people to misunderstand several of his points), and totally blown away by Will Wright''s rollercoaster ride of a lecture (impressive array of insights on the dynamics of the design process, and a great complement on last year''s description of structures in design).
Bob? Is that you?
Anyway, that was a good point about Beyond FSMs. One of the things that we were talking about is how they came up with arbitrary "priority" numbers for deciding what trumps what. While some of that can be seeded, we all felt that there should be some fluidity to it. Using 10 numbers limits the designer at some point... eventually you will paint yourself into a corner of deciding which "8" is more important.
Nifty concept but incomplete.
Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer
Intrinsic Algorithm - "Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"
Anyway, that was a good point about Beyond FSMs. One of the things that we were talking about is how they came up with arbitrary "priority" numbers for deciding what trumps what. While some of that can be seeded, we all felt that there should be some fluidity to it. Using 10 numbers limits the designer at some point... eventually you will paint yourself into a corner of deciding which "8" is more important.
Nifty concept but incomplete.
Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer
Intrinsic Algorithm - "Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"
Perhaps someone could post a precis of the concept in a new thread and we could discuss its pros and cons, with the possibility that someone might come up with a novel (and better) solution?
Timkin
Timkin
Eh, no - that wasn''t me... although I share a number of opinions with that poster...
Brian Reynolds talk was certainly interesting, but the fact that ne linked AI to initial prototyping is due to his single player roots. It''s certainly possible to do initial prototyping in a multiplayer environment - in fact, I would go so far as to say it''s a better environment. Humans will do more unpredictable things than an AI will do.
Regarding Craig Reynolds boids site - has anyone else taken a look at OpenSteer? It''s a very nice implementation - code looks decent too!
Bob Scott
Brian Reynolds talk was certainly interesting, but the fact that ne linked AI to initial prototyping is due to his single player roots. It''s certainly possible to do initial prototyping in a multiplayer environment - in fact, I would go so far as to say it''s a better environment. Humans will do more unpredictable things than an AI will do.
Regarding Craig Reynolds boids site - has anyone else taken a look at OpenSteer? It''s a very nice implementation - code looks decent too!
Bob Scott
Speaking of the GDC...and the roundtables... I found out tonight that I somehow rated a mention during one of the roundtables... but that it might have been decided that I don''t actually exist! Okay, you''ve found me out... I''m just a well written perl script and my try pseudonym is in fact, Timkin.pl!
Just call me Timbot!
Just call me Timbot!
quote:Original post by Timkin
... but that it might have been decided that I don''t actually exist! Okay, you''ve found me out... I''m just a well written perl script and my try pseudonym is in fact, Timkin.pl!
Just call me Timbot!
Perhaps its time for Timkin to show up in person at one of these conferences and have drink with us, so that we can finally put these rumors to rest?
Eric
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
