Non-romance dynamics in games

[Nonek]

 

Two kinds of relationships usually appeal: The first is that of the tool (insert ribaldry) such as the dog, an extension of myself that is valuable, useful and almost symbiotic. Through training, feeding, and careful use we boost our chances for survival against outside elements, until the creature is as much a part of my character as a limb. In this case it must always be useful and preferably silent, to reinforce that aspect.

 

The second is a meeting of philosophical ideals, where even if the means of the person are less than admirable, the motive is correct. Obviously Kreia and Kaelyn spring to mind here, they are both fighting against injustices, though their methods are vastly different. Admiration and respect is a rare thing in rpg's, where most characters are at the will of the scripts whims, but a clear defined agenda and a determination to enact their plans is something to be cherished in my eyes.

 

Interesting analysis. If I can run with the ball, wouldn't that mean that your first archetypal relationship is the one many parents WANT from their kids. A builder's pride. So to speak.

 

Have to ponder this further.

 

 

Yes, i'd never admit this to the missus but most of my parenting abilities are borrowed from what i've learned rearing dogs. Discipline, regular exercise, routine, rewards for good behaviour, training through fun passtimes etcetera.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 I have attempted to purge it from my memories!

 "purge it from my memories!" 

 

Come on Alan, that's a little theatrical. Was your Oblivion experience really that bad?

[BruceVC]

 

 

[edit: I'm less than convinced by that drug dealer story, to be honest, or at least that it worked quite as described. Watching a character steal a pile of apples from in front of a shop keeper, one at a time, in broad daylight, in a crowd, while obviously being watched, that character being a thief and getting caught each time but not getting stopped because he was Plot Critical convinced me pretty much absolutely that their AI was... vestigial, in the I front, in practice if not in theory]

 

Well, the drug dealer story sounds like it didn't exist at all in the released version.

 

It doesn't, but that was unrelated to anything Radiant AI. They turned off both the ability to kill plot critical characters and for those plot critical characters to become hostile to other NPCs through their actions. When a non plot critical thief steals apples from in front of a shopkeeper it would be "stop criminal scum!" and he'd be chopped to sausage (indeed, the shopkeeper starts saying "stop thief" but stops halfway through stop for the plot critical one); so the general behaviour is still there and the problems at the heart of it remain.

 

And that fundamental problem is that while the thief 'knows' he should steal he has none of the essential context of how he should steal, so he goes to a shop and steals stuff in front of witnesses and in broad daylight. For a functioning behavioural AI that is a fundamental error as it breaks verisimilitude, no real person could behave that way, be regarded as a thief, and get away with it. That's also why you end up with people raking carpets and the like.

 

 

I find this discussion interesting. But in the example you gave why not just include in the AI "only steal items at night or when there is no one within a certain radius "

 

That type of coding couldn't have been that hard but I may be missing something?

[Zoraptor]

The simple answer is that you'd need to ask Bethesda why. The slightly more complex answer is that AI is notoriously difficult to get right and can end up using a lot of computer power very easily; and can in any case only take advantage of what it is programmed to 'know' and sense. The amount of stuff that a real Thief would know and be able to sense is currently far more than can be realistically programmed into an AI for a game as a real thief would have the innate ability to balance risk vs reward and the like. And after you'd got the thief right you'd then have to do it for guards, farmers, villagers and whatever other types you have.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Zoraptor

[Walsingham]

"Kramer vs. Kramer: Zombie Apocalypse".

 

 

 

Laughed so hard I sprayed oats everywhere.

 

I was eating oatcakes for breakfast. It's not like I'm made of oats or... never mind.

[Walsingham]

 

 

 

 I have attempted to purge it from my memories!

 "purge it from my memories!" 

 

Come on Alan, that's a little theatrical. Was your Oblivion experience really that bad?

 

 

I agree. I only finished the ****ing game because I did not want to have paid up front and in advance for not a single play through.  As immersive as a hug from a stuffed bear. Kindly do not remind me of it again.

[alanschu]

 

 

 

 I have attempted to purge it from my memories!

 "purge it from my memories!" 

 

Come on Alan, that's a little theatrical. Was your Oblivion experience really that bad?

 

 

Oblivion was the game that taught me that I shouldn't really consider "length" the primary factor of a game's worth.  Aside from a handful of things (Thieves Guild and Dark Brotherhood) I actually genuinely don't remember much of the game, because I just found it boring and unmemorable.  I spent about 30-40 hours in it, at which point I went "I am just completing these quests because I am a gamer and feel a sense of compulsion to complete these quests."

 

I click on the silly minigame dialogue wheel thingy simply because "I knew I'd get a reward for doing it successfully" even though, frankly, I didn't care for the reward.

[Walsingham]

I believe I can honestly say I get more computer-based satisfaction from completing a spreadsheet analysis than I did from a single one of the 'dialogues' in Oblivion.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Walsingham

[Malcador]

Which is true.  An AI that is unpredictable is very scary as a developer.  For instance, if you think about a learning algorithm for say, a sports game.  Lets pick soccer.  Now, imagine that the AI ends up having success by literally just kicking the ball towards the net whenever it gets the ball.  WHen it doesn't have the ball, it just tries to get it.  If it starts to decide "this is the most effective way for me to play," then you pretty much destroy the "soccer experience" for most people playing the game.

For your example, I think you've pretty much described the way it works in FIFA vs the AI.

[alanschu]

I actually picked that example because in my University's graduate level AI course, there was a competition for who could make the most successful AI using FIFA.  The winning team (who got the highest mark) employed the strategy I shared above.

 

It was done to illustrate some important things to think about:

 

1) Understand what your goal is.  The goal was to make the AI that would win the most, not play soccer the most realistically

2) Recognize that because an AI in a game is very good, doesn't mean that it is fun.  This loops back into understanding what your goal is when creating an AI.

 

 

One of my bosses during my internship was Jonathan Schaeffer, the guy that eventually solved checkers.  It was fun talking with him because "good AI" and "smart AI" often don't mean the same thing.  It's not fun at all to play against Chinook, because you literally cannot win.  At best, you can not lose, iff you play a perfect game.  now, restrict Chinook's search space to some finite number of moves ahead, and suddenly the game may become a lot more fun.  It was neat learning that games like Sargon (chess) used the same algorithm for its chess game for all difficulty levels.  They just modified it by reducing how many moves ahead it could search (which also made it play much faster ).

 

 

Most people don't really want an AI that is as smart as it can be.  They want an AI that passes the turing test and accurately mimics how a human being would play.  This is much, much more difficult than a really smart AI.

[Guest Slinky]

Most people don't really want an AI that is as smart as it can be.  They want an AI that passes the turing test and accurately mimics how a human being would play.  This is much, much more difficult than a really smart AI.

If the AI is on the players side, that should be really easy. It only needs to:

 

1. Play really badly

2. Order the player to do something really stupid

3. Whine like hell when the player doesn't follow it's orders

4. Die really fast by doing something really stupid

5. Blame the player for it's death

6. Verbally abuse the player in poor english for the rest of the game

 

Looking back, I don't understand how the hell I was able to play world of tanks for 8 months 

[Orogun01]

 

Most people don't really want an AI that is as smart as it can be.  They want an AI that passes the turing test and accurately mimics how a human being would play.  This is much, much more difficult than a really smart AI.

If the AI is on the players side, that should be really easy. It only needs to:

 

1. Play really badly

2. Order the player to do something really stupid

3. Whine like hell when the player doesn't follow it's orders

4. Die really fast by doing something really stupid

5. Blame the player for it's death

6. Verbally abuse the player in poor english for the rest of the game

 

Looking back, I don't understand how the hell I was able to play world of tanks for 8 months 

 

So Skynet is just a rage gamer?

[alanschu]

No, Skynet wouldn't play like a human being.  It'd be too limiting.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I believe I can honestly say I get more computer-based satisfaction from completing a spreadsheet analysis than I did from a single one of the 'dialogues' in Oblivion.

I get more computer-based satisfaction from paying my car insurance that I got from the whole game. As lacking as Skyrim is, it is still a massive improvement from Oblivion.

[Humanoid]

At the risk of piling on, Oblivion is still one of the trinity of games I can say are the worst I've ever had the misfortune to purchase.

 

The other two parts of the trinity are Civilization: Call to Power and Mass Effect 3.

[Calax]

At the risk of piling on, Oblivion is still one of the trinity of games I can say are the worst I've ever had the misfortune to purchase.

 

The other two parts of the trinity are Civilization: Call to Power and Mass Effect 3.

I own oblivion, and my most regretted purchases list is

 

Ubersoldier

Star Wars Rebellion (which, in my game, had a force sensative Adm. Ozzel managing to hold off three fleets and an army of spec ops)

C&C 4 (as a standalone... it was on sale, but still)

[BruceVC]

Okay well I also need to give my view on Oblivion 

Its definitely in my top 15 RPG of all time, I used some cool normal and adult mods. I had a great time exploring the open world, going on dozens of quests and fighting the variety of monsters that I encountered. I also enjoyed the narrative of trying to close various gates.

[Malcador]

Ah come now, Star Wars Rebellion was pretty fun. Was annoying to hunt the Rebel HQ down, but it was nice to see Intel handled in such a way.

[Walsingham]

I have to say, with all due respect to Cal, that Rebellion (/'Supremacy') was great. The only thing I dislike is the user interface. Hard to get anything done sensibly.

 

I liked the random force sensitive people. I also liked the concealed traitor elements.

 

The hunt for the rebel base could be a grind, but few things funnier than accidentally stumbling into it then scrambling to muster a big enough fleet. Or luring the rebels into a trap!

 

How did we get onto this? Well, I would say I actually liked some of my little playable people in Rebellion, and would go to great lengths to rescue them or utilise them on special missions.

 

However, I have to wonder if this wasn't as much due to the legacy of having no sodding toys as a kid and having to make do with rocks and dead owls and so forth.

[Amentep]

I stopped playing Oblivion the third or fourth (or maybe second?) time I had to go through an Oblivion gate and run around the Oblivion map.

 

Otherwise I didn't mind it that much.

[BruceVC]

I stopped playing Oblivion the third or fourth (or maybe second?) time I had to go through an Oblivion gate and run around the Oblivion map.

 

Otherwise I didn't mind it that much.

 

Yaaaaaaay, at last someone who likes Oblivion !!

 

Amentep have I ever mentioned I think you have good taste in games

Edited July 22, 2013 by BruceVC

[Amentep]

 

I stopped playing Oblivion the third or fourth (or maybe second?) time I had to go through an Oblivion gate and run around the Oblivion map.

 

Otherwise I didn't mind it that much.

 

Yaaaaaaay, at last someone who likes Oblivion !!

 

Amentep have I ever mentioned I think you have good taste in games

 

 

To be honest, I don't really see a lot of difference in Morrowind, Oblivion or Skyrim.  Gameplay wise they all do similar things; story too.  Graphics are the only big differences and implementation of the character system (which ultimately are variations on a theme). 

 

I keep meaning to go back to Oblivion at some point; I didn't hate it so much as I just really disliked the Oblivion map after repeated trips.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Amentep

[HoonDing]

I've only two games I regret purchasing: GTA 3, and Twitcher 2.

[Hurlshort]

I'm right with Amentep, I was enjoying Oblivion until they sent me through my 3rd or 4th gate.  That seems to be an issue with Bethesda, I thought Skyrim was better but the dragon fights become repetitive as well.  

 

The only Bethesda game I've ever finished was Fallout 3, and I never felt that was repetitive.  

 

But I don't really regret buying them, they are great looking games that usually always give me at least 20 hours of fun.

 

I regret buying Perfect Dark for the N64.  That is probably my biggest game buying regret.   

[alanschu]

I actually never finished Fallout 3 either, although I enjoyed that game as a sandbox game as opposed to a narrative driven game, so I came away satisfied.