![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Games and AI
By all accounts, Sony are pushing AI for the PS3, and want developers to really invest in this.
There's a widely held belief amongst gamers that decent AI is just a matter of CPU power, and so the PS3 with all its parallel cells should be remarkably good in this respect. This isn't the case. This is a fairly pointless ramble that #I've been meaning to ramble about for a while.
The problem is, AI takes a lot of developer time, and isn't really something gamers notice. Good character AI would have characters behaving fairly normally. Normal doesn't stand out. Tactical AI can also be a problem. There are a lot of situations where the optimal tactics can be proved mathematically, making the AI a totally unbeatable opponent, given enugh CPU time. At a simple level, Nobody can defeat a competent Naughts and Crosses game. This can happen with other games as well. A lot of games have a very limited set of possible moves, and given perfect timing which a computer has), so tend to play too perfect a game. The game often has to make suboptimal decisions, without looking like it's doing something stupid to help the player to win.
Most of the AI type systems in games have been quite simple, and often rather gimicky. The Thing had the marketting gimmick of a Trust/Fear mechanism. Trust was just a variable that went up if you gave the character a gun, and down if you shot him. Fear worked in a similar way, except required adrenaline shots, but generally this was all pretty scripted. The game works better that way. We don't want people going off and doing unexpected things. If people did sensible things then the game wouldn't be completable.
At the other end of the spectrum is killer tactics. There are often things you can do that will mislead the AI. Go in one direction. The AI predicts you will do X, and does Y. Player does something compeltely different which would normally be illogical but since the AI has left the previously defended location vulnerable in doing Y, it works. This is actually fair enough. Where it falls down is that these tactics can often work again. In a lot of cases we need to generalise what the player does. This is not an easy task. Machine Learning is a tricky subject.
What could work well is better army logic. Lord of the Rings apparently had some AI in the CGI animation model. Soldiers would pick a target, and attack it (or run away at times).
There's a widely held belief amongst gamers that decent AI is just a matter of CPU power, and so the PS3 with all its parallel cells should be remarkably good in this respect. This isn't the case. This is a fairly pointless ramble that #I've been meaning to ramble about for a while.
The problem is, AI takes a lot of developer time, and isn't really something gamers notice. Good character AI would have characters behaving fairly normally. Normal doesn't stand out. Tactical AI can also be a problem. There are a lot of situations where the optimal tactics can be proved mathematically, making the AI a totally unbeatable opponent, given enugh CPU time. At a simple level, Nobody can defeat a competent Naughts and Crosses game. This can happen with other games as well. A lot of games have a very limited set of possible moves, and given perfect timing which a computer has), so tend to play too perfect a game. The game often has to make suboptimal decisions, without looking like it's doing something stupid to help the player to win.
Most of the AI type systems in games have been quite simple, and often rather gimicky. The Thing had the marketting gimmick of a Trust/Fear mechanism. Trust was just a variable that went up if you gave the character a gun, and down if you shot him. Fear worked in a similar way, except required adrenaline shots, but generally this was all pretty scripted. The game works better that way. We don't want people going off and doing unexpected things. If people did sensible things then the game wouldn't be completable.
At the other end of the spectrum is killer tactics. There are often things you can do that will mislead the AI. Go in one direction. The AI predicts you will do X, and does Y. Player does something compeltely different which would normally be illogical but since the AI has left the previously defended location vulnerable in doing Y, it works. This is actually fair enough. Where it falls down is that these tactics can often work again. In a lot of cases we need to generalise what the player does. This is not an easy task. Machine Learning is a tricky subject.
What could work well is better army logic. Lord of the Rings apparently had some AI in the CGI animation model. Soldiers would pick a target, and attack it (or run away at times).
no subject
http://www.galciv2.com/journals.aspx?aid=98513&c=1
Random ramblings in reply
Unless the AI is really, spectacularly ill-thought-out, it's really difficult to appreciate its quality in the first few days of play. At first you're too busy being wowed by the pretty bits and learning the ropes, the controls and the game's assumptions. Then you try out different approaches. The first time you discover an AI bug it feels like an achievement: a clever feat (at least in strategic games; in atmosphere-based games it just feels really dumb). It's only over the really long term that the persistent recurrence of a given flaw shows up a shoddy AI.
Few people get to see a game for that long before buying it. Probably not even that many reviewers get enough time to evaluate the quality of an AI, unless it's really poor. It's kind of inevitable that it takes a second seat to wow factor in many developers' efforts.
Another thought. A great many computer game AIs that put the computer in the same situation as the player (like empire building games, real time strategies, that sort of thing) shamelessly "cheat" (have a compensating advantage outside the realm of decision making) - they either have something like a resource multiplier, or are able to command their forces in ways players can't. This irks me a great deal - but it's a product of the sheer difficulty of making a computer take the kinds of decisions that players find interesting in strategic games (which, I would contend, are rarely the "optimum tactics" situations)
You're absolutely right - designing a working machine player is very difficult - but too few games designs think even remotely out-of-the-box on ways to achieve it. I went through a phase of writing paper machines to play board games and found it a very interesting exercise - in at least one case it subtly but crucially changed the way I played the game for real.
Would you like to meet up at some point to drink beer/cider and talk intellectually-driven selfindulgent nonsense? I don't see enough interesting people now I'm in London!
Re: Random ramblings in reply
Actually I'm really lazy about this. Should really get in touch more. Not even sure what you're doing these days...
Should meet up after work or something.
Might go to Trafalgar Square this weekend and watch a bit of the Chinese New Year celebrations. Any plans there?
Re: Random ramblings in reply
I can't do Tuesday nights (hieroglyphs class, if I miss even one the rest will never make any sense) and would prefer not Thursdays (geekout night with the little lead people; though that's eminently cancellable, I keep on doing so and I don't want the guys there to think I've died) but otherwise am free.
Um, or tomorrow (Monday) night, by way of a specific exception. Am skipping work tomorrow to look after an ill Vicky.
Other than that, when are you about?
Re: Random ramblings in reply
Naturally, if you want, you can come along to any of these. Ceroc is public, but doesn't really give a lot of chance to chat. Gaming - just let me know in advance and I'll request a veggie option. Beer and Blake's 7 - feel free to come along. As long as you like Sci-fi (Blake's 7 is optional. Pub serves food - Samuel Smith's fare so not that great)
Or there's this weekend, which should be free. Or next week.
Re: Random ramblings in reply
What is your gaming night? Sounds appealing, so long as your fellow gamers are OK with my showing up. Or "Beer & Blake's 7", though I'm rather out of touch with the world of SF at the moment (do like it, just life not working that way) and I've never seen Blake's 7.
I'm free next weekend, though not entirely sure when - give me a moment to get my chronological bearings. Or I could do a Thursday, but not this coming Thursday.
Re: Random ramblings in reply
When he head back, I'll dump you near one of the central London tube stations, which should allow you to get back easily enough. Sound reasonable?
Re: Random ramblings in reply
(Though I may ask you to dump me near a suitable bus route instead, depending on time & situation - I live as close to central London as it is possible to be while remaining two miles from a tube station. Not that I mind the walk at all, but if it's getting late...)
See you tomorrow!