At least I think he's a doctor...this is in relation to the article [url="http://newsobserver.com/business/story/2097796p-2001130c.html"]Games of Infinite Possibilities[/url].
I'm not going to get into the fact that this guy is talking about very advanced AI which is something I think should be legislated.
Instead, I'm going to stake my non-existant academic credentials and probable lack of thorough understanding on the subject matter, by saying that he's a total fruit-loop if he thinks he's going to make good games out of this, or that this is a positive step in gaming.
Okay, while there have been alot of studies performed on cognitive science and narrative theory and computational models of narratives, also on linguistics and human communication, and alot of that work is very important to some areas, and even does apply to some parts of gaming, to say that a computer will generate a story suited to a gamer is a little tragic.
For starters, I think there's a level of story-telling that a computer will just never be able to emulate, things like imagery and metaphors, underlying meanings and complex emotive character interactions just can't be simulated with numbers and plot generation. While a computer may come up with a convincing cohesive and possible even intrigueing storyline - any attempt that a PC game could make at being a piece of complex literature is not going to be believable.
While this kind of technique might be able to be employed on a very basic level in some online RPGs, to enhance the weak storytelling those titles contain, to me it just feels like games are going to be lowered in their appeal to a core audience, and instead go for some kind of widespread appeal. It will be generalised cinematic/interactive literature, that is just smart enough to enthrall a large number of people into following it, but will never really have the same status as a far more detailed experience that true artistic/creative mind could conjure.
To me it's like pop music, it's total crap that a large number of people can listen to, but when you look at the people who really *really* appreciate music for what it is, and what it's capable of, they couldn't stand a minute of N'Sync. It's the same with computer games. You could try to make these totally flexible parametric storylines, but would they make computer games better? Or simply more accessible/commercial?
Any comments? Anyone think I'm an idiot who should grow up and realise that computer games are just another market arena for making cash and not quality entertainment for individuals?
Snootchie bootchies!
Any off-topic issues send to maitrek@austarmetro.com.au
I don't know if it's a hardware issue myself. I think in the article itself he's pointing out that now that graphics have gone as far as they have, it's most likely games will develop in different areas, and given the technology that we have today, I'd be amazed if this kind of thing couldn't be applied to the next gen of games ie 2005. I think there is tonnes of untapped processing power in modern PCs.
You're right in saying that he doesn't really say anything at all about how he proposes to do these things in the interview.
Snootchie bootchies!
Any off-topic issues send to maitrek@austarmetro.com.au
It is a hardware issue though. As fast as computers are, it still takes them a long time to solve complex problems and searches. If he really wants to do something new and amazing, he's going to have to do a lot more than use FSM's. There are a number of problems in AI that this guy would have to solve to get what he wants happening...and these problems have been being worked on for 50+ years.
CYer, Blitz
I heard about this a couple of days ago. Having had a lot of good and bad experience with university researchers working around game development type subjects, its sounds like he is suffering from a lack of understanding of how a game is put together.
In this case, he considers the story to be the fundamental foundation on which the game is built and pretty much the only element the gamer derives satisfaction from.
In reality, while story is important, a game is the sum of many pieces including aesthetic design, puzzles, interface etc all of which are closely linked.
Should a game be built around the system he describes using current or near future technologies you would either end up with
a) an achievable but lacklustre system that produces bland and generic feeling game worlds, storylines, characters and environments
b) a complex and rewarding system that unfortunately requires so much content to support it that you would never have the budget, dev team or timeframe to produce it
I'm not sure there is a happy medium.
Regards
Mario
A system like he describes would be interesting
however if you let something that can't "think" outside of logic will mean very standard stories and settings
and don't you think that kind of system would cause countless continuity errors in the story and i doubt a computer will ever be able to understand mood and feeling which are more important than the details.
Not even an AI (a computer that could think) could do that
you'd have to wait till humans develop AS, Artificial Sentience (or until an AI develops an AS [:p])
It is infact ants who are the true rulers of this world!!!
I'm still not really convinced by people saying that there isn't the processing power to do this kind of thing. There is clearly alot of spare clock ticks lying around the place if you run Unreal Tournament on the latest hardware, anything over 80fps can't really be detected by the human eye anyway.
In response to Mario's two points
a) Have you played Morrowind? Okay, sorry to say this, but to me that was clearly a lacklustre plain world that I've been through before (Daggerfall) with an unconvincing and boring storyline.
b) have you played Ultima IX? The entire world took way too long to develop because it was so richly detailed...
These two problems aren't really specific to the whole AI generating storyline/environment, but are more related to game design in general.
However, you look at the tools we use for creating game content, and they are very production-line machinated. We employ professional artists who use these programmer generated tools to make content, imagine the fuss artists would kick up if some guy said that he could replace them and their creativity?
There is alot of automated parts here, but it still retains that human input that is vital.
It's the same issue here, this guy is saying that we need game designers to make like a tiny little introduction to a game, and then the programmer has to come up with some whizz-bang AI to parametrically create the storyline reward structure from there on in. To me, it's cutting out the creativity that I think is a very integral part of games success. Any entertainment medium has a level of creativity and artistic-license that is appreciated by the consumer. Movies, literature, music are all made by "artists" and all fall into this entertainment industry the same way computer games do. Cutting out the level of human and creative input in just about any form - although is good for budgets if you recycle code, is still a retarded idea.
I'm sort of trying to make people think forward here. Alot of your replies say
quote:Anyway, we'll know in 5 years or so there'll either be a huge announcement or nothing. It'll at least take 5 years before consuemr hardware is anywhere close enough in power to do what he wants.
and
quote:you'd have to wait till humans develop AS, Artificial Sentience (or until an AI develops an AS )
Let's hypothesise that we do have the technology today, is it worth developing these ideas to the extent that this guy is saying? Should game stories being parametrically designed to suit everyone?
Let's also hypothesise we can come up with a "creative" computer, how do game writers and designers feel about their jobs being axed, cause if a computer is that creative, and it understands humans surely it could design interfaces and gameplay as well? Do we want computers to do everything for us creatively, and the players just drones who blindly do what the computer imagines we want to play, rather than being involved in an expressive human creation with artistic integrity?
Saying we'll find out in five years is a bad idea, because the games we start now generally don't get finished for three or four. Technology is moving VERY very fast. I remember not so long ago, maybe five years, when graphics cards only existed in 3DFX Voodoo form and I owned a P166 with 32Mb of RAM. I remember five years before that playing doom/wolf3d on a 386, and a few years before that, I can only just remember the Amstrad where graphics were presented in 3 colours, and displaying many sprites at even close to ten frames per second was an awesome feat.
In five years time, I can assure you computers will be FAR more powerful than you can probably imagine right now.
Anyway, I digress, obviously this debate can go further, but try to view it from purely a game designer/player point of view.
Snootchie bootchies!
Any off-topic issues send to maitrek@austarmetro.com.au
Sorry, the 5 years thing was related to the article, that is the time frame the guy gives for his technology. So don't blame me! :)
"Q. So how far away is something like this artificial intelligence from the marketplace?
A. I think to some degree you can see in the next five years a lot of these techniques winding up in things that are sold. "
CYer, Blitz
I agree he sounds like a fruit loop, but huge leaps have been made in technology before.
I'm wondering if the guy actually fully realises what he's talking about...one would assume he does, but from the "layman" nature of the interview he doesn't really let any ideas or anything out that actually give what he says any credit.
I'm also interested as how detailed they can really do anything with the Unreal Tournament engine. It doesn't really strike me as an engine that can be hugely manipulated on the fly to do what he's talking about.
Anyway, we'll know in 5 years or so there'll either be a huge announcement or nothing. It'll at least take 5 years before consuemr hardware is anywhere close enough in power to do what he wants.
CYer, Blitz