Activating something that changed the gameplay such as extra lights or different patrol routes Īlso there could have been, like you said, different reactions for different experience levels or types of character.Showed increased stress, such as whipping out their weapons every now and then and aiming at some dark corner.Commented about the event in conversations with other guards.So even if the guards basically went back to normal for gameplay purposes, they could at least have: This is definitely one of those cases where gameplay trumped realism, but I've always felt that the integrity of the situation should always be upheld in at least an abstract way. There seemed to me to be an alert level that, at some point, became a permanent state if too many triggers were tripped, but apart from that binary state there didn't seem to be much else, and before that state was reached, the AI would simply forget after some period of time. When you're hiding around in the shadows waiting, you tend to have a good perspective on the AI and its reactions and it was very annoying for me to see how quickly the AIs reverted to normal behaviour (showing no apparent stress or change in alertness even after having recently found one of their fellow guards dead, or after having come across a ninja in a black suit who disappeared straight after).
It's especially apparent in one my my favourite games Splinter Cell. Is there some simplified model of human or organism behaviour that might drive a high-level AI system?ĮDIT: I think you deleted your post? Anyway this was in response to a comment that doesn't seem to be around any more.too boring or gets in the way of something) What sort of realistic behaviours do we not want in games (e.g.conflict, cooperation, maybe even social interactions or some abstract measure thereof) What sort of interactions between AI are universal or nearly so (e.g.What sort of behaviours are 'universal' or nearly so when it comes to game AI.So maybe a few points worth thinking about: Obviously it's very easy to talk about it like this, and the devil is in the details, but I think maybe by discussing it we can get a better understanding of a 'first principles' viewpoint on the problem of game AI in general. Or even a more abstract 'organism rig' which encompassed at least some groups of behaviours centered around survival, reducing threats and even cooperation with other organisms, by accessing information about their needs/desires and maximising them in a way that signalled the other organism about the intent. But it got me wondering about how devs in general see AI tools and AI development in their games.įrom a non-technical perspective, what would be the ideal workflow for making game AI? I was thinking about animation and movement as well, and it occurred to me that in the same way that you have a 'humanoid rig' for animation, it seems like it would be efficient to have a 'humanoid rig' for AI behaviour. Right now it's not meant to be an all-encompassing solution for AI or behaviour trees in general, rather just a basic solution to get people started with AI in that kit, and to make my life easier as I make my game. So I've been working on a behaviour tree tool for my game (and the space combat kit I'm working on).
0 kommentar(er)
