[MUD-Dev] AI not worth doing in our games?

[Sean Kelly]

On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 amanda at alfar.com wrote:

> If the pigeons respond to player actions, and mobs respond to
> pigeons, it could make it much more challenging to sneak through
> the park.  Example:

>   - target a mob, cast lightning bolt.

>   - flock of pigeons burts out the trees, scared by the noise.

>   - mobs converge on you to see what the fuss is about.

> I'll go back to my claim that faked, teflon-coated scenery is less
> immersive than reactive scenery.  Remember what was so fun about
> Duke Nukem?  You could actually blow holes in stuff!  Sure, it was
> only a few preconstructed holes in a few pre-designated places,
> but it was there.  Same with decals in Q3 for scorch marks, etc.

Duke Nukem was the best FPS I've ever played.  It had just enough
world interaction to keep things fresh and interesting, and
multiplayer was a blast.  Level and weapon design, too, were quirky
and fun.  It's too bad that since then game designers have mostly
considered reactive environments too difficult to be worth pursuing.
I haven't been able to really get into a FPS since Duke Nukem
(though all the single-player games released by LGS were fantastic).

I think designers tend to give perks like reactive environments less
credit than perhaps they are due.  They may be computationally
expensive, but they make the game infinitely more satisfying.


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev