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

[Ted L. Chen]

Sasha Hart wrote:

> There really isn't any good argument for why no one should try. I
> will easily concede that Everquest & co. probably shouldn't waste
> their time (though I would be pleased if there were more
> behavioral/causal detail in such games), or that an employee
> writing a MUD shouldn't waste his company's money if what they
> really want is rocks with voice acting and hitpoints with legs.

Well, that's not really fair to simple script-based AIs.  Depending
on whether the intelligence you're trying to emulate is well-defined
(e.g. a physics problem) or a more ambiguous (how do you feel?),
scripts have their uses.  I see it as coming down to simplicity and
transparency of design.  If I know that I want the rock to sit there
and wait for the player to wander by before speaking, then I might
as well script it.  No need to give the rock motivation and HOPE
that it stays put until the player walks by.  Also, if the rock
doesn't do as expected, it's far easier to debug scripts than it is
to work out the complex dynamics of learning systems or
heaven-forbid, an emergent system.

Mind you, I use scripting very generically, so much so that I even
consider airplane autopilots as script-based AI's.  If you can make
assumptions about the operation environment and how it changes, then
scripting is a very powerful tool.

>From a asthetic design standpoint, scripting also allows for
caricatures on behavior, which more robust AI techniques seem to
washout because they tend not to be optimal or rational.

TLC


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