[MUD-Dev] Natural Language Generation

[Sean Middleditch]

On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 02:09, Michael "Flury" Chui wrote:
> --- mugginsm at under-the-fridge.com wrote:

>> My view is that merely attempting to make an NPC pretend to be a
>> human is what frustrates players. In a text based game, it's not
>> like a room description is trying to fool the player into
>> thinking they're actually there. A game sword doesn't trick the
>> player into believing they *really* have a sword. So why should a
>> computer controlled character necessarily try and fool the player
>> into thinking there's real intelligence there?

> If it succeeds in "fooling" the player, then there IS intelligence
> there.

Pointless arguing of semantics... you know what the original poster
meant.  Real human player "intelligence."  (I use that term loosely,
given my experience with most MUD/MMO game players.)

>> To me, an NPC that I can interact with in a consistent manner
>> (not spending hours guessing the synonym that triggers quest
>> information or finding the one NPC that is actually interactive)
>> to perform game actions *in game terms* is just right.

> What if there's a player sitting there amusedly watching you guess
> synonyms until she decides to let you have your quest? What's the
> difference?

For one, very few players do that.  Mostly because it's irritating,
not fun, and not very realistic (again, because people don't usually
do that kind of crap).  Just like players that only accept
specifically formatted "input" are rare, so are those that just scan
for keywords. Given that you'll be mimicking one or the other with
an NPC, you might as well go with the simpler and less frustrating
of the two.  Or, better yet, make an attempt at both.

>> An NPC barkeep that can divulge information, or that regulars can
>> ask to throw irritating customers out of the bar, or that can
>> pass messages on to other regulars is just fine. Give it a
>> consistent interface:

>>   "ask barkeep to <action>"

>>   "ask barkeep about <thing>"

>> for example, and it works. Some MUDs do this quite well already
>> with individual NPCs, but the interface needs to be more
>> consistent across all of them.

> You should be able to do that for players, as well. The recipient
> would be told, "You were asked to <action> by <person>."

Agreed.

>> The moment it breaks immersion and becomes frustrating and
>> annoying is when the NPC tries to *fool* me into thinking it's
>> human.  Because it can't. Not this decade, anyway.

>> I think NPCs are excellent game resources, but trying to make
>> them "real" is actually counter productive.

> It's really a matter of priorities. If you're looking to get a
> game on the market that will be fun and immersive, then sure,
> spending time on quality AI is counter-productive. But if you're
> trying to find a next step to take, i.e. you're an Explorer rather
> than an Achiever ;), then I feel it's a worthwhile area to look
> into, because AI has that much potential.

AI has a lot of potential for all players, depending on which parts
of the AI you're focusing on.  Even in simple games with little to
no direct interaction (information interchange) with NPCs a decent
AI in terms of reactions to environment or life conditions can be
very entertaining and bring the world to life.  Seeing towns people
mass when someone starts shouting religious statements in town
square, seeing forest animals run on site, and so on.

Games like Gauntlet (probably the least AI in any game there is that
actually has AI; it's just "move in straight line towards player and
attack when in range" for the vast majority of monsters) get boring
very, very, very quickly.

--
Sean Middleditch <elanthis at awesomeplay.com>
AwesomePlay Productions, Inc.
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev