[MUD-Dev] Natural Language Generation

[blizzard36_2002 at yahoo.com]

--<cut>--
Note: This message was written via the list web archives.  There is
no guarantee that the claimed author is actually the author.
--<cut>--
Original message: http://www.kanga.nu/archives/MUD-Dev-L/2004Q2/msg00487.php

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 22:26:54 -0700
Sean Middleditch <elanthis at awesomeplay.com> wrote:
> 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.)

AI contests have typically been based on the ability of the computer
to fool the human into believing they are human. Intelligence
doesn't have a definition that a computer could not
possess. Artificial does not mean fake.

An AI controlling a character with exactly the same abilities as the
player, with access to the same information, can conceivably outwit
the human player.  Example scenario: An AI minister knows the player
is a spy, but has no proof.  It, however, is loyal to the player's
enemy (another player), and questions him publicly. Through clever
questioning, the AI succeeds in revealing the spy. Is it still
fooling the player (either player) into believing it's intelligent?
Or is it being intelligent?

> 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.

I just saw a Star Wars Galaxies banner that showed what appeared to
be a pilot interacting with her R2 droid. Now, one of the biggest
complaints I've heard about SWG is that it doesn't feel like Star
Wars. Disclaiming here, I haven't played Star Wars myself; however,
having read a novel or two, I notice that R2 droids practically have
their own personality. R2D2 certainly has an amusing one, and
Threepio has an equally amusing one. It's capable of displaying
concern in a variety of ways, for instance, from howling to
displaying text. Unless you're going to make it so that players are
the only droids in the game (and who wants to be fastened into the
back of an X-Wing? Much more fun to be doing the piloting and
shooting.), you'd either need an RPer who can compensate for the
weak AI a droid has, or a less immersive environ than could be
provided.

True, we don't have the AI to make Star Wars droid-level AI yet (or
do we? I'm not up to speed on the latest), but why should that stop
us? And droid-type AI is not "so human it's scary"; it's human
enough to interact with.
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev