[MUD-Dev2] [DESIGN] Multiplayer interactive fiction

[John Buehler]

Mike Rozak writes:

> For while, I've been saying, "The NPCs are the game!".

A bit strongly worded but I agree with this sentiment.  It may be a foregone
conclusion for most here that an environment with advanced NPCs would
provide considerable entertainment.  They may simply ignore the notion in
the short term because such a thing won't be built for a while.

Me, I'd like a bit less money spent on graphics and a bit more on NPC AI.

> In this article I will explain what (I think) "multiplayer interactive
> fiction" (MIF) is, and how it differs from other game genres.

I scanned it quickly.  My takeaway was that the focus was on the ability to
socialize with NPCs, relying on the application of stuff like AI to make
that happen.  As a sidelight, there was a separation of "NPCs" from
"quasi-NPCs".

1. NPCs are NPCs.  Some are dumber and some are smarter.  Games don't use
dumb NPCs because they want to.  They use them because that's all that can
be done today.  You can be sure that Unreal Tournament would have
socializing, smart NPCs if they could make them.  They'd taunt eloquently,
solve problems in more interesting and challenging ways, and make fine
additions to teams short of players.  In other words, creating a notion of
quasi-NPCs seems counterproductive to me.  An NPC capable of being smart is
always better than one that can only be dumb, all else being the same.

2. Socialization is fine as an ultimate goal of NPC sophistication.
However, when I think of the next iteration in smarter NPCs, I think of
non-verbal interactions.  I have never cared for reading the text that games
crank out.  It invariably implies things that the game cannot follow through
on.  So I assume that the next iteration will involve depictions of whatever
it is that characters CAN follow through on.  Body language seems possible
(waving arms, turning away, laughter, hugs, etc), along with iconic
depictions of other things too subtle to depict at scale (facial features).
Characters could use "mumblespeak" when talking, allowing a certain degree
of tone and volume to communicate the character's emotional state.  Perhaps
the cartoon depiction of the Tazmanian Devil is the right example here.  We
always knew what Taz was up to, even if he didn't speak.  Hearts hover when
he's in love, loud yelling and jumping up and down when he's angry, and a
blathering stream of syllables when communicating.

I mention the second point because I got a bit distracted from the message
by the examples that talk about things that simply won't happen for a while.
I'm more interested in the message of the importance of the role that NPCs
have in setting up the context and fiction of the entertainment.  No matter
how advanced they are.

Hand in hand with the idea of the prominence of NPCs is the idea of
experiences that focus on groups instead of trying to herd thousands of
players through shared content.  In the group context, the NPCs can
outnumber the players and provide the context.  In the massive context, the
NPCs are overwhelmed by the antics of the omnipresent players, leaving the
game context to the players.

With sophisticated enough behavior for NPCs, an environment dominated by
NPCs can be very entertaining.  Lacking that behavior software, the NPCs
don't entertain, and having other players around is essential.  Even if the
context they produce is similar to that of a high school cafeteria.

Those vision statements are fun to write, though  :)

JB