3 ms·
I've been to the Game Developer's Conference (once) before. Believe me, there have been startups that have provided A.I. services for years (it was kind of like
by cableshaft 10y ago
I've been to the Game Developer's Conference (once) before. Believe me, there have been startups that have provided A.I. services for years (it was kind of like the equivalent of the Havok engine for physics, you had to implement it into your game). I don't know how well used they are, but I remember them being mentioned at one of the lectures about A.I. that I attended. They had tables and swag, too. I don't remember their names.
- formula1 10y agoThats really interesting. Im curious why they havent been more popular. Were they heavilly focused on fps's?
- quantumpotato_ 10y agoIn previous years I've seen a lot of AI tech for action-games -- not neccessiarly FPS but shooter in a flat world with obstacles. Eg. marking objects for cover, marking positions to defend from etc. Doesn't quite apply to a mario style game
- lenocinor 10y agoThere are a lot of problems, but mainly I think it boils down to game people, like a lot of programmers, wanting to write something themselves. You'll always understand it better, and it'll be perfectly tailored to your problem. Unless the problem is REALLY hard and takes a long time coding tedious things, they'd rather just do it themselves, since coding something is always more fun than figuring out someone else's code. Also, out of my experience with many different fields of programming, game programmers seem to want to write more of the stuff themselves than most. This would be another huge subject to go into, but I think the biggest reason is that historically you couldn't ever really punt on performance in games, and you had to tweak everything to your problem. If your game ran slowly or looked bad, people just wouldn't buy it.