4 ms·
but how would that be done. no matter how you do it there has to be some starting point, initiation. and whatever values you place there wont be neutral right?
by schtog 18y ago
but how would that be done.
no matter how you do it there has to be some starting point, initiation. and whatever values you place there wont be neutral right? or can they?
it seems that even if you make it very basic they will still include some interpretation of the world from the designers and thus be more likely to evolve ina certain direction.
to be a perfect simulation would need the game designer to be some sort of a god no?
- Tichy 18y agoNot saying it is easy, but as an example I could point out "Conway's Game Of Life". At least it doesn't claim to be anything else than what it is... What about a simulation of pool? I guess one could argue that the physics can never be 100% correct, but in that case I wouldn't feel so bad about it, somehow. I guess I feel that it would be more interesting to have emergent behaviour from simple rules than to hardwire the rules on a high level, but of course I can not give a clear cut definition...
- schtog 18y agosure i see your point, i guess in the future there will be middleware. like molyneux himself points out it is too expensive. and i mena people kind of keep reinventing the wheel(like in a lot of other areas in programming) so one could imagine people creating worlds both for science and computer games that have evolving populations of something and then game designers can take these when they are at a certain stage of development and build a gameworld on top of them. uh, kinda :)
- Tichy 18y agoDefinitely, the way there are tools like Poser today for creating animated 3d people, there might be behaviour design tools in the future.