4 ms·

I mean, you're imagining unfun things, and then declaring them unfun, rather than imagining fun things. Of course unfun implementations would be unfun. But what

I mean, you're imagining unfun things, and then declaring them unfun, rather than imagining fun things. Of course unfun implementations would be unfun. But what the gp was clearly intending to suggest was fun implementations of more advanced NPC AI. And your responses are either ignoring that intention, or implying that it's unlikely to occur, both of which seem like being a downer and a skeptic just for the sake of being a skeptic.

BoorishBears 3y ago
I can't tell if this is satire, but one of the "rules that are always true, until they aren't" in game design is that realism isn't fun (https://www.gamesradar.com/gabe-newell-says-games-dont-need-to-be-realistic-i-have-never-thought-to-myself-that-realism-is-fun/ https://www.gamesradar.com/gabe-newell-says-games-dont-need-...) Games bend over backwards in a million ways not to be realistic even when they seem realistic: from silently helping your odds, to intentionally breaking physics (see: coyote running in platformers), to helping your movement align with enemies. Even the most realistic games with human locomotion almost all rely unrealistic ankle-breaking acceleration changes for your character because you'd feel like you were piloting a bowl of soup otherwise. The reason we don't have full agentic NPCs right now isn't a technical limitation: it just wouldn't be fun. Usually you're the hero going against impossible odds with NPCs, in the real world you'd just die. Games like GTA constantly have NPCs saying outlandish but comical quips at a rate that far surpasses real life. Hard coded NPC behaviors in games often become the defining features of those games - There's nothing wrong with realizing that outside of very narrow context like simulator physics, people generally don't seek out realism in our entertainment. People want a certain degree of escapism that relies on breaking the rules a little, or in the case of NPCs a lot.
- ahazred8ta 3y ago
  Outlandish but comical quips? You no take candle. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouNoTakeCandle https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouNoTakeCandle
- csallen 3y ago
  This take makes no sense to me. I would bet you any amount of money that, 5 years from now, there will be fun+successful games that use modern AI to make NPCs more realistic than they are today. And I guarantee you wouldn't take that bet, because you know you would lose money. The questions is not, "Is there a level of realism that is unfun," because duh, of course there is. The question is, "Will new advances in AI allow game developers to bring life to NPCs in a way previously not possible, that's also fun." And duh, of course it will. Pointing out ways that increased realism can be unfun does nothing to prove that there are no ways in which it can be fun. Y'all are betting against the creativity of the entire game development industry. Absolutely wild.
  - BoorishBears 3y ago
    I mean you're making a bad bet: today companies are using modern AI to help with NPCs like voices. I expect AI will be used to scale dialogue options, NPC model assortments, NPC voices, etc. to an amazing degree too at build time. But realtime "Large Transformer Models", to generate how NPCs act is almost a "duh no one will want that", when you can get 99% of the benefits by baking the output of gen AI in the game with none of the drawbacks like losing the shared experience of a game or playing roulette with the quality of someone's experience. AI would let you bake in insanely intricate dialogue trees today
    - csallen 3y ago
      > when you can get 99% of the benefits by baking the output of gen AI in the game with none of the drawbacks like losing the shared experience of a game or playing roulette with the quality of someone's experience. You're making tremendous assumptions here: - That the shared experience of game is always more fun than individual experiences. - That only 1% of benefits can come from real-time AI decision-making. - That using AI will mean playing roulette with experience, AND that playing roulette can never be fun. I would bet all the money on earth that game developers will prove you wrong in each of these areas over the course of the next 3-5 years.

BoorishBears 3y ago

I can't tell if this is satire, but one of the "rules that are always true, until they aren't" in game design is that realism isn't fun (https://www.gamesradar.com/gabe-newell-says-games-dont-need-to-be-realistic-i-have-never-thought-to-myself-that-realism-is-fun/ https://www.gamesradar.com/gabe-newell-says-games-dont-need-...) Games bend over backwards in a million ways not to be realistic even when they seem realistic: from silently helping your odds, to intentionally breaking physics (see: coyote running in platformers), to helping your movement align with enemies. Even the most realistic games with human locomotion almost all rely unrealistic ankle-breaking acceleration changes for your character because you'd feel like you were piloting a bowl of soup otherwise. The reason we don't have full agentic NPCs right now isn't a technical limitation: it just wouldn't be fun. Usually you're the hero going against impossible odds with NPCs, in the real world you'd just die. Games like GTA constantly have NPCs saying outlandish but comical quips at a rate that far surpasses real life. Hard coded NPC behaviors in games often become the defining features of those games - There's nothing wrong with realizing that outside of very narrow context like simulator physics, people generally don't seek out realism in our entertainment. People want a certain degree of escapism that relies on breaking the rules a little, or in the case of NPCs a lot.

ahazred8ta 3y ago
Outlandish but comical quips? You no take candle. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouNoTakeCandle https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouNoTakeCandle
csallen 3y ago
This take makes no sense to me. I would bet you any amount of money that, 5 years from now, there will be fun+successful games that use modern AI to make NPCs more realistic than they are today. And I guarantee you wouldn't take that bet, because you know you would lose money. The questions is not, "Is there a level of realism that is unfun," because duh, of course there is. The question is, "Will new advances in AI allow game developers to bring life to NPCs in a way previously not possible, that's also fun." And duh, of course it will. Pointing out ways that increased realism can be unfun does nothing to prove that there are no ways in which it can be fun. Y'all are betting against the creativity of the entire game development industry. Absolutely wild.
- BoorishBears 3y ago
  I mean you're making a bad bet: today companies are using modern AI to help with NPCs like voices. I expect AI will be used to scale dialogue options, NPC model assortments, NPC voices, etc. to an amazing degree too at build time. But realtime "Large Transformer Models", to generate how NPCs act is almost a "duh no one will want that", when you can get 99% of the benefits by baking the output of gen AI in the game with none of the drawbacks like losing the shared experience of a game or playing roulette with the quality of someone's experience. AI would let you bake in insanely intricate dialogue trees today
  - csallen 3y ago
    > when you can get 99% of the benefits by baking the output of gen AI in the game with none of the drawbacks like losing the shared experience of a game or playing roulette with the quality of someone's experience. You're making tremendous assumptions here: - That the shared experience of game is always more fun than individual experiences. - That only 1% of benefits can come from real-time AI decision-making. - That using AI will mean playing roulette with experience, AND that playing roulette can never be fun. I would bet all the money on earth that game developers will prove you wrong in each of these areas over the course of the next 3-5 years.