Yeh.. im trying to engage the topic here but just getting washed out in the noise... particularly given that whole giant wall of text is about CPU/resource usage and the question asks re: cloud computing. I keep saying you could run AI for the NPC's online server side and get no more drain on resources than any multiplayer game out there...
I said "for modern machines". Hate to break it to you, but 2006 was almost two decades ago.
And the point flies over your head again. What you fail to understand is that by doing something like say, not simulating the NPCs a player is nowhere near, you save gigantic amounts of CPU while changing practically nothing about the gameplay. Thus, the concept can still be accomplished.
The modern versions of those engines. Oh my god, you're just grasping for staws at this point.
Well, in that case I suppose: "This was true a long time ago, but now game engines like Unity, Unreal, and Godot can work for basically whatever game concept you can think of except for deep dive VR games"
So you're telling me games have NEVER added in new gameplay mechanics from previous entries? Huh? The AI from the new wolfenstein games is going to try to reload it's weapons, get line of sight, pathfind with elevation, ect. which doesn't exist in the first game.
It doesn't for the reasons I pointed out.
So the opposite being done... has what relevance exactly?
You agree a larger amount of NPCs doesn't count as "more advanced"! Thus we are both on the same page that it is about NPC intelligence and not how many NPCs the game can run at a time.
It's a simplification I made so people who know nothing at all about game design can have an easier time understanding. Unfortunately I did not make it simple enough for you.
Here's what you originally said in this part of the chain:
Are you referring to when I said "translation: nuh uh"?
I've already debunked it. Look at my past replies.
You say all that but fail to even compherehend what I wrote. Try again.
The videos don't even come close to addressing what I said. Try again.
and I ignored you, gave you the example and from one of the most famous people in game development. The best you come back with is "that's old" Strange how you give no details as to why it's not valid.
there you go again relegating most games types and only including the ones that could possibly fit your limited knowledge of games and gaming.
and you called yourself a game developer....
So what you ACTUALLY meant was, concept YOU can think of, that was just one example but there are many concepts out there that can't be made yet.
For someone complaining about my English, you sure are butchering the language.
If you can't even communicate the simplest idea that is on you, not me....
That is an arse-backwards reply if I ever read one and coming from a so-called "gave developer" just makes it all the more sad.
Never said there weren't....
I have to ask, are you drunk or smoking something when you reply here?
Ok Mr game developer, for all those who know nothing about game design, go ahead and explain to them
50? 50 what,
such a level of inefficency isn't even an issue for what?
Sure why does context matter.... but let's say it does....
So you're going to completely ignore that I clearly pointed out IF THE GAME ENIGNE NEEDS, and somehow twist it into your example? AND STILL NOT answer if it is representative of the majority of games out there....
Don't care, IS NOT representative of the majority of games.
Considering it's ALL just you and your wild assumptions does it really matter?
In this particular instance, "nuh uh" is representative of your complete and utter lack of ANYTHING that could be considered a credible source to refute or even call into question any of the information I have provided FROM OTHERS. So your claim of "defeating a point" is laughable.
Your replies only serve to prove you know nothing about computers, coding or game design. That is not called debunking it's called living in a fantasy world....
At this point I don't think even you comprehend what you wrote.
It's wasn't meant to, I posted it out of pity for you, hoping you might actually learn something.... guess I was being to optimistic.
That's ok, they are NOT just for you.... there are other people who have been and will be reading this thread in the future. Unlike you I actually share sources so others can cross-check and fact check what I have said. Also why you I try explain some of this stuff when there are professionals who have offered their time to explain it in a far better way than I ever could....
No there will not be, there are walls of text over a pointless argument that's derailed and spammed the topic of conversation into a pointless argument about processing power rather than AI in games... you have killed an interesting topic, the pair of you.
The topic was started Jan 5, it's Feb 8 now, over a month for others to jump in, a lot of threads have more than one discussion going at a time and this one had 2 questions asked.
Well the view count has risen a lot so one of us is mistaken
Looking and reading are different things - the fact I've said this, and another person has said this, and you haven't read this, show this.Well the view count has risen a lot so one of us is mistaken
I typed a longer form answer along those lines re: you don't want the ai too smart or you have to build in a failure rate to make it work, which is worse than just random. And most devs wont train it, leaving it to the players which would result in 'optimal' game-play from an input reading bot...
That's what I've been trying to tell him!
Because it's what I said?
Then pick a fucking example.
I'll take that as you failing to say anything.
It's a fringe case. Besides, I've already said making a deep dive VR game has more to do with neuroscience than CPU advancements. It could potentially not be that demanding of a CPU, but we don't know because it doesn't exist yet.
"May no longer" is comparing where we start (the modern game) and the end goal (the old game). If it's wrong, who cares, you get the point.
You've made a lot more grammar mistakes than I have, if you're trying to start a score or something.
Unironically, you have written an "arse-backwards reply" here. When did I mention an "app for outfitting or character creation"? When did I imply the NPC's don't only exist to be in a game?
So if that's the case what the fuck is your point here? I never said CPU was a small factor in games running, only how smart an NPC acts. Especially in the context of modern times.
If you can't form actual replies, don't blame me when I interpret it as something different than what you meant. Perhaps you were laughing at how foolish your stance was and agreed with me?
God forbid I don't go into excrutiating detail in every sentence I write. Here's the point I was trying to make: With a handful of NPCs, the total cost of the inefficiencies may not be noticable at all, but at large numbers these inefficiencies can become greatly impactful.
Case 1: "IF THE GAME NEEDS" here means that the game needs that level of processing power BECAUSE of how smart the NPC is. I've already pointed out the current smartest NPC' out there don't push modern software to it's limits from intelligence alone. If you can find an NPC that pushes a modern computer's hardware to it's limits mostly due to it's intelligence, tell me! If not, well, this is just another bizarre hypothetical.
You know what, why do you even care about it in the first place? You're the one who started this bit about a hypothetical game with a "smart NPC". I point out the closest thing we have to that in real life, and you're mad it's not representitive of the majority of games?
Now that's a blanket statement if I've ever seen one. It's a "wild assumption" that humans are the ones who write the code, not the CPU just automatically constructing itself?
All of your sources have meant jack shit. You have yet to say anything of value about this quote:
Interesting way of saying "I have no way to respond to what you said".
Maybe you do compherend, but you quote stuff out of context to make strawmen? After all, "context doesn't matter". That's what you said.
So what you're saying is that you have no response? Way to 'not be defeated', I guess.
I already spent enough time replying to your bullshit arguments, if you post a link to a 30 minutes video or 50 page document and cannot show how it relates to what you're saying, then I'm not going to waste more of my time watching it. I am going to instead assume you have nothing to respond with and are just trying to waste my time, as you have admitted yourself exactly one quote ago.
too good ai wouldn't be fun... people dont wanna play chess against stockfish, it will kick your ass, but what games are limiting the ai? i play strategy games like civ and total war and they are in bad need of better ai. the usual way to make the ai "harder to beat" is by giving them advantages, so essentially cheating.
Simple
I suppose limiting it intentionally isn't exactly it. They just don't pursue the pinnacle of optimal play for the AI. Let's look at RTS. In the first place, the developers are not expert gamers. All the strategies and builds are emergent properties that comes out after the game is released through all the game hours players put in and the pro-gamer scene. So even if they wanted to, the best bot the devs can make is probably not playing optimally due to their lack of game knowledge. So they make some rudimentary difficulty breakpoints and the computer is generally playing under pretty simple instructions. And as you say, higher difficulty can often just mean cheating computers like resource injection. How much of this is coder incompetence and how much of it is design goals? I dunno. I'm not in the industry, but it's hard to imagine developers are just incapable of making better AIs, so much of it must be by design to keep it simple and give players a predictable experience.
I am pretty sure for honor tried something awhile back - the only data source to train it are the players, and thats a baaaad idea- you ended up with input reading bots that did the cheap instant kill and broken moves and then teabag emote spammed... until they were reverted to brainless bots again so people could actually play
Isn't all AI currently controlled by code though, which is definitely 2d, it just needs to be trained how to create code that works
To be honest its the same issue with AAA games now, before the era of 'day 1 patches' there were play testers, not QA testers, PLAY testers They would bug hunt, tell you they are bored, got lost etc.
Its because things like vector trajectory data isn't made available (publicly) for an AI to scrape, but the maths to reverse engineer an artillery shell mid flight and within a few seconds know where it came from has existed for a very, very long time.
