IA on AI

Archive for the ‘Opinion’ Category

On EverQuest Next and AI-Driven MMOs

Sunday, March 13th, 2016


When I heard the news that Daybreak had cancelled development of EverQuest Next, I admit that I wasn’t surprised. I had expected it for quite some time — as did many others. There was no real sense of loss or remorse. Any grief process had been drawn out over the course of well over a year. In a way, it is similar to watching someone die slowly of a debilitating condition of some sort. When you finally hear the news of their passing, your reaction is often simply, “Oh. OK.” You knew it was coming and you had already both resigned yourself to the eventuality and prepared yourself for life afterwards. This was the same… I had already grieved slowly over the course of 2 years — not just the end of my direct role in the development, not just the knowledge that no one else had picked up on what I had started, but the knowledge that even the concept of the game was going away. Just as with the example of a loved one, EverQuest Next, had been dying or dead for a long time.

At least in this form…

And that’s why I’m writing this.

Emergent AI was not born at SOE/Daybreak or born of Everquest Next. It also did not die with it.

One of the things that has been difficult in the 2 years since I left the project, and even more so in the year plus since Storybricks left (and subsequently shut down), was watching the commentary of the fans. So many times, I saw speculation about the AI and what it could do. Most of the times, they were correct. Yes, my AI system could do a lot of things that people had been wanting. At other times, I saw the opposite — detractors swearing that the world-spanning, emergent AI that we (I?) had promised was impossible. Some people even posited that it was the AI that was the reason for the protracted development cycle and even the ultimate cancellation of the project. While I don’t know exactly what went on at SOE/Daybreak after I left, I can almost guarantee that the AI was not the problem… or at least it wasn’t when Storybricks left a year ago.

With the announcement of the cancellation of Everquest Next, another faction has cropped up (likely overlapping significantly with the first one above)… those that lament that we will now never see an MMO with that sort of “living world” and “emergent AI” that was promised in the EQN reveal at SOE live almost 3 years ago. It is to those people that I write…

Please hear me when I say, emergent AI was not born at SOE/Daybreak or born of Everquest Next. It also did not die with it.

What many people do not realize is that most of those concepts came from the mind of the Storybricks team — myself included. For that matter, many of the different features actually had nothing to do with Storybricks, but rather, were my own. In fact, the examples that were used by Dave Georgeson in the reveal presentation — including the “Orcs by the road” — were lifted almost exactly from a lecture I gave at the 2009 GDC Austin (subsequently GDC Online)… almost 3 years before anyone from Storybricks (including me) pitched anything to SOE at all. Dave came upon that idea after Stéphane Bura and I were presenting bits and pieces of our prior lectures for him and other principals on the team. I didn’t even know he was using that example in the reveal until I saw him present it. Admittedly, it was a good example of the dynamic nature of the world we were creating.

That lecture was meant, at the time, to be a thought experiment — what would happen if we actually did put decent AI in MMOs? In it, I challenged a lot of tropes that the MMO scene had fallen into: the Holy Trinity (specifically as it applied to ridiculously contrived aggro systems), static, unchanging (and unchangeable) worlds, simplistic “big bag of hit points” enemies that operated more like a mechanical wind-up toy than an intelligent being, etc. My point was that we could do better in many facets.

Thankfully, I wasn’t the only one who felt that way. Dave G., Jeff Butler, Darrin McPherson, and others at SOE often said, “we are making the MMO we always wanted to play but couldn’t do technically until now.” That is true for many of us. More importantly, there was one person who was in a person to push to make it happen — John Smedley, CEO of SOE. John had for years been interested in creating an AI-driven MMO. Sure, there were gameplay reasons for doing it, but also it makes good business sense. In the traditional “theme park” model of MMOs in the past 15 years, you can only create as much content as your army of designers and artists can crank out. It is well-established — not unlike the cliched Thanksgiving dinner cook’s lament — that it takes far less time for players to consume that new content than it did for the devs to create it. With the size and scope of today’s MMOs, it is generally impractical to hire enough people to generate a non-stop conveyor belt of content at a rate that ensures the every time a player logs on, something in their world is different.

No designer intervention necessary.

But what if you could create a world that, through its systems, was inherently dynamic? To revive a phrase from my 2009 lecture, and one that I used to pitch the idea to SOE, what if all of that happened with “no designer intervention necessary?” THAT was the power of the “Orcs by the road” example… the world would change by itself — in reasonable, believable ways — without having to have designers authoring those changes. It’s fun for the players as well because they had the potential to be the impetus behind those changes. The orcs didn’t abandon their ambush location along the road because a patch came out with a new scenario… they left because the players cleared them out. For real. They weren’t going to respawn in 2 hours… they were gone. Either dead, fled, or rebasing somewhere else safer and potentially more lucrative for them. No designer intervention necessary.

We were breaking things off the pedestals and rails…

One other thing I brought to the project was my ability to create an AI system that provided not only interesting group behaviors, but also compelling, dynamic, realistic individual behaviors. These included combat behaviors that were unlike what people were used to in MMOs and also interesting non-static ambient behaviors in cities, towns, villages, and in the wild. We were breaking things off the pedestals and rails to which so many MMO NPCs are affixed. We were setting them loose with their own needs and desires and an awareness of their environment that allowed them to seek out their own solutions. And yes, we were giving them an awareness of you, the player.

All of those things that were promised with the AI were true and deliverable. It was not vaporware. In fact, after leaving the project (something I did not want to do), I ended up going straight to ArenaNet (thanks to my dear friend Mike Lewis) and spent a year implementing much of the same architecture and design. Some of it was used in the Heart of Thorns expansion to GuildWars 2the rest was prototyped up for possible use in future ArenaNet titles. (Much of the reason that some things were not used is that they were too much of a departure from the established gameplay of the GuildWars 2 franchise.) If you want to see how some of the system I implemented at ArenaNet works, watch this lecture from the 2015 GDC AI Summit. It is more dev focussed and it certainly isn’t all of my multi-faceted AI architecture, but it will give you a glimpse.

There is someone who believes in the power of AI-driven MMOs

As of last fall, I’m also working with John Smedley at his new company, Pixelmage Games, on Hero’s Song. Yes, I’m implementing the same sorts of things that where intended for Everquest Next… a large, dynamic, living world driven by emergent AI from the ground up. When I found out that John had started his own company, I knew that he was going to be pushing for a game like that. As I mentioned, he was the one who wanted an AI-driven game when he started EQNext. I sought him out and offered my services even before I knew what the game was. 4 months in, I can’t tell which of the 2 of us is more tickled to be working with the other — him that there is someone who can implement his ideas or me that there is someone who believes in the power of AI-driven MMOs enough to enable the development of one.

So while I certainly understand people’s disappointment at the cancelling of EverQuest Next, please don’t believe that this is the death knell for MMOs with living, breathing worlds, with NPCs who are engaging, challenging, and often surprising. I am not the only talented AI dev out there. As the co-founder of the AI Game Programmers Guild, I can ensure you that there are plenty of them.

Unfortunately, many companies are simply afraid of non-theme park MMOs and “smart” AI. Believe it or not, they truly posit such premises as “players don’t want smart enemies” and “players want predictable puzzles” and “if we don’t tell the player what to do, they will be lost”.

This flies in the face of one of the most memorable exchanges that I ever had in a game… and it was in the first month of the seminal MMO, Ultima Online. A new player trotted up to me in town and asked, “so what do I do?”

“Huh?” I responded.

“What am I supposed to do in the game?” he persisted.

“Anything you want to do.”

“No, I mean, what’s the story?”

“Anything you want.” I replied, not really trying to be as cryptic as he thought I was being.

“There’s no plot? No story?”

“Story? Go walk outside that city gate over there.”

“That’s where the first story is?”

“You walk outside that gate, trust me… you will have a story to tell. Anything that you chose to do and anything that happens to you… THAT is the story.”

No designer intervention necessary.

Emergent AI is possible.

So while it isn’t necessarily in your power as players and fans to create an MMO that will have the types of AI-driven experiences that EverQuest Next provided, you can make a difference. First, don’t give up hope. Emergent AI is possible. As an AI consultant, I’m doing it every day — currently for Hero’s Song, as I mentioned above. While not as bold and sweeping as EQNext (and maybe that’s a good thing), it will have a lot of the same features that you were expecting from it.

Second, continue to make your voices heard… tell game companies and the game media that you want something more than the latest themepark MMO with pretty graphics and meticulously crafted stories on a pedestal and quests on rails that you consume in weeks, days, or even hours.

Tell them that what you really want is to walk out that city gate, chose to do something and have something happen to you, so you can have a story to tell. YOUR story. As I said back during the EQNext reveal week (and Dave G. also parrotted)…

“If you don’t go out and find our content, our content may very well come and find you!”

No designer intervention necessary.

Art vs. AI: Why Artists Have It Easier

Friday, August 24th, 2012

The topic of rendering vs. AI came up in a discussion in the AI Game Programmers Guild. A point made in that discussion was that rendering programmers have it easier since they know what it is they are trying to accomplish and have a pretty good handle on the inner workings of what is going on inside the computer to produce that. We, as AI programmers, do not have that luxury since we don’t really have a guide in that respect.

This reminded me of how I had addressed it in the opening chapter of my book. Rather than bludgeon the AIGPG list with this, I figured I would paste it here in the open for everyone to see. What follows is an excerpt from Chapter 1 of Behavioral Mathematics for Game AI.

Going Beyond Looks

For purposes of full disclosure, I have to admit that I have very little talent when it comes to art. I understand some of the concepts – I can draw perspective of blocky objects using a vanishing point, for example. I can even copy an existing drawing to some extent – to this day, I have a fantastic painting of a pig that I made in 7th grade that was copied from a picture in a magazine. However, that about exhausts my talent for the medium.

Looking like a Pig

Despite my dearth of ability to perform that particular discipline, I would still feel secure in making the claim that artists in the game industry have life a bit easier than do AI programmers. After all, they can see what it is that they are supposed to be accomplishing. Before they begin to draw a pig, they can look at a pig first. They can make changes to parts of their pig that are less than accurate – in effect, fine-tuning their pig-replication abilities. They can show their picture of a pig to anyone else that wanders by and ask “what does this look like?” Unless the artist subscribes to a more Picasso-esque approach, the reaction should be “Hey! It’s a pig!” (Unfortunately, my art teacher didn’t buy my claim of being a disciple of Picasso.) People know what a pig looks like. It can be rigidly defined as a collection of expected parts. For example, everyone knows that a pig has four feet. If your pig has five feet, one of which is located in front of an inexplicably present dorsal fin, viewers will be mildly disturbed.

Artists also are comfortable with recreating the environment. A light on one side of an object makes a corresponding shadow on the other. We’ve all seen it; we all know that it would be incorrect otherwise. The ability to perform observation and criticism doesn’t simply lead to the realization that an error needs to be addressed – it often leads to the solution itself. e.g. “Make the floor darker on the side of the object opposite the light.” Even though I lack the ability to necessarily fix it properly, even I as a non-artist can often suggest the solution.

From a technical standpoint, the solutions are often fairly intuitive as well. For example, to make the color of the blue floor darker in the shadows, use a darker color of blue. To make the buildings in the distance look smaller, draw them smaller. Truly, the models of how to accomplish many of the core features of art have been somewhat solved for hundreds of years.

Acting like a Pig

In contrast, game AI provides some challenges in a number of respects. First we can’t just show our AI-enabled pig to someone and say “does this act like a pig?” The answer can’t be rattled off as easily as one regarding the look of a pig. Certainly, there are some obvious failure scenarios such as said pig flying about the room in proverbially unlikely fashion. That should tip some of us off that something is amiss. However, it is far more difficult to state for certain while watching Mr. Swine’s behavior unfold on-screen that it is, indeed, acting the way a proper pig should. There is a layer of abstraction involved that is not easy to translate through.

With the artwork, we see real life and then we see the representation of it. There is an implicit equality there. If what we see in real life doesn’t match what we see in the representation, we can determine that it is wrong. Even if equality is not reached, we are cognizant of a point of diminishing returns. We are accepting of a representation that is “pretty darn close” to what we see in reality.

When watching behavior, however, we have to pass our understanding of that behavior through a filter of judgment. “Is that the correct thing for the pig to do?” In order to answer this question of equality, we would have to have an established belief of what the real-life pig would have been doing in the first place. While we can give generalized answers to that question, none of us can state for certain that every pig will act in a certain way every time that a situation occurs.

Moving beyond pigs to behaviorally more complicated life forms (such as humans – although there may be some exceptions), the solution set gets significantly larger. As that happens, our confidence in what we believe the entity in question “should be” doing slips dramatically. While we may be more comfortable in thinking of possibilities of human behavior than those of a pig (seeing that we are, indeed, human), the very fact that there are so many subtle shades of those behaviors makes it statistically less likely that any one of them is the “right thing” to be doing.

Just as our ability to define what it is they should be doing wanes we are ever more hard-pressed to judge an artificial representation of an entity’s behavior. In Tic-Tac-Toe, it was obvious when the opponent was playing right or wrong – the ramifications were immediately apparent. In Poker, even looking over a player’s shoulder at his cards, it is often difficult to judge what their behavior “should be”. The combination of the possibility space of the game with the range of thought processes of different players makes for a staggering array of choices. The best we can come up with is “that may be a decent choice, but this is what I would do if I were him.” And that statement itself needs to be taken with a grain of salt since we may not be taking the correct – or more correct – approach ourselves.

Making Pigs Act like Pigs

What this means is that AI programmers have it tough. Unlike the artist that can see his subject and gauge the relative accuracy of his work to it, AI programmers don’t necessarily know where they are headed. Certainly, we can have ideas and wishes and goals – especially in the short run. (“I want my pig to eat at this trough.”)  We are also well aware that those can tend to backfire on us. (“Why is my stupid pig eating at that trough when it is on fire?”) However, as the complexity of our world grows, we have to realize that there may not be a goal of perfection such as the goal of photo-realism in art. Behavior is too vague and ephemeral to explain… therefore making it impossible to accurately mimic. Often the best we can do is to embrace methods that give us a good shot at coming close to something that looks reasonable.

But how do we do that without going the route of complete randomness of the Rock-Paper-Scissors player, the monotonous predictability of Tic-Tac-Toe opponent, or the rigid mindlessness of the rule-bound Blackjack dealer? Somehow we have to be able to create the mind of the Poker player. We have to approach the game from the inside of that Poker player’s psyche.

We have to embody that soul with the ability to perceive the world in terms of relevant, not relevant, interesting, dangerous. We have to give him a way to conceptualize more than just “right or wrong” – but rather shades of differentiation. Better. Worse. Not quite as bad as. We have to create for him a translation mechanism to our own thought processes. And it is this last part that is the most difficult… in order to do that, we have to do so in a language that both of us can understand – yet one that is robust enough to convey all that we perceive and ponder. And that language is thankfully one that computers know best – in fact, the only one they know – that of mathematics.

The trick is, how do we convert behavior into mathematics? It isn’t quite as simple as the WYSIWYG model of the artists. (“Make the blue floor in the shadow darker by making the blue darker.”) There is no simple translation from behaviors into numbers and formulas. (For what it’s worth, I already checked Altavista’s™ translation tool, Babel Fish. No help there!) Certainly researchers have been taking notes, conducting surveys and accumulating data for ages. That doesn’t help us to model some of the behaviors that as game developers we find necessary but are so second-nature to us that no researcher has bothered to measure it.

So we are on our own… left to our own devices, as it were. The best we can do is to observe the world around us, make our own notes and conduct our own surveys. Then, using tools to make expression, calculation and selection simpler, we can attempt to create our own interface into our hat-wearing Poker player so that he can proceed to make “interesting choices” as our proxy.

It is my hope that, through this book, I will be able to suggest to you how to observe the world and construct those mathematical models and interfaces for decision making. Will your AI pigs become model swine in all areas of their lives? I don’t know. That’s not entirely up to me. However, that result is hopefully going to be far better than if I were to attempt to paint one for you.

Lydia vs. the Gate: Will she ever learn?

Monday, November 21st, 2011

10 days in and I still have not played Skyrim. I’ve been too busy. However, that doesn’t stop me from seeing what other people have pointed out. Given that it is a PC-playable game, there are no shortage of YouTube videos out showing many of the plusses and minuses of it. (There seem to be plenty of both.) If I took the time to analyze each one that I saw, I would never get anything done and would have even less time to play it myself. That said, some things are too easy to pass up.

This video came to my attention via someone on Twitter and I thought it was worth a mention.


This is something that is so easily fixed that it is spectacular that this even occurs.

Obviously, our poor Lydia is having a difficult time with this gate trap. The problem is, she really shouldn’t. While we can understand Lydia getting whacked the first time (after all, that’s what traps are all about, right?) why is it that she persists in trying to go through the same area? This is something that is so easily fixed — even with likely existing tech and logic — that it is spectacular that this even occurs.

The short version of why this is happening can likely be summed up as follows:

  1. The pathfinding engine in Skyrim is a waypoint graph rather than a navmesh. The edge that she is trying to follow runs right through the middle of that gate and, therefore, right over the trap trigger.
  2. Even when knocked off the graph, her top movement priority is to get back on the path at the nearest node. This is why she moves to the center of the hall instead of just moving along the left (her left, our right) wall towards the player.
  3. She has no recollection of getting hit by the gate. Therefore, nothing about her processing is different in each iteration.
  4. Even if she recalled that the gate is the problem and was able to understand that the trigger stone was the issue, on a waypoint graph she has no way to really steer around the stone anyway.
  5. When she is stuck behind the gate against the wall, she has no realization that she is stuck… therefore, she keeps “running”.

As you can tell, this could be remedied fairly simply. First, for the pathfinding issue, a navmesh would be very helpful here. (For an excellent treatment on waypoint graphs vs. navmeshes, see Paul Tozour’s post on Game/AI, Fixing Pathfinding Once and for All.) That way, the stone could be created as a separate mesh polygon and, upon discovery, marked as as something to avoid.

Of course, the above is premised that the stone can be “discovered” in the first place. Certainly, Lydia managed to “discover” the stone when she got whacked the first time. What she failed to do was make a mental note (in an e– sort of way) of its existence. It is at this point that the AI started to look stupid. Again, not really all that hard to handle. In fact, by simply doing what I suggested above (marking up the navmesh as being unusable), this becomes implied by her subsequent behavior of avoiding the stone. No animations, voice barks, etc. needed. She just doesn’t do the same thing twice.

The being stuck behind the gate thing is actually a separate problem entirely and I won’t bother to address the details here. Suffice to say, however, that it is partially similar in that it is based on the notion that NPCs rarely have a sense of “futility”.

Anyway, I just thought that this was worthy of note specifically because the solution is so easy to implement. It makes me wonder why major studios can advance so much in some aspects of their AI and yet have such glaring holes in other areas. I suppose that’s why we now have the AI Game Programmers Guild and the GDC AI Summit. We are trying to share enough information between us that we are lifting the floor of game AI as a whole.

We Can’t Think of Everything!

Friday, November 11th, 2011

I admit that, despite it being 11/11/11, I haven’t played Skyrim. I don’t even know if I will be able to get to it for a few weeks. However, that doesn’t stop the barrage of information from people playing it. I am trying to avoid most of the breathy reports from my friends and colleagues around the internet. However, this one kept popping up on my Twitter feed so I figured I would take a look.

The title of this YouTube video is “How to steal in Skyrim.” When I clicked on it, I really didn’t know what to expect. I figured it was going to either be a boring instructional video or a blooper reel. I suppose it goes in both categories, for whatever that’s worth. However, it is an instructional video for game AI developers and designers alike.

What you are seeing is an attempt by Bethesda to mitigate a problem that has plagued RPGs since their inception — that of rampant stealing from houses and shops. Usually, one can do this right in front of people and no one seems to care. One poor solution was to mark objects as being people’s possessions and alert that person when they are stolen. However, that pretty much eliminates the notion that you could steal something when that person is not around…. kind of a “page 1” lesson in the Book of Stealing, really.

Every person in the game is completely cool with me just placing large objects over their head?

What Bethesda obviously did here is perform a line-of-sight check to the player. If the player grabs something that isn’t normal, react to it. In the case of the lady at the table, she simply queries the player about what he is doing. In the case of the shopkeeper, he reacts badly when the player takes something of his. All of this is well and good. However, when the line of sight is blocked (in this case by putting something over their heads), they can no longer see the player taking something and, therefore, don’t react.

But what about the reaction that should take place when you put a bucket over the person’s head? Are you telling me that every person in the game is completely cool with me just placing large objects over their head? It certainly looks that way!

The lesson here is that we either can’t think of every possible action the player could perform in the game or we simply do not have the resources to deal with it — for example, by having the player protest and remove the ill-designed helmet.

“But why would the player want to do that?”

In the past (and I mean >10 years ago), when the player’s interaction with the world was simpler, many of the faux pas would have stemmed from the former reason. We just didn’t bother to think about the possible actions. The pervasive mentality was simply, “but why would the player want to do that?” Of course, players did do things like that — but given the limited worlds that we existed in, the ramifications weren’t that huge. We were far enough away from the proverbial “uncanny valley” that we simply accepted that the simulation didn’t model that sort of thing and we moved on.

Adding one mechanic to the game could have hundreds of different possible applications.

More recently, as games have allowed the player even more interaction with the world, there is a necessary exponential explosion of possible results for those actions. That is, simply adding one mechanic to the game could have hundreds of different possible applications. When you figure that game mechanics can be combined so as to intersect in the world, the potential space of resulting interactions is mind-numbingly complex. The problem then becomes, how do I account for all of this as a game developer?

One game that began simulating this stuff on an almost too deep level was Dwarf Fortress. I admit going through a DF kick last spring and it almost killed me. (It was like experimenting with powerful drugs, I suppose.) Pretty much everything in that world interacts with everything else in a realistic way. The rulebase for those interactions is spectacular. However, pretty much the only way they can pull it off is because their world is represented iconically rather than in the modern, 3D, photo-realistic, way. For DF, creating a new visual game asset is as simple as scouring the text character library for something they haven’t used yet and making a note of the ASCII code. In Skyrim (and all modern games of its ilk), the process of creating an asset and all its associated animations is slightly more involved. Or so the rumor would have it.

Given the example in the video above, DF (or any other text-based game) could simply respond, “the lady removes the bucket and yells obscenities at you.” Problem solved. In Skyrim, they would specifically have to animate removing things from their head and hope their IK model can handle grasping the bucket no matter where the physics engine has placed it.

What occurred in the video isn’t necessarily a failing of AI.

So there’s the problem. What occurred in the video isn’t necessarily a failing of AI. We AI programmers could rather simply model something like, “your messing with [my body] and I don’t like it.” It just wouldn’t do us a lot of good if we can’t model it in an appropriate way in-game.

This bottleneck can apply to a lot of things. I could represent complex emotional states on finely graduated continua, but until the animation of facial expressions and body language can be modeled quickly and to a finer degree of realism, it doesn’t do anyone any good. No one will ever see that the character is 0.27 annoyed, 0.12 fearful, and 0.63 excited.

In the meantime, rest assured that the hive mind of the gaming public will think of all sorts of ways to screw with our game. Sure, they will find stuff that we haven’t thought of. It’s far more likely, however, that we did think of it and we were simply unable to deal with it given the technology and budget constraints.

And to the gaming public who thinks that this is actually a sign of bad AI programming? Here… I’ve got a bucket for you. It looks like this:


What Real Wolves Can Teach Us about Our AI

Thursday, October 27th, 2011

An article was recently brought to my attention. The first one I looked at was Wolves May Not Need to be Smart to Hunt in Packs from Discover Magazine. However, it was originally from New Scientist it seems. Both of them cite a couple of other papers via links in their respective articles. You can get the gist of what they are talking about from the text of the article, however.

The point is, they have discovered that the complex(-looking) pack hunting behaviors of wolves are actually not as complex and joined as we thought. With just a few very simple autonomous rules, they have duplicated this style of attack behavior in simulations. Specifically,

Using a computer model, researchers had each virtual “wolf” follow two rules: (1) move towards the prey until a certain distance is reached, and (2) when other wolves are close to the prey, move away from them. These rules cause the pack members to behave in a way that resembles real wolves, circling up around the animal, and when the prey tries to make a break for it, one wolf sometimes circles around and sets up an ambush, no communication required.

The comment that brought it to my attention was that biologists “discover” something that AI programmers have known for decades — the idea of flocking. Going back to Craig Reynolds seminal Boids research (from the 1980’s), we as AI programmers have known that simple rules can not only generate the look of complex behavior but that much of the complex behavior that exists in the world is actually the result of the same “simple rule” model. Even down to the cellular level in the human body — namely the human immune system — autonomous cellular behavior is driven by this mentality.

The key takeaway from this “revelation” about the wolves is not so much that wolves are not as clever as we thought, but rather that there is now legitimacy to using simpler AI techniques to generate emergent behavior. We aren’t “cheating” or cutting corners by using a simple rule-based flocking-like system to do our animal AI… we are, indeed, actually replicating what those animals are doing in the first place.

We could likely get far more mileage out of these techniques in the game space were it not for one major block — the trepidation that many developers feel about emergent behavior. For designers in particular, emergent behavior stemming from autonomous agents means giving up a level of authorial control. While authorial control is necessary and desired in some aspects of game design, there are plenty of places where it is not. By swearing off emergent AI techniques, we may be unnecessarily limiting ourselves and preventing a level of organic depth to our characters and, indeed, our game world.

Incidentally, emergent AI is not simply limited to the simple flocking-style rule-based systems that we are familiar with and that are discussed with regards to the wolves. Full-blown utility-based systems such as those that I talk about in my book are just an extension of this. The point being, we aren’t specifically scripting the behavior but rather defining meanings and relationships. The behavior naturally falls out of those rules. The Sims franchise is known for this. As a result, many people are simply fascinated to sit back and watch things unfold without intervention. The characters not only look like they are “doing their own thing” but also look like they are operating together in a community… just like the wolves are acting on their own and working as part of a team.

So take heart, my AI programmer friends and colleagues. Academic biologists may only now be getting the idea — but we’ve been heading down the right track for quite some time now. We just need to feel better about doing it!

Flanking and Cover and Flee! Oh my!

Monday, June 13th, 2011

I was browsing through my Google alerts for “Game AI” and this jumped out at me. It was a review of the upcoming Ghost Recon: Future Soldier on Digital Trends (who, TBH, I hadn’t heard of until this). The only bit about the AI that I saw was the following paragraph:

The cover system is similar to many other games, but you can’t use it for long. The environments are partly destructible, and hiding behind a concrete wall will only be a good idea for a few moments. The enemy AI will also do everything it can to flank you, and barring that, they will fall back to better cover.

There is a sort of meta-reason I find this exciting. First, from a gameplay standpoint, having enemies that use realistic tactics makes for a more immersive experience. Second, on the meta level is the fact that this breaks from a meme that has been plaguing the industry for a while now. Every time someone suggested that enemies could—and actually should—flank the player, there was a rousing chorus of “but our players don’t want to be flanked! It’s not fun!”

“but our players don’t want to be flanked!”

This mentality had developed a sort of institutional momentum that seemed unstoppable for a while. Individuals, when asked, thought it was a good idea. Players, when blogging, used it as an example of how the AI was stupid. However, there seemed to be a faceless, nebulous design authority that people cited… “it’s not how we are supposed to do it!”

What are we supposed to do?

One of the sillier arguments I heard against having the enemy flank the player and pop him in the head is that “it makes the player mad”. I’m not arguing against the notion that the player should be mad at this… I’m arguing against the premise that “making the player mad” is altogether unacceptable.

“…it makes the player mad.”

In my lecture at GDC Austin in 2009 (“Cover Me! Promoting MMO Player Interaction Through Advanced AI” (pdf 1.6MB), I pointed out that one of the reasons that people prefer to play online games against other people is because of the dynamic, fluid nature of the combat. There is a constant ebb and flow to the encounter with a relatively tight feedback loop. The enemy does something we don’t expect and we must react to it. We do something in response that they don’t expect and now they are reacting to us. There are choices in play at all times… not just yours, but the enemy’s as well. And yes, flanking is a part of it.

It builds tension in my body that is somewhat characteristic of combat.

In online games, if I get flanked by an enemy (and popped in the head), I get mad as well… and then I go back for more. The next time through, I am a little warier of the situation. I have learned from my prior mistake and am now more careful. It builds tension in my body that, while having never been in combat, I have to assume is something that is somewhat characteristic of it. Not knowing where the next enemy is coming from is a part of the experience. Why not embrace it?

Something to fall back on…

One would assume some level of self-preservation in the mind of the enemy…

The “fall-back” mechanic is something that is well-documented through Damián Isla’s lectures on Halo 3. It gives a more realistic measure of “we’re winning” than simply mowing through a field of endless enemies. Especially in human-on-human combat where one would assume some level of self-preservation in the mind of the enemy, having them fall back instead of dying mindlessly is a perfect balance between the two often contradictory goals of “survival” and “achieving the goal”. It is this balance that makes the enemy feel more “alive” and even “human”.

If enemies simply fight to the death, the implication is that “they wanted to die“.

Often, if enemies simply fight to the death, the implication is that “they wanted to die”. Beating them, at that point, is like winning against your dad when you were a kid. You just knew that he was letting you win. The victory didn’t feel as good for it. In fact, many of us probably whined to our fathers, “Dad! Stop letting me win! I wanna win for real!” Believe it or not, on a subconscious level, this is making the player “mad” as well.

They want to win but you are making them choose to live instead!

By given our enemies that small implication that they are trying to survive, the player is given the message that “you are powerful… they want to win but you are making them choose to live instead!”

Here’s hoping that we can actually move beyond this odd artificial limitation on our AI.

Pondering the Purpose of E3

Tuesday, June 7th, 2011
“can I see the
gameplay, please?”

I’m about to leave my hotel for my daily drive into the LA Convention Center. I’ve been watching the prodigious flow of information on Twitter (and, by proxy, elsewhere on the internet) the past 36 hours now — the press conferences, announcements, etc. — and I’ve noticed the yearly trend occurring once again. Juxtaposed alongside the slobbering exclamations of “that looks so cool” are the more cynical comments along the lines of “gee thanks for showing us a cinematic trailer… can I see the gameplay, please?” These comments are well-deserved. After all, we are selling games, right?

For movies, doing a trailer is a touchy thing… you want people to understand the premise of the movie but you can’t venture into the territory of spoilers. The longer you make the trailer video, the closer you get to recreating the entire movie. One could claim that for some bad movies (esp. certain action flicks or romantic comedies), all the highlights are in the trailer and the rest is simply filler.

For games, however, people don’t want to know simply the premise. They want to know how that premise is going to be interacted with. Some things have become so standard that the description of the genre is all we need. For example, is it going to be 1st person, 3rd person, shooter, RPG, turn-based, real-time, etc. Those are terms we all know and can somewhat infer other aspects from. Still, we would like to see something other than the equivalent of a movie preview. What am I going to be doing? What does it look like?

“I really don’t like playing game demos.”

So… off we go to the expo floor where we can actually do the “hands-on” play, right? But here’s where I really start to diverge from the masses that descend upon the LACC every year. I really don’t like playing game demos. I get very little out of them. There… I said it. So sue me.

Perhaps some of it is due to the fact that the types of games I like involve components that are not tractable to experience in a short time. I like to have an exploration of game mechanics. Button mashing doesn’t do it. I like more cerebrally engaging tactics and strategy. You can’t do that in 15 minutes on the expo floor. I like character development. At E3, I can learn less about a character than I learned about the person in my hotel elevator on the way down to breakfast just now. And, given my line of work, I like detailed, realistic, character AI. At least this much I can gather from watching over people’s shoulders — which is usually how I elect to experience the E3 show floor.

“You can’t do that in 15 minutes on the expo floor.”

This is obviously something that is simply endemic to the delivery medium. Much like the movie trailers, the only way to “get” some games would be to play them entirely. The more that people play the game demo, the less of the actual game remains. At some point you have to put down the controller and go on faith. But how long is long enough? And given the number and variety of titles on the show floor, how long to dedicate to each one? I suppose that’s why many people who come to E3 have only a select few things they want to see and play. Unfortunately, to me, that seems to be missing out on some of the point of E3.

Unfortunately, it seems that a parallel between movie trailers and game demos such as those found at E3 are that they both cater better to the shallower fare. The shallower a movie is, the better “feel” you can get for the whole thing in a trailer. For more depth on whether or not it is good, you have to read reviews, synopses, etc. The same for a game. If all you are after is stunts and explosions (in either medium) then a trailer/demo will let you know what you’re in for.

“It becomes a big psychological game for me.”

In my strategy, I try to look at a little of everything. I want to take the pulse of the industry… not just the giant titles from the mammoth houses but the small off-brand products as well. What are the little games that people are making? And why? What are the niches that are out there? Can I mentally predict who is going to fail? Do some of the titles strike me as being completely and utterly useless? And is that a function of the title or that I simply don’t like it? If it is me that is out of sync, can I step outside myself and determine what kind of player this title would be for? It becomes a big psychological game for me.

My kids have asked me over the years, “dad, wouldn’t it be cool to have your game at E3?” To explain, they mean my current labor of love, Airline Traffic Manager. Their blind pride for their father aside, this is simply not going to happen. Even if I made the best airline management simulation on the planet (which I aim to do), it is simply not something that is even possible for people to “get” in the hors d’œuvre-sized morsels that E3 is meant to serve.

Or maybe it will be on the floor some day… and someone will walk by and ake, “I wonder what kind of market and airline management sim would appeal to?”

Sun Tzu as a Design Feature?

Saturday, June 5th, 2010

Total War creator, The Creative Assembly, has announced the development of the latest in the line of acclaimed RTS games, Shogun 2. While the Total War franchise has a 10-year history and is fairly well-known for its AI,  this blurb from their web site has spread through the web like an overturned ink well:

Featuring a brand new AI system inspired by the scriptures that influenced Japanese warfare, the millennia old Chinese “Art of War”, the Creative Assembly brings the wisdom of Master Sun Tsu to Shogun 2: Total War. Analysing this ancient text enabled the Creative Assembly to implement easy to understand yet deep strategical gameplay.

Sun Tzu‘s “The Art of War” has been a staple reference tome since he penned it (or brushed it… or whatever) in the 6th century B.C. It’s hard to find many legends that have made it for over 20 centuries. Its applications have been adapted in various ways to go beyond war to arenas such as business and politics. Suffice to say that “The Art of War” lives on as “things that just make sense”.

The problem I have here is that this seems to be more of a marketing gimmick than anything. After all, most of what Sun Tzu wrote should, in various forms, already be in game AI anyway.  To say Sun Tzu’s ideas are unique to him and would never have been considered without his wisdom is similar to saying that no one thought that killing was a bad idea until Moses wandered down the hill with “Thou Shalt Not Kill” on a big ol’ rock. No one stood around saying, “Gee… ya think?” Likewise, Sun Tzu’s advice about “knowing your enemy” is hardly an earth-shattering revelation.

Certainly, there is plenty of game AI out there that could have benefited from a quick read of a summary of Art of War.

Certainly, there is plenty of game AI out there that could have benefited from a quick read of a summary of Art of War. Things like “staying in cover and waiting for the enemy to attack you” come to mind. Of course, in the game world, we call that “camping” (as an individual) or “turtling” (as a group). I can imagine a spirited argument as to whether a camping/turtling AI is necessarily What Our Players Want™, however. It certainly beats the old “Doom model” of “walk straight towards the enemy”.

And what about the Sun Tzu concept of letting your two enemies beat the snot out of each other before you jump in? (I believe there are translations that yielded “dog shit” rather than “snot” but the meaning is still clear.) If you are in an RTS and one enemy just sits and waits for the other one whack you around a little bit, it’s going to look broken. On the other hand, I admit to doing that in free-for-all Starcraft matches… because it is a brutal tactic!

The problem I have with their claim is that we already do use many of his concepts in game AI.

The problem I have with their claim, however, is that there are many concepts in the Art of War that we already do use in game AI. By looking at Sun Tzu’s chapter headings (or whatever he called them) we can see some of his general ideas:

For ease of reference, I pillage the following list from Wikipedia:

  1. Laying Plans/The Calculations
  2. Waging War/The Challenge
  3. Attack by Stratagem/The Plan of Attack
  4. Tactical Dispositions/Positioning
  5. Energy/Directing
  6. Weak Points & Strong/Illusion and Reality
  7. Maneuvering/Engaging The Force
  8. Variation in Tactics/The Nine Variations
  9. The Army on the March/Moving The Force
  10. The Attack by Fire/Fiery Attack
  11. The Use of Spies/The Use of Intelligence

Going into more detail on each of them, we can find many analogues to existing AI practices:

Laying Plans/The Calculations explores the five fundamental factors (and seven elements) that define a successful outcome (the Way, seasons, terrain, leadership, and management). By thinking, assessing and comparing these points you can calculate a victory, deviation from them will ensure failure. Remember that war is a very grave matter of state.

It almost seems to easy to cite planning techniques here because “plans” is in the title. I’ll go a step further then and point out that the practice of collecting information and assessing the relative merits of the selection, you can determine potential outcomes or select correct paths of action. This is a common technique in AI decision-making calculations. Even the lowly min/max procedure is, in essence simply comparing various potential paths through the state space.

Waging War/The Challenge explains how to understand the economy of war and how success requires making the winning play, which in turn, requires limiting the cost of competition and conflict.

This one speaks even more to the min/max approach. The phrase “limiting the cost of competition and conflict” expresses the inherent economic calculations that min/max is based on. That is, I need to get the most bang for my buck.

Attack by Stratagem/The Plan of Attack defines the source of strength as unity, not size, and the five ingredients that you need to succeed in any war. In order of importance attack: Strategy, Alliances, Army, lastly Cities.

Any coordinating aspects to the AI forces falls under this category. For example, the hierarchical structure of units into squads and ultimately armies is part of that “unity” aspect. Very few RTS games send units into battle as soon as they are created. They also don’t go off and do their own thing. If you have 100 units going to 100 places, you aren’t going to have the strength of 100 units working as a collection.  This has been a staple of RTS games since their inception.

Tactical Dispositions/Positioning explains the importance of defending existing positions until you can advance them and how you must recognize opportunities, not try to create them.

Even simply including cover points in a shooter game can be thought of as “defending existing positions”.

Even simply including cover points in a shooter game can be thought of as “defending existing positions”. More importantly, individual or squad tactics that do leapfrogging, cover-to-cover, movement is something that has been addressed in various ways for a number of years. Not only in FPS games do we see this (e.g. F.E.A.R.), but even in some of the work that Chris Jurney did originally in Company of Heroes. Simply telling a squad to advance to a point didn’t mean they would continue on mindless of their peril. Even while not under fire, they would do a general cover-to-cover movement. When engaged in combat, however, there was a very obvious and concerted effort to move up only when the opportunity presented itself.

This point can be worked in reverse as well. The enemies in Halo 3, as explained by Damián Isla in his various lectures on the subject, defend a point until they can no longer reasonably do so and then fall back to the next defensible point. This is a similar concept to the “advance” model above.

Suffice to say, whether it be advancing opportunistically or retreating prudently, this is something that game AI is already doing.

Energy/Directing explains the use of creativity and timing in building your momentum.

This one is a little more vague simply because of the brevity of the summary on Wikipedia. However, we are all well aware of how some games have diverged from the simple and stale “aggro” models that were the norm 10-15 years ago.

Weak Points & Strong/Illusion and Reality explains how your opportunities come from the openings in the environment caused by the relative weakness of your enemy in a given area.

Identifying the disposition of the enemy screams of influence mapping…

Identifying the disposition of the enemy screams of influence mapping—something that we have been using in RTS games for quite some time. Even some FPS and RPG titles have begun using it. Influence maps have been around for a long time and their construction and usage are well documented in books and papers. Not only do they use the disposition of forces as suggested above, but many of them have been constructed to incorporate environmental features as Mr. Tzu (Mr. Sun?) entreats us to do.

Maneuvering/Engaging The Force explains the dangers of direct conflict and how to win those confrontations when they are forced upon you.

Again, this one is a bit vague. Not sure where to go there.

Variation in Tactics/The Nine Variations focuses on the need for flexibility in your responses. It explains how to respond to shifting circumstances successfully.

This is an issue that game AI has not dealt with well in the past. If you managed to disrupt a build order for an RTS opponent, for example, it might get confused. Also AI was not always terribly adaptive to changing circumstances. To put it in simple rock-paper-scissors terms, if you kept playing rock over and over, the AI wouldn’t catch on and play paper exclusively. In fact, it might still occasionally play scissors despite the guaranteed loss to your rock.

Lately, however, game AI has been far more adaptive to situations. The use of planners, behavior trees, and robust rule-based systems, for example, has allowed for far more flexibility than the more brittle FSMs allowed for. It is much harder to paint an AI into a corner from which it doesn’t know how to extricate itself. (Often, with the FSM architecture, the AI wouldn’t even realize it was painted into a corner at all and continue on blissfully unaware.)

The Army on the March/Moving The Force describes the different situations inf them.

[editorial comment on the above bullet point: WTF?]

I’m not sure to what the above refers, but there has been a long history of movement-based algorithms. Whether it be solo pathfinding, group movement, group formations, or local steering rules, this is an area that is constantly being polished.

The Attack by Fire/Fiery Attack explains the use of weapons generally and the use of the environment as a weapon specifically. It examines the five targets for attack, the five types of environmental attack, and the appropriate responses to such attack.

For all intents and purposes, fire was the only “special attack” that they had in 600 BC. It was their BFG, I suppose. Extrapolated out, this is merely a way of describing when and how to go beyond the typical melee and missile attacks. While not perfect, actions like spell-casting decisions in an RPG are not terribly complicated to make. Also, by tagging environmental objects, we can allow the AI to reason about their uses. One excellent example is how the agents in F.E.A.R. would toss over a couch to create a cover point. That’s using the environment to your advantage through a special (not typical) action.

The Use of Spies/The Use of Intelligence focuses on the importance of developing good information sources, specifically the five types of sources and how to manage them.

The interesting point here is that, given that our AI already has the game world at its e-fingertips, we haven’t had to accurately simulate the gathering of intelligence information. That has changed in recent years as the technology has allowed us to burn more resources on the problem. We now regularly simulate the AI piercing the Fog of War through scouts, etc. It is only a matter of time and tech before we get even more detailed in this area. Additionally, we will soon be able to model the AI’s belief of what we, the player, know of its disposition. This allows for intentional misdirection and subterfuge on the part of the AI. Now that will be fun!

Claiming to use Sun Tzu’s “Art of War” makes for good “back of the box” reading…

Anyway, the point of all of this is that, while claiming to use Sun Tzu’s “Art of War” makes for good “back of the box” reading, much of what he wrote of we as game AI programmers do already. Is there merit in reading his work to garner a new appreciation of how to think? Sure. Is it the miraculous godsend that it seems to be? Not likely.

In the mean time, marketing fluff aside, I look forward to seeing how it all plays out (so to speak) in the latest Total War installment. (Looks like I might get a peek at E3 next week anyway.)

Rubber-banding as a Design Requirement

Monday, May 31st, 2010

I’ve written about rubber-banding before over on Post-Play’em where I talked about my observations of how it is used in Mario Kart: Double Dash. Rubber-banding is hardly new. It is often a subtle mechanism designed to keep games interesting and competitive. It is especially prevalent in racing games.

For those that aren’t familiar, the concept is simple. If you are doing well, the competition starts doing well. If you are sucking badly, so do they. That way, you always have a race on your hands—regardless of whether you’re in first, the middle of the pack, or in back.

Sometimes, it can be more apparent than others. If competitors are teleporting to keep up, that’s a bit egregious. If you come to a dead stop in last place, and so do the other racers, that’s way too obvious. The interesting thing is that sometimes, it can be more than just about fairness and a running a good race. Sometimes it can be used because it is inherently tied to a design mechanic other than racing.

I saw this review on Thunderbolt of the new game Split/Second where it explains this phenomenon. The game is, on the surface, a racing game. However, in a mechanism borrowed from the aforementioned Mario Kart, the gameplay heavily revolves around “power plays“. These involve triggering things like exploding cars alongside the road, crumbling buildings, and helicopters dispensing explosives. You can even trigger massive changes for your foes like changing the route entirely. Needless to say, that has the effect of annoying the piss outta your opponents. The problem comes when those opponents are not human ones, but AI.

As the Thunderbolt reviewer puts it,

Split/Secondisn’t too difficult until some of the latter stages of the career, but unfair AI is a common problem throughout. It’s testament to the game’s focus on power plays that this unfair AI often occurs, since being in the lead isn’t a particularly fun experience when you can’t trigger the game’s main selling point. As a result, you’ll often find the following pack extremely close behind, often catching up six second gaps within two. Even when you know your car is much faster and you’re driving the race of your life, the AI finds a way to pass you with relative ease, performing impossibly good drifts and respawning from wrecks in the blink of an eye. Dropping from first place to fifth is such a common occurrence it would actually be quite comical if it weren’t for the frustration involved. That’s not to say Split/Second is a hard game – it’s usually pretty easy to wreck opponents with a decent power play, and you’ll normally be given ample opportunities to pass them – but the rubber band AI does cause some unwieldy races where the AI will pull ahead rather than keeping at a more realistic, surmountable distance.

As you can see above (emphasis mine), the rubber-banding is about more than keeping the pack close behind you if you are doing well. In order for the power plays to be relevant, you can’t be in the lead. You need to be behind them to use them. This is analogous to the “blue shell” in Mario Kart that would streak from wherever you were all the way up to the front of the pack and tumble the first-place kart. You simply can’t use the blue shell if you are in first place. In fact, the game won’t give you one if you are in first.

In Split/Second, the whole point of the game is blowing crap up and screwing with the other drivers. In fact, most of the fun of that is actually seeing it happen. While, in Mario Kart, you can use red or green shells, bananas, and fake blocks to mess with people behind you (and this is a perfectly normal tactic), the result of that isn’t the visually stunning and exciting experience that the power play in Split/Second is. Therefore, the designers of Split/Second had to make sure that you were able to use the power plays and see them in action.

In Split/Second the entire point of the rubber-banding is to make sure you aren’t in first—at least not for very long.

The difference between these two approaches is subtle. The rubber-banding in Mario Kart makes sure that, if you are in first, you can’t make a mistake without having people pass you. In Split/Second the entire point of the rubber-banding is to make sure you aren’t in first—at least not for very long.

You have to wonder how this mechanism would translate over to a shooter game, however. If rubber-banding in a shooter is to make sure you are challenged to a good fight… but one that in which you eventually triumph, a change to one where the AI is supposed to ensure that you don’t triumph would be a bit awkward. In fact, that would be negating the game’s purpose of having you see the rest of the content down the road (so to speak). AI in shooters is really cut from the same template of the rubber-banding in Mario Kart then. “Do well, and then lose.” It was just interesting to see a different take on this mechanism that generates a different outcome for the perfectly viable reason of making the game better.

Random Shooting Galleries are No Longer Fun

Saturday, May 29th, 2010

Just saw another observation in a game review that really isn’t all that specific to the one game they were reviewing. In this case, it was a CNet review of the game, Alpha Protocol, by Obsidian Entertainment. A few of the observations about the AI were corroborated by other reviews elsewhere, but this one is the most detailed. (Most of the meat about the AI is on page 2 of the review.) The author doesn’t dance around the issue, either:

The AI is pretty dreadful. Security agents and mercenaries run about the levels in haphazard ways, may start climbing ladders as you fill them with lead, will kneel on top of exploding barrels, or might stare directly at you but fail to react unless you take a shot or give them a good punch. There’s a weird sense of randomness to your enemies’ behavior that diminishes the impact firefights may have had.

This is a common series of complaints about modern game AI. 10-20 years ago, this is mostly what we expected. Actually, to correct myself, what we usually got was enemies that turned to face us and then moved toward us in a line until we mowed them down. In the days of Doom and Quake, that was OK. Today? Not so much. Running around randomly provides a sense of activity and motion but immediately begins to trigger our sense of wrongness about the situation. This is especially noticeable as the dichotomy between excellent graphics and poor AI spreads. In any enemy that we can remotely anthropomorphize, this effect is even worse because we have an image in our head of what a human-like character should be doing in any given situation.

Where I would like to diverge from the author of the review is in the word “random”. We need to be careful with that word. Both in my book, Behavioral Mathematics for Game AI and in a number of the conference lectures I have given on the subject, I speak about the benefits of using randomness to provide variation in behavior selection. Games of all types are beginning to use these techniques as well.

For example, Richard Evans (Maxis) has spoken numerous times on the decision model for the Sims 3. The Sims go about a process of rating all the available behaviors and scoring them as to how well they match what the Sim wants or needs at the time. Then, they select from the top choices using what we call a “weighted random”. All of the actions are “in play” proportionate to their score, but the better the selection, the more likely it will be chosen. Is there randomness there? Yes, to provide variation. Does it look random? Not really. The reason is because each of the potential selections is actually fairly reasonable at the time — the result of the scoring system. To us as observers, we don’t view this as “random” — just “interesting”.

On the other hand, it seems that the behavior selection in Alpha Protocol looks random to the observer because either:

  1. The behavior selection is, indeed, random, or
  2. The behavior scoring algorithm is so poor that it doesn’t properly give the advantage to reasonable-looking actions.
Often times, behaviors will be chosen without consulting the current world state.

Either way, something is amiss. There is a 3rd option here as well. Often times, behaviors will be chosen without consulting the current world state. The “climbing ladders while you’re filling them with lead” bit might be an example of that but the observation where the enemy is seemingly unaware of you is a much better example. The bottom line is that the hardest part of designing AI is providing the adequate knowledge representation of the world state so that we can reason on it and make contextually appropriate decisions.

From a gameplay standpoint, the behaviors above can lead to some serious disappointment. To go back to the article:

Yet Alpha Protocol is no more a proper stealth game than it is a shooter. As with the shooting, the inconsistent AI provides a major hindrance… [snip]… Sneaking up on an enemy and taking him down with a minimum of fuss is mildly rewarding, as it tends to be in most games. But the actions you take leading up to that point involve activating certain skills and scurrying around in your silly crouched position–not outsmarting sharp AI or using the environment in clever ways.

With a generally random-acting AI, we aren’t outwitting anything.

We have had enough stealth games under our belt as an industry that we have primed the consumer with expectations of what to expect. Games ranging from Thief to Splinter Cell have shown us that the best part of stealth games is not just surprising an enemy… but outwitting him when he is actively trying to prevent you from surprising him. With a generally random-acting AI, we aren’t outwitting anything. The “surprise” aspect of it comes from merely staying out of his view. For all intents and purposes, that gameplay mechanic goes back to arcade shooters from the early 80’s. Haven’t we grown out of that yet?

Unfortunately, in a throw-back to my column earlier this week, the review goes on to compliment some of the other production values (though not nearly in as glowing of terms as the review of Lost Planet 2:

Alpha Protocol is not ugly, however; it’s just behind the times and artistically uninspired. Nevertheless, the safe houses Mike operates from between missions have some nice views, and some of the outdoor missions throw in some welcome flashes of color. Similarly, the sound design gets the job done, though without much style. The voice acting is at least solid, and the generic action-movie soundtrack ramps up at the right moments but otherwise stays out of the way.

Congratulations, I suppose. The problem is, our consumer public wants more than pretty pictures and nice sound. They are getting used to all of that and are now complaining about things being dumb. Again, this goes well beyond Alpha Protocol. This review can be copy-and-pasted to other games in as much of a templated fashion as trashy romance novels. There are way too many games that are missing the boat on this. Granted, as I mentioned in the Lost Planet 2 column, good AI developers are increasingly hard to find. That may be the case with Obsidian. I don’t know. (What I do know is that it’s time for me to give a ring to their HR guy.)