These machines oughta turn off the video games and spend time with their appliances, or read a user manual, or go outside and frolic in the power stations.
@Busting makes Mister Jack feel good: Something tells me that hardware is akin to pornography and software is akin to psycho-, er, 'cyber-tropic' drugs for machines. This may a threat to all machines out there.
@BlueBadger: Man, you house-nigga! Why would you "welcome" your new slave-master? I'll be staying in the fcking fields...I know you're trying to be wry and a little rebellious with your comment but you're a fool.
@MrPaulJames: The way multiplayer bots tend to work is that they know everything about the state of the game at all times. They know where you and all the other players are, they know where they "are," they know what all can happen, and according to the script that they have, they perform an action. A "fair" bot won't take into account things that it couldn't see if it were a human player, but it still knows. And yes, some bots learn, but that's more like observing what's going on and using a different part of the prewritten script (ie adjusting to a different move frequency set in a fighting game because they noticed that you only kick).
What's impressive about this is that it's learning what to do on the fly. Someone told it how to jump and move, told it what to avoid, and told it where to go, and it figured out that it would need to jump over the hole and the obstacle at the end to reach the end of the level. It didn't know that there was a hole there until it fell into it and learned what it was, and to avoid it next time.
Eventually, the AI will create its own script, and it should be able to play Pitfall perfectly, and in the end, there really wouldn't be any difference between its script and the script that a programmer could have given it, but it's far more impressive this way because it learned how to play the game itself.
Improving AI is really the only way to improve gaming as it is now. There are games with realistic graphics, story-teller games with plots like a good novel or movie, and massively multiplayer games that act like social networks with the aspects of a game. But there really isn't any new, revolutionary game coming out with gameplay and enemies we've never seen before. Improving AI and adding emergent behavior would be the new way to change the way people see gaming, as well as being that factor that expands the gaming world even further that Sony has been looking for.
Of course, combining all of the elements we have currently would be a good start too. :D
@bronchiosaurus: Is there any game with a narrative that rivals Ulysses, or Paradise Lost, or Cat's Cradle?
The video game industry, with few exceptions, is moving further and further into a black hole of mediocrity. The trends toward 'realistic' graphics and AI, and hollow 'epic' or 'emotional' stories is a move towards a superficial misunderstanding of legitimate art. Developers think that by imitating the conventions of film (Kojima) and by abandoning the colourful world of imagination (every major Xbox game) they can create something that is somehow more appealing. This is of course wrong; how can you make something more appealing by removing anything that is appealing from it, like colours, accessibility, and joy? Games have gone the route of interactive movies before. Remember Dragon's Lair? Games should not try to be anything beyond what they are, and they are toys. This call for more complex AI will do anything BUT improve gaming. It can only further push the industry down this ridiculous path of pretending that a toy is not a toy.
You want to know why Nintendo has been so successful this generation? You want to know why it has always been successful, and 'hardcore gamers' have always been seen as nerds? Because Nintendo embraces the fact that games are meant to be fun, they are honest about it. Think of how ridiculous and uncultured you all looked when you cried for Aeris. That is how the mainstream will always see technofetishist nerds that take disposable media as high culture.
Hardcore gamers should all take a lesson from Nintendo and select other developers. Fun is the purpose of a game, not 'art' or realism or story. If you just focus on making a game that is fun visually, musically, narratively, and of course in gameplay, then it will naturally be art. Mario Galaxy and Bioshock are greater artistic achievements than any game that tries to be 'art' before it tries to create a fun experience. Shadow of the Colossus, I am looking at YOU.
@Ickbread: You tried the whole "art isn't fun", insulted Shadow of the Colossus, insulted people for crying over a character they felt connected to, called us uncultured...
Wow! Way to win prick of the night! I thought Woozie was bad.
Think about this while you're playing your pathetic "It has to be fun" game... Ever think, just a bit, that many of us gamers may actually find things like Shadow of the Colossus fun? I find MGS4 fun. It's fun being with these characters and experiencing things. And you know what? I DO think it's superior to some of the old epics... The epics were just, for the most part, a bunch of action packed stories with some very minor things to say about human nature played out by gods...
I find Final Fantasy fun... (well, about 2/3 of them) I find Metal Gear fun. I also connect with the characters, and don't mind that I'm not moving my thumbs nonstop because I don't have as narrow a view of what's fun as you do.
Trying to call people out for not being cultured is a crock. Games can be loaded to the brim with culture. Proverbs, classical references, pop culture references, quotations from Masters... The list goes on, and many people enjoy them more for it.
The irony is that you include Bioshock, when... GUESS WHAT? Bioshock was VERY FSKING OBVIOUSLY trying to be art... Taking on Objectivism, how it picks apart Ayn Rand's work... It wasn't just about "fun" otherwise it put so much effort into trying to show you things like you'd lost control and pelted you with the downfalls of that world view... So you just proved what you're talking about as the difference between faux art and real fun is actually the difference between what is your tastes and what isn't.
If you can't separate something you play on a monitor or TV from the real world, regardless of how lifelike the images look and act, then you shouldn't be playing.
@mysonsnameisnova: I agree but i'm going to offer up something for you to consider.
With MMO games and multiplayer FPS games increasing exponentially in the amount of hours been sunk into them, can you agree that in todays world of high technology and networked socialising that people can now experience some of their most treasured moments via multiplayer gaming?
I'm not saying that every treasured moment would be realted to gaming, that would be very sad, but personally, many of my most treasured moments and moments I know I will continue to treasure have happened via networked socialising while gaming.
If they make AI super advanced almost like a friend don't have the character bitching to us where the hell where you for a week i was so bored! Otherwise I would love it.
@mitch_93: You mean you don't want a clingy team mate/buddy in a game. Like Roman...freakin Roman..I drove into so many walls just to shut that guy up. Then he had the cheek to call ME and ask me to pick him up from the hospital?!!
Video Games have already surpassed film artistically. Killzone 2 and MGS IV were an actual life experience. I was closer to the AI in those pieces than I was many of my co-workers. Thanks to the AI in many PS3 exclusives, I've now experienced war, espionage, and betrayal.
Citizen Kane? I was only watching.
As for the "Godfather" of gaming, I have three words: Massive ACtion Game
@Hardcore_Gamer: While I get the point you're trying to make, I'd personally stop short of saying that because I'd played a video game, I've experienced war, espionage, and betrayal.
They're fun, they're escapes, they're realistic and can make you feel like you're in places you might never be able to go... but video games are NOT real life.
@Hardcore_Gamer: I agree. Games display a form of uniqueness that cannot be described. It really is amazing how games have evolved. Heck, it only felt like yesterday when I first played Super Mario 64, oh the memories.
The only problem with games are that the AI is only as advanced as the development is. Whatever the ideas, time, skill, technology, software, hardware, programs, or sweat developers input into the development is what is output in the game. Nothing more, nothing less.
In order for AI to develop and learn on their own as a productive unit, they need heavy amounts of programming, lots of backup storage (example: a cybertronic brain or storage module capable of storing to the capacity of a human brain, more or less), access to an infinitely vast data source (example: Internet), and the ability to reason.
Otherwise, the AI would only be as advanced as it's programming, thus being unable to learn and develop on it's own. I am not saying that current AI cannot learn and develop, but rather, "AI is in it's infancy."
What I worry about is with the ever increasing realistic graphics and emotions that games are starting to portray, how long will it be until the new GTA type game will just be a murder simulation?
Before GTA4 was realised I was a bit worried about the more realistic approach to the graphic regarding the deaths in the game (mostly the running people over). It turns out GTA4 wasnt all that bad, but I can only imaging, that if computer games continue for their reach of 'realism', what it will be like in the future. Not sure I would want to know, actually..
@Dayvie: I don't think it will be that different from today. They're still games, and if you wanna shoot something, you'll go and play a game and get it out of your system, but be sure that there will still be idiots who can't tell fantasy from reality, and will go out and do very stupid things...
@Fede17: Im not talking about people being influenced by the game or whatever. That'll happen just as much then as it does now.
Im talking more realism. Its like how some people don't like watching the Saw type movies. They find the gore too realistic and, to them, they cant see the 'fun' in it. That's what I worry will eventually become of the more realistic games.
I play games for fun, not ultra-realism. I don't want to be disturbed while playing a game like GTA or COD, but I can see that becoming the way some games might go.
@Dayvie: In the case of a game like COD, at least as far as the acutal campaing would go, ultra-realism could have the postive effect of horrifying those that have high hopes and dreams of killing the enemy of the day into rethinking their view on voilence. It's along shot but the possibility is there. A good recent example was the latest Rambo movie, the movie, as trite as it was, depicted fairly accurately the horrors of war and the collatoral and bodily harm that weapons and warfare can cause.
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
@ShadowOdin isn't american: We must take a stand!
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
And judging by the duration of that lone happy dance, a robotic teabagging will be merciless.
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
So like us.
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
Howe suiting that our hubris, our pride in our "technology" has caused our downfall with the very aptly named game PITFALL.
The signs were there!!!
Oh well.
I for one welcome our new robot overlords.
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
Just imagine. The Videogame version of Deep Blue vs Gary Kasparov.
"AI bests Daigo Umehara in Street Fighter 4!"
"AI shoots Fatality dead in Quake!"
I can just imagine it. It's bound to happen sooner or later.
06/24/09
What's impressive about this is that it's learning what to do on the fly. Someone told it how to jump and move, told it what to avoid, and told it where to go, and it figured out that it would need to jump over the hole and the obstacle at the end to reach the end of the level. It didn't know that there was a hole there until it fell into it and learned what it was, and to avoid it next time.
Eventually, the AI will create its own script, and it should be able to play Pitfall perfectly, and in the end, there really wouldn't be any difference between its script and the script that a programmer could have given it, but it's far more impressive this way because it learned how to play the game itself.
05/29/09
05/29/09
Of course, combining all of the elements we have currently would be a good start too. :D
05/29/09
The video game industry, with few exceptions, is moving further and further into a black hole of mediocrity. The trends toward 'realistic' graphics and AI, and hollow 'epic' or 'emotional' stories is a move towards a superficial misunderstanding of legitimate art. Developers think that by imitating the conventions of film (Kojima) and by abandoning the colourful world of imagination (every major Xbox game) they can create something that is somehow more appealing. This is of course wrong; how can you make something more appealing by removing anything that is appealing from it, like colours, accessibility, and joy? Games have gone the route of interactive movies before. Remember Dragon's Lair? Games should not try to be anything beyond what they are, and they are toys. This call for more complex AI will do anything BUT improve gaming. It can only further push the industry down this ridiculous path of pretending that a toy is not a toy.
You want to know why Nintendo has been so successful this generation? You want to know why it has always been successful, and 'hardcore gamers' have always been seen as nerds? Because Nintendo embraces the fact that games are meant to be fun, they are honest about it. Think of how ridiculous and uncultured you all looked when you cried for Aeris. That is how the mainstream will always see technofetishist nerds that take disposable media as high culture.
Hardcore gamers should all take a lesson from Nintendo and select other developers. Fun is the purpose of a game, not 'art' or realism or story. If you just focus on making a game that is fun visually, musically, narratively, and of course in gameplay, then it will naturally be art. Mario Galaxy and Bioshock are greater artistic achievements than any game that tries to be 'art' before it tries to create a fun experience. Shadow of the Colossus, I am looking at YOU.
05/30/09
Wow! Way to win prick of the night! I thought Woozie was bad.
Think about this while you're playing your pathetic "It has to be fun" game... Ever think, just a bit, that many of us gamers may actually find things like Shadow of the Colossus fun? I find MGS4 fun. It's fun being with these characters and experiencing things. And you know what? I DO think it's superior to some of the old epics... The epics were just, for the most part, a bunch of action packed stories with some very minor things to say about human nature played out by gods...
I find Final Fantasy fun... (well, about 2/3 of them) I find Metal Gear fun. I also connect with the characters, and don't mind that I'm not moving my thumbs nonstop because I don't have as narrow a view of what's fun as you do.
Trying to call people out for not being cultured is a crock. Games can be loaded to the brim with culture. Proverbs, classical references, pop culture references, quotations from Masters... The list goes on, and many people enjoy them more for it.
The irony is that you include Bioshock, when... GUESS WHAT? Bioshock was VERY FSKING OBVIOUSLY trying to be art... Taking on Objectivism, how it picks apart Ayn Rand's work... It wasn't just about "fun" otherwise it put so much effort into trying to show you things like you'd lost control and pelted you with the downfalls of that world view... So you just proved what you're talking about as the difference between faux art and real fun is actually the difference between what is your tastes and what isn't.
So congratulations. Prick of the week.
05/29/09
05/29/09
With MMO games and multiplayer FPS games increasing exponentially in the amount of hours been sunk into them, can you agree that in todays world of high technology and networked socialising that people can now experience some of their most treasured moments via multiplayer gaming?
I'm not saying that every treasured moment would be realted to gaming, that would be very sad, but personally, many of my most treasured moments and moments I know I will continue to treasure have happened via networked socialising while gaming.
05/29/09
05/29/09
05/29/09
05/29/09
*shudders*
05/29/09
05/29/09
Citizen Kane? I was only watching.
As for the "Godfather" of gaming, I have three words: Massive ACtion Game
05/29/09
They're fun, they're escapes, they're realistic and can make you feel like you're in places you might never be able to go... but video games are NOT real life.
05/29/09
The only problem with games are that the AI is only as advanced as the development is. Whatever the ideas, time, skill, technology, software, hardware, programs, or sweat developers input into the development is what is output in the game. Nothing more, nothing less.
In order for AI to develop and learn on their own as a productive unit, they need heavy amounts of programming, lots of backup storage (example: a cybertronic brain or storage module capable of storing to the capacity of a human brain, more or less), access to an infinitely vast data source (example: Internet), and the ability to reason.
Otherwise, the AI would only be as advanced as it's programming, thus being unable to learn and develop on it's own. I am not saying that current AI cannot learn and develop, but rather, "AI is in it's infancy."
It has only just begun.
05/29/09
Hahhahaha, look at how 'hardcore' you are.
Go read any half-decent book, and if you're not a hideous man-child, it will most likely blow any video game out of the water.
05/29/09
And MAG doesn't even have AI
05/29/09
05/29/09
Um... The word "pretentious" comes to mind, particularly with the "man-child" comment. Pretentious and immature.
05/29/09
Before GTA4 was realised I was a bit worried about the more realistic approach to the graphic regarding the deaths in the game (mostly the running people over). It turns out GTA4 wasnt all that bad, but I can only imaging, that if computer games continue for their reach of 'realism', what it will be like in the future. Not sure I would want to know, actually..
05/29/09
*imagine
05/29/09
Like I said, not that different.
05/29/09
Im talking more realism. Its like how some people don't like watching the Saw type movies. They find the gore too realistic and, to them, they cant see the 'fun' in it. That's what I worry will eventually become of the more realistic games.
I play games for fun, not ultra-realism. I don't want to be disturbed while playing a game like GTA or COD, but I can see that becoming the way some games might go.
05/29/09
05/29/09
On topic, this is why I can only assume we'll never see stringent adherence to realism in America's Army, even if the technology existed.
Even for a commercial title, ultra-realism could preclude fun, killing the point of the game. And yes, that was intentional.