I'ts called Procedural generated games. ring a bell?
Most procedurally generated games only really have the ability to "generate" at the start of world generation. The ability to realize that it needs to increase the number of "crafting encounters" because the player is starting to run out is pretty rare. NPCs realizing that the player likes to get in on "This type of job, so we should get them in on this one", is also pretty rare for procedurally generated worlds.
There is stuff like radiant quests in Skyrim, so it's not a new idea.
Also there are a lot of games that focus on farming, crafting, or manufacturing something that generate you orders to complete.
The issue is not "ability to realize that it needs to increase the number". That's really simple programming. The issue is that players get bored because procedurally generated quests aren't fun enough.
The exact opposite of what i am looking for. I do not enjoy spending my time inside dungeons,they are bland,boring and look cheap.
I want an immersive world and not one that simply reacts to my actions.Instead i want the npc's to react realistically,like a character would react in a real world and not something that might look like a tabletop game or something that looks fake.
Nice play on words "story engine"..haha good one.All these games have stories FFX been my fave story of all time with great characters.They actually seem to be contradicting themselves because a GREAT story would feel realistic and not look like computer code or some "story engine".
Bottom line is that i am not looking for fancy terms,or devs telling us their game is going to be FUN or they are listening to feedback,game design is both simple and difficult to do well.I just want an immersive world with as many systems as it takes to make the world feel alive and real.I am not looking for a tabletop D&D game because D&D is very dated and not good design anymore.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The Q/A seemed like hand picked questions that allowed for meaningless VAGUE answers.I really couldn't care less WHO is working on the game,past accolades have proven VERY little of late with Smedley's and Lord British dudes providing us with very poor efforts.
This game is NOT gaining any accolades until i actually see something that looks promising.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
"How do they intend to abstract an action they haven't anticipated and coded?"
In an interview that Julian gave, he said he wants to put in neural network and machine learning to create the AI.
AI would essentialy take action based on what the developers made it learn, and as it is 'dungeon master' the AI would be only limited to certain things it can do.
I guess by 'dungeon mater' they mean the AI would create stories for you, basicaly quests - you go into a town and the AI creates a story for you in that town..... you go into a cave instead of a town and the AI creates a story for you in the cave.
My initial point was that players are inventive, computers aren't. When faced with a chest that they can't pick, players are likely to try to take the entire chest, or burn the chest, or pour acid in the lock. What exactly is the UI icon to suggest pouring acid in the lock? How is that icon distinct from one for pouring water in a lock or pouring acid over the hinges? That's what is going to be difficult. Words can be precise and flexible, graphic icons not so much.
In order for a computer to react to an action, the player needs to first input that action. Without the ability to input a specific action, even the best computer learning machines can't learn.
But that's the thing, that's not really hard. As long as it's within the context of what the object can reasonably receive as actions.
The player comes to the chest. He "can" take it. As long as he/she can carry it. Done. Take it into town. That's not hard to do.
As far as the lock? Assign the "pick/break/acid/whatever" and then some outcomes with die rolls.
My guess is that all the actions a player might do will be there. Not hard. Now, "other things" such as fill the lock with feathers or any number of creative things, won't be there. But that's for players to temper their expectations.
Thats all been done before. Thousands of times. Part of the problem is that people have tempered their expectations too much already, imo.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
"How do they intend to abstract an action they haven't anticipated and coded?"
In an interview that Julian gave, he said he wants to put in neural network and machine learning to create the AI.
AI
would essentialy take action based on what the developers made it
learn, and as it is 'dungeon master' the AI would be only limited to
certain things it can do.
I guess by 'dungeon
mater' they mean the AI would create stories for you, basicaly quests -
you go into a town and the AI creates a story for you in that town.....
you go into a cave instead of a town and the AI creates a story for you
in the cave.
My initial point was that players are inventive, computers aren't. When
faced with a chest that they can't pick, players are likely to try to
take the entire chest, or burn the chest, or pour acid in the lock.
What exactly is the UI icon to suggest pouring acid in the lock? How is
that icon distinct from one for pouring water in a lock or pouring acid
over the hinges? That's what is going to be difficult. Words can be
precise and flexible, graphic icons not so much.
In
order for a computer to react to an action, the player needs to first
input that action. Without the ability to input a specific action, even
the best computer learning machines can't learn.
But that's the thing, that's not really hard. As long as it's within the
context of what the object can reasonably receive as actions.
The player comes to the chest. He "can" take it. As long as he/she can carry it. Done. Take it into town. That's not hard to do.
As far as the lock? Assign the "pick/break/acid/whatever" and then some outcomes with die rolls.
My
guess is that all the actions a player might do will be there. Not
hard. Now, "other things" such as fill the lock with feathers or any
number of creative things, won't be there. But that's for players to
temper their expectations.
I missed this before. How does one code "whatever?" That's what Mendel is talking about. Also, taking a chest can be as easy comparing weight carried vs weight of chest, or as complicated as to how to move it, like dragging it, carrying it, carried between 2 people, in a cart.
How many ways can you think of to open a door? Knock? Pick a lock, if locked? Break it down? Simply turn the handle? How about tunneling under it? Maybe remove the hinges? I have a spell that turns rock to mud, so I make the walls on either side of the door turn to mud. And this is just one person using 1 minute to think about this. How many more ways will thousands of other players think of, that coders just can't cover?
One of the things I like about watching D&D streams is how players use the same spells, skills, or abilities that other players have in new and inventive ways. AI is unable to cope with that
Players constantly talk about what games DON'T allow them to do. This is because whatever action happens, there must be code to handle that action. If it's not coded, it can't happen, or most of the time just ignored by the game.
Also AI can't "intuit" things, nor read subtlety into conversations. At least not at present
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Procedually generated content cannot have the quality of handcrafted content.
No matter how complex you make such a random generator, the computer doesnt even have the first clue about actual originality. So you will necessarily see the same things happen over and over. Sooner or later it will be boring.
Procedually generated content cannot have the quality of handcrafted content.
No matter how complex you make such a random generator, the computer doesnt even have the first clue about actual originality. So you will necessarily see the same things happen over and over. Sooner or later it will be boring.
And even if they did manage to pull it off it would just push people away because they can't figure out how to beat encounters lol.
Can someone explain why we can't have both procedurally generated content and manually generated content in the same game? FUNCOM did it nearly 20 years ago in Anarchy Online...a modern MMO should have both, and it should be 10x better than it was back then. I just don't understand this "either/or" mentality.
"How do they intend to abstract an action they haven't anticipated and coded?"
In an interview that Julian gave, he said he wants to put in neural network and machine learning to create the AI.
AI
would essentialy take action based on what the developers made it
learn, and as it is 'dungeon master' the AI would be only limited to
certain things it can do.
I guess by 'dungeon
mater' they mean the AI would create stories for you, basicaly quests -
you go into a town and the AI creates a story for you in that town.....
you go into a cave instead of a town and the AI creates a story for you
in the cave.
My initial point was that players are inventive, computers aren't. When
faced with a chest that they can't pick, players are likely to try to
take the entire chest, or burn the chest, or pour acid in the lock.
What exactly is the UI icon to suggest pouring acid in the lock? How is
that icon distinct from one for pouring water in a lock or pouring acid
over the hinges? That's what is going to be difficult. Words can be
precise and flexible, graphic icons not so much.
In
order for a computer to react to an action, the player needs to first
input that action. Without the ability to input a specific action, even
the best computer learning machines can't learn.
But that's the thing, that's not really hard. As long as it's within the
context of what the object can reasonably receive as actions.
The player comes to the chest. He "can" take it. As long as he/she can carry it. Done. Take it into town. That's not hard to do.
As far as the lock? Assign the "pick/break/acid/whatever" and then some outcomes with die rolls.
My
guess is that all the actions a player might do will be there. Not
hard. Now, "other things" such as fill the lock with feathers or any
number of creative things, won't be there. But that's for players to
temper their expectations.
I missed this before. How does one code "whatever?" That's what Mendel is talking about. Also, taking a chest can be as easy comparing weight carried vs weight of chest, or as complicated as to how to move it, like dragging it, carrying it, carried between 2 people, in a cart.
How many ways can you think of to open a door? Knock? Pick a lock, if locked? Break it down? Simply turn the handle? How about tunneling under it? Maybe remove the hinges? I have a spell that turns rock to mud, so I make the walls on either side of the door turn to mud. And this is just one person using 1 minute to think about this. How many more ways will thousands of other players think of, that coders just can't cover?
One of the things I like about watching D&D streams is how players use the same spells, skills, or abilities that other players have in new and inventive ways. AI is unable to cope with that
Players constantly talk about what games DON'T allow them to do. This is because whatever action happens, there must be code to handle that action. If it's not coded, it can't happen, or most of the time just ignored by the game.
Also AI can't "intuit" things, nor read subtlety into conversations. At least not at present
Again, players are overthinking. There aren't that many ways to open a door given your example above.
Not that many ways to carry a chest. we aren't talking about 100 options and 100 options aren't needed.
And to add, sure, players can use spells (given a fantasy setting) a variety of different ways but dungeon masters do make decisions on what players can and can't do.
You aren't going to use a light spell to open a door. I still don't think this is as hard as players want it to be.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
"How do they intend to abstract an action they haven't anticipated and coded?"
In an interview that Julian gave, he said he wants to put in neural network and machine learning to create the AI.
AI
would essentialy take action based on what the developers made it
learn, and as it is 'dungeon master' the AI would be only limited to
certain things it can do.
I guess by 'dungeon
mater' they mean the AI would create stories for you, basicaly quests -
you go into a town and the AI creates a story for you in that town.....
you go into a cave instead of a town and the AI creates a story for you
in the cave.
My initial point was that players are inventive, computers aren't. When
faced with a chest that they can't pick, players are likely to try to
take the entire chest, or burn the chest, or pour acid in the lock.
What exactly is the UI icon to suggest pouring acid in the lock? How is
that icon distinct from one for pouring water in a lock or pouring acid
over the hinges? That's what is going to be difficult. Words can be
precise and flexible, graphic icons not so much.
In
order for a computer to react to an action, the player needs to first
input that action. Without the ability to input a specific action, even
the best computer learning machines can't learn.
But that's the thing, that's not really hard. As long as it's within the
context of what the object can reasonably receive as actions.
The player comes to the chest. He "can" take it. As long as he/she can carry it. Done. Take it into town. That's not hard to do.
As far as the lock? Assign the "pick/break/acid/whatever" and then some outcomes with die rolls.
My
guess is that all the actions a player might do will be there. Not
hard. Now, "other things" such as fill the lock with feathers or any
number of creative things, won't be there. But that's for players to
temper their expectations.
I missed this before. How does one code "whatever?" That's what Mendel is talking about. Also, taking a chest can be as easy comparing weight carried vs weight of chest, or as complicated as to how to move it, like dragging it, carrying it, carried between 2 people, in a cart.
How many ways can you think of to open a door? Knock? Pick a lock, if locked? Break it down? Simply turn the handle? How about tunneling under it? Maybe remove the hinges? I have a spell that turns rock to mud, so I make the walls on either side of the door turn to mud. And this is just one person using 1 minute to think about this. How many more ways will thousands of other players think of, that coders just can't cover?
One of the things I like about watching D&D streams is how players use the same spells, skills, or abilities that other players have in new and inventive ways. AI is unable to cope with that
Players constantly talk about what games DON'T allow them to do. This is because whatever action happens, there must be code to handle that action. If it's not coded, it can't happen, or most of the time just ignored by the game.
Also AI can't "intuit" things, nor read subtlety into conversations. At least not at present
Again, players are overthinking. There aren't that many ways to open a door given your example above.
Not that many ways to carry a chest. we aren't talking about 100 options and 100 options aren't needed.
And to add, sure, players can use spells (given a fantasy setting) a variety of different ways but dungeon masters do make decisions on what players can and can't do.
You aren't going to use a light spell to open a door. I still don't think this is as hard as players want it to be.
I see what you're saying. There are certainly some combinations of actions that just won't work. If you want it to feel like a "live DM", those have to be coded in, too.
I used to watch Critical Role and my favorite line of their DM is, "You can certainly try..." when his players describe what they want to accomplish. Then, he breaks down their actions and decides how to resolve it with dice rolls.
If you think about it, game makers want "other players" to test their games because they bring in new ways to look at things. These players will try things the devs never thought of. Good testers seek ways to break the games they're testing. The devs can't possibly foresee every possibility, is what I'm getting at. Yes, there are certain actions that have a finite list of possibilities, but what about those actions that don't?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
"How do they intend to abstract an action they haven't anticipated and coded?"
In an interview that Julian gave, he said he wants to put in neural network and machine learning to create the AI.
AI
would essentialy take action based on what the developers made it
learn, and as it is 'dungeon master' the AI would be only limited to
certain things it can do.
I guess by 'dungeon
mater' they mean the AI would create stories for you, basicaly quests -
you go into a town and the AI creates a story for you in that town.....
you go into a cave instead of a town and the AI creates a story for you
in the cave.
My initial point was that players are inventive, computers aren't. When
faced with a chest that they can't pick, players are likely to try to
take the entire chest, or burn the chest, or pour acid in the lock.
What exactly is the UI icon to suggest pouring acid in the lock? How is
that icon distinct from one for pouring water in a lock or pouring acid
over the hinges? That's what is going to be difficult. Words can be
precise and flexible, graphic icons not so much.
In
order for a computer to react to an action, the player needs to first
input that action. Without the ability to input a specific action, even
the best computer learning machines can't learn.
But that's the thing, that's not really hard. As long as it's within the
context of what the object can reasonably receive as actions.
The player comes to the chest. He "can" take it. As long as he/she can carry it. Done. Take it into town. That's not hard to do.
As far as the lock? Assign the "pick/break/acid/whatever" and then some outcomes with die rolls.
My
guess is that all the actions a player might do will be there. Not
hard. Now, "other things" such as fill the lock with feathers or any
number of creative things, won't be there. But that's for players to
temper their expectations.
I missed this before. How does one code "whatever?" That's what Mendel is talking about. Also, taking a chest can be as easy comparing weight carried vs weight of chest, or as complicated as to how to move it, like dragging it, carrying it, carried between 2 people, in a cart.
How many ways can you think of to open a door? Knock? Pick a lock, if locked? Break it down? Simply turn the handle? How about tunneling under it? Maybe remove the hinges? I have a spell that turns rock to mud, so I make the walls on either side of the door turn to mud. And this is just one person using 1 minute to think about this. How many more ways will thousands of other players think of, that coders just can't cover?
One of the things I like about watching D&D streams is how players use the same spells, skills, or abilities that other players have in new and inventive ways. AI is unable to cope with that
Players constantly talk about what games DON'T allow them to do. This is because whatever action happens, there must be code to handle that action. If it's not coded, it can't happen, or most of the time just ignored by the game.
Also AI can't "intuit" things, nor read subtlety into conversations. At least not at present
Again, players are overthinking. There aren't that many ways to open a door given your example above.
Not that many ways to carry a chest. we aren't talking about 100 options and 100 options aren't needed.
And to add, sure, players can use spells (given a fantasy setting) a variety of different ways but dungeon masters do make decisions on what players can and can't do.
You aren't going to use a light spell to open a door. I still don't think this is as hard as players want it to be.
I see what you're saying. There are certainly some combinations of actions that just won't work. If you want it to feel like a "live DM", those have to be coded in, too.
I used to watch Critical Role and my favorite line of their DM is, "You can certainly try..." when his players describe what they want to accomplish. Then, he breaks down their actions and decides how to resolve it with dice rolls.
If you think about it, game makers want "other players" to test their games because they bring in new ways to look at things. These players will try things the devs never thought of. Good testers seek ways to break the games they're testing. The devs can't possibly foresee every possibility, is what I'm getting at. Yes, there are certain actions that have a finite list of possibilities, but what about those actions that don't?
I think the best way for any developer is to define how any object can have an interaction.
Then, during initial testing they can see where players want to deviate from that.
Additionally every object has its properties including what it's made of.
At some point all the mundane or "usual" things will be covered and they can decide how the unusual will be applied.
outside of a certain set of parameters there can be a message indicating "you x but nothing happens"
"x" being what you did.
There are only so many things that one can do with an object. Provided that each object has its parameters defined, including weight/mass, it shouldn't be an issue to cover "what can be done."
I think, per the point that a lot of non-game players are always disappointed to discover they can't do something (this is true from my experience) I think the larger issue is that the games they play aren't about a player doing certain things.
But if, besides story, the developers include player interaction with the environment, a good many things can be covered.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Well if that DM is anything like the real ones then get ready for full on suck....No you can use a spell because players are in the way, no you cant shoot an arrow there, no no no no NO!
My only experience with AD&D is on a PC, and I'm guessing same is true for a larger portion of the gaming market.
While these folks will not easily be able to recreate the table top experience I think it's quite possible they can provide a significant improvement to what I am familar with, so it could be fun, at least for gamers like me.
Besides, it will greatly appeal to solo players who have zero interest in gathering around a table to socialize. (Isn't that what bars are for?)
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comments
Also there are a lot of games that focus on farming, crafting, or manufacturing something that generate you orders to complete.
The issue is not "ability to realize that it needs to increase the number". That's really simple programming. The issue is that players get bored because procedurally generated quests aren't fun enough.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I do not enjoy spending my time inside dungeons,they are bland,boring and look cheap.
I want an immersive world and not one that simply reacts to my actions.Instead i want the npc's to react realistically,like a character would react in a real world and not something that might look like a tabletop game or something that looks fake.
Nice play on words "story engine"..haha good one.All these games have stories FFX been my fave story of all time with great characters.They actually seem to be contradicting themselves because a GREAT story would feel realistic and not look like computer code or some "story engine".
Bottom line is that i am not looking for fancy terms,or devs telling us their game is going to be FUN or they are listening to feedback,game design is both simple and difficult to do well.I just want an immersive world with as many systems as it takes to make the world feel alive and real.I am not looking for a tabletop D&D game because D&D is very dated and not good design anymore.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
This game is NOT gaining any accolades until i actually see something that looks promising.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I missed this before. How does one code "whatever?" That's what Mendel is talking about. Also, taking a chest can be as easy comparing weight carried vs weight of chest, or as complicated as to how to move it, like dragging it, carrying it, carried between 2 people, in a cart.
How many ways can you think of to open a door? Knock? Pick a lock, if locked? Break it down? Simply turn the handle? How about tunneling under it? Maybe remove the hinges? I have a spell that turns rock to mud, so I make the walls on either side of the door turn to mud. And this is just one person using 1 minute to think about this. How many more ways will thousands of other players think of, that coders just can't cover?
One of the things I like about watching D&D streams is how players use the same spells, skills, or abilities that other players have in new and inventive ways. AI is unable to cope with that
Players constantly talk about what games DON'T allow them to do. This is because whatever action happens, there must be code to handle that action. If it's not coded, it can't happen, or most of the time just ignored by the game.
Also AI can't "intuit" things, nor read subtlety into conversations. At least not at present
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Not that many ways to carry a chest. we aren't talking about 100 options and 100 options aren't needed.
And to add, sure, players can use spells (given a fantasy setting) a variety of different ways but dungeon masters do make decisions on what players can and can't do.
You aren't going to use a light spell to open a door. I still don't think this is as hard as players want it to be.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I used to watch Critical Role and my favorite line of their DM is, "You can certainly try..." when his players describe what they want to accomplish. Then, he breaks down their actions and decides how to resolve it with dice rolls.
If you think about it, game makers want "other players" to test their games because they bring in new ways to look at things. These players will try things the devs never thought of. Good testers seek ways to break the games they're testing. The devs can't possibly foresee every possibility, is what I'm getting at. Yes, there are certain actions that have a finite list of possibilities, but what about those actions that don't?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Then, during initial testing they can see where players want to deviate from that.
Additionally every object has its properties including what it's made of.
At some point all the mundane or "usual" things will be covered and they can decide how the unusual will be applied.
outside of a certain set of parameters there can be a message indicating "you x but nothing happens"
"x" being what you did.
There are only so many things that one can do with an object. Provided that each object has its parameters defined, including weight/mass, it shouldn't be an issue to cover "what can be done."
I think, per the point that a lot of non-game players are always disappointed to discover they can't do something (this is true from my experience) I think the larger issue is that the games they play aren't about a player doing certain things.
But if, besides story, the developers include player interaction with the environment, a good many things can be covered.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
While these folks will not easily be able to recreate the table top experience I think it's quite possible they can provide a significant improvement to what I am familar with, so it could be fun, at least for gamers like me.
Besides, it will greatly appeal to solo players who have zero interest in gathering around a table to socialize. (Isn't that what bars are for?)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon