Academic AI vs. Game AI
There is an interesting post/rant/exploration by Adam Russell at AI-blog.net entitled Thoughts on Industry / Academic collaboration. He talks about his frustration on how academia seems to not "get it" with regards to game AI.
I made a comment/rant on the post myself, which I will repost here just for the sake of saking.
I made a comment/rant on the post myself, which I will repost here just for the sake of saking.
I think part of the problem that continues to be the fence between the game AI world and academia is the game worlds continued insistence that we have to strip down our AI to "fake AI" in order to wedge it into games.
I'm getting tired of the rubber stamp statements that "our players don't want realistic behaviors... they want FUN behaviors!" And yet, in review after review of the latest games, people bitch about the AI not being realistic enough. We hear it. We acknowledge it. But when it comes to developing the next cycle, the edict from on high is "we don't have enough clock cycles to do that nifty XYZ technique."
As Moore's Law trips merrily along from year to year, we have more and more processing available to us. In theory, that should give us, as game developers, the overhead we need to close the gap between the need for 60 FPS in our games and the academics who don't really care if they are rendering their half-ass, low poly bots at 4 FPS.
Another point on this subject... I'm sick of hearing designers - and even AI programmers - make the statement "but it's not predictable!" about agent-based, emergent AI. Uh... isn't that the point? Again, look at the reviews and the comments from our customers. "The AI sucks because it is too predictable." Even the implication via statements such as "you can beat this level by doing XYZ to the AI because..." means that there is a shallowness to our creations. Why? Is it because we are lazy and don't want to write more complicated code? Is it because we are scared of the unpredictability of non-deterministic models? Is it because our designers would better be served writing static movie screen-plays than game levels? What holds us back?
I'm not saying that academia is the answer. Sometimes it seems that they can get so wrapped up in an esoteric sojourn that they cease to realize that what they are doing is not even remotely relevant. However, some of the concepts and techniques that they take the time to explore (because they don't have producers and ship-dates) are things that can map over into the game world. And, if we are truly interested in putting realism into our games (which can be fun for the player!), then what academia comes up with should be noted by us. Adapted maybe, but noted nonetheless.
Labels: academic, Adam Russell, emergence
| Feedback and ratings: |
|







1 Comments:
I agree completely.
1) Currently going through the horror that is academic AI, I can confirm: hardly any of it is relevant for games. Sure, there are plenty of pratical applications for this stuff in general, but not for games. And when academics say they use games to test their AI systems, they mean stuff like Pac Man or something similarly simplified.
2) The resource vs. complexity trade-off is getting rather ridiculous. You want a "fun experience"? Try making the games more thought-provoking and emotional. Or more imaginative. There are enough WW2, racing, football, and movie-based games out there. Get creative. I swear if I had it my way I would do away with the publishing corporations.
By
Nik @ http://neurai.net, At
December 15, 2007 12:47 PM
Post a Comment
:
Create a Link
<< Home