51–60 of 63 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI can already write short stories, just not very good ones. It'll be doing novels once the context windows are big enough.
Agreed, the technology looks promising but isn't ready yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ones who are most interested in your game to actually learn it? That’s a strat but it’s certainly not the game dev meta
Amazingly, "better player" doesn't imply "better customer". That is, unless it's a P2W game, where better = willing to spend more money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
well, extract a good metric for "fun" (like engagement) and make that the optimization criteria. It would be equally as easy.
There is no good metric for fun.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Programmers always want to automate content creation We have a god complex that brain surgeons can only envy. How many universes have they built?
I suspect everyone on HN started out wanting to build COOL WORLDS as a kid!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazingly, "better player" doesn't imply "better customer". That is, unless it's a P2W game, where better = willing to spend more money.
But so very often it implies "Loudest customer" -- that is, they are the most likely to loudly and publicly complain. Games live and die on the whims of their audiences; It's generally a very bad idea to piss off the most dedicated 10% of your playerbase.
The whitepaper on the Grail framework is interesting [1]. It's an AI C++/C# framework you can use in game development. I would call it a very good implementation of "old school" AI, where the behavior of your actors is all about utility curves, Monte Carlo search, and genetic algorithms. Basically all math/algorithm based stuff, kind of like old expert system AI implementations. Of course "new school" AI is all about…
The biggest challenge with these is coming up with a function that clearly represents the fitness of a candidate. EAs are worthless if you can't provide good selection pressure over time. There are always multiple conflicting objectives in the most practical cases. I've recently discovered that you can skip all the nasty objective weighting business if you just select the Pareto front every generation. You never know when a trip down a less important path might result in the most optimal global solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But so very often it implies "Loudest customer" -- that is, they are the most likely to loudly and publicly complain. Games live and die on the whims of their audiences; It's generally a very bad idea to piss off the most dedicated 10% of your playerbase.
Unless that dedication is highly remunerative, pissing them off can be the smart thing to do, if that means pleasing the other 90%. The problem comes when the developers are having their egos stroked by this dedication. Imagining that those players are somehow valuable for PR is part of the rationalization for serving them, but experienced lesser players will learn that a game that caters to that elite won't be fun f…
I used to work on F2P games, and you have to balance things. As nice as it would be to ignore the loudmouths, unless you can guarantee that no one else is listening to them either, which you can't, you'll have to cater to them somewhat to pacify them.