Wondering how a game would be in 70 years from now, what improvements would the display technology suffer, what would gamers of the future would think as fun and entertaining, leading my imagination flow freely through my grey mass; only came out with the conclusion that "computer" ( if they are called computers in the future ), will certainly only be able to compete against an others computer AI, or in the best case an inferior slow human brain with the help of an other "computers AI" telling him or her what to do and when to do it. ||||-- Our creation is the transformation of one. --|||

Think of the difference between a current game and pong. That has only been about 25(?) years, and the difference is amazing. The technology we will have in 70 years may be completely different from what we are doing now, so there is no way to predict it.

*** Triality ***

But the fact that "computers" will be smarter, and faster leads to the thought of games played by computers, or at least with the help of them.


||||-- Our creation is the transformation of one. --|||

And who exactly is going to write games for computers to play against computers?

...oh wait a minute, computers...

I reckon in 70 odd years we''ll be trying out stuff like plugging electrodes (or whatever) straight into our brains for total immersion. Let''s hope Microsoft aren''t still monopolising the OS market or everyone''ll die through their brains crashing.
Should be interesting when they''re recruiting beta testers...

arf, arf, arf.

we will program them to play aganst each other, or personalize one of our own to help us aganst the other comp.

||||-- Our creation is the transformation of one. --|||

But f you go along the line that pong was made 25 years ago, and now we have fully 3d worlds, consider this: pong is still around. Sure it isn't the most popular game around and nor is it deemed to be the latest in high tech entertainment but like it or not, people will contine to dig up the classics.
I reckon in many a year from now, we might see Quake treated like pong is treated now, really low tech. But the difference will be that any Tom, Dick and Harry can make pong, while Quake is a tad more difficult. I don't see future people being able to program in 3d with ease (except with the use of specialised tools) but they will see pong as just tooo low tech to even get nostalgic about, so the games will be more original, even though there will be heaps of them made, only some will rise to the surface (just like today)
One thing I can see is a change of programming language, with computers increasing in speed, soon all the optimisation won't be necessary, sure it'll mean more polygons and all that but at that stage an extra 4 million polys won't make a difference, so instead of using a fairly low level language which may have a longer developement time, they will opt for higher level languages which allow for rapid developement resulting in lower costs for development.

My $.02

"Only a fool quotes himself"
Andy Owen

My Homepage (Non games related)
SlayFest - Full Version Download. Get it now. (Games related... I think)

Edited by - ragonastick on July 21, 2000 5:25:47 AM

You are all right, HOWEVER; what i''m trying to emphasize here is the complexity of the AI that the games of the future will be able to execute.

Also I think that polygons will be obsolete by that time, and that a new form of representing a shape in 3D will rise; maybe 3D as we "programmers" know it, will be thought as an intent of re-producing what they will represent with holograms.


||||-- Our creation is the transformation of one. --|||

Hi,

i think AI in games will not make such immense progress in the next years like graphics for example. We will have better processors and better languages, so that we can have better pathfindig algorithms or collision detection, but before we will have really game characters who can really think like a human or has something like human intuition we must be able fo formalize that in a mathematical way. Then we (might) can code it.
At all, i think, using current "overall exact mathematics approach" will not lead to the goal of "god like creating" creatures.
I think (intuitively) nature works different and we only wish, because we want to categorize anything to get it under control, that there is something like an "all describing algorithm" behind it. But there is not.
Maybe the solution is much simpler than that, but currently we are to blind to see it, because we are totally on the wrong track.

Another question to me is, if we generally need that much AI at all to produce good and entertaining games, or is it just some sort of hype or fashion that most of us are so inerested in AI.


cu

Peter

I work in a algoritm for a true-ai, and you cannot expect use this for games. Is very complex, very multitasking and very attemp to fail (because is a true-ai, not a perfect-ai).
It algoritm is the only way (posible) to make a true-ai.

For example :you put the true-ai to play a game. But you cannot known to the true-ai want to play!. All true-ai was built-in a philosophy knownedge, and this complicate the way of think.

But for a game, the ai (fake ai) will use the next concept:
1) use one pattern (or combination) for some cases (ej :ultimate chess games), In some cases, this pattern was pre-created by expert-gamer.
2) use random choice
3) use some trick for effect of life (eg. chat, some team work, and more). But this is only tricks.

The problem of game-ai is not made a perfect player. The point is made a human-like player, and you cannot need some ai-help.

Some advantage in this last 25 years??... ummm some!. For example, still made games of star trek (the old spacetrek)!!.






-eng3d.softhome.net-

We''ll all be programming in C#.

::snicker::

Mason McCuskey
Spin Studios - home of Quaternion, 2000 GDC Indie Games Fest Finalist!
www.spin-studios.com