I am always curious how things get to be the way they are. When I watch movies or commercials, I always wonder about the process that resulted in someone thinking that something should be done as opposed to something else. The same with games.

I remember playing American McGee's Alice and getting to a level that didn't seem to mesh well. It is the one where you turn into a chess piece and have to move about the level accordingly. I thought the game was fun until that point, and I wondered about the decision to put this portion of the game in. Also, Alice magically turns into a chess piece (with particle effects and all), but at the end of each portion of the game when this happens, she just reappears without the magic effect. When I emailed American McGee, I got a simple response that such decisions can be the result of deadlines needing to be met. He also suggested that I not pay so much attention to the details, but I do find it fun.

I recently saw The Incredibles, and while everyone was just watching an animated movie, I was wowed by the amazing effects, like the waterfall and the smoke. When I saw Shrek, I remember being floored by the milk being poored into the glass, even though it was not a major part of the film (and then later I found out that the behind-the-scenes specials made mention of this technical feat).

So yeah, I enjoy finding details, including flaws, because then I get to think about how they were made.

Response to GBGAMES
....Not only that, but discovering "flaws" creates an overall atmosphere that ensures improvement. This isn't necessarily a 'bad" or ruinous ideology at all. As you wrote:

"When I watch movies or commercials, I always wonder about the process that resulted in someone thinking that something should be done as opposed to something else...."

"So yeah, I enjoy finding details, including flaws, because then I get to think about how they were made."
.....And, if curiosity [and time] permits, how to improve them.
At least this is according to my personal observation.

Quote: Original post by J-Maw
considering the current consumer push is now for games that contain much better AI-controlled enemies." -Quoted from GameDev.net "AI Game Engine Programming"

That might be the consumer demand, but it's not yet evident that developers know HOW to deliver on this demand, let alone being willing to do so (in terms of committing significant budget proportions to AI development and research).

Quote: Original post by J-Maw
While I agree, TIMKIN, with your reasoning concerning AI adaptaion, I must contradict the fact that jaded gamers "look for cheats/hacks/flaws in games, is this one of your primary elements of game play."

I think you mis-read what I wrote... I wasn't stating a fact... I was posing a question. DO power-games intentionally look for these facets of a game as part of their gameplay, or is it merely a coincidence that they find them because of the manner in which they approach the game?


William: I definitely understand the production issues involved that mean that NPC handling is often done in a simplified manner according to well developed and proven techniques (even if they're somewhat sub-optimal from a gameplay perspective). However, I would content that many players, even in the FPS genre, would be contented to face half a dozen well thought out, 'smart' bots that acted 'appropriately' in the context in which they find themselves, than 50 mindelss automatons that suddenly appear in front of (or behind) the player and start shooting. But that's more a question of AI than triggering, so I don't want to diver this thread any more. I would certainly be interested in hearing other peoples thoughts on different methods for controlled spawning of NPCs.

Cheers,

Timkin

Farcry is one game that handles monster spawning really well. It is very dynamic. The guards all seem to be doing their job, waiting looking for someone to fight, instead of just sitting doing nothing until you show up. You can even zoom in on them and eavesdrop on their conversations. Later when the monsters start breaking out, it feels like the monsters and the guards are all fighting and don't even care what your doing. It's fun to just stand back and not get too involved and see who comes out the winner. Also, there are helicopters which periodically fly around the island. If they see you, more guys can come down on ropes. I never have felt like something has been waiting for me to trigger it. I really like that aspect of it, I'm getting extremely tired of fps games being "one scripted event after another".

Farcry has the best ai I've seen in a fps game, haven't played anything more recent though.

Farcry is one game that handles monster spawning really well. It is very dynamic. The guards all seem to be doing their job, waiting looking for someone to fight, instead of just sitting doing nothing until you show up. You can even zoom in on them and eavesdrop on their conversations. Later when the monsters start breaking out, it feels like the monsters and the guards are all fighting and don't even care what your doing. It's fun to just stand back and not get too involved and see who comes out the winner. Also, there are helicopters which periodically fly around the island. If they see you, more guys can come down on ropes. I never have felt like something has been waiting for me to trigger it. I really like that aspect of it, I'm getting extremely tired of fps games being "one scripted event after another".

Farcry has the best ai I've seen in a fps game, haven't played anything more recent though.

<edit> whoops, it kept asking me to sign the agreement and I didnt read where it said the post went through </edit>

There are definitely ways to improve AI spawning, and I am sure they will become more common in time.

Williams point, as I am interpreting it (allowing a 'game master' AI to control AI character spawning hands the control over system performance to the 'game master' AI) is a big issue that would need to be addressed by such as system. Another big issue is testing. If the system isn't totally deterministic, it will make QAs job very hard. Both of these are possible to work around, with enough time.

Quote: 1) Is there a better way to handle the addition of NPCs to the game in a controlled manner ('triggered spawning') for games running on platforms with limited resources;

Absolutely; level designers can set up cinematic entries (as others have suggested; breaking down windows/doors, etc). Of course, only so many such locations can be added. Places where unlimited spawning is seems possible to a gamer; cliff faces, holes in the ceiling, etc can address the 'entry feasibility' problem for other cases.

Finally, areas unseen by the player (or connected to locations with 'entry feasibility') could be repopulated based on the current state of the game.

While I am a huge fan of AI control and automation, a system like this may be a hard sell for most action games. It would have the potential to improve a game, but I don't know how much 'bang for the buck' it would provide.

For instance, many of the 'friendly' characters in Half-Life 2 don't respond to much at all (including the player firing rounds a few feet away from them). Valve must have decided early on that what this would be more real and could provide interesting emergent situations, it wasn't worth the time investment or the added complexity in plot delivery. Instead, they decided to totally ignore the problem which created a unified convention players could accept.

Quote: 2) Do power-gamers like trying to find the poor design elements of a game (as a sort of test of their abilities over the designers)?

Absolutely. The problem is that power gamers are definitely the minority. It is more important that the casual gamer has a good experience than the power gamer, and many of these issues don't seem to effect them as badly.

For instance, infinite spawning is generally disliked by many action gamers, power gamer or not. Controlled/more careful spawning may improve the game for power gamers, but the mass market might not notice much of a difference.