I just ask for dev team a fun game, as BREATH OF FIRE 3 is. Simple as a Snes game ( for PSX ) and 10x more fun than another titles with full graphic quality.

Games are made of fun, Movies are made of graphics. Even a pong game can be fun.
Compare the 32-bit Castlevania: Symphony of the Night with Castlevania: Lament of Innocents and say me truthfully which is more fun.

Quote: Original post by DarkThrone
I just ask for dev team a fun game, as BREATH OF FIRE 3 is. Simple as a Snes game ( for PSX ) and 10x more fun than another titles with full graphic quality.

Games are made of fun, Movies are made of graphics. Even a pong game can be fun.
Compare the 32-bit Castlevania: Symphony of the Night with Castlevania: Lament of Innocents and say me truthfully which is more fun.

Castlevania: Symphony of the Night

===Plenty of reading materials===

C++: A Dialog - Programming with the C++ Standard Library

Introduction to Object-Oriented Programming Using C++

Data Structures and Algorithms with Object-Oriented Design Patterns in C++

A Programmer's Guide to the Mind

Introduction to Machine Learning

Heuristic Algorithms

Ghostscript etc. for viewing postscript files.

Good luck.

[Edited by - Daerax on June 19, 2005 12:21:04 AM]

"It is not knowledge, but the act of learning, not possession but the act of getting there, which grants the greatest enjoyment. When I have clarified and exhausted a subject, then I turn away from it, in order to go into darkness again; the never-satisfied man is so strange if he has completed a structure, then it is not in order to dwell in it peacefully,but in order to begin another. I imagine the world conqueror must feel thus, who, after one kingdom is scarcely conquered, stretches out his arms for others."

--Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss

Quote: Original post by DarkThrone
this is the first thing I do.
And if you see, this site is also a programmers resource.

And also, even games like GTA don't have a powerful IA. If programmers work more on game IA instead of Graphics, it'll more compatible eith old machines and more fun.

And because we are programmers, we only used the tools needed to get the job done. Just like the fact that you don't cut your steak with a chainsaw, you don't need super powerful AI to make a game enjoyable. And to a certain extent, a super-intelligent AI, or one that is smart enough, will actually make the game less enjoyable, since it would be unbeatable.

Unless, you want something that's "only as smart as a human player," but then you run into, "well, how smart is the average human player?" Then someone will ask, "what is average?" And even then, you can just get away with a simple modelling agent, that models somebody's play style. A simple expert or rule based system, nothing more, nothing less.

Quote: Games are made of fun, Movies are made of graphics. Even a pong game can be fun.

I don't think Pong uses any AI what so ever. It doesn't need to. If it did, and even in that situation, the paddle only has to perfectly follow the ball, then the game will only end in you losing because of fatigue. I'm not sure if that would be fun.

Thanks for Daerax for links, are helpful.

Imagine for example, a Arkanoid game. What do you prefer? A 3D-version, Full of graphic effects, rotation and all, or a 2D simple, with thousands of powerups, giant chambers and lots of add to make more challenge?

Think on a game, for example, as GTA. On GTA vice-city, two IA leaks are very notable. The first, on hospital. Do the cheat of weapons and kill some people, after hide behind the ambulance. The police stand at grass wall, and you freely throw grenades while you want and NEVER do the police pass and catch you there.

The second, IN FRONT OF POLICE DEPT. Do the same thing, but in front of the door. No police will leave the buildind in a heroic act of finish the carnage you was made(almost 3 hours of massacre until I leave it).

This thing takes all the fun. Limits are the fun of a game, and more limits are more challenge.

Imagine a game where you are a agent (METAL GEAR SOLID is good but IA can be better) and for all the game, a wrong step will be HUNT-UNTIL-THE-END. Can you survive? It's the fun. But it's my preference, each one have a one.

Just wanted to mention to Darkthrone that if you are serious about any AI stuff, you had better learn some higher level mathematics and get comfy with it. It is also a great aid for other fields to.

Just wanted to mention to Darkthrone that if you are serious about any AI stuff, you had better learn some higher level mathematics and get comfy with it. It is also a great aid for other fields to.

The problem, Sagar_Indurkhya, is that mathematics is not the key to IA, only a tool to build it.

I just refer it on this topic. When I said, I'm not so radical, in point to "Ah, mathematic is not necessary". On, true, it's fundamental. But, taking same key again, is not where the work can be started.

If YOU want to take serious about IA, awake early. Look in your garden the insects. Look when the flowers change. After, look all live that grow and die around you. So, you think "Can I really do a algorithm that's can simulate this?". Poetic, isn't it?

Very ones don't take serious a man that said "I want do a big project". It's normal about human beings. But if you really want, it's not a difficulty, it's a challenge. The live is a game. The more challenge in the game of life is find the way to win more fast, when you can play it a single time.

Ah, only to remember, the Occam's Razor, that is kicked some posts ago.
WeirdoFu, I think YOU don't understand the principle of it. Occam's Razor principle is "On two possibilities, the more simple one are the right one."
Because this I discarded it. And, ah, I'm not a STARTER. Two years of research of code, phylosophy concepts, almost 300 pages on notes, etc. I look for a more efficient way to code what I want to do, nothing more, nothing less.

And yes, I like to post and discuss with friends my opinion.
And not, I am not a scientific PhD.
And yes, I really have a bad, bad English.

Quote: Original post by DarkThrone
If YOU want to take serious about IA, awake early. Look in your garden the insects. Look when the flowers change. After, look all live that grow and die around you. So, you think "Can I really do a algorithm that's can simulate this?". Poetic, isn't it?

Insect and swarm intelligence: almost completely math based. Examples, Ant Colony Optimization, Ant systems, and particle swarms.

Plant Growth: Can be modelled with the Fibonacci sequence...

Alot of these already have mathematical models behind them. Given the proper parameters, people have already simulated many of this stuff. There's really no intelligence involved.

But I guess we're approaching the problem from two different angles. You seem to take a more top down approach, while most everyone takes a more bottom up approach. Personally, I've had my fair share of trying to build castles in the sky. Got me into trouble quite a few times, so I'm more a ground up person now. I'm not saying your approach is wrong, but just sort of have to warn you that you should not be blinded by the complexity of the final result and assume that the process itself is complex.

For example, termites in affrica are known to build huge complex nests that are mounds of dirt up to 10 feet tall. The mounds stand up vertically and contain a complex web of passage ways. Researchers were baffled as to how such a complex structure can be built by simple insects like termites. Some assumed there was a complex behavior involved. However, in the end, research shows that the final complex mound was created based on a simple probabilistic pheromone reinforcement method. Each termite will randomly lay down some dirt around the initial starting point, and use pheromone to make it stick. Then the termites that come afterwards will have a tendency to drop dirt where there is a higher concentration of pheromone. This pocess continues as the mound grows and the pheromone deposit is reinforced and a concentrated mound starts to appear near and around the center of the nest. Since the pheromone near the center of the nest are more often reinforced, the pheromone in outer regions evaporate causing further concentration and upward build. This continues for a fixed amount of time and you get your vertical mound where no two are alike internally, but equally complex. There's no complex blue print involved, just one simple probabilistic reinforcement model. Nature works in simplistic ways, and that is the beauty of it.

So, just kind of something to watch out for as you go along. You seem to have many good ideas, but sometimes thinking too much will blind you from the answer, which is why sometimes answers just sort of appear when you're not really thinking about it. Its tunnel vision that blinds us, mentally and physically, from the true path.

Really, at some point, I agree. Holes on my mind happen somewhile.

I was working very much and I am a bit stressed because I'm not found the point yet. Nothing against you, other way. You are so helpful and mark presence.(Very social).

I created some algorithm that simulate basic instinctive feelings. Fear is almost ready. The problem is that I can't think in a reliable way to connect all small algorithm in a complex system. Love, for example, hard to explain, don't it? No, it's not. Love is simply a instinctive function that uses the principle "If you have a thing that is yours, keep it forever.". It's the second algorithm that I'm working.

Literal as insect concepts are the concept of the human brain. If two human Being are created EXACTLY with the same way and EXACTLY live in same conditions both will have EXACTLY the same personality. But it's Physic about Inertia, so modifiers can be applied.