quote:

---

Original post by Ferretman
I agree completely, though I''m not sure that that many developers are actually looking at NNs or GAs rigt now.

---

Except Derek Smart.... *giggle*

quote:

---

They''re harder to debug, not always predictable, a devil to explain to your producer, and don''t integrate all that well into any scripting engine that I know of. The FSM and FuSM will be with us for a long, long time to come. A game as seemingly complex as The Sims is proof of that.

---

I spoke with Chris Kinglsey about this once (He''s the guy who runs Rebellion, the people who made Alien vs Predator), and that''s the exact same reasoning he used. It''s a good one, but...

You could, in theory, why the scripting AI to pre-code certain behaviours, and the system learns when each behaviour is appropriate or A Bad Thing (tm).

For example, imagine you have some quake bots that have a number of predetermined behaviour, and a method for tracking the success of each behaviour (NN or something like it). If you debug each scriptlet indivudually, and make sure that none of them are capable of contracting each other (say, one for running around like a madman and one for staying still), it shouldn''t be that much of a problem.

Nurgle

hmm it seems to me that intelligence of any sort is in the eye of the beholder.

There are a limited range of actions in most games, so a FSM could duplicate human-like play to a great extent. A human opponent would find no easy way to differentiate between the two, making it unreasonable for them to call one intelligent and the other not.

So I''d be inclined to call anything that I mentally assigned intentions to in a game an intelligent object, making AI the code directing its behaviour.