Simulating Emotions Within Games
Gamasutra is running an opinion piece about the way video games handle simulated emotions. Most often, an non-player character's emotional state is used to either tell a story or to drive gameplay. The author suggests that as both concepts become more complex in modern games, the simulation of emotions must also become more dynamic to remain interesting. Quoting:
"Most of our emotional simulations use a simple sensation/calculation/behavior loop. Someone says or does something to a character; this influences his emotional state; he acts upon his feelings. His emotional state then reverts to a more neutral state over time (I was angry half an hour ago, but I've calmed down now), or changes again in response to another sensation. If these systems are really simple they produce absurd results: a character is furious one moment and cheerful a second later, like a Warner Brothers cartoon character. This is the kind of thing you get with finite state machines. This approach doesn't take into account the fact that behavior itself changes emotions. Behavior is not merely an output to be exhibited; it also affects how we feel. It feeds back into our emotional state."
Emotional state - pleased and surprised.
I heard that emotions were bad so I sold mine to some chump on EBAY because I am the greatest and Robin Malda is flatulent...,,.,.,..m./.ko.///lko.'//../
Emotional state - frustrated and disappointed.
The summary (and TFA as well) seem to be committed to the following two points:
1. Finite state machines will be unrealistically simple when simulating emotional responses.
2. Behavioural-feedback is a necessary condition for realistic emotional displays.
Point number 1 is unwarranted. Finite state machines may elaborate their input at an arbitrarily high level of complexity -finite may still be very large. Part of such an elaboration, of course, may be inner transitions between states that effectively amount to behavioural-feedback. There is nothing intrinsically un-dynamic to FSM.
It's for games? Yeah, I believe that.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Games like Fable 1 and 2 tried to do that. But the NPCs responded or with fear or joy/aplauses. Cant remember another game with this feature, but its a good start.
What I find stupid is the fact that emotional states in games with any sneaking component revert way too quickly.
"Hey, I saw an intruder! Hey, he ran away and hid!"... 30 seconds later... "*whistling merrily on patrol back in 'no intruder' state*".
In many games, the enemy will walk right past a dead body, which is now an "object", over and over again.
Much more realistic would be, once you've been spotted once, for the "alert flag" in some radius (shout range, alarm range if they hit one, etc) to go to a default "middle alert" and simply stay there. It's your punishment for being seen, AND it'd be much more realistic. And it wouldn't, if implemented properly, require any more processing power either.
If you can read this sig, congratulations, you have your glasses on!
...praise their divine noodliness instead !
Squirrel!
If you think that's bad, I humbly submit the following personal anecdotes:
1. Oblivion. So there's this mess of cultists and the high priest is right in front of them preparing to sacrifice someone. Being the sneaky barsteward I am, I plug him right in the head with an enchanted bow. So not only he does a spectacular back-flip in front of everyone, but he bursts into a very bright and spectacular flame too.
So the cultists freak out and start running around, don't find me. One minute later, they calm down and one of them goes, "It must have been the wind."
I don't know what kind of weather they have down there.
2. NOLF 2. So they had actually gone through the trouble of scripting reactions when an NPC finds a body. They'd shake it, ask stuff like "are you alive, comrade??", flip out and search for the killer, etc. Must have been fun in the original version.
Except some retard decided to replace all corpses with backpacks in the German version. You can probably see where this is going.
Yep. Some soldier would find a backpack on a bed in the barracks, freak out, and go "are you alive, comrade??" and the whole circus. To a backpack. WTF.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
So it's a woman? what's the big deal? actually, they seem to have the hardest part figured out already!
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
But give the characters lives. Add some mental disorders based on parents' behavior. In other words, simulate the characters' real lives (to a certain extent).
Let's see how alive characters can really become.
at first, I read that as "Simulating Emoticons Within Games". Why the heck would I want to simulate emoticons?
just in case you didn't get it
Emotions are continuous in nature
What nature are you talking about? In the nature that I live in, everything is quantized. It just appears closer to continuous when averaged over trillions of particles.
and cannot truly be emulated with a device that is discrete in both space and time.
A sufficiently powerful digital computer could simulate everything down to the Heisenberg detail level, at which point the uncertainty of natural dithering becomes measurable. But all we need in a game is enough detail to fool the player.
I heard you like games, so we put a game within a game so you can play while you play.
If these systems are really simple they produce absurd results: a character is furious one moment and cheerful a second later, like a Warner Brothers cartoon character.
Or Basil Fawlty?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
I certainly don't. NPCs annoy me, so I shoot them!!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Several years ago, CMU was doing research into believable agents under the umbrella of a project called Oz.
The agents had a complex model for their emotional state, and they would then display that state to the player as he interacted with them.
Then the researchers split off and started this company: http://www.zoesis.com/ I think they wanted to make advertising characters with the tech, or something. (have to make money somehow, I guess!)
Try their sample games (tormenting Mr. Bubb is fun): http://www.zoesis.com/corporate/products.html
I think I've already seen this in some Japanese date SIMs, where if you can make the girl happy you can have your way with her...
Some even featured physical state simulation on top of the emotional states (girls get bad mood during certain time of the month... etc)
Didn't those silly tomagotchi things feature emotion state for dgital pets too?
:-(
Im smiling on the inside
Its not my fault, someone put a wall in my way.
Games do well enough for now at expressing emotion within the limits of graphics/voice acting/script
What I'd like to see are:
1. controls sensitive and natural enough that your character is able to clearly express how you are feeling with no effort on your part. If it's done well how your character moves and his expression will change without you even realizing it
2. NPCs that then respond to your emotional state at the time.
Just what I need, bots that call out insults during my kills, and then follow with a tea-bagging and jumping on my "corpse" on the occasions that they manage to score a kill.
I think I prefered it when they only ran around in circles, unless the AI routine tells them where I am.
"a character is furious one moment and cheerful a second later, like a Warner Brothers cartoon character"
Or like many real people who are manic depressive. Of course, such folks are ridiculous, and should be thought of as cartoons. Jackasses.