---

Originally posted by Castillle
You got text based. All you need now is to change the client side server and read those texts as images. Problem solved you have 2d graphics. Replace tiles with d2d objects and sprites with 3d models there you just changed those texts into 3d. I don't see your problem. O.o*assuming text based means all the rendering shows text chars like c for your chat and ^ for mountains,etc*

---

Originally posted by stealthbr

Originally posted by Disdena

You know, the more I look at this thread's responses, the more I think that this is an inappropriate direction for MMOs to go. It's really more suited for single-player games. In a single-player game, the NPCs exist to define the world. If as the designer of a single-player game, you want to use NPCs as a tool to express the idea of a world that irrevocably changes due to random things going on within it, that's great. But in an MMO, other players can already fill this role far better. If the world irrevocably changes, it's supposed to be due to the machinations of the players.

There's nothing really wrong with what people have suggested here except that the game world would be defined by the random things that AI do in the background. That just screams single-player. MMOs don't need that.

I don't quite agree here. Reason being, there would never be enough players logged in the same server at the same time to serve such a purpose. Furthermore, rarely would a player perform a menial task (in the grand scheme of things), such as being a full-time blacksmith for a specific village, and rarely would the player have regular lives in terms of routines such as waking up, going to work, socializing with friends, taking care of family, and going back to sleep. I think every game that tries to simulate a virtual world, be it singleplayer or massively multiplayer, needs NPC's to truly make it feel alive.

Well, sure. I'm not saying that NPCs are not needed at all. But are they the best way of expressing how the world gets changed on a day-to-day basis? Maybe in a single player game but not in an MMO.

I think the best way of explaining it would be to compare a correographed fight sequence to an actual real live fist fight. Which one is better for an action movie scene: planning out all of the attacks and dodges, or filming two people actually beat the shit out of each other until one wins? While some may find the latter more entertaining, it would look out of place in a movie. People don't watch the movie expecting 100% realism, they watch the movie expecting to be entertained. Similarly, players don't examine MMO NPCs expecting them to make the world 100% indistinguishable from a real world, they expect them to be useful, informative, or entertaining for a few moments and then fade into the background of the game so that interactions with other players define the world. Realistic AI NPCs in an MMO would fail to perform that specific task better than their scripted counterparts, and would be much harder to create to boot.

Having studied AI in college, I can say that the one thing I learned there from my experience was that there will never be "true" AI.  Or at least, we will never discover it by continuously advancing what is known as "AI" in computer science.

"True" AI is one of those things that you always think you will reach by just accomplishing that next milestone, but never actually reach.  For example, people used to think that if a computer could beat a human at Chess, then that would be real AI.  Then they thought that if a computer could play a quiz show like Jeopardy, then that would be real AI.  But when both of these were actually accomplished...it was almost anticlimactic, kind of like when the Wizard's curtain was torn down in the Wizard of Oz.

It became clear that this was not "true" AI, but just a tool doing exactly what it was programmed to do.  A complicated tool yes, but still just a tool.  In the end, a computer program that can beat Kasparov at Chess or Jennings at Jeopardy is not more "intelligent" than a hammer.  It's just a tool with a purpose.  It cannot reason.

So once you realize this...you have to realize that all AI in games is an illusion.  As Axehilt said on the first page, developers should not strive to create AI that tries to mimic a real human as closely as possible...they should try to create something that the player perceives to mimic a real human.  It doesn't matter at all what happens "off camera" or if a natural sequence of events led to the NPC's "motivation."  As long as the player is fooled it doesn't matter.

Originally posted by Creslin321

Having studied AI in college, I can say that the one thing I learned there from my experience was that there will never be "true" AI.  Or at least, we will never discover it by continuously advancing what is known as "AI" in computer science.

"True" AI is one of those things that you always think you will reach by just accomplishing that next milestone, but never actually reach.  For example, people used to think that if a computer could beat a human at Chess, then that would be real AI.  Then they thought that if a computer could play a quiz show like Jeopardy, then that would be real AI.  But when both of these were actually accomplished...it was almost anticlimactic, kind of like when the Wizard's curtain was torn down in the Wizard of Oz.

It became clear that this was not "true" AI, but just a tool doing exactly what it was programmed to do.  A complicated tool yes, but still just a tool.  In the end, a computer program that can beat Kasparov at Chess or Jennings at Jeopardy is not more "intelligent" than a hammer.  It's just a tool with a purpose.  It cannot reason.

So once you realize this...you have to realize that all AI in games is an illusion.  As Axehilt said on the first page, developers should not strive to create AI that tries to mimic a real human as closely as possible...they should try to create something that the player perceives to mimic a real human.  It doesn't matter at all what happens "off camera" or if a natural sequence of events led to the NPC's "motivation."  As long as the player is fooled it doesn't matter.

Developing real AI is mainly a problem because you don't have the billion years of optimized backend in DNA that a human brain has. Human brains are incredibly relational but the conceptual aspect that we think of as human is backed by so much instinct type information in DNA and the blank slatish aspect of the brain that you can't even imagine it. We can't make AI because we don't even understand how our own brains work.

We could make a computer with a brain pattern different from a human's but it might not pass the turing test.

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Creslin321

....

Developing real AI is mainly a problem because you don't have the billion years of optimized backend in DNA that a human brain has. Human brains are incredibly relational but the conceptual aspect that we think of as human is backed by so much instinct type information in DNA and the blank slatish aspect of the brain that you can't even imagine it. We can't make AI because we don't even understand how our own brains work.

We could make a computer with a brain pattern different from a human's but it might not pass the turing test.

 Well, I know there is debate over this, but my opinion is that there is a fundamental difference between biological conscienceness and computer "intelligence."  Basically, I think that no matter how complex you make a computer, it will never be self aware.  It's just running a program.  It doesn't matter if the program is super complex...it's still just a program.  I know that some people believe that if you make a program complex "enough" then conscienceness will "emerge."  But I never bought this.

Now, I think it would be possible to create an AI agent so complex that it fools many people into thinking that it's self-aware, but it's still just a program in the end.  Not "really" intelligent...just an illusion.

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Creslin321

....

Developing real AI is mainly a problem because you don't have the billion years of optimized backend in DNA that a human brain has. Human brains are incredibly relational but the conceptual aspect that we think of as human is backed by so much instinct type information in DNA and the blank slatish aspect of the brain that you can't even imagine it. We can't make AI because we don't even understand how our own brains work.

We could make a computer with a brain pattern different from a human's but it might not pass the turing test.

 Well, I know there is debate over this, but my opinion is that there is a fundamental difference between biological conscienceness and computer "intelligence."  Basically, I think that no matter how complex you make a computer, it will never be self aware.  It's just running a program.  It doesn't matter if the program is super complex...it's still just a program.  I know that some people believe that if you make a program complex "enough" then conscienceness will "emerge."  But I never bought this.

Now, I think it would be possible to create an AI agent so complex that it fools many people into thinking that it's self-aware, but it's still just a program in the end.  Not "really" intelligent...just an illusion.

We're all just programs, guy.  DNA and the structure of our brains are our programming.  We do a pretty good job fooling each other that we're self-aware.

The human brain is just a biological computer.  There's no magic fairy dust making us any different.  Just a ton of evolutionary progress improving the computer's output and then a partial lifetime's experience filling us with knowledge.

It'll take time to fully replicate that, but it'll happen.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Creslin321

....

Developing real AI is mainly a problem because you don't have the billion years of optimized backend in DNA that a human brain has. Human brains are incredibly relational but the conceptual aspect that we think of as human is backed by so much instinct type information in DNA and the blank slatish aspect of the brain that you can't even imagine it. We can't make AI because we don't even understand how our own brains work.

We could make a computer with a brain pattern different from a human's but it might not pass the turing test.

 Well, I know there is debate over this, but my opinion is that there is a fundamental difference between biological conscienceness and computer "intelligence."  Basically, I think that no matter how complex you make a computer, it will never be self aware.  It's just running a program.  It doesn't matter if the program is super complex...it's still just a program.  I know that some people believe that if you make a program complex "enough" then conscienceness will "emerge."  But I never bought this.

Now, I think it would be possible to create an AI agent so complex that it fools many people into thinking that it's self-aware, but it's still just a program in the end.  Not "really" intelligent...just an illusion.

We're all just programs, guy.  DNA and the structure of our brains are our programming.  We do a pretty good job fooling each other that we're self-aware.

The human brain is just a biological computer.  There's no magic fairy dust making us any different.  Just a ton of evolutionary progress improving the computer's output and then a partial lifetime's experience filling us with knowledge.

It'll take time to fully replicate that, but it'll happen.

 The funny thing is though...that you can't prove that at all.  And I know you can't, because I can't prove my theory either ;).

The only thing I know for sure is that *I* am self-aware.  That's it.  I assume other humans are self aware because they are similar to me.  I assume a hammer isn't self aware because it is inanimate and not alive...much like a computer.

Anyway, I think my beliefs on this come from the fact that I'm a programmer.  I know exactly how programs work.  They are completely deterministic.  Even random number generation...deterministic.  It takes some kind of "seed" like the time and then puts it through a deterministic mathematical function to get a "random" number.

To me, a computer program is no different from a simple deterministic machine like Mousetrap.  It's just a really complicated mousetrap...just as deterministic.

Life is not deterministic.

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Creslin321

....

Developing real AI is mainly a problem because you don't have the billion years of optimized backend in DNA that a human brain has. Human brains are incredibly relational but the conceptual aspect that we think of as human is backed by so much instinct type information in DNA and the blank slatish aspect of the brain that you can't even imagine it. We can't make AI because we don't even understand how our own brains work.

We could make a computer with a brain pattern different from a human's but it might not pass the turing test.

 Well, I know there is debate over this, but my opinion is that there is a fundamental difference between biological conscienceness and computer "intelligence."  Basically, I think that no matter how complex you make a computer, it will never be self aware.  It's just running a program.  It doesn't matter if the program is super complex...it's still just a program.  I know that some people believe that if you make a program complex "enough" then conscienceness will "emerge."  But I never bought this.

Now, I think it would be possible to create an AI agent so complex that it fools many people into thinking that it's self-aware, but it's still just a program in the end.  Not "really" intelligent...just an illusion.

We're all just programs, guy.  DNA and the structure of our brains are our programming.  We do a pretty good job fooling each other that we're self-aware.

The human brain is just a biological computer.  There's no magic fairy dust making us any different.  Just a ton of evolutionary progress improving the computer's output and then a partial lifetime's experience filling us with knowledge.

It'll take time to fully replicate that, but it'll happen.

 The funny thing is though...that you can't prove that at all.  And I know you can't, because I can't prove my theory either ;).

The only thing I know for sure is that *I* am self-aware.  That's it.  I assume other humans are self aware because they are similar to me.  I assume a hammer isn't self aware because it is inanimate and not alive...much like a computer.

Anyway, I think my beliefs on this come from the fact that I'm a programmer.  I know exactly how programs work.  They are completely deterministic.  Even random number generation...deterministic.  It takes some kind of "seed" like the time and then puts it through a deterministic mathematical function to get a "random" number.

To me, a computer program is no different from a simple deterministic machine like Mousetrap.  It's just a really complicated mousetrap...just as deterministic.

Life is not deterministic.

Life is deterministic. The entire body and not just the brain exist to provide functionality to a human. Then you also have access to far more input than a computer has.

Self aware is a jesusfreak inspired misnomer anyways.

Still this is one of the endless arguments. No one will change anyone's mind. Me and Axehilt will just have to live with being right.

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Creslin321

....

Developing real AI is mainly a problem because you don't have the billion years of optimized backend in DNA that a human brain has. Human brains are incredibly relational but the conceptual aspect that we think of as human is backed by so much instinct type information in DNA and the blank slatish aspect of the brain that you can't even imagine it. We can't make AI because we don't even understand how our own brains work.

We could make a computer with a brain pattern different from a human's but it might not pass the turing test.

 Well, I know there is debate over this, but my opinion is that there is a fundamental difference between biological conscienceness and computer "intelligence."  Basically, I think that no matter how complex you make a computer, it will never be self aware.  It's just running a program.  It doesn't matter if the program is super complex...it's still just a program.  I know that some people believe that if you make a program complex "enough" then conscienceness will "emerge."  But I never bought this.

Now, I think it would be possible to create an AI agent so complex that it fools many people into thinking that it's self-aware, but it's still just a program in the end.  Not "really" intelligent...just an illusion.

We're all just programs, guy.  DNA and the structure of our brains are our programming.  We do a pretty good job fooling each other that we're self-aware.

The human brain is just a biological computer.  There's no magic fairy dust making us any different.  Just a ton of evolutionary progress improving the computer's output and then a partial lifetime's experience filling us with knowledge.

It'll take time to fully replicate that, but it'll happen.

 The funny thing is though...that you can't prove that at all.  And I know you can't, because I can't prove my theory either ;).

The only thing I know for sure is that *I* am self-aware.  That's it.  I assume other humans are self aware because they are similar to me.  I assume a hammer isn't self aware because it is inanimate and not alive...much like a computer.

Anyway, I think my beliefs on this come from the fact that I'm a programmer.  I know exactly how programs work.  They are completely deterministic.  Even random number generation...deterministic.  It takes some kind of "seed" like the time and then puts it through a deterministic mathematical function to get a "random" number.

To me, a computer program is no different from a simple deterministic machine like Mousetrap.  It's just a really complicated mousetrap...just as deterministic.

Life is not deterministic.

Sounds like the human ego can't handle the concept of not being special and different from computers.

The process of life has cause and effect therefore it's deterministic.

Originally posted by Disdena

There's nothing really wrong with what people have suggested here except that the game world would be defined by the random things that AI do in the background. That just screams single-player. MMOs don't need that.

Talking only cities in MMOs for a second, NPCs acting lifelessly always counteracts any immersion I may have been getting into.  I guess AI doesn't need to be improved here, but it would definitely help with immersion if NPCs looked like they had some semblances of lives and had a bit more in the way of routines.  Then again, NPCs are artificial, so don't these routines/scripts and so on all go under the blanket term: AI?  I don't think it would be cost effective to go through every NPC in a game and give him/her/it a unique set of conditions but don't just leave them standing on the soles of their feet all day...

I like to be fully immersed and believe AI can/does have an impact on immersion.

Self aware = feelings.

Until a computer can feel so sad and depressed that it actually effects it's functions it is not self aware, like a human who is super sad / depressed will have all kind of negative biological reactions to their emotional condition...

Can you quantify feelings?

You can certainly quantify the biological effect that feelings have on our bodies/systems, but can you quantify the feeling itself?

If you can't quantify it, you can't program it - so until computers can feel genuine feelings that aren't just pre-programmed conditions and false mimmicking behavior they will not be self aware.

Imagine what kind of game an AI could make.  100 percent efficiency, 7 days a week.  No programming errors, seamless environments, and massive amounts of content.  They wouldn't need to kill all humans, they could just distract us with our own personal virtual heaven.

Originally posted by Creslin321

 The funny thing is though...that you can't prove that at all.  And I know you can't, because I can't prove my theory either ;).

The only thing I know for sure is that *I* am self-aware.  That's it.  I assume other humans are self aware because they are similar to me.  I assume a hammer isn't self aware because it is inanimate and not alive...much like a computer.

Anyway, I think my beliefs on this come from the fact that I'm a programmer.  I know exactly how programs work.  They are completely deterministic.  Even random number generation...deterministic.  It takes some kind of "seed" like the time and then puts it through a deterministic mathematical function to get a "random" number.

To me, a computer program is no different from a simple deterministic machine like Mousetrap.  It's just a really complicated mousetrap...just as deterministic.

Life is not deterministic.

It is deterministic though.

It doesn't stop being deterministic just because no human comprehends the trillions of factors involved.  Life is really really damn complex, but still deterministic.

Like computer, humans don't do random things.  But unlike computers' randomness (which often keys off of a single seed), humans' deterministic decisionmaking is based on almost innumerable factors (like diet, experience, mood, and environment) which gives them enough unpredictability that we call a decision "random".

But it's not really random, it's just that there are so many factors involved that we conveniently apply the term "random" to the situation to indicate it was far too complex to predict.

So in the pursuit of human-like intelligence, AI programmers simply need to understand the human brain better and mimick more and more of the developmental facts of the brain that cause humans to behave the way they do.  (But as covered earlier in the thread, the actual gameplay benefits of this intelligence are hit and miss, and often not appropriate for many types of games.)

Quick question here: What do you guys think of NPC's behaving according to day/night cycles (NPC's going to sleep)? Do you think it would work in an MMO?

Originally posted by stealthbr

Quick question here: What do you guys think of NPC's behaving according to day/night cycles (NPC's going to sleep)? Do you think it would work in an MMO?

I think a variety of interesting gameplay can come out of day/night cycles, though admittedly a lot of it isn't AI-related.

Basically it creates the potential for an interesting variance on gameplay if players have to play different to succeed at night vs. day, and they're rotating with moderate regularity.  (But if they rotate too slow, you don't really get this because a given play session might only take place at night -- and if it's tied to real-world clock you might only ever see night which also sorta sucks.)

But certainly the first thing to pop to mind is that night allows you to sneak past mobs which might otherwise bar access from an area or zone because they're too tough to beat at your level.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Creslin321

 The funny thing is though...that you can't prove that at all.  And I know you can't, because I can't prove my theory either ;).

The only thing I know for sure is that *I* am self-aware.  That's it.  I assume other humans are self aware because they are similar to me.  I assume a hammer isn't self aware because it is inanimate and not alive...much like a computer.

Anyway, I think my beliefs on this come from the fact that I'm a programmer.  I know exactly how programs work.  They are completely deterministic.  Even random number generation...deterministic.  It takes some kind of "seed" like the time and then puts it through a deterministic mathematical function to get a "random" number.

To me, a computer program is no different from a simple deterministic machine like Mousetrap.  It's just a really complicated mousetrap...just as deterministic.

Life is not deterministic.

It is deterministic though.

It doesn't stop being deterministic just because no human comprehends the trillions of factors involved.  Life is really really damn complex, but still deterministic.

Like computer, humans don't do random things.  But unlike computers' randomness (which often keys off of a single seed), humans' deterministic decisionmaking is based on almost innumerable factors (like diet, experience, mood, and environment) which gives them enough unpredictability that we call a decision "random".

But it's not really random, it's just that there are so many factors involved that we conveniently apply the term "random" to the situation to indicate it was far too complex to predict.

So in the pursuit of human-like intelligence, AI programmers simply need to understand the human brain better and mimick more and more of the developmental facts of the brain that cause humans to behave the way they do.  (But as covered earlier in the thread, the actual gameplay benefits of this intelligence are hit and miss, and often not appropriate for many types of games.)

This is how I think about it...

You are conscience for a reason. That reason is that the human body has a...driver. Something making non-deterministic decisions for it. If you were completely deterministic like a machine, you would not need a driver, and would not be conscience. I think that the fact that you are conscience is evidence of free will...because without free will conscienceness would be vestigal. Cogito ergo sum.

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Creslin321

 The funny thing is though...that you can't prove that at all.  And I know you can't, because I can't prove my theory either ;).

The only thing I know for sure is that *I* am self-aware.  That's it.  I assume other humans are self aware because they are similar to me.  I assume a hammer isn't self aware because it is inanimate and not alive...much like a computer.

Anyway, I think my beliefs on this come from the fact that I'm a programmer.  I know exactly how programs work.  They are completely deterministic.  Even random number generation...deterministic.  It takes some kind of "seed" like the time and then puts it through a deterministic mathematical function to get a "random" number.

To me, a computer program is no different from a simple deterministic machine like Mousetrap.  It's just a really complicated mousetrap...just as deterministic.

Life is not deterministic.

It is deterministic though.

It doesn't stop being deterministic just because no human comprehends the trillions of factors involved.  Life is really really damn complex, but still deterministic.

Like computer, humans don't do random things.  But unlike computers' randomness (which often keys off of a single seed), humans' deterministic decisionmaking is based on almost innumerable factors (like diet, experience, mood, and environment) which gives them enough unpredictability that we call a decision "random".

But it's not really random, it's just that there are so many factors involved that we conveniently apply the term "random" to the situation to indicate it was far too complex to predict.

So in the pursuit of human-like intelligence, AI programmers simply need to understand the human brain better and mimick more and more of the developmental facts of the brain that cause humans to behave the way they do.  (But as covered earlier in the thread, the actual gameplay benefits of this intelligence are hit and miss, and often not appropriate for many types of games.)

 

It also doesn't START being deterministic because there are trillions of factors. That argument goes both ways ;).

 

This is how I think about it...

 

You are conscience for a reason. That reason is that the human body has a...driver. Something making non-deterministic decisions for it. If you were completely deterministic like a machine, you would not need a driver, and would not be conscience. I think that the fact that you are conscience is evidence of free will...because without free will conscienceness would be vestigal. Cogito ergo sum.

This is a poor argument. Self reference is pretty well understood. I don't wanna debate this with a bunch of people on a game forum ignorant of the science so I will not post anymore. You might want to do some actual research. I still love you even if you believe in free will though.

Originally posted by BadSpock

Self aware = feelings.

Until a computer can feel so sad and depressed that it actually effects it's functions it is not self aware, like a human who is super sad / depressed will have all kind of negative biological reactions to their emotional condition...

Can you quantify feelings?

You can certainly quantify the biological effect that feelings have on our bodies/systems, but can you quantify the feeling itself?

If you can't quantify it, you can't program it - so until computers can feel genuine feelings that aren't just pre-programmed conditions and false mimmicking behavior they will not be self aware.

 

You can't quantify feelings and you can't quantify conscienceness. You CAN quantify what is commonly referred to as intelligence though, and that's why why you can create it with a program.

I think it's funny that people have used their free will to argue...against the existence of free will lol :).

Also...some people have said that I'm arguing in favor of free will because I'm religous or something...I'm not. I'm arguing for free will because I'm a programmer lol :). I write programs...I know what they can do. Trust me, they can't have freewill.

You could literally replicate what a program does with a massive mechanical machine. Do you really think that a planet sized mechanism of gears and pistons could be self aware?

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Creslin321

 The funny thing is though...that you can't prove that at all.  And I know you can't, because I can't prove my theory either ;).

The only thing I know for sure is that *I* am self-aware.  That's it.  I assume other humans are self aware because they are similar to me.  I assume a hammer isn't self aware because it is inanimate and not alive...much like a computer.

Anyway, I think my beliefs on this come from the fact that I'm a programmer.  I know exactly how programs work.  They are completely deterministic.  Even random number generation...deterministic.  It takes some kind of "seed" like the time and then puts it through a deterministic mathematical function to get a "random" number.

To me, a computer program is no different from a simple deterministic machine like Mousetrap.  It's just a really complicated mousetrap...just as deterministic.

Life is not deterministic.

It is deterministic though.

It doesn't stop being deterministic just because no human comprehends the trillions of factors involved.  Life is really really damn complex, but still deterministic.

Like computer, humans don't do random things.  But unlike computers' randomness (which often keys off of a single seed), humans' deterministic decisionmaking is based on almost innumerable factors (like diet, experience, mood, and environment) which gives them enough unpredictability that we call a decision "random".

But it's not really random, it's just that there are so many factors involved that we conveniently apply the term "random" to the situation to indicate it was far too complex to predict.

So in the pursuit of human-like intelligence, AI programmers simply need to understand the human brain better and mimick more and more of the developmental facts of the brain that cause humans to behave the way they do.  (But as covered earlier in the thread, the actual gameplay benefits of this intelligence are hit and miss, and often not appropriate for many types of games.)

 

It also doesn't START being deterministic because there are trillions of factors. That argument goes both ways ;).

 

This is how I think about it...

 

You are conscience for a reason. That reason is that the human body has a...driver. Something making non-deterministic decisions for it. If you were completely deterministic like a machine, you would not need a driver, and would not be conscience. I think that the fact that you are conscience is evidence of free will...because without free will conscienceness would be vestigal. Cogito ergo sum.

This is a poor argument. Self reference is pretty well understood. I don't wanna debate this with a bunch of people on a game forum ignorant of the science so I will not post anymore. You might want to do some actual research. I still love you even if you believe in free will though.

Look, there is no answer to this question. It's all just philosophy. There is no "science" that proves or disproves free will because it can't be quantified. If you claim there is "science" backing up the existence of non-existence of free-will, then that says something about your argument.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by stealthbr

Quick question here: What do you guys think of NPC's behaving according to day/night cycles (NPC's going to sleep)? Do you think it would work in an MMO?

I think a variety of interesting gameplay can come out of day/night cycles, though admittedly a lot of it isn't AI-related.

Basically it creates the potential for an interesting variance on gameplay if players have to play different to succeed at night vs. day, and they're rotating with moderate regularity.  (But if they rotate too slow, you don't really get this because a given play session might only take place at night -- and if it's tied to real-world clock you might only ever see night which also sorta sucks.)

But certainly the first thing to pop to mind is that night allows you to sneak past mobs which might otherwise bar access from an area or zone because they're too tough to beat at your level.

I as well believe it could bring some interesting dynamics to gameplay, not to mention how it could greatly bolster immersion. I believe day/night cycles in games should go by faster than the real world so that someone can experience both daytime and nighttime without having to use the computer the whole day. I think the main argument against having NPC's behave according to Day/Night cycles is the inaccessability to NPC's that are sleeping. In a more linear game revolving around quests, I do believe the accessability issue would be quite pronounced. However, in a sandbox style game, where there are less scripted quests, and the game is more about creating your own adventures, it could definitely be feasible. For instance, if a player needs to sell items urgently, have it so that taverns operate full-time (maybe even have bartenders perform shifts like the guards in Oblivion).