Is our Decision System simple enough? Or better: is the logic to choose a goal worth the CPU time compared to a purely random choice? Will that logic make a great enough difference?
If I remember correctly, the main reason why purely random decisions are not believable is because they almost always lead to inconsistent behaviour (making all Actors look like lunatics). For interactions between virtual characters this may be acceptible to some extent (because, thanks to the missing information, we may make up for the lack of logic with our imagination), but when the player interacts with a virtual character, inconsistent behaviour would quickly destroy the illusion. Another problem is robotic behaviour: when the choice is purely random, the chance of the Actor repeating himself is great.
In our system, the first problem is solved by Affection: every Actor has a relationship with every Object in the world and that relationship only changes in small increments. All interactions have an Intimacy value that makes recommendations about which Affection level the interaction is appropriate for. The second problem is solved by Interest: the Actor loses Interest in an interaction immediately after having done it. This Interest grows back slowly, allowing the Actor to do a few other things before repeating the same one again.
The question is: is this convoluted? Or does it only sound convoluted because of the heavy words we use? After all, the Affection system is not much more than a way to keep track of the kind of interaction you did with a certain Object last time and to make sure that you do something that is not too different. And “losing Interest” is even more mechanical.
I guess we can easily test this: it’s easy to set up a system that randomly triggers behaviour. Maybe we should include that in our Behaviour System tests. Then we can observe what randomness leads to and be fully aware of the reasons why it’s not good. With that information we can evaluate the theory of our Decision system and ammend it where appropriate.
Posted on December 19, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Why not affection for particular decisions or actions? I.e. some person could love doing X, whereas another person would dislike doing X and have a greater affection for the Y action. This could help determine their decisions, when combined with affection for objects.
Posted on December 19, 2006 at 11:33 pm
For reasons of simplicity.
And because the whole relationship/affection thing is actually only a metaphor. A metaphor to guide consistency in behaviour.
From the outset, Drama Princess was not about simulating realistic behaviour but about generating behaviour that would allow the viewer to imagine things about it.
There can still be a difference between individuals because “doing X” might be different for different characters.
And strictly speaking, while the Affection pertains to the Object, the Intimacy pertains to the Opportunity, the Interaction. Though this Intimacy value does not distinguish between Actors: if the relationship is good, the Object will like to get a kiss, no matter from whom.