A character expresses itself through actions. Especially in our games, where there are no words. It also interacts with the world through actions. Equipping the character with a large list of all possible actions would not only be a daunting task design-wise, it may also be excessive in terms of memory-use.
What if all objects in the game world come with a list of actions that you can perform with them? A character could be a perfectly blank slate until it sees a ball and it learns how to kick it. To the viewer, of course, it seems like the character knew all along. Other characters would be the same. When the girl meets a boy, she learns how to kiss. And vice versa. So characters walk around with instructions printed on them for other characters on how to use them. 🙂
One problem might be that not all instructions apply to all characters. A ball might say “Kick me!” or “Pick me up!” A child that passes by would kick it. A school teacher would pick it up. Unless the child is depressed or the school teacher thinks nobody’s watching.
How do characters choose actions that match their personality and the situation?
Posted on May 13, 2006 at 11:32 pm
[…] While Richard Evans’ work will probably always allow his characters to have more individuality than we need them to have for our purposes, the idea expressed above, connects very nicely to our ideas of Usage instructions, AI from the outside and Modeling relationships. We have developed a preference for designing the things between the characters rather than what happens inside of them. The viewer can only perceive the outside anyway, the things that are expressed. Social activities are a prime example of how individual autonomous agents can be directed as a group. They don’t need individual minds to make decisions. Mr. Evans would not go this far because he wants his simulations to really work. While we only care about the illusion that takes place in the player’s mind. […]