- 0 Posts
- 13 Comments
AIs in games are just flow charts, that’s almost universally true, almost nobody has put an actual maximiser in a game. But I suppose maybe that counts if you’re feeling very generous.
The map in pressure wash simulator is certainly not dynamic as you describe, I was speaking a little sarcastically, but you could call it asynchronous gameplay, it was crafted by the developer anticipating your play. but no, it cannot respond to the players actual decisions.
Depends if you define game ais as “agents”, otherwise your definition of game only allows multiplayer games.
Or you could say the opposing agent in powerwash simulator is the map itself, their “win condition” is overwhelming you with dirt and hiding it in weird places.
As someone who hates multiplayer games (minus coop games I play with friends, but coop breaks your definition too) I am bemused to discover I have never actually played games except maybe back as a kid when I played goldeneye and the couple times I might have played lol or similar before concluding it was crap 😄
Maybe a better definition of “game” is needed. I suspect the underlying point you’re trying to make is that this game requires no skill and is therefore little more than a Skinner box, that’s a valid criticism in my book.
Software patents are pretty close to universally bad. Software moves fast and twenty years is ridiculous, when video codecs have grown to be biggest format and then been overtaken by their successors which in turn are overtaken by their own successors before the first codecs lose their patent then you know something is going wrong. Hardware patents have their place as you say, but software moves very quickly and can innovate just fine without the need for patents.
In theory you could make them viable by shortening the life, to just 5 years or something, but at that point the cost of administering them probably outweighs any benefits (if there would actually be any).
Copyright is another matter, I think we probably need that in some form (though the stupid length of copyright at the moment is even stupider for software)
On the one hand, the ship was one of the most fun parts for me, but on the other, I do wonder if it was a mistake because it makes the game so much more frustrating for anyone who hasn’t been trained on kerbal space program or some other Newtonian space control game to get the hang of it.
It’s like riding a bike, if you know how to do it you have trouble even imaging why it’s hard, but nobody can do it at first, and it takes ages to get the new instincts to actually enjoy it.
I trust Valve to be lazy and swim in their sea of profits rather than go searching for more.
They have thus far avoided serious levels of enshittification because they don’t seem motivated in maximising immediate profits and killing their golden goose.
The day they get replaced by a competitive non-monopoly is the day it becomes a race for the bottom, who can invent the most predatory way to drain profits from users? Nobody else will be able to compete, so they’ll all be copying each other on their way down.
Streaming services all over again.
Not all monopolies are bad.
On the one hand, if you don’t enjoy the game that’s fine. It’s a masterpiece, but that doesn’t magically mean that everyone will enjoy it.
That said, if you want to enjoy it more, focus on one thing per loop, everything is designed to be completable in a single loop, (or maybe a few for the more complicated puzzles if you get stuck). And if something is frustrating, do something else.
Things really go wrong if you keep smashing your head against a brick wall or if you keep jumping around and never manage to finish anything.
We’re trained to think of death as a major failure by other games, it’s not in this one, it’s just jumping back home, repairing the ship, and starting from a central location and a known state.
I understand now you’re focused on an academic definition in the game theory sense, personally I don’t think this has much utility in considering actual games, but I’ll acknowledge that by that definition you’re probably correct. I suspect by that most “AIs” in games wouldn’t pass the bar of counting as an agent, even generous definitions that would accept a flow chart would probably concider most AIs to be part of the game state rather than another player (eg the nazi soldiers in wolfenstein aren’t playing to win, they’re set dressing for you to kill). The opponents in Civ are more likely to count as agents perhaps.