Well, something had to tell the Strider that the bridge was destroyable, as it’s an exception rather than a rule.
Okay, maybe I’m not understanding. I thought going through and destroying the bridge was the expected behavior and going under it instead was what surprised everyone.
Heh. I was thinking that was the most likely outcome. But it’s still not emergent, as it doesn’t actually offer any gameplay.
Well, it’s not emergent gameplay, but it canbe thought of as emergent behavior according to the definition you gave before, since it came about due to programmed-in things being combined in unanticipated ways, right?
I guess, if you consider it an interesting moment. However, the way I see it, if you don’t know what he’s supposed to do, it’s only as interesting as it would be if it were hardcoded to do so all the time.
edit: To elaborate, if you were to see many striders in many maps, and they were always near bridges, would it ever surprise you if sometimes they did or didn’t destroy the bridge?
I’m not following you. Here’s my understanding of the situation: the striders were programmed (so the designers thought) to bust through bridges if and when they ever encountered them. But that didn’t always happen. Once in awhile they’d go under instead.
Ok.45
Though their comments were made prior to the now infamous HL2 E3 video, so frankly I think it’s safe to assume (especially in light of the use of Striders in the full game) that it was a load of bull.
Yeah, I don’t have the faintest idea. I’d never heard any of this before today.
Thanks, Chuck & Kuni…I figured there was something I was missing vis a vis AI behavior…I guess in school I got too used to hearing CogSci gurus like John Searle or Penrose bashing the ‘strong-AI’ proponents and constantly arguing against the possibility of this type of behavior EVER occuring without use of a quantum computer or some such fanciful thing…
Cognitive Science is full of wankery still since it’s a new area of research.
Even within the field of Artificial Intelligence proper there are a few who say a lot but don’t really back up anything with research papers (I notice that these guys are often paid by or own companies and are no longer in academia).
When you get into certain narrow fields it also becomes pretty important to have clearly defined terminology. Broadly saying “an intelligent program” can be misleading. One of my professors wrote up a four box diagram to explain the different philosophies:
THINK RATIONALLY | ACT RATIONALLY
THINK HUMANLY __ | ACT HUMANLY
I think you can figure out the differences there.
Edit: In case it isn’t clear though, you can make AI that exhibits behavior that seems rational, or seems “human-like” (prone to human emotions, insanity, variety, whatever), or you can make it think like a human’s brain and act based on that, or think in an efficient rational manner and act on that. The exhibited behavior of the latter two may not be comprehensible to the observer, though.
The trigens were legitimately awful, though - totall unbalanced and boring to fight. I am glad they are getting rid of them with this. Far Cry went from totally brilliant to slightly average in about 5 minutes because of them. Any hope of a console release with this one?
edit: kept reading the thread, and found out its :( . Oh well, Ubi will realize thats a mistake when the game loses them cash.
In certain very limited ways it was a blast. It’s too enormous and was (before it came to Gametap) too expensive to be worth playing just for those limited ways, though.
Specifically, hijacking a helicopter in mid-air with a grapple gun and then raining down unlimited missiles on everything in sight = hot.
“Forget about the health kits, this is real!” So when you get shot, you need to take some pliers to your hand… wtf?
He was pulling a bullet or shrapnel out of his hand.
Otherwise, hell yeah, sign me up for this.
They took the stuff I loved about Far Cry, boiled off the stuff I hated, and it’s like I’m left with distilled awesome sauce.
Cool demo, it slowly shapes to a fantastic game.
Only real problem I fear is if the game will be interesting after a few hours, which is something Just Cause really failed at.
It may overshadow Crysis, which will be quite hilarious considering that in the start of this thread people (including me) were afraid it’s a quick grab for money by Ubisoft.
Not really. For me, it was enough to know Ubisoft Montreal was on it. I became a believer.
You don’t have a lot of time to fiddle around with a proper first-aid kit because the enemies are SUPER AGGRESSIVE.
The healing system seems to be Haloish, and I think the little animations are automatic and somewhat randomized. Supposedly if you’re too close to an explosion or some other blunt force trauma your dude will sometimes spit a bloody tooth into his palm.