For Better Narrative and Fictional Ideas [Archive]

legacy-eastgate2

12-19-2003, 09:03 AM

For Better Narrative and Fictional Ideas

Hello All Mod Makers!

I am a linguist and screenplay consultant. I've always been interested in Unreal Engine Games and the Unreal Universe as we know it.

I've been perusing mods all the time since Unreal1 days and woefully fail to see originality in terms of narration and script writing.

Anybody interested in polishing their mods for linguistic presentation, dialogues and regarding creative writing, drop me a line, I'll be happy if I can be help.

To be honest, I'm sick of the notion that most games/mod concepts drive from two motion pictures in the last decade: Alien series for Science Fictions setting and plots and Saving
Private Ryan for WW2 Shooters.

For some little fun, a short, quick "don't/do"s List:

1) Please don't start your science fiction concept with the line "it's the year 2034,2046,2078,2019 etc.etc"...Stanley Kubrick (Or shall I say Arthur Clarke), one of the most respected filmmakers in the history of cinema anticipated that we'd travel to Jupiter by the year 2001, but for the last 2 year, I've not heard of such a thing. Design your future world first, then give it a date...

2) Please Please, no more "Something goes wrong in the lab..." premise. All the lab technicians are not stupid and they don't have to always execute experiments resulting in the creation of evil monsters.

3) There has been thousands of war since the beginning of mankind other than World War 2.

4) Less is More. Your Npc's should speak less; they don't have to explain the whole story all at once.
When we are in trouble, we speak in exclamations, not in proper, grammatically correct sentences. Hence not "I need you go down sector B and open the door by entering the pass-code XXXX and please bring me the nodes" but instead "I need the God damn nodes now!"

5) Terrorists are cool to shoot at but enemies with solid, menacing and clever motivations are harder to neutralize therefore more rewarding. So please state briefly "why" they have to take hostages/bomb the place etc....

6) You need a hero with a motivation and you need an enemy with motivation. First work on that hard, the rest will follow. Reaching the "next level trigger" or getting the ultra-rocket is not a motivation; it's a medium.

7) There are more creative blocks/obstacles than keys/passwords. The greatest, most common and yet working cinematic conflict is to choose between love and death. Emotional and mental blocks are more intriguing than "triggering a blocked door" no matter how complex your level design is, may it be full of dispatchers.

8) Reversal of Fortune: I, the player, have to change through the gameplay/narration experience. This is not intended for single player games only. Running to flag and returning back to base with the flag is a CHANGE. We all love CTF levels with alternate routes. Give us changes that is "Gradual" and "Full of Surprises"

9) Nobody is alone, even Robinson Crusoe. We need mentors to help us in our quest. However, they don't have to be human characters all the time. Vehicles, turrets help us in multi-player games. Why not super-ai computers?

10) And finally please read fiction; don't just download pdf's. Know that your idea is already written 50 years ago; don't feel frustrated to discover that since there's no new story under the sun. Just evolve!

Email: eastgate2@yahoo.com

legacy--Loric-

12-19-2003, 11:07 AM

You should have wrote that thread before Epic released the Unreal storyline (see the official site).
It has so many of the flaws you're mentionning.

legacy-Heisher

12-19-2003, 11:25 AM

Some cool ideas there, it'd be good to see them implemented in some of the mods for ut2k3/4 :)

Plumb_Drumb

12-19-2003, 11:25 AM

Nice!

legacy-Teddie

12-19-2003, 12:11 PM

good post, eastgate2.

legacy-Sett

12-19-2003, 01:46 PM

Excellent post eastgate2

A lot of times the plot line( dialogue, premise) of some FPS is so bad that you go into "I don't care" mode just show me whom to kill and where to go... ya-ya you're a clone of my father's killer that I have to revenge..blah, blah, blah

There was a good South Park episode that touched on this subject -the one with Towelie(the pot smokin' towel) - you know they are taking about bad game plots.

My dream cutscene:

Setting: Mr.Big's office

Mr.Big- "You handled [sub-boss] and his gang quite efficiently. But now I have an other job for you"

/Hero places gun to Mr.Big's head, pulls trigger, Big drops dead.

HeroSideKick-"What did you do that for?!? He was gonna give us an other job!."

Hero-"Ya and after that another and another then eventually he would have killed you and I would have to revenge your death. It's just easyer this way."

/fade to black

-Sett

legacy-JaFO(JBE)

12-19-2003, 06:04 PM

// eastgate2 :
I think I read somewhere that there are only 30-40 plots, but it's the bells & whistles that make them look different ...

You forgot one (IMHO) important item :
= Show, don't tell ! / Action & reaction
ie : by making them responsible for the events it's easier to achieve immersion. It's what Half-life managed to do so well in that first level.

The better the immersion the less rules you're going to need to 'force' a player to do something.
And even if you do have to have rules that might force people to do something they're easier to accept if the player is already expecting that to happen ...

This kind of leads to the additional rule :
avoid cutscenes as much as possible as they take control away from the player and thus reduce the immersion you've worked so hard to achieve.

UnrealGrrl

12-19-2003, 06:08 PM

excellent post, more ppl in the game industry need to take creative writing 101...

legacy-toolboi

12-19-2003, 07:36 PM

I dont usually support threads in this forum that are not annoucements, but god damn it this needed to be said. Seriously, it shocks me how bad most games in general abuse the same 5 plot cliches, and the same methods of presenting their story. I think the best one mentioned was the "In the year 2200ad" stuff, which is just NOT needed.
Another few Id like to add:
- You do not need to explain everything. Sometimes it is better if you leave it up to us to figgure out.
- If you do need to tell something, dont make some NPC stand there and go "Do you know the history of our situation? This is it." Make us learn as we play. A good example of this would be the classic Mac series "Marathon" where the entire background given is "The Marathon was attacked, you are the security officer", but through the conversations between the various AI characters you learn an amazingly broad scope of history, a lot of which can only be figgured out by peicing together hints given through various conversations.
-Its ok to use cliches. The lab has managed to create a monster, fine, but dont leave it at that! Cliches are fine if they are backing up something good, but if all you have is cliches then it is crap!
-Id like to repeat the motivation line. BAD GUYS NEED MOTIVATION. However Id like to take it a step further. The motivation has to be IN CHARACTER.It is better to have some broad sweeping motivation like "he wants power" or "he is evil" then to try to use a more complex motivation like "he was hurt as a child and now is lashing out" and fail. Classic example: Jedi Knight 2. Sure, its nice to let you understand your enemy, but when you spend the whole plot building up this big fearsome enemy only to then tell you that "he was picked on so now he is lashing out" it ruins the the awe and suspense surrounding the character. Thats not to say that you should try for more complex motivations, but simply make sure that they are in character.

Finally, these last two are perhaps requests more than sugestions:
-Can we try some new narative viewpoints? Weve been playing first person narrative games for ever now. The cutscenes in Diablo 2 were nice, they introduced a third person into the mix telling the tale of the wanderer.

-Superheros are no fun. Almost every game gives you a super hero and says "here, have fun". This results in a lack of regard for your character. If you are the ultimate super hero and nothing can harm you, then it becomes rather dull. Example:
Superman vs. Gawain and the Green Knight
What makes superman a less interesting character? He is imortal, he has a giant advantage on everyone else in that respect. On the other hand Gawain is quite mortal and faces a fie who is imortal. The difference here is the tension in the plot. Same in games. When you are the super hero who kills a million nazis with machine guns as he runs up the beaches of Normandy. You are not going to have the same tension as if you are the soldier in a pack who must eventually confront a force even greater than you are. An interesting narrative requires that you are not necissarily an ubermensch, or at least if you are, then your oponent is at least as great, if not greater, than you. Remember, people like the underdog.

The nice thing about UT2003 is that it has inspired some mods that are completley the opposite. Ideas that are still very fresh and are being designed much the same. Examples would be:
-Air Buccaneers
-Marble Mania 2003
-The "push the man down the stiars" mod (copy of Porsuvant or something, but better)
-The arcanoid clone.
etc.

legacy-eastgate2

12-19-2003, 08:47 PM

Ýt's nice to see that many gamers/moders feel the same tension about story issues in games.

The thing that annoys me about UT200+ series that the whole premise is turning up to be a sports game, in the end, it's a win-lose situation...How deep can the stories go? Anybody still care or remember what was the case about Liandri Co.?

...Or just give me a unique universe like the one in Unreal 1.

Hope the mod community will change that. Frankly, I need a game right now along the lines of Thief, in terms of suspense in gameplay and dialogues and Deus Ex in terms of Story and Character development.

I know the Unreal Editor/Engine is very versatile to create complex events/objects/ai implementation within the levels. Hope some company will utilize it to full extend.

legacy-Shakuurn

12-19-2003, 10:04 PM

Good thread. :up: Lots of nice information in here for modders and story writers. :D

legacy-JaFO(JBE)

12-20-2003, 06:52 AM

// eastgate2 :
For some games background & setting are less important than the game itself.
Example : football, tennis and any other 'real world' sport.

It's not necessary to know the background & history for those things.

IMHO same applies to UT and the roman bloodsports ...
At best you need a little bit of character for the characters, arenas, weapons and leagues (if something like that is used in SP-part).
More complex motivations are useless unless they play a vital role in the game itself.

ie : I don't need to know that Loque's parents were killed by Xan and now he wants to play the tournament as a means of revenge on Xan, unless the battle against Xan uses that info.

Soul Calibur 2 and other fighting games often use the backgrounds & motivations like this. ... altough too often they fall into the trap of using too many cliches too often.

fuegerstef

12-20-2003, 07:12 AM

Very good post, eastgate2.

Anybody still care or remember what was the case about Liandri Co.?

Yes I do. And I think even the little map-descriptions should have some kind of a story. And I liked the player and Team descriptions in UT from 99.

Here's a little example:

I am working on an Urban map set in the early 21st century (our time).
The story behind that map is somewhat like:

DM-Urban Past
With the technology the Liandri scientists got after the "Zakirian-Incident" they managed to alter the Translocator in a way to send the Tournament contestants back through time.
In this Arena the warriors battle it out in a red light district that was abandoned after an earthquake.
Remember only the winner will have the chance to travel back to his own time.

This won't be the final words, they just came to my mind and english isn't my first language so it needs work. But I get an Urban map I always wanted to do that fits into the Unreal Universe somehow and also includes some 'Incident' from which further stories can be made of.

Damn I miss that from UT2k3... :(

legacy-eastgate2

12-20-2003, 08:06 AM

JaFO(JBE)//

Nice irony, "The bots have feeling" says under your name, still you don't want to know about Loque's history...just kidding...:)

Personally I'd feel more comfortable in a level that imprints somewhere ISV-Kran rather than it says "This is just an another space ship" even if the whole idea is to win more frags

fuegerstef//

Very nice idea really...It feels like I’ve a important motivation in this arena to win over all!!!

How about this version, I just replied some writing, hope it can inspire you:

-----------------------------------------
DM-Incident

The mystery of Zakirian unveiled....

For Those who dare to battle anywhere, anytime and anyhow, Liandri has a new challenge. Scientists from the ill-famed corporation which operates purportedly under the name Liandri; have managed to alter the Translocator device only to serve for another malevolent purpose other than tele-fragging..

Now, the fighters will travel back in time to engage in furious combat in this desolated urban setting.

The prize is a ticket back home...
-------------------------------------------

1) Your title should reveal less... since “incident” is a word that indicates something about “time”, it illustrates your idea more. Your main premise sounds more about time-travel not urban-setting; correct me if I’m wrong.

2) Abandoned is enough. Suggest me through visuals what has happened before. It might be earthquake, nuclear war, plague...etc...as JaFO(JBE) reminded in this post above very correctly; show, don’t tell!!!

Looking forward to your map, desolated urban settings are my favorite. Good Luck!!!

legacy-CyberChrist

12-20-2003, 09:48 AM

Well, I know almost all people who initially agreed with the Eastgate2’s post will feel overwhelming urge to stick my head on the pike, but I have to point out that Eastgate2 is almost completely wrong…
So here is my reply to his do and don’t do list:
1. Stories have to begin with something, and most commonly people do not wish to listen to abstract dates (such as in Star Trek); but most importantly did anyone 100 years back predicted man’s landing on the Moon? Technology is developed extremely rapidly while only limitation is the "final" limit, which I expect be exceeded pretty soon. Limitation I am referring to is the fact that atom is the most elemental particle you’ll come across and again it consists of smaller particles (electrons, proton, neutron), with electrons being relevant for electricity. Beams of directional moving of electrons is called electricity, but they cannot move independently because their movement is based on magnetic relation (electron being negative, proton being positive) with proton inside atom core, so they can only be passed from one atom to another and because atom always tends to be neutral it will acquire first free electron and just for the record direction of electricity is reversed to direction of electron flow. Therefore chip built from particles smaller than the atom itself is impossible, so atom is the limit. Upon reaching the limit mentioned chips will grow in size. So how can you or anybody safely predict how world will look like in 100 years? Nobody can do that; you can only predict how the world will eventually look like. Mankind designs its future everyday, but you seem to be overlooking that fact every day.
2. Players do not wish to listen to stuff like above, consequently they are given: “something went wrong”. Yes, lab technicians are not idiots, but something has to go wrong for story to develop. Take Chernobyl for example; something probably went seriously wrong there. If everything is OK and you are shooting people you probably play Postal.
3. Yes, there were thousands of wars since World War II, but the fact remains WWII involved almost all countries in world, it took place on all continents (excluding Australia and South America), and the war itself resulted in millions of victims… Can you seen now why it is most exploited? Would you care to participate in a virtual war you never heard of?
4. Yes, its true that we quite often do not speak grammatically correct, but how could you expect to find a thing if you are not aware of its location. Information must be provided. I don’t think it would be fun if you have to wander for miles and miles searching for whatever you are required to find in order to advance.
5. You can neutralize anything you want. It’s a game. Enemies do not care who they are; only things that matter now are their AI and their weaponry. I really don’t see why this is becoming an issue since wars are pretty uncommon thing these days, and terrorism probably being most common extension of politics. Does the goal justify the means? No. Why would you care to know why some bunch of masked lunatics took plane with hostages? Answer can be manipulated and can be used for manipulating people.
6. Hero with motivation? OK, I see your point here. How about staying alive? Or maybe defending what you think is right? You’re told to?
Enemies with motivation? Who cares about that? They have guns; they’re pretty upset with something… Yes it is relevant if you are writing a book of some sort, but from the player’s point of view, it is completely irrelevant. Remember, this is a game. Not a movie. Not a book. A game. Even if you are writing a book or a script, not every detail has to be explained, because at some pint you cannot explain everything. Think you can? Why the people live on North Pole (not counting the scientists)? Post an answer.
In the end with everything explained you’d probably end up with script on 1500 pages.
7. I’m not sure how to comment these Emotional blocks? Mental blocks? You know, day when the faithful psychosomatic model will be introduced will also be celebrated as a birth of AI, so I really don’t get it. Throwing I a simple script to do some emotional work would be horrible…
8. I’ll leave this as it is, maybe author will realize what he actually said. Game can’t change you. If you want to change, go ahead. Apply different tactics, but its up to you not the game designers. Only thing that actually matters is fulfilling the objectives. Game doesn’t care how you did it as long as you did it.
9. Nobody is alone? You need mentors? I think you don’t need mentor for playing FPS; you will require few minutes to adapt. Turrets and such are providing help blasting some enemies away but they shouldn’t be helping you exclusively, and they can’t be efficient in defending whatever you’re defending if you are enjoying the scene without proper engagement in combat. In the end there is no such thing as true AI; remember that…
10. I admire you courage required to post a comment like this, but you should think how the statement would reflect on readers. I read, and so do you obviously, but I seem to think no matter how many books have been written anybody can come up with original idea. It all comes out of the same thing – collision, obstruction or however you want to call it, and developing situation that aims to overcome it. Don’t let that confuse you; variation is what matters.

legacy-eastgate2

12-20-2003, 10:46 AM

CyberChrist//

1) Give your date AFTER your design of the world is finished; to be coherent and consistent.

2) Scientist involve tons of other research fields other than screwing living thing’s DNA to turn them into monsters. Your remarks on quantum physics suggests me you possess enough background information in the field.

3) http://www.historychannel.com/

4) Let’s discuss this when we finally play a single player level that’s 65536 x 65536 x 65536. I’ve not seen such a level full of nooks and crannies.

5) All round the world in real life, governments spend millions of dollars to understand the motivation of those so called “bunch of masked lunatics”.

6) Surviving is an instinct, not a motivation. Presumably, Eskimos don’t have internet access to apply for green card lottery.

7) Speaking of that day, as birth of AI, I look forward to that day too. Even heroes can have emotional mental blocks, since they are human.

8) Before 1998 I’ve not cared for poor Nali’s because I’ve not heard them up until. Since then, they’ve become a memory. Having a memory of something that you are not aware before is a Change.

9) Sure you are right there’s nothing called true AI, since reality does not go hand in hand with simulation. However; all games have mentors, be it in the form of voice over narration or tutorial level. I prefer characters to interact instead of reading a read me file some lazy developer copy-pasted from somewhere else.

10) Nice to see we talk about exactly the same thing on the 10th item:)

legacy-Sett

12-20-2003, 03:16 PM

1) The best thing is to give no date. Or if you need to set time and future or past of that time make nonlinear to AD/BC (ie 653FE)

4,7,8) I was watching the DVD Brazil with the Director's(Terry Gilliam) comments on. There was a part in the film where the heroes smash through a roadblock or something like that and there is a graphic shot of police/ military guy burning to death. Gilliam said he put that shot in to show the consequences of the hero's actions. In most gaming NPC's are faceless sub-fodder that fade out x sec. after they get killed. This is an area where I'd like to see some more input. A NPC crawling along the floor crying for his mother and leaving a trail of blood would have more of a emotional impact for me than some villain sounding off his reasons for world domination. If violence is to be had it should be a world of suck for all parities involved. Including the protagonist.

Now you are a guard in some 'lab'. You work on the 15th level of a 30 level complex. You hear over the radio that some merc has slaughtered everything in his path form the 1st to the 14 level (gee,I guess we shouldn't have left those healthpaks and ammo lying around) What would be your motivation at this point?

-Hold this position at all costs. (dumb AI -defend)
-"My little brother Joey was working on the 10th level!"-revenge (dumb AI -attack)
-"F*ck this- if the 50 guys in front of me couldn't stop him/her/it I'm out of here!"(AI w/self preservation script)
-"Those smucks were taken out because that didn't see him coming -not us!" (AI w/flocking/team co-op)

It would be nice to see NPC just surrender. Or when you are searching for ammo/health you find a guard hiding in a locker.

Comedy -NPC's have some of the funniest lines/actions (sometimes unintentionally) in gaming. Here is a excellent place for some creative writing. BUT bad drama is bad drama, bad comedy is disaster.

-Sett

legacy-DarkHydra

12-20-2003, 03:51 PM

I agree with Eastgate. On the other hand, you must remember that games like UT2003 aren't really games which need a good storyline. As long as it fits into the Unreal storyline (which was quite good, and doesn't conflict with your points) it's good enough.

legacy-CyberChrist

12-20-2003, 07:48 PM

Eastgate2, I see you posted a reply... Now, I really need some sleep... Read you later.:D

legacy-JaFO(JBE)

12-20-2003, 07:53 PM

Would you care to participate in a virtual war you never heard of?

yes ... if proper motivation & immersion was achieved by the developers.
Tolkien managed to make people care about Middle Earth (or at least about the fellowship), so why on earth can't developers try to make any other setting just as interesting ?

That's another reason why WW2 is popular : the developers can afford to be lazy with motivations as 'everybody' knows who the bad guys are and why they're doing what they're doing even if it's about as one-dimensional as it can get.

// Example a mod with bad motivations : Counterstrike
To be precise : any level in Counterstrike that requires hostage rescue ...
Can anyone please tell me what the terrorists are trying to achieve in there and why they don't kill the hostages ?
Or what about the counterterrorists in those levels ... why would they be stupid enough to attack a known terrorist hideout with nothing but a pistol ?

Why do the terrorists need motivation ?
Because anything else requires hardcoded rules to prevent them from shooting the hostages.
You still need those rules because of the lamers that play these games, but anyone that

Why do the CT's need one ?
Because if they don't have one they won't care about the hostages as the map can be won without rescuiing anyway.
Why risk your life trying to get a stupid npc to a safe location if killing the T's is easier & wins the round as well ?

legacy-CyberChrist

12-21-2003, 09:34 AM

Eastgate2

1. Researches are dependant on the limited funding. Supporting scientists with unlimited funding would result in faster development. No funds, no research. If space exploration program was given unlimited funds, shuttles would travel to Jupiter, although lack of details about Jupiter’s atmosphere led some people to think Jupiter could actually support life.
It funny that insane amounts of money are being put aside every year to produce weapons of mass destruction, instead investing in future and prosperity. Some people weren’t exactly expecting this.
Jupiter’s atmosphere contains hydrogen, methane, helium, ammoniac and some other toxic gases and frozen water. Also, Jupiter’s atmosphere is crammed (so to speak) with storms and strong winds. I really don’t see a reason why would Jupiter be so interesting.
Consequently, eyes of the mankind turn to Mars, and the term “terraforming” is introduced.
2. Manipulation of someone’s DNA does not inflict immediate results. Drastic change causes subject to die. Very often death is caused by multiplication of mutated malicious tissue (otherwise also know as cancer). Also subject may experience attacks of insanity, rage, violent behavior in general (as well as disorientation, dizziness and epileptic seizures) which suggest that DNA manipulation may also cause mental illness.
3. As I said I am aware that many wars took place before and after WWII and I see your point here. WWII exploitation is making us all feel pretty bored…
4. Nevertheless, players want to quickly advance, not to be stuck looking for something.
5. I am aware of that. But do you really need to spend millions to understand such primitive behavior?
Lets put it in another way. Some points are hard to prove, especially if no one is listening. So you need to capture someone’s attention with “outstanding” action, which (if classifies as lethal) causes people to listen.
Another thing. Take religion for example. People believe. They haven’t seen anything, but still they believe. And some people are actually researching motivation of those masked bunch of lunatics. They believe they are right. They believe killing people is the way to prove their cause is right. They do not question their belief. They just act accordingly to what they think is right.
6. What is the most fundamental difference between a man and an animal? Will. Animal is always acting instinctively. Man can choose not to. We are aware that ignoring our substantial urges (hunger for instance) will result in our death, so we act accordingly (we eat).
So if I refuse to eat (for instance) to prove my point here, after a few days I will experience dizziness and nausea, until I finally comatose and after few hours die. My point will be established, but as a result I have perished. And, no I don’t really intend to do that. :D
7. People seem to differently perceive term “AI”. Only one definition is right. AI is designed with a single purpose: deductively gain absolute knowledge.
8. You are right; it is a Change. But put it in another way. As a player you are aware of virtual world around you. Consequently, Changes in that world, inflict changers on the player. Therefore, Change is becoming fundamental part of gaming experience…
9. I am also fan of interacting, but I don’t think interaction is needed for you to learn to move properly.
10. I agree. :D

legacy-JaFO(JBE)

12-21-2003, 02:00 PM

(4)
I think that what eastgate2 is saying is that the character giving the assignment doesn't need to tell the player how to get somewhere in a set of detailed step-by-step instructions.
There's also the environment and possibly other npc's to assist the player ...

Take Half-life for example. You're told to get your suit and go to the sciencelab.
Does the guard at the door explain this ?
No, but the signs on the wall next to him point to the lockerroom etc.

It is after all kind of stupid to get detailed instructions if the character is supposed to be working there for a few months already ...

legacy-Retodon8

12-24-2003, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by CyberChrist
6. What is the most fundamental difference between a man and an animal? Will. Animal is always acting instinctively. Man can choose not to. We are aware that ignoring our substantial urges (hunger for instance) will result in our death, so we act accordingly (we eat).
So if I refuse to eat (for instance) to prove my point here, after a few days I will experience dizziness and nausea, until I finally comatose and after few hours die. My point will be established, but as a result I have perished. And, no I don’t really intend to do that. :D

7. People seem to differently perceive term “AI”. Only one definition is right. AI is designed with a single purpose: deductively gain absolute knowledge.

6. First of all, you say that like humans aren't animals.
Secondly, animals learn things (playing dead and rolling over isn't instinctive behaviour), and sometimes decide to let other things be more important than their own self preservation.
There are other, more distinctive differences between humans and other animals, but it's really all a grey area, where humans are neither white nor black.
Actually the spectrum doesn't even have end nor beginning.

7. If only 1 definition was right, it would logically have to be the one the name explains.
Something that can think for itself, and isn't natural.
That's the definition I guess.
Of course "natural" is a word that can be argued about, as is the thinking part.

Anyway, I really need to get some sleep, otherwise I might've reacted to some other things already said in this thread. :)

legacy-CyberChrist

12-25-2003, 01:09 PM

Retodon8,
How do you teach animal to do “tricks”? It’s a very basic procedure and involves a reward upon successful performance. If you repeat procedure few times, animal “learns” it will be rewarded if it accomplishes the task. Acting to be rewarded is quite instinctive behavior. As for the self-preservation, animal cannot determine the risk of own actions and therefore cannot make a decision. Defending infants is an obvious example and it is an instinct. Animal will always act instinctively but as it cannot estimate complexity of situation it will act defensively. Other “distinctive” differences are irrelevant at this point as they cannot be classified as fundamental.
Secondly, if I remember correctly, I haven’t defined AI; I merely gave its purpose. Definition you have given is unfortunately incorrect. To give exact definition of AI you must define words the term consists of.
Artificial: Produced to copy natural subject or occurrence
Intelligence: Ability to learn, understand and think in a logical way about things and occurrences.
It cannot think for itself, as you imply, as it requires valid input. AI is designed with a purpose and accordingly it will not process irrelevant data. Definition implies its purpose. I must also point out that my explanation of its purpose was too basic.
Deduction is a process of using information you have in order to understand particular situation or to find an answer to a problem. Induction is a method of discovering rules form particular facts.
Every occurrence has its equation. Induction of results of multiple equations (explaining simple behaviors) from isolated structure will create a relation significant for complex equation, which will explain more complex occurrences. You can explain even the most complex behaviors and occurrences by combination of relevant outcomes from equations explaining surrounding occurrences. In the end knowledge (data) will be gained inductively, but occurrences beyond known and acquired facts (as some of them are established by humans and therefore can be false) cannot be explained using inductive method. Therefore deduction will be used to explain causes of unknown occurrence. Equation will be reversed. Occurrence is a fact. Causes are unknown. Instances of unknown occurrence will remain unknown as long as sufficient amount of data is acquired for equation to explain the cause. Explanation of the cause may prove all premises/theories to be inaccurate (as they are based on human research).

legacy-eastgate2

12-25-2003, 05:24 PM

It's really lovely read guys,really... to see moders/gamers discuss behavioral psychology and ai issues in such a cognitive and fruitful manner.

However, now I realize that before starting this thread, all I wanted was to inspire some moders for single player mods as Unreal2 has failed upon to fulfill our such desires. Now that the direction of MSU contest and latest mods going and other unreal engine titles disappointingly being released, I guess I have no luck.

I don't think extensive coding is necessary to make a bot to say the right thing at the right time & place. When humans do such things in real life, we say "Wow, how clever!".

I know programming good ai must be hard, but hey all I'm talking about here is one dispatcher, couple of "correct" events and some nice recorded wav file reading out nicely written dialogues

:)

fuegerstef

12-26-2003, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by eastgate2
I don't think extensive coding is necessary to make a bot to say the right thing at the right time & place.

In most cases you can do that with some very simple AI script and only some mouse-clicking with the current builds of the Unreal Engine ... ...no need to code a lot of stuff.

legacy-JaFO(JBE)

12-26-2003, 08:42 AM

The bots in the Unreal-series aren't 'AI' ... they're artificial animals at best as they don't 'learn' anything.
It's basically a somewhat complex Finite State Machine with minimal self-preservation instinct (= if health is low then run away and get some else hunt enemy / collect weapons / repeat )

legacy-eastgate2

12-26-2003, 11:28 AM

I witnessed UT bots "learn" something after tweaking extensively pathnodes to "teach" them how to handle the level better in both deatmatch and ctf. However, it's not a true learning process. Maybe a simulation of a simulation:)

legacy-CyberChrist

12-26-2003, 07:18 PM

First of all I would like to go back to the date issue. Facts first.
1. WWII saw the first use of nuclear weapon. Bomb dropped on city of Hiroshima developed an explosion that equals explosion on 20.000 tons of TNT (Trinitrotoluene). Over the years that followed more powerful A-Bombs were developed, and already in year 1950 public became aware of existence of new breed of nuclear weapon: Thermonuclear of shorten H-bomb. Year 1952 saw first test explosion of H-bomb. It developed explosion of 5-7 kilotons (equals 5 to 7 millions of tons of TNT) that left crater 1,5 km wide and approximately 60 meters deep.
H-Bomb is a fusion bomb (unlike A-Bomb which is fission bomb); vast amount of energy is gained by fusion of light elements, hydrogen and its isotopes, in particular. Limitation of A-Bomb lies in the fact that Uranium (which is used as explosive) tends to decay and it bursts extremely quickly upon detonation, limiting its power. H-Bomb is a fusion bomb (fusion is a process of combing two atom cores to create a new heavier core/element while huge energy is released). Light elements used in H-Bomb are hydrogen and its isotope tritium. To initiate fusion of atom cores they must be brought close, to point of collision. The process is initiated by A-Bomb (fission bomb) explosion inside the H-Bomb which will rise temperature to several thousands degrees. Rising temperature will cause particle to move significantly faster which will brought cores sufficiently close to initiate fusion. Two cores fusing will engage chain reaction. Outcome will be Helium and release of enormous energy. As elements used in H-Bomb do not tend to decompose or fuse they give H-Bomb unlimited power.
Existence of such weapons some people find extremely disturbing, as the Cold war proved. While driven by fear of such weapon mankind cannot prosper.
2. Another fact. What is a black hole? It’s a rhetorical question; don’t bother to answer. I believe you are aware of the fact that Moon’s gravity is quite different that Earth’s gravity. Obviously because of different masses. Imagine space object with such enormous mass it simply “consumes” nearby objects because of its strong gravitational field. That’s black hole. Black hole cannot be seen as it also draws in photons (particles of light). Chemical compositions of various space objects can be done with spectral analysis, but I this case it’s impossible as this object consumes everything.
3. I believe Intel doesn’t need special introduction. Few years back Intel announced Itanium processor, but unfortunately it remained on drawing board (so to speak). Main improvement over regular processors was the capability to process multiple instructions simultaneously, while all know processors (Pentium included) could only handle one at a time. I was honestly looking forward to Itanuim release, but unfortunately it was canceled. Although the improvements were great and unmatchable, software developers didn’t want to rewrite their programs and applications to fully benefit from Itanium technology. Unfortunatley developers weren’t thinking this transition to Itanium technology is eventual upon reaching the smallest size specification (in theory, one atom size). Meanwhile for next generation of processors (codenamed Prescott) 90-nanometer specification will replace current 120-nanometer specification, announcing 10-20 GHz processors within six years.
Points are as follows. Horrific weapons will hold back prosperity, as it requires significant funds and resources. Weapons of mass destruction may cause end of mankind. If driven by the fear of annihilation, nation (or alliance) can only initiate conflict. Conflict disengages prosperity. (1)
Insufficient amount of data causes presumptions to be developed in order to explain certain occurrence. They may be inaccurate, as they are not proven and therefore they are not facts. (2)
Drawbacks cannot be predicted. Solution to a particular problem may not seem as a solution. Evolution is certain. Solution purposing progress and development is a effective solution. Upgrading existing structures is temporal solution. (3)
Dates cannot be estimated, as development is dependant on multiple factors. Presumptions are there. I don’t see a reason why storylines shouldn’t be based on those.

As for the AI discussion, I will remind you of IBM’s Deep Blue. Computer developed to win a chess match. Only advantage it had over the human player was ability to predict opponent’s moves. Human player can think 3 moves ahead at most while Deep Blue could handle approximately 10. If someone expected more, he should bare in mind that numbers of calculations are increasing (geometric progression) with each calculation. Deep Blue triumphed as the game was based on simple rules and small board. Nevertheless combinations of figures position are numerous and calculation of all positions would require too much time and too much memory (more that 20 GB).
So, if you introduce a larger game “surface” and third dimension, by requiring development of (so-called) “AI script” that could make fun of the player by confusing him, you require impossible. Input must be provided. Circumstances of occurrence are inputs of significant relevance to make appropriate comment. Load few scripts like that, and you’ll be sorry.

legacy-Retodon8

01-09-2004, 07:30 PM

CyberChrist,

You can teach a dog to roll over by rewarding it, but that works for humans too.
You're right, it is something built in, so no difference between the two here.

To stick with the animals, dogs are capable of deciding the risks that come with doing a certain thing.
They're simply not at good at it as humans perhaps.
A dog seeing food guarded by another dog will think about whether or not it's worth the risk to get the food or not.
You can see it contemplate from a distance, and it will eventually decide.
(In practice we've been finding robots are pretty good at deciding from 2 different, pretty much equal opportunities in an analog environment.)
Once a dog's been bitten a few times by food-guarding dogs, it won't go for the food as easily next time, and it might learn tiny dogs don't pose a threat, but similar things go for humans.
Dogs know by default to be wary of bigger dogs, and that food is good, but again, the same goes for humans.
Then there's the experience thing, but I don't see where that differs either.
Being defensively is usually a good option when you can't grasp the situation, and you'll see humans do that as well.
Basically I'm saying humans are smarter than other animals, and are better capable at figuring out what to do, but it's definately not something black and white.

As for your definition of thinking...
You always need input, because without it, there is nothing to think about.
I certainly don't process irrelevant data.
Sure I take in a lot of info that I'll never need, but I have a few resources on board, so it doesn't matter, and I won't think about unimportant things for very long.
This goes for computers, animals, and humans.
AI is designed with a purpose, but so are animals.
They are designed through evolution, meaning there will be different versions, of which a lot won't be very efficient, but animals and humans are also limited in what they can do.
Once AIs get more advanced it will be harder and harder, then impossible to see any difference, and ultimately AIs will get smarter than humans have ever been.

I don't think I follow what you're saying on "Every occurrence has its equation." and the rest though.
We learn facts from what we sense around us, just like other animals do.
AI's would too, if they were programmed to do that, which is pretty much impossible with their current resources.
Sometimes we need to sense a number of things before we can form a theory on something, and a lot of times after learning more we find we weren't completely right, or even flat out wrong the first time.

If we don't have enough information on something, we will try to figure it out by reasoning logically, by elimination possibilities, maybe figure out a new way to get some extra information in the process.
Doing that we still use things we already know, using a limited brain.

Anyway, I can't seem to manage to form a very cohesive post replying to you like this, and I want to do some other things now, but it seems I pretty much agree with you, except where I don't see the distinction between animals and humans.
Humans are animals that still have limits, borders, but own a bigger piece of land than for instance dogs, just like dogs compared to worms.
I hope I didn't miss something important in your post, but otherwise I'm afraid you didn't manage to convince me of your belief.

legacy-eastgate2

01-10-2004, 02:04 PM

ok, lovely discussion going on here....
However All I want is to play a single-player game/mod with a good story-line...or just to inspire some mod makers out there in a similar quest...or vice-versa...or whatever :)

legacy-CyberChrist

01-10-2004, 05:33 PM

Retodon8,
Animals do not make decisions. They associate certain occurrence with their action. They cannot override associations. Animals cannot estimate consequences of their actions. They act accordingly to their needs. Intensity of their needs can override their associations, as ignoring those needs results in death.
The most essential difference between humans and animals is the fact that humans have the ability to control thoughts and actions. This ability is called will. Man can choose to ignore his logic and act opposite from what he is supposed to.
As the man can willingly do whatever he wants, commandments were introduced to prevent man from utilise his thoughts that host an intention to harm the community, with inflicting deliberate consequence to discourage that kind of behaviour.
Animal will not take action unless it has a reason to.
You provided examples to support your statements. Survival is an instinct. If bitten by a larger animal while trying to get food, smaller animal will hesitate in trying again until food shortage threatens its existence. It will instinctively attack any animal that poses a threat to the food and consequently its existence. Withdrawal of larger animal is eventual, if its existence doesn’t strictly depend on that particular piece of food.

“I think, therefore I am” (Cogito ergo sum) – René Descartes
By closing your eyes and covering your ears you still are. You think. Thoughts do not disappear. You do think without input.
You do process irrelevant data. Every time you wonder “what if” you are processing irrelevant data, as the conclusions of such questions are irrelevant.

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population.
Populations evolve. In order to understand evolution, it is necessary to view populations as a collection of individuals, each hosting a different set of traits. A single organism is never typical of an entire population unless there is no variation within that population. Individual organisms do not evolve; they retain the same genes throughout their life. When a population is evolving, the ratio of different genetic types is changing; each individual organism within a population does not change.
Evolution is not progress. Populations basically adapt to their current surroundings. They do not necessarily become better in any absolute sense over time. A trait or strategy that is successful at one time may be unsuccessful at another.
Organisms are not passive targets of their environment. Each species modifies its own environment.
Animals are not designed (to be designed = to make something for particular use or purpose).
The distinction between human and AI will always be obvious, as there is no point in emulating imperfect creatures such as humans.

Limitation of human intelligence will eventually stop providing answers; therefore AI will be designed purposely to utilize its advantages over limited human intellect.

legacy-Retodon8

01-11-2004, 12:35 AM

CyberChrist,
What makes you say animals don't make decisions?
If an animal is presented with 2 options, simply go left or go right for instance, it will choose.
It may choose to stand still instead, but it will choose.
If I understand what you mean about not being able to override associations, then we humans can't either.
Animals can estimate the consequences of their actions, because without that it is impossible to make a decision.
Like I said, they aren't as adapt at figuring everything out as humans are, but they can do it.

If you put a dog on a desert island so it doesn't get to eat anything for a long time, as soon as it finds some food it will gobble it all up.
If you do the same to a human, it could decide it to be wiser to ration the food in order to stay alive longer.
Then again the human could be a dumber person, and eat it all up as well.
It's all a matter of intelligence, as you can only decide based on what your brain is capable of.
Animals have a will of their own.

I'm not going to comment on the commandments, as I'm not religious, and don't know what they are.
I have my own set of values, learned from others, adapted for my personal self, which all in all make me a decent person from most people's perspectives.

Survival is an instinct for both animals and humans.
Humans can commit suicide, which goes against that instinct, but so can animals.
Everybody knows (I suppose) the stories of dogs saving their owners from danger, dying in the process.
Those creatures knew fully well for instance pulling somebody out of a house on fire is dangerous.
Perhaps they didn't know it would result in death, but they knew it's dangerous.
Even humans have an impossible time imagining what death is like, so there are just as much ideas about it as there are people.

I think, therefore I am.
I remember finding out that was said by somebody famous, and feeling cheated because I came to that conclusion when I was still a child. :)
Just closing your eyes and covering your ears doesn't make your thought process stop of course.
Only dying will.
Without sensory input there are still thoughts, but why wouldn't that be so with other animals?

The conclusions of "What if?" questions aren't irrelevant.
What if my house would go up in flames?
Hmmm, I'd better install some security measures.
"What if?" means using a little fantasy, and thinking alone is something good.
Dreaming, something "useless" is actually quite good for you.
Here I'm not sure what animals are capable of.
Do dogs dream?
Do dogs think up "What if?" questions, are they smart enough for that?
I know they have time for it, at least some of them do, just lying around.
It's hard to imagine their minds are just frozen, they must be thinking about something.

Humans are just another animal, even if they evolved a few notches up from every other animal.
Earlier humans weren't so smart, so it's just that those versions in between got lost, died, making the gap between us and animals so obvious.
We're still the same.

Evolution is not progress.
Wow, I can't believe somebody other than me actually said that. :)
I had to learn at school that it is, and I disagreed.
Evolution means adapting to your surroundings, but actually it doesn't, it's the other way around.
Evolution means "random" changes in individuals, where the less suitable candidates die, and the ones that happened to be well suited survive, thereby enhancing the chance for their off-spring to be even better suited.
That means the species gets adapted to its current surroundings, but not better.
What is "better" anyway?
Once something happens, needen't even necesarily be something drastic, the species could find itself illsuited now.
I wrote "Evolution is progress" on my tests just the same, because I found out that's the only way to get a good grade.
Oh well!
Anyway, we agree completely here I think.

Tests are done to computer programmes though, where random code is inserted, creating an evolving set of programmes.
There should be lots of examples you can find of those on the web, though of course most aren't more intelligent than 1-celled creatures, but this idea is very possible with more advanced programmes.
We already program computers to design computers for us, and eventually they will get better at it, designing better computers than themselves without any assistance of humans.
Once that happens computers should get smart pretty quickly.

Emulating humans isn't completely useless in my opinion.
Since I am reasoning from myself, a human, the interaction with computers from my point of view is important to me.
This means computers that are human-like are easier to deal with than computers built from the ground up to be efficient.
We definately "need" smart computers that aren't designed around that idea though.

legacy-eastgate2

01-11-2004, 04:53 PM

Wow, starting from the basic premises of dramatic story-telling and simple assumptions of narration, we are now somewhere in the middle of cognitive/behavioural sciences and philosophy...Even between the lines of this fruitful discussion, there are lots of engrossing ideas for science fiction plots/settings...

Mod Makers, take note...

And please Lord;

-Deliver us from Counter-Strike Clones

-Deliver us unnecessarily huge single-player levels cause some teenagers yet waiting to get a valid driver license in real life enjoy riding vehicles in such brainless levels

-Deliver us from Game companies investing only in Multi-player games as it seems more profitable

-Deliver us from Game producers endowing more on visual elements rather than music, audio and text

-And finally Deliver us from console game market dominating pc game market

legacy-CyberChrist

01-11-2004, 05:54 PM

Retodon8,
The choice you are referring to in your first example isn’t conscious, but instinctive. Therefore it is not a choice. Choice is an act of choosing between several possibilities. If choice is based on instinct and not on logical analysis, we do not speak of a “choice”. If same choice is presented in multiple occasions while remaining the same, animal will never wonder about other choice therefore it will never be selected. Animal sees only one alternative here, as it always tends towards own preservation.
Humans are capable of overriding their associations. Humans can deliberately for no apparent reason take moderately lethal action even aware of probable outcome.

The commandments are instructions whose disobedience leads to intentional punishment inflicted by institution that endorse the integrity of the society. Those are not religious commandments as they are based on the abstract punishment (hell), but instructions whose development introduced legal systems.

Suicide is deliberate act of killing yourself. Therefore demise in attempt to do something is not suicide, but an accident, as death wasn’t calculated intent. Self-preservation includes preservation of providers (the sources) of requirements.

Definition of “being” is not comprehensible for a child. Therefore, a child cannot reach entire Descartes philosophy that led him to that particular conclusion.

Cause must be probable for conclusions to be relevant. Relevant conclusions are not result of presumptions, but results of rational analysis. Conclusions based of hypothesis cannot point to probable occurrence.
Fantasy is not consistent. Therefore, fantasy is not fundamental.

Random changes in the individuals are called mutations. Mutations are mechanisms of evolution, not evolution itself (as you imply). Survival of certain population over less adopted one is called natural selection.

Emulating imperfect being is pointless. Emulating an imperfection results in imperfection.

legacy-Retodon8

01-11-2004, 07:18 PM

CyberChrist,
The choice I described is definately something conscious.
Are you saying when you get up in the morning where you will end up in the evening is a matter of choice, or at least a result of something you don't think about?
If I get enough of an itch in my nose, I have to sneeze, and there is nothing about that.
Reflexes are things you do without thinking, since they are at a deeper level.
Of course if you're just sitting somewhere you might start wiggling your leg without thinking, without even realising, but deciding where to go is something I always think about.
It's not an instinct.
If it was instinct, it wouldn't be a choice.
It's possible to have your gut to tell you one thing, and your brain to tell you another things, so you can still override your instincts.
Training helps doing that.

You say animals will not think about what would happen if they choose to to B instead of the logical option A, or what would happen if they did C, but I'm not just going to take your word for it, sorry. :)
Everything I know tells me animals do just that, and I don't think I know anybody personally that disagrees with me.
It could very well be because this isn't exactly a subject that comes up very often though. :)
So... can you explain to me why you think what you do?

Humans can make decisions that seem illogical, true, but I've seen animals do the strangest things, things that don't improve their situation one bit, things that could worsen their situation.
No difference between either there.
Once you fully get to understand the individual it all makes sense.
There is no such thing as a random decision.

I do abide by some rules, some written by others, some of my own design.
I suppose a commandment isn't necesarily something religious, so you could my rules commandments.

Suicide is deliberate, true.
Trying to jump over a bit hole and not making it, falling to your death is a mistake, I agree again.
Then there is deciding a cause is worth dying for.
Both animals and humans can feel like something is worth dying for.
Like I said, I have no idea what animals think about death (just "animals" means a LOT of unique species anyway), but just their gut feeling tells them they should avoid it.

When you say children aren't self aware, you are just wrong.
Like I said, I was a child when I figured out the fact that I was thinking was the most concrete proof of me actually being.
There have been tests, and humans start getting self aware before they figure out how to walk already.
That means human infants are smarter than all known animals, unless we haven't discovered certain animals being self aware yet, which is still possible.

I don't think I follow what you're saying with your paragraph on relevant conclusions to causes and fantasy at all, sorry. :(

Random changes, mutations, that is what evolution is all about, it's the only thing that makes a species evolve.
(I suppose parents could learn from a changing environment and teach their children, but though their knowledge is different, they are still clones of their parents then.)
I may have misdescribed what evolution is about above, I don't feel like reading though all that again right now.
Natural selection because certain groups have adapted better only happens because of the mutations mentioned above.
Let's say we're talking about Homo Sapiens which caused the demise of the other human species we were sharing the same time with (I forgot the name for now), it's quite a big change, but it's all part of evolution.
Normally you can't even see evolution, since the changes are so small.
Once a species has evolved in different ways, creating more than 1 species, it's illogical to talk about evolution anymore.
We as humans have evolved so much, have such a big impact on our environment, it's hard to picture is in the entire picture of the planet.

Emulating an imperfect being results in another imperfect being, yes.
Does that mean it's useless?
How would trying to create the perfect being be any less useful?
Is that even possible, because what exactly is Perfection?
I figure a really messy room isn't perfect, so I might go and clean it up, to bring it closer to what I want it to be.
If I keep cleaning eventually there is nothing left.
That could mean nothing = perfection.
Creation is the thing that brought chaos into perfection, whether it's the Big Bang, or God creating everything there is.
I don't see chaos as a bad thing, because nobody likes perfect sterility, do they?

So after we manage to create the perfect being, whatever it is... then what?
It's another nice accomplishment, but what does it really matter?
In the end you just die, leaving perhaps a legacy to the remaining.
If you became famous, did some discoveries that advanced mankind you will be almost immortal, but you're still dead.
The way I see it existance itself is useless.
I understand you are religious, so I don't expect you to agree with me at all here. :)
I would like to believe there is a reason for all this, but I can't.

legacy-CyberChrist

01-12-2004, 06:45 PM

You do not think about upcoming events, as they are irrelevant to the point where you are. Nevertheless the point where you will eventually be is reached by conscious conclusions and consequently making choices along the way.

Reflex is an action or movement that happens naturally in response to something and cannot be controlled. On the other side, instinct is a natural tendency to behave in particular way using the knowledge and abilities that we are born with.
Reflex is a single movement. Therefore, purposeful “arrangement” of movements and actions is not a reflex.

Survival is an instinct. Survival is a state of continuous existence in spite of difficulty or danger. Attempts to overcome difficulties are instinctive. Instinctive behavior is not calculated behavior. Therefore it is not result of rational analysis. Coherent analysis is required for making a choice. Otherwise it remains instinctive choice, where only one alternative is actually seen.
If animals actually wonder about other selections (given in your example), why those remaining selections are never being selected?
Introduce three-door system to an animal. Doors have to be sufficiently distant. Each door is covering same requirement in different amounts. If door number one is opened in multiple occasions while providing requirement every time, animal will associate that particular door as a source of that particular requirement. If in need of that particular resource animal will wait in front of exact door until it’s finally opened. Remaining doors are never approached.
Human sees remaining door as probable source. Logical examination will point to a possibility that other source will provide significantly greater amount of resource needed. Therefore human will select other alternative. Will overrides associations.
This is not a case with the animal, as same choice is being selected repeatedly. If animals are capable of “deciding the risks” and “thinking” (as you imply) why other alternatives are never selected?

Disobedience of your own ethical rules does not lead to any punishment whatsoever. In case of ignoring primary commandments (formed by society) infliction of intentional and purposeful retribution is inevitable.

Child is aware of own existence. Child cannot realize its existence by the fact it thinks. Your senses imply the fact you are. Consequently they also imply still objects exist as well. They are. Still, they don’t think. It would imply that still objects are deceptions.
René Descartes laid entire philosophy until this conclusion has been reached.

The cellular machinery that copies DNA occasionally makes mistakes. These mistakes alter the sequence of a gene. This is called a mutation. There are many kinds of mutations. A point mutation is a mutation in which one "letter" of the genetic code is changed to another. Lengths of DNA can also be deleted or inserted in a gene; these are also mutations. Finally, genes or parts of genes can become inverted or duplicated.
Most mutations that have any phenotypic effect are deleterious. Mutations that result in amino acid substitutions can change the shape of a protein, potentially changing or eliminating its function. This can lead to inadequacies in biochemical pathways or interfere with the process of development. Organisms are sufficiently integrated that most random changes will not produce a fitness benefit. Only a very small percentage of mutations are beneficial. The ratio of neutral to deleterious to beneficial mutations is unknown and probably varies with respect to details of the locus (locus is a location of a gene on a chromosome) in question and environment.
Mutation limits the rate of evolution. The rate of evolution can be expressed in terms of nucleotide substitutions in a lineage per generation. Substitution is the replacement of an allele by another in a population. This is a two-step process: First a mutation occurs in an individual, creating a new allele (alleles are different versions of the same gene). This allele subsequently increases in frequency to fixation in the population.
Mutation doesn’t have to be limiting over short period of time. A change in environment can cause previously neutral alleles to have selective values; in the short term evolution can run on "stored" variation and thus is independent of mutation rate. Other mechanisms can also contribute selectable variation. Recombination creates new combinations of alleles (or new alleles) by joining sequences with separate microevolutionary histories within a population. Gene flow can also supply the gene pool with variants. Of course, the ultimate source of these variants is mutation.
Obviously mutation is not only mechanism of evolution (as you imply). Mechanisms of evolution are as follows: natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, recombination and gene flow. These can be grouped into classes: mechanisms that increase genetic variation (mutation, recombination, gene flow) and mechanisms that decrease gene variation (natural selection, genetic drift).
Evolution requires genetic variation. In order for continuing evolution there must be mechanisms to increase or create genetic variation and mechanisms to decrease it. Mutation is a change in a gene. These changes are the source of new genetic variation. Natural selection operates on this variation.

Limitation is a flaw. Human intellect is limited; consequently answers to particular problems cannot be given. Answers must be provided, as the prosperity is dependant on explanation. Imperfection is no longer efficient; therefore imperfection must be replaced.
Big Bang is assumption. Big Bang hypothesis does not provide relevant answers. The fact remains it raised more questions than it initially answered. State of matter before its occurrence and direct cause for its initiation are not answered.

There is no legacy without existence.

legacy-ScHlAuChi

01-12-2004, 07:03 PM

Just because a game uses a story that is very cliched doesnt mean it is bad. It really depends on the game.
A very good example for this is the PS2 game ICO.

legacy-Desperado#2/Rog

01-12-2004, 07:21 PM

YOU ICO FREAK!

btw i know Sch ;)

legacy-eastgate2

01-12-2004, 08:32 PM

I guess I am the only one around here who cares for good story in pc games and the only one who is not happy with the direction where unreal universe is heading...just look the results of those contests...

I can't believe it's the same company/designers who did Unreal1 and UT2003

legacy-ScHlAuChi

01-12-2004, 10:43 PM

Youre wrong eastgate2

Unreal1+UT were made by EPIC
Unreal2 was made by Legend and UT2K3 was made by DigitalExtremes.
UT2K4 is made by EPIC again.

Correct me if im wrong Desperado#2

And i do think that story is important, but not for a multiplayer game like UT2K3/4 where gameplay is the only thing that counts :)

legacy-Retodon8

02-29-2004, 04:52 PM

Animals do select other alternatives.
Just watch some actual animals and see that they do.
A long time ago, but if I implied only mutation results in evolution I didn't write things down properly then.
The Big Bang is an assumption, just like every piece of science is, but until it's disproven, it's most probably true.
Most scientists believe the BB happened, because everything indicates it did.
You can't speak of "before the BB", because the BB introduced time, meaning "before" didn't have time, so "before" didn't/doesn't exist.
I don't have the time to read or respond to your last post properly, so sorry about that.

Nothing much new on fiction since I last came here.
Nothing new on the official UT site either.
Oh well!

legacy-1Dean Avanti

02-29-2004, 11:51 PM

Can we talk about the Post Subject and ignore CyberChrist copy and pasting from free online essays from http://www.termpapers-termpapers.com

its about time some one made an important point in the posts of eastgate2 has put so very well, lets not get side tracked with trolling, back to the real topic please.

legacy-FBMachine

03-01-2004, 01:08 AM

Cool post... If I have to suffer through another CS clone I'm going to go bananas. It's such a shame seeing such great quality artwork etc being put into these totally lame game concepts... The game story and motivations don't have to be on par with classic films or literature, just do something interesting! Not a 10,000th CS clone, or mindless monster/zombie target practice! :)
Dan

legacy-CyberChrist

03-01-2004, 12:40 PM

Retodon8,
Ill get back to you later, I have to deal with this Avanti chap...

Avanti,
I don’t recall calling any of my “debate contemporaries” unintelligent, ignorant or less worthy or admirable. I didn’t conclude any discussion in such way, neither do I intent to do something like that. Ever. I actually enjoyed my “argument” with Retodon8 who obviously values his opinion in a way everybody should.
As for our discussion and science in general even you should be aware that Albert Einstein said: “Everything is relative”. Even truth…
Unfortunately, many people in the world today share experiences like mine here with you. At first I was curious and I clicked the link you provided. I was amused with the fact that it was my first time surfing on site providing that kind of “service”. But after a while it really began to bother me.
Let me shear something with you. Man leans towards his satisfaction. That’s why people socialize, interact and communicate without any particular “material” purpose. Everything you do is to make your existence better. That’s a constant effort. That’s a subconscious effort at certain points. Satisfaction itself cannot be strictly defined, as people are quite different.
I’m afraid I do not consider cheating as an option as it would leave me without satisfaction. Everything you learn either purposely on spontaneously is knowledge. I do doubt everybody’s knowledge, even mine, but I do not doubt facts. Fact is there is no way you can tell who I am, or how well educated am I. Unlike you, I am aware of that. If anything I posted here you find inappropriate you are free to report all of my posts right now; I won’t mind.
Did I in any way insult you or any other member here? I took time to carefully examine everything I posted here and unfortunately I was unable to find insolent parts. I disapprove any unsupported indictment of any kind, so your comment is not welcome.
You think you shared some wisdom here, Avanti? The fact you provided link to the site with free essays, speaks for itself.