Talk:Artificial intelligence in video games

message: An anon user just added this information.  The quotes are his:
:"20Q.net is an experiment in artificial intelligence. The program is very simple but its behavior is complex. Everything that it knows and all questions that it asks were entered by people playing this game. 20Q.net is a learning system; the more it is played, the smarter it gets."  It can be played in English, Spanish, French, and German.  The URL is http://www.20q.net/. 
It is out of context and has little to nothing to do with the article.  It mentions that it uses AI, but mentions nothing about why that AI is notable or how it works.  It also uses in-article external links, which are a no-no (except as cites).  As it is, it is just an ad.  If someone wants to take a crack at fixing it (i.e. giving it context, mentioning why it is notable, how it works), please feel free. 
UPDATE: Actually, I just looked at it.  It is a simple game of 20 questions.  Variations on this game have been around for more than 20 years.  It isn't artificial intelligence.  It just creates binary trees to track user's questions and answers and spits out an answer when it gets to a leaf node.  If the leaf node is wrong, it creates a new branch.  Not AI, it is just an ad. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:31, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, 20q... I once had a long, long debate with another guy over whether 20q is to be seen as binary tree based or not. Implementation-wise, it clearly isn't, and it is rather comparable to a Kohonen network (but not quite), if I remember right. Whether it is functionally equivalent to a binary tree-based algorithm is another question. I think it is an interesting application, but I agree that the above ad is just an ad and has no place in the article.--Julian Togelius 03:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have no idea what those are.  Perhaps put them in the main artificial intelligence article for now since that is more on the academic side. You could also look at the A.I. portal to find the best fit. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Out-of-context information

message: For the little I have skimmed, very relevant and usable references:  IvanDíaz 14:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Print Sources

message: Bots belongs under the "See also" section. It does not need its own section simply to link to the bots article. That's exactly what see also is for. -Dave 21:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bots Placement 

message: As this article is talking specifically about computer games and the use of AI in games, wouldn't it be appropriate to have a section which lists those games which either 1) Has incredibly good game AI, or 2) Is supported by a language which allows people to write their own. Enigmatical 00:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also got that idea and added such a section to the article. I hope it's OK. Feel free to expand and modify it. 84.248.91.142 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 11:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Games which use "Game AI" 

message: How about a few images for this article, such as screenshots and game covers? (^'-')^ Covington 07:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would love to add those, but since most of those were submitted under fair use, they can't be used here. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: The "Traditional turn-based games" section seems out of place and meaningless. --Mrwojo 18:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Traditional turn-based games" section 

message: I think that naming conventions would put this article at AI (game), or some such with the modifier subordinate and following AI, since in video game parlance the AI is referred to generally only as "the AI".  Thoughts? ENeville 20:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "AI" is an acronym and naming conventions state we should avoid naming an article as an acronym.  I'd support moving it to Artificial intelligence (game), though. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move article? 

message: I removed the following paragraphs:
:Differential Games were investigated by Rufus Isaacs and Published early in his famous Book,[Differential Games, 1965]. A new Game, Laser Game, was firstly presented in SIAM Fall Meeting,[Moustafa El-Arabaty, 1981]. A chase in the 3-D involving a pursuer with large turning radius and carrying a laser system for increasing his capability, and a more maneuverable evading vehicle was constructed,[M. El-Arabaty, CDC, IEEE, 1982].                                                                         
:Artificial Intelligence techniques were used for Pursuit-Evasion Games with the Algorithms Design of different Aerospace Dynamic Games and their extended applications, [M. El-Arabaty, Towards The Design of an Intelligent Aerospace System, AIAA-1987-2844].
:Expert Systems different techniques were considered in the design of aerospace computer games with attention given to production rules, networks,frames ,Bayes laws ,Fuzzy rules, languages used in expert systems, and man-machine interfaces,[M. El-Arabaty, AIAA-1989-3007]. 
I removed them earlier, but an anon user added them back in.  They are confusing and don't use wiki-markup correctly (but that's easily remedied).  The biggest problem, though, is they give no context, don't really express their ideas clearly and give us no reason why we should consider any of it important.  It presents ideas without explaining what they are, why they are important, or why anyone should care or how they advanced the field of artificial intelligence in games.  What's a differential game?  I have no idea, and it isn't explained.
So, before adding them in again, try fixing them.  Otherwise, they'll just be removed again. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing paragraphs

message: Have you read something about Dynamic Games? I advice you to study the Book Differential Games of Isaacs, it is a nice and very famous book,and was translated to different languages, I advice you to study higher higher mathematics to be able to read such book! . I belief that this will make additional knowledge to you in GAMES . You will not be confused, and at that time you will never cancel such games . Advice ; if you do not know about this field and you are personally interest to know the fundamentls of dynamic games, Do not cancel such papers , but bring them and try to study them instead of writing about scientific branches you never heard about them. If you do not know and you are not willing to know let others who are more interesting than you to see and read, these research were published internationally !!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.114.92.188 (talk • contribs) 
:Thank you, Rufus Isaacs, for your above comment. — Frecklefoot | Talk 23:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  COMMENT

message: refference for Facade:http://games.softpedia.com/get/Freeware-Games/Facade.shtml  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.210.245.91 (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, just what we need: another reference to an obscure game that is one reader's favorite.  I reverted it.  Thanks for slapping your comment in the middle of the page with no context whatsoever (I moved it here, where it belongs). Please only make additions that improve the article, not promote obscure products. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, it's obscure and unimportant unless you can cite an impartial source that says it's groundbreaking, important, etc.  Until then, it has no place in the article.  These aren't my standards, they are Wikipedia's. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Facade

message: This article is badly organized and really needs a revamp.  The "Views" section is nothing more than an opinion of misconceptions.  The "Usage" section discusses almost no usage notes at all.  The "Cheating AI" section is worthless as it contributes nothing to the actual discussion of Game AI. (Wjmurdick (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Be bold!. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I also agree - this article is a blithering inconsistent mess. The citations are pathetic and the article reads like it's been penned by a hyperactive 8 year old listing his/her favourite games and a completely subjective opinion of each. It would be much more useful and readable if the page was written by technique (citing the literature) and then perhaps giving game titles as examples - not the other way around.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.32.57 (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

text: The "Cheating AI" section has now been rewritten. It's not a major concern, but at least it's now more about game AI than game balancing. —Mrwojo (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Revamp 

message: There is no article in Wikipedia which summarizes the application of AI technology to games in general, beginning with the chess & checkers programs of the 1950s, describing the basic forms of "adversarial search" and other strategies (such as alpha beta pruning), and including the modern video game AI described in this article. I would like to see this article expanded to cover these topics. Any objections? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artificial intelligence in games, in general  

message: The rubberband AI section section describes a situation where a computer controlled character get a bonus when losing. However in most of the examples in this section, the bonus is not related to AI, because the bonus does not make the computer controlled character smarter og it doesn't give the  computer controlled character any new information. As an example the section mentions a game where a computer controlled racing car gets a speed bonus. This bonus is not related to AI and it doesn't not belong to an article about "Game artificial intelligence". I suggest that the section about "rubberband AI" is moved to a separate article called "rubberband bonus".  nielsle  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.150.116.99 (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There once was such an article but it was merged in here (I think mistakenly because it was called "rubberband AI").  I've rewritten it to be about information. Dynamic game difficulty balancing seems to broadly cover the rubber band effects. —Mrwojo (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the rubberband AI section have anything to do with AI? 

message: I've always heard rubberband AI to mean that the computer gets harder as you get better, i.e., the harder you pull the harder it pulls back; this is not necessarily cheating AI.
This is common in family games where if I child plays, the computer lets up until it is ridiculously easy. But if a halfway intelligent adult plays, the computer starts playing harder to compensate, so that the game is properly challenging for all skill levels (in theory, anyway). This can be achieved though some computer chicanery, but cheating is not required.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sim (talk • contribs) 22:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This section was merged into the article and I don't think they realized that AI in this sense meant "computer opponent", as in "The AI has twice as many hit points."  I've since rewritten this section to touch on omniscience and pointed the redirects to dynamic game difficulty balancing which is what the rubber band effect is. —Mrwojo (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rubberband AI 

message: "GoldenEye 007 ... was one of the first FPSs to use AI that would react to players' movements and actions as well as taking cover ..."
Mech Warrior?  Doom?  Quake?  Didn't these earlier games have AI that did just that?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.106.85 (talk • contribs) 
:I've removed this from the article. Presumably the earliest chess AI reacted to players' actions. The history that followed was also mostly a narrow list of rules added to FPS games, so I've removed those as well.  —Mrwojo (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the game examples in the History section accurate?  

message: I've gone through and deleted some material that was blatantly inaccurate or off-topic. As you can see from the above comments these issues have plagued this article for years. The "Cheating AI" section was (dynamic) game balance; it's now reflecting its source (the Scott article) which only talks about omniscience, illusion of intelligence, and "what feels right". —Mrwojo (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: User 2.125.207.207 vandalized the History section on October 10, 2011 at 15:18. I may not have time to fix it for 1 to 2 weeks. Maybe someone can fix it sooner.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mschribr (talk • contribs) 02:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: "In video games, artificial intelligence is used to produce the illusion of intelligence primarily in the behavior of non-player characters (NPCs)."
I didn't want to change this page without discussion, but I did want to voice an objection to the first sentence in which it is stated that artificial intelligence in games produces only “the illusion of intelligence.” As it now stands, I see this sentence as being in violation of NPOV, as It currently makes assumptions about intelligence and whether computer games are capable of reproducing it. 
Since AI exists in so many other arenas, it's hard to see why games would remain stubbornly immune to it, especially as they are rapidly becoming more and more sophisticated. I also think video games are a good way for the average person as well as aspiring developers to interact with and start thinking about AI, so dismissing it out of hand in games is a little irresponsible. 
I think a more neutral statement about AI in games would be that “artificial intelligence is used to reproduce a specific subset of behaviors that are commonly associated with human intelligence."TimMagic (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't NPOV, this is what 99% of video games are besides very specialized examples. If anything, this article talks more about specialized AI than common in-game agents. Your correction implies that AIs actually implement human-like behaviors, rather than simulating it. Video games have nowhere near the resources necessary to simulate real-time behaviors that would be considered strong AI even in part. That's not to mention there is no incentive to do so when simple rule-based design produces realistic behavior with significantly less effort (and within actual budgets and deadlines). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that "Video games have nowhere near the resources necessary to simulate real-time behaviors." A great deal of resources are not necessary.  Terry Winograd's SHRDLU, created in 1970, showed an impressive "understanding" of its micro world of virtual blocks with only a tiny fraction of the resources that are available to today's game programmers, to the degree that it could understand a command like "pick up anything green, at least three of the blocks, and either a box or a sphere which is bigger than any brick on the table," or variations on similar commands that had never been posed to it before, and carry them out. Today's video games only need an "understanding" of a similarly small world. The sentence in question on this article assumes that intelligence can be precisely defined, but this is actually a very hard thing to do.  The common definition of intelligence as "the ability to solve problems" falls apart when applied to computers, which are very good at solving problems, at least of a very narrow type. My correction may imply something that is not 100% correct, but that's better than flat out stating something that is incorrect or at least is merely an assumption. TimMagic (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm merely telling you how things are actually done in the industry. If you disagree, then you need to provide sources to support your changes. I'm not saying the current wording is the best, but it matches the practice (see "Views" section). The bottom line is that video games never have and won't have strong AI anytime soon. Best popular example so far has been Black & White in approaching actual AI algorithms. Everything else may appear intelligent, but is pretty much linear at its core. Saying anything but "simulates" human-like behavior would be inaccurate.  "true artificial intelligence is rare."  "Despite significant technological advances in gaming over the past decade, one area of games is still largely bereft of any meaningful innovation: artificial intelligence"  "AI has been given relatively short shrift in the mainstream gaming space"  "Even the best games of recent years have been criticised for their unimpressive AI"  "AI problems will still exist in the future, especially when it's prominent currently" etc. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  AI researcher Rodney Brooks complained in 2002 that "There's this stupid myth out there that AI has failed, but AI is around you every second of the day ... Every time you play a video game, you're playing against an AI system." In WIRED 10.03, "This is not some hopelessly optimistic sci-fi scenario from 20 years ago. It is reality. Consumer-grade artificial intelligence is alive and well in the world of games." If the sentence in question read,  artificial intelligence is used to simulate a specific subset of behaviors that are commonly associated with human intelligence" it still wouldn't be perfect but it would be less objectionable. As it stands now, it merely expresses an opinion, not a fact.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimMagic (talk • contribs) 01:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It may appear like an opinion to you, but in reality it is very true to the practice. If anything, "human-like" is an opinion, as not every game has "human-like" behavior. Anyway, I expanded the lead a bit to include it all. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, all AI isn't strong AI. Making that identification is a mistake. Note that even a simple path finding algorithm is considered AI. —Kri (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illusion of intelligence? 

message: What does "video games with acclaimed AI" mean in this context? Surely, it can't mean what it says, since AI is used in some form in practically every game that features computer controlled agents (entities). So, what does it really mean? Does it mean that the listed games claim to make use of machine learning? —Kri (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Video games with acclaimed AI" section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Artificial intelligence (video games). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110219183426/http://radoff.com:80/blog/2011/02/17/emergent-intelligence-games/ to http://radoff.com/blog/2011/02/17/emergent-intelligence-games/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110102030422/http://archives.igda.org:80/ai/ to http://archives.igda.org/ai/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070520232449/http://www.aiwisdom.com:80/ to http://www.aiwisdom.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Artificial intelligence (video games). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808052149/http://aida.ii.uam.es/teaching/videojuegos/wp-content/uploads/course_files_12_13/gameAI.pdf to http://aida.ii.uam.es/teaching/videojuegos/wp-content/uploads/course_files_12_13/gameAI.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://archives.igda.org/ai/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aiwisdom.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why not add more examples for current AI video games, such as VR stations or Alpha Go, which had won lots of top-notched Go players in recent years. These new examples can show much progress that was completed by human brains. Junwei Sheng (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The primary focus of the article is "responsive, adaptive or intelligent behaviors primarily in non-player characters (NPCs) similar to human-like intelligence". Computer Go should remain in the article as a link to our existing substantive articles on these topics. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

text: NPC behavior in newer videogames can certainly be added, if you can find strong WP:SECONDARY WP:RS on the topic. You might have to wade through a lot of hype and recycled press releases (churnalism) to find something good though. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Examples for Current AI Video Games 

message: — Assignment last updated by Stevesuny (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Digital Media and Information in Society

message: Hi, sorry to bother anyone if they are still present on this page. I just wanted to float the idea by for a possible addition to this article about AI art and narrative. It could possibly be added in Uses in games beyond NPC. I have some summarized idea with sources that I could add talking about how generative AI could possibly be the next step in video games or how it could be used in the future. 
I would also like to clarify that this is for a class assignment so I understand if anyone would rather me not to add or edit anything, I just want to reach out and ask before doing anything. Reese02 (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Entry on Art 

message: I came here to read the article, and I think the first sentence subtly misuses a gaming term, so I'll share my nitpick here.
While every character in a game that is not playable could technically be described as a non playable character, the term NPC in gaming culture usually refers to non-enemy characters, that interact with the player via dialogue and possibly give quests or offer services like buying and selling items. But when I think about AI in games, I think first and foremost of enemies or opponents whose behavior is a core component of the game, while NPCs in most games are content just standing in a spot or walking around. Of course sometimes NPCs have complex behaviors, but that's the exception not the norm. Hence I feel saying that AI is found "primarily in NPCs" sounds wrong, it sounds like it's written by someone removed from video game culture (even if that's not the case) and doesn't make me want to read the rest of the article.
And if we accept that AI is concerned primarily with enemies, it proceeds that a lot of AI scripts don't try to imitate human intelligence, rather they aim for animal-like or "monster-like" behaviors. I mean the main, broader goal of AI in games is not to imitate human behavior, rather it's to have believable, interesting and challenging enemies, be they human or not. I think this should be emphasized more in the intro of the article, rather than leaving room for a reader to confuse video game AI with other types of AI that really aim to simulate human behavior.
The sentence is not wrong but too specific because AI in games is broader than human-like NPCs.
For references here it is: "In video games, artificial intelligence (AI) is used to generate responsive, adaptive or intelligent behaviors primarily in non-playable characters (NPCs) similar to human-like intelligence" Jandrdr (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on the first sentence 

message: — Assignment last updated by Indigo397 (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Technical Writing