Depends if you define game ais as “agents”, otherwise your definition of game only allows multiplayer games.
AIs are agents when they have their own utility to maximize that differs from other agents (including the player).
their “win condition” is overwhelming you with dirt and hiding it in weird places.
Is that a thing? Does the map create more dirt as a function of the player’s actions? Does the player need to account for this and adjust their strategy to counter it? That would change my categorization, yes.
coop breaks your definition too
It depends. If all players have the same motive and there are no competing agents, then it’s a simulation. If players have different motives, then it’s a game. If players compete against AI agents, then it’s a game.
I’m arguing that if the size of K_a==1 then it’s not a game, but that page is generous:
For games with a single coalition of action, the set of all situations may be taken to be the set of strategies of this unique coalition of action, and no further mention is made of strategies. Such games are therefore called non-strategic games. All remaining games, those with two or more coalitions of action, are called strategic games.
Which would include a person standing in a room doing nothing as a game. I’m saying that’s not a game, hope we agree lol.
I understand now you’re focused on an academic definition in the game theory sense, personally I don’t think this has much utility in considering actual games, but I’ll acknowledge that by that definition you’re probably correct. I suspect by that most “AIs” in games wouldn’t pass the bar of counting as an agent, even generous definitions that would accept a flow chart would probably concider most AIs to be part of the game state rather than another player (eg the nazi soldiers in wolfenstein aren’t playing to win, they’re set dressing for you to kill). The opponents in Civ are more likely to count as agents perhaps.
Yeah, certainly, sorry if that wasn’t clear. Up above I tried to stipulate that I was speaking from a game theory perspective.
And yeah, you can model the AI in a game in whichever way is most useful. I said as long as they have utility functions that differ from the player(s), but then you also can recursively define games in terms of winning games.
Ex. the famous case of the US deliberately losing battles to not give away that they had cracked the German cipher. Each battle could be modeled as a game, and the war could be modeled in terms of battles.
Similarly, a single room in wolfenstein could present an contained “game”, the outcome of which is applicable to which ending you get in the larger “game” (I haven’t played it), and thus the AI would be agents at one level, but state/strategy at another.
AIs in games are just flow charts, that’s almost universally true, almost nobody has put an actual maximiser in a game. But I suppose maybe that counts if you’re feeling very generous.
The map in pressure wash simulator is certainly not dynamic as you describe, I was speaking a little sarcastically, but you could call it asynchronous gameplay, it was crafted by the developer anticipating your play. but no, it cannot respond to the players actual decisions.
almost nobody has put an actual maximiser in a game.
Turn based games would certainly have one. Generally it’s easier to create an AI that maximizes utility for the AI, it’s more difficult to tune it to not trounce the player lol.
This reminds me of how L4D does have that sort of indirect dynamic AI that spawns zombies based on the player’s behavior. If the players have a lot of ammo and health, or are going too slow, the game cranks up the threat. If you’re barely hanging on, the game holds back. I guess that’s not quite adversarial though, more like the AI is trying to maximize the players’ perception of a fun/fair challenge.
AIs are agents when they have their own utility to maximize that differs from other agents (including the player).
Is that a thing? Does the map create more dirt as a function of the player’s actions? Does the player need to account for this and adjust their strategy to counter it? That would change my categorization, yes.
It depends. If all players have the same motive and there are no competing agents, then it’s a simulation. If players have different motives, then it’s a game. If players compete against AI agents, then it’s a game.
The formal definition of a game is:
K_a, {x_K}K∈K_a, x,K_i, {≻K}K∈K_iI’m arguing that if the size of
K_a==1then it’s not a game, but that page is generous:Which would include a person standing in a room doing nothing as a game. I’m saying that’s not a game, hope we agree lol.
I understand now you’re focused on an academic definition in the game theory sense, personally I don’t think this has much utility in considering actual games, but I’ll acknowledge that by that definition you’re probably correct. I suspect by that most “AIs” in games wouldn’t pass the bar of counting as an agent, even generous definitions that would accept a flow chart would probably concider most AIs to be part of the game state rather than another player (eg the nazi soldiers in wolfenstein aren’t playing to win, they’re set dressing for you to kill). The opponents in Civ are more likely to count as agents perhaps.
Yeah, certainly, sorry if that wasn’t clear. Up above I tried to stipulate that I was speaking from a game theory perspective.
And yeah, you can model the AI in a game in whichever way is most useful. I said as long as they have utility functions that differ from the player(s), but then you also can recursively define games in terms of winning games.
Ex. the famous case of the US deliberately losing battles to not give away that they had cracked the German cipher. Each battle could be modeled as a game, and the war could be modeled in terms of battles.
Similarly, a single room in wolfenstein could present an contained “game”, the outcome of which is applicable to which ending you get in the larger “game” (I haven’t played it), and thus the AI would be agents at one level, but state/strategy at another.
AIs in games are just flow charts, that’s almost universally true, almost nobody has put an actual maximiser in a game. But I suppose maybe that counts if you’re feeling very generous.
The map in pressure wash simulator is certainly not dynamic as you describe, I was speaking a little sarcastically, but you could call it asynchronous gameplay, it was crafted by the developer anticipating your play. but no, it cannot respond to the players actual decisions.
Turn based games would certainly have one. Generally it’s easier to create an AI that maximizes utility for the AI, it’s more difficult to tune it to not trounce the player lol.
This reminds me of how L4D does have that sort of indirect dynamic AI that spawns zombies based on the player’s behavior. If the players have a lot of ammo and health, or are going too slow, the game cranks up the threat. If you’re barely hanging on, the game holds back. I guess that’s not quite adversarial though, more like the AI is trying to maximize the players’ perception of a fun/fair challenge.