Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

But seriously they look like they're basically a new specie in everything but the name. I wonder why they chosen to name them Kobolds.

IIRC the Kobolds of myth are invisible household spirits, nothing to do with the reptilian DnD race.

I heard they're german ore spirits, representing impurities.
They're also were the name "cobalt" comes from!  So I like them just for that.  Cobalt-tinted glass and plastic is the best hue.

[UXLZ]

I am using the definition of the word used in Game Theory. This strikes me as being quite appropriate to use in a discussion about game systems and AI.

Citation needed.

This is just not true. For example, against a perfect tic-tac-toe AI, it is impossible for you to win. Tic Tac Toe is a Solved Game.

A perfect AI is something that cannot exist. In fact, anything dealing with perfection tends to be in that regard. At least, 'true' perfection.

Prove to me that the "possibility of a human beating an AI is incredibly low". Without a complete solution, there may always be unknowns you just don't know about yet e.g. there may be some unutilised anti-computer tactic that has yet to be discovered, or some flaw in the heuristics used in deciding a move we have yet to find.

These potential strategies that may or may not exist is the reason why saying it is impossible to say it is impossible to beat Chess AI.

I didn't even say impossible there tnt, I said 'incredibly low'. I'll redraw the statement that it is 'impossible' (at least by the strictest definition of the term), however, you can't argue against the fact that currently there... Are no recorded instances of a human beating the currently top-level Chess AI.

Can you even prove to me that humans are currently capable of beating top level Chess AI?
Currently, not taking into account techniques that we don't know about and may or may not actually exist.

[alexandertnt]

I am using the definition of the word used in Game Theory. This strikes me as being quite appropriate to use in a discussion about game systems and AI.

Citation needed.

This one's pretty good Should also help clarify the last point in my post.

A perfect AI is something that cannot exist.

A perfect tic-tac-toe AI would be an AI which plays perfectly. They most certainly can and do exist.

I didn't even say impossible there tnt, I said 'incredibly low'.

I am aware. Only the first paragraph was in direct response to your quote. The second paragraph is just clearing up the general (incorrect) idea that something is impossible because it has not yet been observed.

Can you even prove to me that humans are currently capable of beating top level Chess AI?

Something being possible only means something could be true, not that something is necessarily true. I can prove the statement "It is possible that a human can beat a current computer AI" by simply pointing out what I have pointed out before (chess is not solved, and thus strategies may still exist) and by pointing out that not everybody has played against these AI.

[Virtz]

It is possible to predict every possible move and game state in chess, though, so it's really simple compared to most computer strategy games where the number of possible states is either several hundred magnitudes higher or even infinite.

The AI for chess can basically brute force the game by predicting every possible outcome from the current state and picking a path that gives it the best result. The only real variable to consider is the assumption of whether the other player is gonna pick the optimal path for themselves (and thus make the path leading to a draw the most desirable). That's hardly a good show of AI.

[GreatJustice]

Yeah, at least for a computer, chess is much less complex than a strategy game simply because of the amount of variables involved (resource locations, optimal build patterns that it can't necessarily ascertain without cheating or "guessing", every possible matchup between different factions) is orders of magnitude higher. Chess has a relatively limited number of "states" compared to nearly any strategy game on the market. Mind, the AI has a certain number of built in advantages in an RTS at least (for example, near-perfect micromanagement), but those advantages can only go so far.

Now so far as "perfect chess AI" goes, it's really trivial to check whether modern chess AI is realistically unbeatable; take all the best AIs and pit them together in a round robin tournament. If all the results are ties, or if all the results from the "best" AIs include no losses, then they're basically unbeatable.

[TBeholder]

I guess this complaint includes more than just video games, but I absolutely hate it when a fantasy game limit itself to the few standard fantasy races, and even more when they are given their even more generic personalities. What I really hate about it is not their concept but rather the fact that they were so massively overused. Even worse to me when a game try to pretend to be imaginative by adding a single new race which is presented as "different" or "unique" while being basically a human with one or two main differences and having a culture that is blatantly a rip-off from a real life civilization (Minor variation of another fantasy races also counts). I'd love to actually see some creativity from the genre that is supposed to be all about creativity.

Seeing standard races being interpreted differently is a step in the right direction, but I don't think it's enough.

Also posting again to state how much I agree with this.

I am peeved by the fact that different races are almost always just humans but stout (dwarf), or tall (elf) etc. And that these are now "the" races in fantasy. How boring!

The unfortunate result of madmen running the asylum.
In that when there is a story, an average "developer" is going to be at best tolkienist, and at worst trekkie - and either way, writes what amounts to an "original character Donut Steel" fanfic. And when there's no story, it's going to be just a plain rip-off. 9/10 of the stuff within 2-3 first Sturgeon law's tiers, anyway.

Other cultures are almost always just some generic ancient culture. So you end up with tall blonde Aztec's, for example.

That's if the authors can tell their own butts from their shoulders... If not, it's going to be Mayincatec, Ancient Grome and Chinampan.

Also the fact that people from those other races almost uniformly fit a single culture.

Space operas have it much worse: a Planet of Hats is the same one-note, but, y'know, a flippin' planet.
Games usually don't need "one! more! plot!" and thus random cheese gratings on top, or even as many details - so they are ostensibly worse, but in essence the same, since the "lolrandum" layer is knee-deep for a flea anyway.
Except RPG, those combine patches of "hats" and "lolrandum" (like Neverwinters Nights).

[Sergarr]

It is possible to predict every possible move and game state in chess, though, so it's really simple compared to most computer strategy games where the number of possible states is either several hundred magnitudes higher or even infinite.

The AI for chess can basically brute force the game by predicting every possible outcome from the current state and picking a path that gives it the best result. The only real variable to consider is the assumption of whether the other player is gonna pick the optimal path for themselves (and thus make the path leading to a draw the most desirable). That's hardly a good show of AI.

Yeah, at least for a computer, chess is much less complex than a strategy game simply because of the amount of variables involved (resource locations, optimal build patterns that it can't necessarily ascertain without cheating or "guessing", every possible matchup between different factions) is orders of magnitude higher. Chess has a relatively limited number of "states" compared to nearly any strategy game on the market. Mind, the AI has a certain number of built in advantages in an RTS at least (for example, near-perfect micromanagement), but those advantages can only go so far.

Now so far as "perfect chess AI" goes, it's really trivial to check whether modern chess AI is realistically unbeatable; take all the best AIs and pit them together in a round robin tournament. If all the results are ties, or if all the results from the "best" AIs include no losses, then they're basically unbeatable.

See, that's what I was calling before when I've said that the development of Chess AI has majorly distorted and diminished the development of other games AI. Chess is a highly unique game where every turn matters sharply, but there is a highly limited number of turns you can make. Most other games are the exact opposite of that - not every turn matters as much as it does in chess, but the total available number of turns is nigh-infinite. It requires a completely different type of AI - a planning AI, which would use logic to derive the best course of action and plan for things ahead. But because of Chess dominating the game AI field from early on and to the present day we get stupid AI that needs cheats to even begin to challenge the human.

And the saddest part is that people somehow think that this is normal and the computers who can perform millions of logic operations per second and keep millions of concepts in its operative memory at the same time should not be able to challenge humans who can perform maybe a few dozen (if you're a genius) and keep even less

[Krevsin]

Stupid generic fantasy races
I guess this complaint includes more than just video games, but I absolutely hate it when a fantasy game limit itself to the few standard fantasy races, and even more when they are given their even more generic personalities. What I really hate about it is not their concept but rather the fact that they were so massively overused. Even worse to me when a game try to pretend to be imaginative by adding a single new race which is presented as "different" or "unique" while being basically a human with one or two main differences and having a culture that is blatantly a rip-off from a real life civilization (Minor variation of another fantasy races also counts). I'd love to actually see some creativity from the genre that is supposed to be all about creativity.

Seeing standard races being interpreted differently is a step in the right direction, but I don't think it's enough.

Also posting again to state how much I agree with this.

I am peeved by the fact that different races are almost always just humans but stout (dwarf), or tall (elf) etc. And that these are now "the" races in fantasy. How boring!

Other cultures are almost always just some generic ancient culture. So you end up with tall blonde Aztec's, for example.

Also the fact that people from those other races almost uniformly fit a single culture. So every single stout person will be honourable, hardworking and devoted to a single God, for example, and exceptions will be rare if there are even any.

This. So much of this.

Also, there never seems to be anything even remotely resembling popular culture with any of the different races, mostly just "legends of old" and "prophecies", like their culture has basically stagnated for the past thousand or so years.

[Shadowlord]

http://www.wowwiki.com/Elite_Tauren_Chieftain

The band's virtual alter ego, The Tauren Chieftains, appear in World of Warcraft as a band comprised of members of the Horde, and retain the logo used by the Level 70 Elite incarnation of the real-life band.

[Culise]

But seriously they look like they're basically a new specie in everything but the name. I wonder why they chosen to name them Kobolds.

IIRC the Kobolds of myth are invisible household spirits, nothing to do with the reptilian DnD race.

I heard they're german ore spirits, representing impurities.
They're also were the name "cobalt" comes from!  So I like them just for that.  Cobalt-tinted glass and plastic is the best hue.

Ah, indeed.  I'd heard only of the household spirits before, but it looks like there are three kinds from glancing into it: ones that help in houses, help in mines, and help on ships.  It's a little interesting to see that Suikoden represents them as dog-like as well, though; another anime (Petite Princess Yucie) had probably the only other dog-like kobolds that I've ever seen before.  I know a lot of people say early D&D (AD&D and before) had more dog-like kobolds before the whole draconic make-over, but I never really saw it all that much.  That might just have been because of the art in those old books, though.

[FArgHalfnr]

I guess this complaint includes more than just video games, but I absolutely hate it when a fantasy game limit itself to the few standard fantasy races, and even more when they are given their even more generic personalities. What I really hate about it is not their concept but rather the fact that they were so massively overused. Even worse to me when a game try to pretend to be imaginative by adding a single new race which is presented as "different" or "unique" while being basically a human with one or two main differences and having a culture that is blatantly a rip-off from a real life civilization (Minor variation of another fantasy races also counts). I'd love to actually see some creativity from the genre that is supposed to be all about creativity.

Seeing standard races being interpreted differently is a step in the right direction, but I don't think it's enough.

Also posting again to state how much I agree with this.

I am peeved by the fact that different races are almost always just humans but stout (dwarf), or tall (elf) etc. And that these are now "the" races in fantasy. How boring!

The unfortunate result of madmen running the asylum.
In that when there is a story, an average "developer" is going to be at best tolkienist, and at worst trekkie - and either way, writes what amounts to an "original character Donut Steel" fanfic. And when there's no story, it's going to be just a plain rip-off. 9/10 of the stuff within 2-3 first Sturgeon law's tiers, anyway.

Other cultures are almost always just some generic ancient culture. So you end up with tall blonde Aztec's, for example.

That's if the authors can tell their own butts from their shoulders... If not, it's going to be Mayincatec, Ancient Grome and Chinampan.

Also the fact that people from those other races almost uniformly fit a single culture.

Space operas have it much worse: a Planet of Hats is the same one-note, but, y'know, a flippin' planet.
Games usually don't need "one! more! plot!" and thus random cheese gratings on top, or even as many details - so they are ostensibly worse, but in essence the same, since the "lolrandum" layer is knee-deep for a flea anyway.
Except RPG, those combine patches of "hats" and "lolrandum" (like Neverwinters Nights).

Yes, most space operas seems unable to make anything that is not a human with a different skin color and maybe some pointy ears if they feel risky (I'll give credit to mass effect for doing something unique, even thought I'd love to see a specie that isn't humanoid). This annoys the hell out of me . I know it would be hard for the audience to sympathize with something completely different to us but goddammit I can't believe they can't come up with something at least slightly original. Giving a single personality to an entire specie is also annoying. I know it's hard to imagine a culture completely different to ours and make a diverse set of personalities out of it but a single mold for an entire civilization is just plain lazy.

[notquitethere]

The mass effect jellyfish people weren't humanoid, nor were the heavy quadrepeds. Neither were playable characters though.

[Shadowlord]

specie

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Neonivek]

Stupid generic fantasy races
I guess this complaint includes more than just video games, but I absolutely hate it when a fantasy game limit itself to the few standard fantasy races, and even more when they are given their even more generic personalities. What I really hate about it is not their concept but rather the fact that they were so massively overused. Even worse to me when a game try to pretend to be imaginative by adding a single new race which is presented as "different" or "unique" while being basically a human with one or two main differences and having a culture that is blatantly a rip-off from a real life civilization (Minor variation of another fantasy races also counts). I'd love to actually see some creativity from the genre that is supposed to be all about creativity.

Seeing standard races being interpreted differently is a step in the right direction, but I don't think it's enough.

Also posting again to state how much I agree with this.

I am peeved by the fact that different races are almost always just humans but stout (dwarf), or tall (elf) etc. And that these are now "the" races in fantasy. How boring!

Other cultures are almost always just some generic ancient culture. So you end up with tall blonde Aztec's, for example.

Also the fact that people from those other races almost uniformly fit a single culture. So every single stout person will be honourable, hardworking and devoted to a single God, for example, and exceptions will be rare if there are even any.

Naw I am a huge fan of "generic" in almost everything and there are reasons they are used so much. Often the reason they have only one unique race is because by having these generic ones everyone is on the same page and they don't need to expound on everyone else.

The "bad" part is that they make the "generic" races incredibly boring... often just making a race entirely contained in "What they can do".

Skyrim is a big example of this because you could play the entire game and not even realize there are distinctions, socially, between the different races... There is in fact almost a boring amount of intermingling.

[GreatJustice]

Oh hey, I thought of something actually

Diminishing Value of Elites/Commanders

When you encounter groups of enemies composed entirely of "Elites" (eg. Elite Guards) in random circumstances in which you would expect them to be doing something more useful. Even worse is when enemies with higher ranks just start appearing in groups, so suddenly you have to fight a squad of "Enemy Captain"s and their grunts aren't even mixed in. Worse than that is when this all occurs due to level scaling, so after a point you'll only ever seen "Elite Bandits/Bandit Chiefs" travelling in packs with good equipment, and when you see a battle it'll inexplicably be composed entirely of officers.

I suppose a sister-peeve of this is that tendency to just use a higher rank or position as a shorthand for "stronger and better equipped". As if the US could have won WW2 faster if they personally sent their strongest soldiers, Eisenhower, Bradley and Patton, straight into battle where they would inexplicably be more durable and deadly.