GAME JOBS
Contents
The Technology of F.E.A.R. 2: An Interview on Engine and AI Development
 
 
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
 
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
June 7, 2013
 
Social Point
Senior Game Developer
 
Treyarch / Activision
Senior Environment Artist
 
Sony Computer Entertainment America - Santa Monica
Senior Staff Programmer
 
Sony Computer Entertainment America - Santa Monica
Sr Game Designer
 
Trendy Entertainment
Gameplay Producer
 
Trendy Entertainment
Technical Producer
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
June 7, 2013
 
Tenets of Videodreams, Part 3: Musicality
 
Post Mortem: Minecraft Oakland
 
Free to Play: A Call for Games Lacking Challenge [2]
 
Cracking the Touchscreen Code [4]
 
10 Business Law and Tax Law Steps to Improve the Chance of Crowdfunding Success
spacer
About
spacer Editor-In-Chief:
Kris Graft
Blog Director:
Christian Nutt
Senior Contributing Editor:
Brandon Sheffield
News Editors:
Mike Rose, Kris Ligman
Editors-At-Large:
Leigh Alexander, Chris Morris
Advertising:
Jennifer Sulik
Recruitment:
Gina Gross
Education:
Gillian Crowley
 
Contact Gamasutra
 
Report a Problem
 
Submit News
 
Comment Guidelines
 
Blogging Guidelines
Sponsor
Features
  The Technology of F.E.A.R. 2: An Interview on Engine and AI Development
by Christian Nutt [Design, Programming, Interview]
1 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
December 19, 2008 Article Start Previous Page 3 of 6 Next
 

And the same thing, when it comes to deciding what features you're going to update, it must be driven very much by practical considerations, as much as it is driven by a blue sky of what you'd like to see. How do you prioritize?

JO: One: Where do we want to be as a company; what do we want to own? And we have to have that in order to deal with larger types of investments, such as, for example, if we really want to own AI, we need a large AI staff, and we need to do years and years of development which is impractical for a single game title. So we need to have an understanding of long-term priorities, and road maps.



And then we try to identify games, and make sure that our priorities are in line with that, and meet the priorities of the game -- which systems are causing us the most pain -- and come up with, basically, a list, and do what we can; match the resources to them. So it's pretty practically-based, but there are a lot of factors that go into deciding it.

All of the titles that you've been developing recently, and also in terms of your company's history, for the most part seem to be first person titles. How much of that is a priority in terms of your technology, and how much of that is just a priority in terms of your company's overall core competency and what people like to make?

JO: I'd say primarily core competency. There are some differences in technology between, say, first and third person games, but not a huge amount, so we are looking to expand out in the future a little bit more. But, you know, we've made pretty good first person shooters; that's what people keep paying us to make. So, we haven't really had to break the mold too much, in terms of that, and, you know, if you're good at something, stick with it...

The biggest chunk of features on the list you provided about the engine is graphics-oriented.

JO: The main reason for that is that it tended to be what people care about and see. There's a huge number of underlying system things, like memory management, performance tracking, streaming, threading, etcetera, but people generally don't see those, and therefore, you know, out of sight, out of mind.

Do you guys do any data-mining on gameplay, to find out how users are interacting with the game -- either from a playtest perspective, or even in the retail product?

JO: We do. We do in the play test; we don't do any in the retail right now. It's something we've been doing over the past year or two, and it's a really great trend in the industry. There's a huge amount of information to be had, and some of it is so obvious once you have the data sitting right in front of you, but can be so difficult to spot when you're just not looking for it.

Tracking things like player death, when they use health packs, where they shoot, damage. We track a whole bunch of other stuff that is recorded during playtesting, and then we can analyze that information.

We have an on-site play test lab, and they do a lot of really interesting stuff, where they record the people, they ask them questions, have them fill out their excitement level at different stages, and stuff like that; and over time, you get very, very clear graphs of fun. It's turning fun into a relatively objective data point. And we've been able to use that to really make the game quite a bit better.

It's kind of funny, but I think that's true; it sounds a little weird when you say that -- "turning fun into an objective data point" -- but I think there's definitely an element of that. It's becoming clear that fun is something that you craft, so of course there's logical improvements to it. I mean, the initial spark of inspiration, or great ideas, drive the creativity of a product, but it's the ability to actually tweak and improve it that can turn it into something really special.

JO: And I still think there's a key difference in the type of stimulus you can receive from a game, whether that's intellectual creativity, or adrenaline-pumping excitement, but once you get down to that, there's obviously some very clear cut ways to measure that, and to determine if you're succeeding in them.

 
Article Start Previous Page 3 of 6 Next
 
Top Stories

image
How Kinect's brute force strategy could make Xbox One a success
image
Microsoft's official stance on used games for Xbox One
image
Gearbox's Randy Pitchford on games and gun violence
image
Why you can't trade items in MMOs anymore
Comments

Zachary Myers
profile image
" 'There are a lot of complicated issues there, whether it's how effective they are, how effective they aren't -- intentionally, or accidentally.',



MR: Yeah. I mean, one of the main problems is that it's difficult for the AI system to understand the verbs of the player, or player intent, you know? There are some games -- I feel like Rainbow Six does it particularly well, and we do too -- if you narrow the focus of the engagement, so that pretty much the only thing you can do is stand on one side of the environment and fight the AI on the other side... then it becomes very successful, because the AI really knows what the player is trying to do: he's trying to kill the bad guys. "



This completely reminds me of Chris Crawford's essay "How to Build an Inverse Parser." Limiting the possibilities and showing the player their options, is the simplest to program, and easier on the user too.


none
 
Comment:
 




UBM Tech