|
This post is a speculation on how Elizabeth, the fully AI controlled companion in Irrational’s upcoming BioShock Infinite, might be designed in ways that create new player experiences. It’s really just an exploration of AI companion design in general, but Elizabeth was chosen as a useful sort of hypothetical case study.
The following thought experiment, then, is based on these premises: A) a new kind of experience will be reached when co-op play with a fully AI controlled companion has the same level of camaraderie as multiplayer gaming with a friend; B) whereas AI companions are the weakest aspects of most games of similar genre, it is the very fact that the player has no direct control over Elizabeth which makes realizing Premise A possible.
BioShock was praised for bringing about ground-breaking ways to tell stories in games, but I think Infinite has the potential in Elizabeth to do more—much, much more. So, let’s see if we can extract some of what makes co-op feel like what it is, and picture how that might apply to an AI controlled companion.
1. Job Relegation
High level cooperative experiences demand job relegation. If we look at experiences like WoW or versus Left 4 Dead, we find an explicit recognition that certain classes are meant to do certain jobs, and the other classes are meant to be enablers and co-contributors to that job.
If, however, the only job is DPS (co-op campaign L4D, for instance, as opposed to versus L4D), it becomes a competition for who gets the most kills, the most pipes thrown out, burns all the gas cans, etc. Obviously, this is bad for our purposes—we don’t want the player to have to compete with, or feel like his agency has been robbed by, a bot.
Job relegation therefore allows each team member to anticipate what the other team members are going to do, which allows forward planning and deliberate cooperation. But more importantly, it lets players enjoy supporting experiences other than simply just DPS all the time. Notably, properly enabling another is half the fun of co-op.
2. Communication
Job relegation is about providing other players the agency space (or opportunity space) required to do their job. For example, if we think of health as agency space, threat management gives other classes the space to do their tasks; upkeep of the tank’s health allows him to continue generating threat; etc. Similarly, a Charger that knocks down a group of Survivors gives a Spitter the opportunity to inflict real damage; a well placed boom blinds the Survivors and gives a chance for a Jockey sneak a Survivor away; one incapacitation makes another incap more likely, which further facilitates another; etc.
The point of communication, then, is to alert each other as to when and how a player is about to create such spaces. Which is to say, communication largely comes down to knowing how a map is played, and reading/working with how other players are playing the map.
The reason why Elizabeth is a useful example here is her obvious prominence—her status as an equal partner—in Infinite's gameplay (at least, from what can be gathered). The vigors/nostrums system and the fact that Elizabeth’s powers evolve over time (i.e., possibly tailors to player tendencies) make real, player driven job relegation possible, and we can definitely expect highly tuned, opportunity rich maps for job relegation to take advantage of.
Plus, BioShock’s focus on narration through gameplay bodes well for the stated goals. A friend you play multiplayer with will never have his life threatened, but Elizabeth will. Obviously, the emotional connection with a friend will be different in substance and longevity, but, if the kinds of experiences found in BioShock are anything to go by, perhaps not very drastically in quality.
So the main difficulties lie in figuring out how to create such connections so that Elizabeth doesn’t feel like a dead weight that holds the player back (that is, like a game-long escort mission, or frustrating artificial inflation of difficulty), and in making “communication” really work.
Self-Expansion
Interestingly, the things that make job relegation so enjoyable are the same things that make relationships between married couples sustainable—at least according to this research on meaningful marriages and relationships.
Individuals use a relationship to accumulate knowledge and experiences, a process called “self-expansion.” Research shows that the more self-expansion people experience from their partner, the more committed and satisfied they are in the relationship.
From the same article, this process was descriptively called “the ‘Michelangelo effect,’ referring to the manner in which close partners ‘sculpt’ each other in ways that help each of them attain valued goals.”
In other words, self-expansion means that for assets that we are missing in ourselves, we look towards our partners to provide or help obtain (you might even read the term as “expanding the self through another”). It was found that the closer the emotional connection between a couple was, the longer it took for them to distinguish between characteristics belonging to oneself and those belonging to one’s partner.
All of this is to say that a significant portion of the multiplayer experience will be successfully recreated if the player begins to experience self-expansion through an AI controlled companion. (Think of the relationship between Joker and EDI in Mass Effect 2. Of course, we’re not going to have real AI, but that’s arguably not necessary, especially within a controlled environment and narrative.)
BioShock Infinite, as far as we know from available published information, lacks the respec ability provided by Gene Banks in BioShock. What this means is that the player’s ability to try out different classes or take on different roles within the same game is restricted. Subsequently, it also means that player tendencies expressed through the course of the game are likely to remain, which gives the opportunity to collect a statistics based database from which to tailor Elizabeth’s own evolution and reward player decisions over time.
The important thing to draw from the above is that as long as Elizabeth develops in a fashion which works closely with the player’s own development/investment pattern, the player will experience a substantially real relationship with her (of course, assuming that the character of Elizabeth is well written and well programmed—at least, as much as can be expected from a BioShock game). Elizabeth is then no longer just a detached and unrelated hanger-on that has nothing to do with the player’s build, she is now an integral asset, an enabler and co-conspirator in more ways than just “here is a thundercloud, now use it to strike lightning, regardless of whether or not that was your goal.”
Get Out of Jail Free Problem
Perhaps counter-intuitively, the thing that will make self-expansion seem more organic is to reduce the number of deus ex machina type situations, such as the raincloud and metal ball in the gameplay demo for BioShock Infinite. It appears from the demo that Elizabeth only brings out those skills after DeWitt has already been using their matching power. But the fact remains that they significantly reduce the challenge of the situation, which is not necessarily what the player actually wants.
We might also call this “the Fatman Problem.” When the player has access to something as powerful as the Fatman in Fallout 3, the player tends to refrain from using it. (This player tendency was actually discussed in the first episode of Irrational’s regular interview series, which featured Mr. Todd Howard.)
The tendency arises from two factors: 1) A game is less fun when there is less challenge to be won (that is, when there is less agency to be built), especially when the player is already acclimated to/expects a higher level of challenge (this is in the same way that a deus ex machina resolution to a story often feels cheap and unsatisfactory). 2) Game balance demands that overpowered devices such as the Fatman necessarily be restricted in number of uses, which reduces their presence in regular play. So much so that the Fatman does not figure into most player builds at all, which means that they become an intrusion into something the player has been fighting to establish throughout the course of the game.
Going back to the raincloud example in the gameplay demo, we can see that DeWitt is diligently using electro bolt/shotgun to try to stem the tide of incoming mobs. Elizabeth then appears and provides an essentially overpowered solution based on electro bolt. This means (unless the player was already expecting and waiting for that cloud) if the player wants to get his fill of the challenge, the player actually needs to stop what he is doing and switch out from electro bolt to something else.
If Elizabeth’s use of powers then has a physical or other type of cost (as is widely speculated), not only do we have a situation where the player’s game has been interrupted, we now have wasted resources on top of that, which together would seriously break any sort of self-expansion projected onto Elizabeth. A similar situation in multiplayer games would either be a complete breakdown in communication, or a failed depletion of opportunity space.
Actually, the get out of jail free card is not particularly a useful parallel to understand the above situation. Because the get out of jail free card relies partially on chance for its occurrence, without a hard limit on how many times it can occur, it has an illusion of being part of regular play.
With Elizabeth, we can’t resort to this type of randomization because this prevents reliable job relegation and communicative coordination (if the player herds a bunch of mobs expecting a raincloud only for Elizabeth not to use it, that becomes a serious breach of trust). Moreover, simply limiting the number of times she can use the raincloud by resource restriction has the effect of pulling it out of regular play (like the Fatman). So the trick is to figure out how to sensitively incorporate such abilities into regular play as an integral part of the player’s build without breaking game balance.
Part 2 will examine possible solutions to the problems explored in this post, from how we might implement job relegation through player investment, to how properly handling player initiated changes in pacing can help solve communication difficulties.
|
In that mode, I was playing as the Tyranid hero, equipped with an ability to summon a Tyrant Guard - a tough minion with a taunt ability - plus all of the powerups that upgrade your minions' toughness and health regeneration. This turns the Tyrant Guard into a nigh-indestructible tank, pulling a lot of fire away from the heroes.... except that sometimes the AI just doesn't bother to use the taunt ability, and the strategy collapses.
Basically, for good gameplay, the companion's behaviour must be predictable. For credible AI, the companion's behaviour must be unpredictable, or at least not obviously mechanical. Can there be any way to satify both requirements?
If the taunt ability belonged to a player, you could discuss your tactics in advance ("I'm going to charge in now, can you taunt to keep them off me?" "Give me a moment, I'm out of energy...") but how can an AI companion achieve that kind of dialogue?
It seems to me you can't help falling into one of three extremes - you either have:
1) an automaton with no free will - either it uses its abilities entirely predictably, or is completely under the player's control (like party members in RPGs) - in other words, don't even pretend to be intelligent.
2) a character with no gameplay relevance, except when scripted to do something by the level designer. (like allies in Call of Duty, and, probably, Elizabeth). Or -
3) an escort mission, with an AI character that just wanders around doing dumb things, but whose energy level you have to keep an eye on. Does anyone enjoy those?
Looking forward to your next installment. :)
Let’s do an anecdotal case study. My cat, as most pets usually are, is a creature of habit—she is very predictable. When she does something I predict she will do, she seems intelligent to me because she fulfills my expectations of doing what seems most appropriate for the situation. In fact, when she behaves erratically because she is faced with a wholly non-habitual circumstance, that is when her intelligence seems weakest and instinctual behavior strongest, because she is acting without perceivable patterns beyond reaction out of fear, caution, etc.
I love that she will come and sleep in my blankets on a cold night. That she will rub against me and protest vocally when she wants some food. But the whole point of this is that, because I so enjoy these behaviors, anthropomorphism and confirmation bias cause me to feel that they are sapient actions with intelligent motivations, even if they are really no less driven by instinct than her innate fear for my sister’s dog.
I won’t delve too much further, for now, but you can see where I’m going with this: confirmation bias is a strong force indeed. The argument, then, is that unpredictability is an asset for oppositional AI, but not necessarily for companion AI. I will try to develop this more fully in the next post.
1) Enslaved, Odyssey to the West - You play Monkey, re-enacting the Chinese tale by escorting the Tripitaka across hostile territory. You can order Trip to perform certain actions, such as advance forward while you distract enemies, or distract enemies for you to move, but Trip does not engage in combat. This is a single-player experience only, so Trip is always AI-controlled.
2) Majin and the Forsaken Kingdom - You play Majin, a thief, with a hulking guardian companion that becomes more powerful as the game progresses. Like Enslaved, this is a single-player experience, and you can command the guardian to perform actions such as shock/stunning all enemies in a radius around him. Without any explicit commands to stay still or open a door (for example), the AI guardian engages in combat alongside you.
3) Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light - You can play either character (by using a second controller), and another player can join in at any time. I have this game on my own personal backlog, so I haven't played it yet. But you can play through the entire game as Lara alone, without Toltec's help. There is no way to interact with the AI character unless you explicitly control it yourself, using a second controller.
All three of these examples are enjoyable in their own right, and all three represent differing AI player behaviors present in a co-op gameplay setting.
Plenty more examples are available, such as the ridiculously Siamese-twin-like "attached at the hip" Army of Two titles, but I can tell you from personal experience that the worst possible way to represent "co-op" gameplay is from Laurie's third example above: the escort mission.
Final Fantasy XI had dozens of these escort missions available, and they were all universally panned by players in-game. A typical escort mission would consist of you protecting a helpless AI character that had to perform X amount of actions in Y amount of time, with Z groups of enemies approaching at various intervals. Rewards were always underrepresented as is common for an MMORPG, and stakes typically high ("death" in FF11 meant losing some XP -- possibly de-levelling -- and failing the mission). Without a group of friends powerful enough, and willing to help, escort missions were almost always ignored by the in-game populace until much later, when the level cap raised and it became overly easy to complete the missions with humorously overpowered characters.
I'd better cut off my rambling here, as AI behavior is somewhat of a pet hobby of mine. Definitely going to keep an eye out for your next article!
Is the companion purely support class to the player's heavy lifting? Is the player himself just a mostly useless minion master whose agency lies almost solely in the companion? etc. (with GoL, Totec's ability is given to Laura in the single player so that he becomes unnecessary)
These considerations actually also apply to the Tyrant Guard example, and I will make an effort to explore them in the next post.
Obviously, in a modern version, AI could take over from absent players.
Indeed, with all players merely spectating there is no reason the game shouldn't continue as a demo.
With the sophistication of modern first person point of view games and a greater emphasis on cinematic storytelling the videogame could become a movie with the option to jump in when things looked interesting, perhaps with the aid of a friend when the going got tough and their presence in the room made you feel increasingly antisocial - much as I despise this convergence of qualitatively different media.
It would help if one player could assume the role of director, picking from a selection of split-screen camera views (a bit like the TV series "24"), although gamepads would need to have four analog sticks in order to implicitly shift from circling the character (Mario 64 style) to entering the back of the character's head to see through their eyes (Goldeneye 007 style) as the third-person camera stick's springs re-centred it as the right thumb switched to the first person look stick.
Two sticks would also be needed on the other side for heading relative move/strafe and compass oriented face direction and move according to amount of tilt. All face buttons would be moved underneath where the little and ring fingers of each hand naturally rest. D-pad is somewhat obsolete, but it could be moved to a central grip, N64-style. Motion sensing could take over the role of FPS look/aim with a pressure-sensitive trigger beneath the central grip. The larger size would leave plenty of room for rumble technology.
...or you could just leave things as they are!
With friends, there's vicarious enjoyment, and the stakes feel real. And, usually being satisfied with just watching someone play means you don't particularly have a desire to get ludically involved yourself. You are just enjoying the fun of watching a good performance.
But I think the stronger feeling if you're watching a de-personalized demonstration, especially if one actually wants to jump in and get involved, is the thought that one can do better--solve the game more effectively--than the demonstration. More competition than partnership, like beating a high score. I believe this makes it less likely for the viewer/player to suspend disbelief, which means AI in this situation will stick out like a sore thumb. Plus, it's hard to root for something you are mentally competing against.
*this is not an original idea, but I'm surprised it hasn't been thought of before:
http://kotaku.com/#!5309041/demo-play-coming-to-nintendo-handhelds
-Connotations of banishment and exile
-Connotations of corporate hierarchy/'buzz word'
Frankly, I'm torn.
EDIT TO ADD: The more I think about it, the more "relegation" makes sense to me in context.
"Delegate" as 'take care of this task of mine'
"Relegate" as 'this task is yours, not mine'
"Delegate" suggests acting as proxy/representative on behalf of another, as in its use as a noun. "Relegate" gives the impression of complete ownership of the assigned task in a more permanent sense.
Relegate:
Assign (a thing) _to_ an appropriate place or situation based on appraisal or classification.
"If the game gives me something that seems insanely powerful then there must be a challenge so difficult that I will need this crazy-ass weapon to overcome it." Aaaand then the game scales with the player's ability and no challenge seems to impart this kind of gravity we imagine.
Referring back to Laurie's DoW2 AI issue, this kind of randomly generated behaviour is usually an artifact from pen and paper games where this kind of dice-rolling created tension is appropriate, like rolling for reaction. I generally find that in most games that require a quick response - whether RTS or FPS (etc etc) randomly generated anything is usually a huge downer, because it can destroy so much player investment. Additionally it can make certain functionality seem broken.
I would also say that player abilities that are proc'd ("chance on hit," "chance on use"), for example, can work--but there definitely needs to be fine tuning in how often they are programmed to randomly occur, and absolutely made certain that they are balanced. Obviously, it's harder to ensure balance for these "special procedures" than for other skills since you need a much, much larger sample to overcome confirmation bias.
I remember playing the early Wing Commander games with AI wingmen where the leader board for kills was a fun competition. Sure, you were competing against AI, but I never felt that the AI wingmen getting "my" kills was ever a bad thing. In fact, it really made me feel like they were useful and perhaps even better than me at times. Food for thought.