I think we’re coming back around to the practicality vs. complexity argument again. Having bots that simulate human emotion and feed that back into their playing is great if you’re doing a research project, or you want some fancy marketing to put on the back of the box, but it’s not very practical from a gameplay perspective. When playing online you never consider the other person’s mood and emotions because usually you can’t tell as you’re pumping them full of lead unless they’re crying about their recent break-up on teamspeak. Real humans base their decision making on thousands upon thousands of tiny inputs, too many to attempt simulating in AI. Perhaps you missed the bus and stepped in a puddle on your way home, so you’re in a bad mood, which affects your decision-making in some subtle way. Ultimately though, it boils down to:
- What is my opponent’s current tactic when fighting?
- How do I think they’ll respond if I take a certain action?
- How accurate are they?
Of course, team games like CTF, Onslaught, Assault etc. offer up a wealth of tactical opportunities which can be exploited (for example, waiting in ambush for the flag carrier rather than charging in, use of specific vehicles etc). However, this is less about emotion and more about your understanding of your opponent and how you think they’re likely to react to certain actions, planning ahead and deriving a prediction based on past experience. It’s nice to have bots that learn, but if you can achieve the same (or almost identical) effect with a fraction of the effort by pre-programming certain tactics instead, then that is clearly a better option when you’re developing a game.
This, I think, is why developers sometimes over-think things. The AI is part of the gameplay, and it should receive the same treatment as any other gameplay mechanic. It must fit with the rest of the design, should be lean (no superfluous features that have no impact on the player’s experience) and most of all, should be fun!