![halo 2 full halo 2 full](https://gamingdebates.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/halo-wars-2.png)
![halo 2 full halo 2 full](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UzDgCC4Iwxo/Vqf0KWaLGBI/AAAAAAAADGM/BLu1SymuabM/s1600/screenshot034_0_0.jpg)
As authors of behavior, one of our primary goals is to facilitate the on-going narrative that is taking place in our player's head: "oh, the grunt just ran away screaming because I pulled out my energy sword and it was scared, but when I had it cornered, it turned around and started fighting again".Īttaining both these goals - quantity on the one hand and what we might term behavioral integrity on the other - is a huge architectural challenge. In Halo 2, the AI works best when the player believes he is fighting a living breathing (evil) creature, and can respond to and predict that creature's actions accordingly. It is not enough that the AI be able to do it a lot of things, it is equally important that they do all those things right, at the right times, and in a way that does not break the illusion of life, or threaten the player's understanding of the AI's intentions or motivations. Quantity, of course, is complexity, especially when considered along with some of the other constraints that The Game forces upon us. In both styles of common sense however, the solution is the same: quantity. This is the knowledge that says that when you are sitting in a vehicle seat, you have to get out of the seat before you can walk through the door, or that in order to stop someone from shooting you, you need to move in order to place a large sturdy barrier between you and your attacker. For games, or at least for Halo 2, we are far less interested in encoding factual knowledge (birds have wings, water gets things wet) than we are in encoding behavior, which is perhaps a different sort of knowledge.