[HourglassFR]

He has some interesting idea and is more than ready to share them with others, which is a respectable thing to do I agree. On the other hand, I find his models hilariously bad, e.g. :

> With Balance of Power, I could write a simple equation for the number of fighters who would join an insurgency against the government:

> `Fighters = Political Immaturity * Population * Previous Success of Insurgency`

> Here, `Political Immaturity` is a constant I defined for each country based on my estimate of how much people respected the rule of law.

I mean, come on…

[bartread]

Of course, but such simplifications are necessary given the limited power of typical 8- and 16-bit home computers of the time. And you don't need to do anything particularly advanced to create an engaging game, which Balance of Power is.

[mcv]

Of course you need to keep things simple on the hardware of that time. But still, I don't understand his complaint that nobody else followed in his footsteps; Europa Universalis has tons of calculations like that, all of them a lot more sophisticated than that. They're still massive simplifications of course, but I don't see how it's not a natural progression from his work in the 1980s.

[BoiledCabbage]

> Europa Universalis has tons of calculations like that, all of them a lot more sophisticated than that.

It's incredible how many people keep missing the man's point. Almost making it for him. His point is the gaming industry is still completely filled with mindless NPCs and simple boolean interactions. He calls out God of War in another article as an extreme disappointment.

The fact that everyone here is saying his ideas have continued, but keep naming the same two or three games made by only a couple gaming companies proves how right he is. If you want any form of deep interactivity play a deep strategy game, anything else besides that in game design is still about as interactive as pacman.

His point is that after 35 years and literal orders of magnitude improvement in processing power, the average game is still modeled using incredibly simplistic logic and makes for empty interactions. And take a look at most any top selling game and it's true.

Your average squirrel in the park has more interesting behavior or interaction than most game characters. It's essentially just been "better graphics, bigger explosions" for three decades now. None of that precludes dynamic interactions.

[mcv]

Big game companies just make what sells. I don't see why anyone would expect that to change. It shouldn't surprise anyone that many games aren't very good; most of everything is crap, and games are no different. But the logic in the best games has absolutely progressed since the 1980s, and even many (though not all) FPS games put quite a bit of effort into making their game characters move and act in a believable way. Far more than they did 34 years ago.

Though there's undoubtedly still plenty of room for improvement. In terms of how smart computer characters move and act, I think Robin Hood, the Legend of Sherwood (2002) still stands out: there, when a guard spots you, they first become curious and come check you out. When they're sure they've seen you, they raise the alarm and attack you, and other guards that hear them, join them. When a guard finds a dead guard, they look for their boss, who then organises a search party. It's all very logical, and it results in a very exciting isometric stealth game. Especially the fact that the guards cooperate, but need to communicate over credible distances first, makes the whole thing work very well. There may well have been other games that work like this; I don't pretend to know most games, but I've never played anything else quite like it.

[bartread]

> It's incredible how many people keep missing the man's point.

Is it though? Can you really blame readers if he isn't communicating clearly which, I would argue, if that's his point then he isn't.