Game Development Reference
In-Depth Information
That being said, Blackjack is yet another “made-for-Turing� game. From the
player or dealer's standpoint, everything is calculatable and, therefore, predictable.
If you win, it has nothing to do with your besting the abilities and decisions of your
opponent. Your “opponent,� in a sense, is the random ordering of the cards, not the
Glasses & Hat stoic on the other side of the table. (And most Dealers, regardless of the
regalia, won't respond whatsoever to your victory dance anyway. But security may.)
In Poker, however, your opponent is a vital part of the game. While you are
both dealing in the realm of randomness, you are both allowed to
react
to that
randomness—each to his own advantage. This differs from Rock-Paper-Scissors,
where the randomness
is
the game. While you are dealing in the realm of choices,
you are both allowed to pursue choices that
may
or
may not
lead to victory. This
differs from Tic-Tac-Toe, where each choice is specifically, and almost obviously,
tied to the condition of victory. While you are both dealing in the realm of rules,
neither of you is rigidly limited in your core gameplay decisions so as to completely
disconnect the decision from the desire to win. This differs from the Dealer in
Blackjack, where the available decisions are so narrowly prescribed that the Dealer
becomes a nonentity in the game.
In the game of Poker, the constraints of your opponent's gameplay are not so
narrow as to be either entirely random or entirely predictable. As a player, you are
aware that not only do
you
have many interesting choices to select from, but so does
your opponent. What's more, because there is a cyclical interaction between you
and your opponent, your selection process must necessarily involve all the poten-
tial selections your opponent may make. Taken an iteration forward, you must be
aware that your opponent is likely to base his reaction on the selection you
do
make.
For that matter, taken an iteration backward, perhaps your opponent's previous
choice was made based on
his
assumption that
you
would take his decision into
account. In comedy, this effect is referenced by some variant of “I know
you
know
that
I
know what you
think
I know.� In mathematics, it is known as a combinator-
ial explosion. In games, it sure does make for Sid's “interesting choices.�
And therein lies the quest as AI designers and programmers. Given that our
game studios often lack both the ability and the budget to hire live orcs, dragons,
aliens, Nazi soldiers, or even bunnies to hop around nearby, our games face a
paucity of opponents that are able to don the dark glasses and stupid hats that
symbolize our nemeses. And, it has been shown that, if we choose to march out
denizens to face them that are entirely random, entirely predictable, or mercilessly
constrained in their behavior and try to pass them off as intelligent, thoughtful, and
responsive entities, our gaming clientele is unforgiving. Frankly, those do not lead
to necessarily “interesting choices� for the player. Therefore, our goal as AI designers
and programmers must be to give the player those “interesting choices� by imbuing
our AI progeny with the ability to make “interesting choices� of their own. We can
leave the dark glasses and stupid hat to the art department.
