I see in my incoming blog links that someone linked my most recent post with the following comment:
Christer Ericson is upset about researchers pointing out that there has been little innovation in game AI since the 1980s. What do you think about this subject?
Ugh. As I dislike being misquoted, I guess I should spell it out by numbers in case anyone else doesn’t/didn’t get it:
- I’m not upset. If I got upset by academics saying stupid things I’d be the world’s angriest man (but I’m not).
- “Pointing out” means that there was something valid about the whine I quoted. As there wasn’t, the correct term here would be “claiming.”
- My previous blog post was about the incredible irony of someone whining about the state of game AI and how academic work is ignored, at the same time as their own academic work is, frankly, outright awful†. (But, hey, at least I didn’t ignore it, even though it deserved to be ignored.)
- I was also suggesting, based on personal experience, that the academic work that was implied being relevant to games (i.e. computational intelligence) is, contrariwise, nearly useless.
So, there, everything explained! Now back to the regular programming.
†) Piss-poor AI (that wouldn’t even be suitable for an amateur game) aside, if you’re doing academic work on racing game AI, how can you possibly ignore testing your AI in existing frameworks like TORCS and RARS?