Honestly back when I was a kid this is how I thought games were made, every possible image of a game was already saved and according to your input it just loaded the next image.
I stopped thinking that with 3d games
I thought that they were managing that stuff on a per-pixel basis, no engine, assets, or other abstractions, just raw-dogging pixel colors.
And before I even played video games at all I was watching somebody play some assassin’s creed game I think and I thought the player had to control every single limb qwop-style.
In the first few Assassin’s Creed games, they did use the idea of a Puppeteer system for the control scheme, although it wasn’t physics-based or anywhere near as hard as QWOP. Each of the controllers face buttons performed actions associated with each limb, and the right trigger would swap between low profile actions and high profile actions.
In the top right of the screen, there was always a UI element showing what the buttons did at that moment in that context, which might’ve been why you thought it was a QWOP style system. It’s not exactly what you were thinking of at the time, but you were closer than you realise.
Not quite “Time Killers” level of limb to button assignment, but a line that I had not drawn in the AC control scheme!
Apparently ai is learning to do that first thing you said about pure pixel management. It’s crazy that it works at all
Even with 2D games that’s basically impossible. Only time it could work is with turn based games and then…you end up with this post lol.
I see you’ve never played “Dragon’s Lair”, where every scene was cell animated and the player “chose” the path that the animation would take.
That one ran on a laserdisc, right? Like a CAV disc so it could very quickly move the laser to one of a couple of places for basically a win/lose decision, overlaying some graphics over top for the game UI?
LOL, I’ve actually heard of it, but I have not played it. Ofc that game never even crossed my mind when writing my comment haha. I suppose choose your own adventure style books also fall into this category.
I remember having a thought one day as a young kid while interacting with a DVD main menu (the kind that had clips from the movie playing in the background, and would play a specific clip depending on what menu you went in to).
“This is basically how video games work, there’s a bunch of options you can choose from and depending on what you do it shows you something. Videogames are just DVD menus with way more options.”
I grew up to not be a programmer.
The game Myst actually worked kind of like a DVD menu with more options.
Its not terribly far off from pre rendered or FMV games like Myst are doing it.
Those shitty old tiger hand holds kind of worked like that.
I remember speculating as a (small) kid that the AI soldiers in Battlefront II’s local multiplayer might be real people employed by the developer. Not the brightest child was I.
It does work like that a little bit, like with sprites they’ve often hard-coded the frames of animation, so when you push a button it loads the correct image, like Mario’s jumping frame with his hand in the air. But there are such things as tilesets, and sprite positions, and all that good stuff.
I grew up mostly with the PS2 and above and I thought the same thing 😅. I did think there had to be a better way though
This is what I believed. And I tried to trick the game by doing movements and inputs no one could have planed. Never outdid that planning somehow. They were on to me!
Dragon’s Lair was a hugely popular arcade game that worked that way.
Programming chess as a single lookup table is wild
Its written vibe.
This reminds me of one of my very first programs, a tic-tac-toe game I wrote in high school. It displayed hardcoded grids of Xs and Os and blanks very similar to what’s shown here. This approach worked because of the much more limited move possibilities. The program could always win if it made the first move, and always win or tie if the human moved first, depending on if the human made mistakes. I wish I still had the code.
Did the program cheat? Tic tac toe is a tie if opponents play correctly.
How do you define cheating in such a simple game?
Placing moves in invalid locations, passing a turn, or making multiple moves on one turn?
There are no invalid locations in tic Tac toe, passing a turn provides no advantage, I suppose you could take extra turns to cheat.
An invalid turn would be something like placing a move on top of an already-filled square or outside of the 9 grid spaces. It seems obvious to a human that you can’t do these things, but computer bugs have a tendency to do things you don’t expect. And yes, passing a turn doesn’t provide an advantage, but I listed it because it’s still technically cheating.
I’m probably remembering it wrong, it was a long time ago. It definitely always either won or tied but could never lose, because it knew the right responses to every move. No, it didn’t cheat lol.
deleted by creator
This is supposed to be a joke but sadly a lot of beginner tutorials on coding Tic-Tac-Toe teach this
AI has probably finished this game by now.
And still lost.
As a middle schooler I used Power Point to make FMV games for my friends and classmates, and it was basically this. Just, like, SO MANY slides
Are they trying to code every possible chess position??
The implication is that the person in the meme is
Laughable for chess, but essentially how Steve Mould played tic tac toe using synthesized DNA.
Well this is how programing works so if you don’t like it…
Found the guy who passed the test with
printf (" *\n **\n ***\n ****\n*****\n);I’m familiar with issues like this. Lots of copy/pasting with little edits here and there all the way down.
They are doing it dumb. You can text output chess but you just need to keep track of where the pieces are in code, then when you are ready to output, place the characters. Saves so much time. /s
not to get epistemological,
but I hate that technically there’s only a limited number of moves in chess, and therefore the best move is there, maybe there’s a strategic where white will always win, but we’ll never know because the number of variations likely is larger than atoms in the universe.
On the lower end of estimates, the number of unique chess board configurations is 10^120, often referred to as the Shannon number. The universe doesn’t stand a chance.
maybe a distant future technology could compute that, Clarktech style
That’s cool. I think this is why I never liked chess.
In modern chess, engines have gotten good enough that we generally do know the top moves and humans can’t beat them. We can even numerically assess someone’s chess play with a computer, which we call “accuracy”. Obviously they can always be improved further, and there are a handful of situations where they might misevaluate, but it’s still pretty incredible.
Engines have only made chess more exciting as they have shattered a lot of old theory and helped people find a lot of new and innovative ideas. They are an incredible aid in analysis and tournament prep.
yhea, but engines still act as if it is an unsolved game.
while in theory, given that the number of moves is limited, in theory one colour would always win.
The solution to chess is almost certainly a draw, since this is what all top engine chess converges to. Otherwise you are completely correct: chess is unsolved and will likely never be solved.
one AI that always manages to draw in chess is Stable diffusion and dalle…
/j
if that is python then makes sense
