Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision | Next revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
| companions_in_games [2009-01-26 14:43] – davegriffiths | companions_in_games [2009-01-26 14:54] – davegriffiths | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| ======Conclusions====== | ======Conclusions====== | ||
| - | Strategies used in increasing attachment to companions in games: | + | Strategies used in increasing attachment to companions in games: |
| + | * Graphical limitations don't affect attachment levels. In fact they probably help, in accordance with the uncanny valley. | ||
| + | * Having companions dependant on you in some form (e.g. need feeding or rescuing) is a good way to build up a relationship. | ||
| * The use of natural language is one of the quickest ways to annoy the user, and break any illusion of intelligence, | * The use of natural language is one of the quickest ways to annoy the user, and break any illusion of intelligence, | ||
| * User investment in the design or construction of the agent increases a feeling of ownership, and therefore attachment - "My robot is the only one like it" | * User investment in the design or construction of the agent increases a feeling of ownership, and therefore attachment - "My robot is the only one like it" | ||
| * Collective intelligence is generally more robust, and likely to resolve in useful emergent behaviour than relying on a single agent. | * Collective intelligence is generally more robust, and likely to resolve in useful emergent behaviour than relying on a single agent. | ||
| - | * Migration of companions has been tried in games, and was generally seen as a successful experiment, | + | * Migration of companions has been tried in games, and was generally seen as a successful experiment, |
davegriffiths