~ by Baranor


Every time I play Oblivion and run off into the wilds to procure some more treasure from a random NPC (read= bandit/monster), or indeed, every time my lovely Bosmer goes picking flowers, I cannot help but notice the movements of the forest. Oblivion contains both wolves and deer, and the wolves do attempt to hunt and kill the deer. On a rare occasion, they also attack a boar, but I have already learned the hard way that boars are not nice when angered. Bears stalk the wolves, the dear and the boars, and my horse, and trolls stalk everything that moves. 

Funny thing that, ecology operating at the level of a game. The creators aimed for realism in Oblivion, and one of the things they added was Artificial Intelligence. Their NPC's move about, eat, sleep, purchase goods (arrows and the like), and occasionally get into fights. Soldiers of the Empire assault all lawbreakers, regardless of whether they are goblins, wolves or bandits, and they even loot them. Someone took great care to make sure everything knits together. Of course, not all the games work like this. In Diablo II for example, monsters are no more than punching bags for the player. Let us be honest… do you really think that a giant bear-like creature would not immediately and savagely maul the Carver standing next to him if he got hungry? Don't the quill rats feel threatened by the zombies? Since friendly fire does not exist in Diablo II, there are no accidental monster fights. I remember that one shooter we all know, or have heard of… Doom I. Not the weaker followup Doom II, or that god-awful techdemo that was Doom III, but the original slaughterfest of Doom. Doom, the game where you could shoot everything, had to shoot everything, and if it still moved, had to shoot it again. Doom, that game where, once out of ammo, your last resort was running in between monsters, hoping to dodge bullets and bolts, in order to create infighting. Because that is what they did once they damaged each other… if the Shotgun Sergeant accidentally shot at the Baron of Hell, the Baron of Hell would turn around and trash the Shotgun Sergeant. 

There is no infighting in Guild Wars. There is no infighting in World of Warcraft either, as far as I am aware. The monsters are about as co-operative towards each other as any communist leader could wish for. They don't use each other for snacks, they don't bash each other on the head, and there are no guts-and-glory lieutenants who lead their troops on foolish raids. The AI does its thing, and that is to trash the opponent. In a lot of MMO's and games in general, realism only goes as far as the physics engine, NPC conversations and the actual looks of the monsters/animals. "Looks like a horse, walks like a horse, so it has to be a horse…" Some RPG's do aim for "historical" correctness, but that is about it. Do we really need ecology in games? Let us take a look at what is required for "ecology". 

Obviously, the building blocks of a normal ecology (micro-organisms, soil, air etcetera) can all be disregarded. It is a pc-game, after all. First thing we need for an ecology is a food chain. So, let's make a food chain! We will name this food chain the Guild Wars Chain. We introduce the Hopper, a small, four-legged mammal that hops around, looking silly. This creature will "graze" and will be at the bottom of the food chain. Then, we introduce the Grabber, a larger, two-legged creature which lives exclusively off the Hoppers. During its sleep-hunt-rest cycleeach day it must eat two Hoppers. This is not an option, this is a must-be-done. Then, we introduce the Snatcher (six legs), who eats both Hoppers and Grabbers. The Snatcher must eat the equivalent of one Hopper per day, so he can eat a Grabber and be done for two days. Lastly, we introduce the Mauler (four legs) who eats only Snatchers, and must eat at least one each day. The penalty for all creatures if they do not eat (catch) what they must eat two consecutive days in a row is death. 

Still here? Obviously, all the critters deliver some kind of component for crafting, and they can be killed by you, the player. Let us assume, for ease-of-model, that we're doing a closed environment and no MMO. Right. So you go and kill creatures… but wait a minute, what if you kill them all? Say you murdered every single Hopper there is. Within the week, everything else will be extinct. Not good! So, we need to make sure Hoppers mate. Whenever two Hoppers meet, there is a 10% chance a new Hopper pops out of thin air thirty seconds later, on the same spot. Now that we have the bottom of the food chain all worked out, you decide to kill off all the Snatchers. Thus, all the Maulers die, and there will be an excess of Grabbers and Hoppers alike as there are fewer predators. Indeed, you might well cause a massive Hopper plague, as they multiply like rabi… Hoppers, yes. God forbid there is a valley somewhere where the Hoppers can go to, but not escape from... soon it would be filled with Hopper and nothing else.  

But wait, don't run away yet! There's option B: Fixed numbers. As a programmer, you simply state that on hour X of every day there must be 200 Hoppers, 30 Grabbers, 20 Snatchers and 5 Maulers, and if you kill one or two or three or all, they return on hour X of the next day. No breeding either. You let them interact, and it looks like an ecology, smells like an ecology, and practically speaking, is an ecology. Problem fixed! 

Conclusion: Ecology and realism are fun, but games are games. As with all gaming concepts, the first rule of everything applies: KIS… Keep It Simple!