Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- companions_in_games [2009-01-26 14:55] – davegriffiths
+++ companions_in_games [2009-01-26 14:56] – davegriffiths
@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
   * 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, so it's generally left out, or a language which you can't quite understand is used instead, but which still conveys basic levels of emotion.
+  * The use of natural language is one of the quickest ways to annoy the user, and break any illusion of intelligence, so it's generally left out, or a language which you can't quite understand is used instead, which still conveys basic levels of emotion.
   * 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.
   * Migration of companions has been tried in games, and was generally seen as a successful experiment, the user accepting a large change in technology used to visualise the agent.