1. Mobile loot bags. Pop them like piñatas! Repeat as long as you like.Personally, the impression I get is that developers, when pressured by the money people to justify the costs of creature AI and motion capture sessions for player character models, try to combine those two activities to claim that "we'll have amazingly realistic non-player characters!" You've got the humanoid walk cycles; you've got the mob AI... just slap on a coat of pre-scripted conversational paint and bingo! Perfectly acceptable NPCs.
2. Quest dispensers. Push the button, out drops a quest pellet.
3. City decorations. Because the appearance of life is close enough.
Like I said, the technological side makes it tough to give NPCs plausibility. But it sure would be nice if someone gave it a serious try. Even if having "smart" NPCs limited the number that could exist in the world, that might be a tradeoff worth making.
Better to have a few reasonably sensible-acting NPCs than a world full of sheep-mobs in people clothing.
It's not that I don't like NPCs in MMOGs -- I just expect more plausibly sapient behavior from something that looks like a sapient being. If NPCs can't act in a plausibly intelligent way, it might be better not to have them. An NPC that just stands there when a battle starts raging three feet away does more harm to a game world than it helps. It's just not plausible behavior.
Of course that word "plausible" is open to interpretation.
There's been a lot of work done on game AI (by which I mean behavior, not pathfinding). Will Wright referenced this in a Powerpoint presentation he gave that used his upcoming Spore for examples. One of his points is that you can get plausibly intelligent behavior out of simple systems. It's not necessary to spend years and millions of dollars on an AI system for your game that brute-forces apparently intelligent behavior -- there are ways to do it that rely more on designing a simple system whose apparently complex outputs arise from internal state-transitions.
(Again, this isn't some recent breakthrough. John Conway was talking about it with his Game of Life for cellular automata back in the 1970s, and the alife people have been chattering about this approach to AI ever since.)
I'd say you could probably get the job done in a MMOG with three key features:
- The mob can express a range of appropriate actions (fight, run, barter, converse, etc.).
- The mob contains a few internal variables with multiple states.
- There are a few rules that define how states can change and which actions are triggered for each state.
At any rate, I'd like to see a little more effort put into NPCs. They don't have to act like players, but they do need to appear to have some plausible motivations and behaviors or they really hurt the believability of the game world.
Oh, and on the subject of "memory" of quest completions and so on: Yes, it's true that you don't have to actually store the memory of who completed a particular NPC's quest with the NPC. You can store it in the player's records in the database.
The thing is, "completed quests" probably get their own table, assuming the game uses a relational database. From the storage perspective, there's no difference between locating quest memory with an NPC or with a player -- the fact of completing an NPC's quest still gets stored somewhere. And that stuff adds up.
Which brings me to the larger point I was making (though not very well), which was that it's always easy to say, "Hey, I just want to add this one new table for storing when players do [X]." But every one of those tables gets multiplied (in the worst case, which you have to prepare for) by the number of players you have. Each individual new table (and the pointers to the records in those tables) adds up.
If a MMOG designer doesn't take a hard position on the creeping accumulation of new features that require more database storage, eventually it could start increasing your storage hardware costs... and if it really gets out of hand, you could wind up with performance problems.
So (I conclude) every new feature has to be considered not just for its coolness factor, but also for the storage cost (in addition to the development costs). If the value of the feature is clearly worth the cost, OK -- but that question has to be asked.
If I seem like I'm contradicting myself here, I sort of am. On the one hand, I'm agitating for better NPC AI; on the other, I'm shaking my finger and warning against feature creep.
That's what happens when you wear both a player hat and a wannabe game designer hat....