Discover how non-player characters make decisions by tinkering with this Unity-based Pac-Man homage. Paul Roberts wrote this for the latest issue of Wireframe magazine.
From the first video game to the present, artificial intelligence has been a vital part of the medium. While most early games had enemies that simply walked left and right, like the Goombas in Super Mario Bros., there were also games like Pac-Man, where each ghost appeared to move intelligently. But from a programming perspective, how do we handle all the different possible states we want our characters to display?
For example, how do we control whether a ghost is chasing Pac-Man, or running away, or even returning to their home? To explore these behaviours, we’ll be tinkering with AI-Man – a Pac-Man-style game developed in Unity. It will show you how the approaches discussed in this article are implemented, and there’s code available for you to modify and add to. You can freely download the AI-Man project here. One solution to managing the different states a character can be in, which has been used for decades, is a finite state machine, or FSM for short. It’s an approach that describes the high-level actions of an agent, and takes its name simply from the fact that there are a finite number of states from which to transition between, with each state only ever doing one thing.
To explain what’s meant by high level, let’s take a closer look at the ghosts in Pac-Man. The highlevel state of a ghost is to ‘Chase’ Pac-Man, but the low level is how the ghost actually does this. In Pac-Man, each ghost has its own behaviour in which it hunts the player down, but they’re all in the same high-level state of ‘Chase’. Looking at Figure 1, you can see how the overall behaviour of a ghost can be depicted extremely easily, but there’s a lot of hidden complexity. At what point do we transition between states? What are the conditions on moving between states across the connecting lines? Once we have this information, the diagram can be turned into code with relative ease. You could use simple switch statements to achieve this, or we could achieve the same using an object-oriented approach.
Using switch statements can quickly become cumbersome the more states we add, so I’ve used the object-oriented approach in the accompanying project, and an example code snippet can be seen in Code Listing 1. Each state handles whether it needs to transition into another state, and lets the state machine know. If a transition’s required, the
Exit() function is called on the current state, before calling the
Enter() function on the new state. This is done to ensure any setup or cleanup is done, after which the Update() function is called on whatever the current state is. The
Update()function is where the low-level code for completing the state is processed. For a project as simple as Pac-Man, this only involves setting a different position for the ghost to move to.
Extending this approach, it’s reasonable for a state to call multiple states from within. This is called a hierarchical finite state machine, or HFSM for short. An example is an agent in Call of Duty: Strike Team being instructed to seek a stealthy position, so the high-level state is ‘Find Cover’, but within that, the agent needs to exit the dumpster he’s currently hiding in, find a safe location, calculate a safe path to that location, then repeatedly move between points on that path until he reaches the target position.
FSMs can appear somewhat predictable as the agent will always transition into the same state. This can be accommodated for by having multiple options that achieve the same goal. For example, when the ghosts in our Unity project are in the ‘Chase’ state, they can either move to the player, get in front of the player, or move to a position behind the player. There’s also an option to move to a random position. The FSM implemented has each ghost do one of these, whereas the behaviour tree allows all ghosts to switch between the options every ten seconds. A limitation of the FSM approach is that you can only ever be in a single state at a particular time. Imagine a tank battle game where multiple enemies can be engaged. Simply being in the ‘Retreat’ state doesn’t look smart if you’re about to run into the sights of another enemy. The worst-case scenario would be our tank transitions between ‘Attack’ and ‘Retreat’ states on each frame – an issue known as state thrashing – and gets stuck, and seemingly confused about what to do in this situation. What we need is away to be in multiple states at the same time: ideally retreating from tank A, whilst attacking tank B. This is where fuzzy finite state machines, or FFSM for short, come in useful.
This approach allows you to be in a particular state to a certain degree. For example, my tank could be 80% committed to the Retreat state (avoid tank A), and 20% committed to the Attack state (attack tank B). This allows us to both Retreat and Attack at the same time. To achieve this, on each update, your agent needs to check each possible state to determine its degree of commitment, and then call each of the active states’ updates. This differs from a standard FSM, where you can only ever be in a single state. FFSMs can be in none, one, two, or however many states you like at one time. This can prove tricky to balance, but it does offer an alternative to the standard approach.
Another potential issue with an FSM is that the agent has no memory of what they were previously doing. Granted, this may not be important: in the example given, the ghosts in Pac-Man don’t care about what they were doing, they only care about what they are doing, but in other games, memory can be extremely important. Imagine instructing a character to gather wood in a game like Age of Empires, and then the character gets into a fight. It would be extremely frustrating if the characters just stood around with nothing to do after the fight had concluded, and for the player to have to go back through all these characters and reinstruct them after the fight is over. It would be much better for the characters to return to their previous duties.
We can incorporate the idea of memory quite easily by using the stack data structure. The stack will hold AI states, with only the top-most element receiving the update. This in effect means that when a state is completed, it’s removed from the stack and the previous state is then processed. Figure 2 depicts how this was achieved in our Unity project. To differentiate the states from the FSM approach, I’ve called them tasks for the stackbased implementation. Looking at Figure 2, it shows how (from the bottom), the ghost was chasing the player, then the player collected a power pill, which resulted in the AI adding an
Evade_Task – this now gets the update call, not the
Chase_Task. While evading the player, the ghost was then eaten.
At this point, the ghost needed to return home, so the appropriate task was added. Once home, the ghost needed to exit this area, so again, the relevant task was added. At the point the ghost exited home, the
ExitHome_Task was removed, which drops processing back to
MoveToHome_Task. This was no longer required, so it was also removed. Back in the
Evade_Task, if the power pill was still active, the ghost would return to avoiding the player, but if it had worn off, this task, in turn, got removed, putting the ghost back in its default task of
Chase_Task, which will get the update calls until something else in the world changes.
In 2002, Halo 2 programmer Damian Isla expanded on the idea of HFSM in a way that made it more scalable and modular for the game’s AI. This became known as the behaviour tree approach. It’s now a staple in AI game development. The behaviour tree is made up of nodes, which can be one of three types – composite, decorator, or leaf nodes. Each has a different function within the tree and affects the flow through the tree. Figure 3 shows how this approach is set up for our Unity project. The states we’ve explored so far are called leaf nodes. Leaf nodes end a particular branch of the tree and don’t have child nodes – these are where the AI behaviours are located. For example,
Leaf_ MoveAheadOfPlayer all tell the ghost where to move to. Composite nodes can have multiple child nodes and are used to determine the order in which the children are called. This could be in the order in which they’re described by the tree, or by selection, where the children nodes will compete, with the parent node selecting which child node gets the go-ahead.
Selector_Chase allows the ghost to select a single path down the tree by choosing a random option, whereas
Sequence_ GoHome has to complete all the child paths to complete its behaviour.
Code Listing 2 shows how simple it is to choose a random behaviour to use – just be sure to store the index for the next update. Code Listing 3 demonstrates how to go through all child nodes, and to return
SUCCESS only when all have completed, otherwise the status
RUNNING is returned.
FAILURE only gets returned when a child node itself returns a
Although not used in our example project, behaviour trees can also have nodes called decorators. A decorator node can only have a single child, and can modify the result returned. For example, a decorator may iterate the child node for a set period, perhaps indefinitely, or even flip the result returned from being a success to a failure. From what first appears to be a collection of simple concepts, complex behaviours can then develop.
Video game AI is all about the illusion of intelligence. As long as the characters are believable in their context, the player should maintain their immersion in the game world and enjoy the experience we’ve made. Hopefully, the approaches introduced here highlight how even simple approaches can be used to develop complex characters. This is just the tip of the iceberg: AI development is a complex subject, but it’s also fun and rewarding to explore.
You can also download the PDF directly from the Wireframe Magazine website.