Ironically, procedurally generated levels was a big thing in the early 90s. Castle of the Winds, Rogue, Nethack, and more were 100% dynamically generated.
Truly dynamic agents existed in Rollercoaster Tycoon, where every single person that walked into your theme park would have Nausia ratings, money, and make individual decisions at every point in the game. G-force was measured on every ride, and would effect different people in different ways. The amount of vomit in front of rides would disgust people in differing amounts. Etc. etc.
True AIs, agent theory and dynamic games were the norm in the mid-to-late 90s. But this approach to gaming isn't what people want. The truth of the matter, is that what makes money are these pre-scripted game-movies that sorta-kinda look photorealistic.
In fact, true-AIs have been implemented in games by probably every game development team. When AIs fear for their own life and run away from players (instead of standing and fighting), players tend to get bored. When AIs become so good at the game that they crush the player, players become frustrated and quit.
Believe it or not, few people are willing to put up with realistic and dynamic challenges. There are no game guides, no assistance, no "help menu" when a game is created dynamically. It is hard to share experiences with friends, because everyone is sort-of playing a different game.
People didn't turn away from these games because they don't want realism; they turned away because primitive world-generation and AI are not very convincing. Creating a building layout and a story by hand are much closer to reality than whatever Nethack can generate; the only problem is volume (Nethack could create one very unrealistic dungeon for every playthrough).
Reality has nothing to do with making a successful video game. Of the top 10 video games of 2013 were Animal Crossing, Monster Hunter, Pokemon X/Y, Assassin's Creed, Bioshock Infinite, and Grand Theft Auto.
I mean, doggies taking down Helicopters is cool and everything and makes for an exciting storyline... but no one is going to convince me that the action inside of Call of Duty: Ghosts is "realistic".
With regeneration (Bullet shots to the chest recovers in seconds), Medpacks that magically heal you and so forth... the modern FPS is hardly realistic... but a fantasy designed to make gameplay fun.
After all, "campers" make games go stale, even if it is the most effective and realistic tactic of games. Modern games discourage camping and encourage close-up action.
----------------------
Those who fight for "realism" don't understand the typical gamer. Why have a realistic fight when you can instead, turn into a dragon? http://dota2.gamepedia.com/Dragon_Knight
Truly dynamic agents existed in Rollercoaster Tycoon, where every single person that walked into your theme park would have Nausia ratings, money, and make individual decisions at every point in the game. G-force was measured on every ride, and would effect different people in different ways. The amount of vomit in front of rides would disgust people in differing amounts. Etc. etc.
True AIs, agent theory and dynamic games were the norm in the mid-to-late 90s. But this approach to gaming isn't what people want. The truth of the matter, is that what makes money are these pre-scripted game-movies that sorta-kinda look photorealistic.
In fact, true-AIs have been implemented in games by probably every game development team. When AIs fear for their own life and run away from players (instead of standing and fighting), players tend to get bored. When AIs become so good at the game that they crush the player, players become frustrated and quit.
Believe it or not, few people are willing to put up with realistic and dynamic challenges. There are no game guides, no assistance, no "help menu" when a game is created dynamically. It is hard to share experiences with friends, because everyone is sort-of playing a different game.