I want to create something that possesses the intricate inner-mechanics of a pixel based world,
in 3D. Every pixel has a purpose, each calculated paths printed into a 3D world.
Take assassin's creed for example, the mobs are randomly generated and have no real life -- save for the main plot characters.
In a pixelated world, 2D top down. Each mob (represented as a pixel) can realistically live a virtual life inside the program, possessing variables such as hunger and boredom -- which ultimately govern the pixel's behaviour and interaction with other pixels, giving birth to new adaptive behaviours and thus an entirely new set of simulated potential activity.
Does anybody else feel like this is good?
Games like GTA and AC would be so deep.

Check this out:
Check out Dwarf Fortress. It does not have 3D graphics but the world is 3D.
Are there any comprehensible tutorials on how to play that game.
Haha D:
Nope, and that's how we like it.
And remember: Losing is fun!
Says the Instruction Manual.
Every time I start to think I'm doing well in that game, I read about somebody's dwarfputer adding machine or tic-tac-toe setup and realize I have no idea what the hell I'm doing :P
If you want a more complex method of mapping the relationships between people, start with an emotion contrast chart and work your way out from there.

I won't even begin to go into how long I've been working on a system that maps emotions in a reactive manner to character interactions, but I have several dozen pages on the subject and it's not easy by any stretch of the imagination.

You literally have to think of contradicting emotions as both contrasting and complimentary. Independent and reliant on one another at the same time. Long term relationship effects versus short term relationship effects. For example, making two characters mad at you doesn't mean they'll react the same way. Make someone mad whom you've previously made enemies of and you're likely looking at a fight. Make someone angry who's your lover will likely be a short-lived fight followed by an apology, or if serious enough, splitting up.

Knowing how characters feel about each other is the key to making them interact with you and each other in as natural a way as possible, but that requires a lot of work, More work than even I've put into it so far... but it's coming along.
What your saying is almost impossible art wise not coding as you'd have to animate all the potential actions. Also it's not as fun as you think, those things are in the sims and that game is boring.

What I think you think it is, is a dynamic personality. Only
Thing is npcs will never have this. Speech alone I can't even comprend how we can speak fluently it actually doesn't make sense that people are able too so how can I program a computer to do so.
But most of the work will be in art wise. Like the chart above something like that is easy to map out. It's the art where you'll give up on it
I found a zombie simulation a long time ago.
It illustrated this concept well.
But most of the work will be in art wise. Like the chart above something like that is easy to map out. It's the art where you'll give up on it

At the indie level, I really think it's best to focus on presenting ideas to the player with the minimum amount of feedback required.

Yut Put's actually really skilled at doing this. It's why he produces so many games in such a short period of time. Unfortunately, if there's not enough feedback it can often result in the player becoming frustrated, which can easily completely destroy the player experience.
In response to Delta0Zero2
This to me feels equivalent to walking to a bar full of physicists and saying "I'm going to build a time machine".

I just don't believe you've gone through a process of self editing before you wrote this.

A mob with a couple of variables for boredom and hunger does not constitute a being living a life inside a computer program. It's a very interesting concept sure but not even the greatest minds in computer science have created anything close to that.

I think you need to step back and ask yourself exactly what you're doing.

But.. I'm not going to just give you a hard time for this and then leave. Have a look at Neural Nets and read some research on the limits of artificial intelligence.
Organic intelligence has its limits too,
of course it would be prone to disagree.
'Don't thank me.' Zecronious says in a distant universe.
Fine well, ahem.
I'll do some more research,
and I'll be sure to better draft any future threads
apologies for this one -- reason being,
it was just a stimulating thought that I believe
needed release..
Thank you.