An idea for all game programmers/developers

[carmel_andrews]

How about a totally new direction in games engine programming

 

 

 

 

Where the issue/problem being that most if of not all games from the earliest pong like dedicated gaming systems right through to the likes of the latest crysis/skyrim or Final Fantasy game, has lacked a ‘randomness element’ to the game

 

 

 

 

I.E, after you’ve played the game a few times or clocked (as in completed) the game same number of times, the game becomes ‘predictable’, i.e you know the general layout of the game in relation to all the game components in respect to where they figure (they being the various and all game components programmed into the game) as you progress within the game, so you know the general paths/movements and start points of the baddies or enemy characters/sprites, you know when and where and how each enemy character/sprite will fire or kick or do something to the player character you control, you know where all the pitfalls/dangers etc are within each stage/level etc as well as the general layout of the stage or level (so you know where in that level you can take a breather for a few minutes), i think you get my drift of what i am saying

 

 

 

 

My idea is that we ask games programmers/developers to program into their game logic/engines a randomness feature, or even better a random system engine that works in tandem with the game engine or game logic and that the random system engine can be latched/programmed onto either specific/particular or some components of the game or can be programmed/latched onto all components that make up the game

 

 

 

 

The idea being is that the random system engine (that works in tandem with the main game logic/engine as well as some or all the components that make up the game) essentially gives the game player a unique game playing experience each and every time they play that game as well as adding more of a game challenge and if it gives the games player a unique games playing experience and more of a game challenge each and every time they play that game, the longer or more they will play that game therefore will extend the shelf life (as in lifespan) of that game so far as the game player is concerned (since they will be playing the game more and more until they complete/clock it) and because of the way the random system engine works no two games will play or be the same, which essentially means the games player won’t be able to complete the game the same way as last time again

 

 

 

 

The way the random system engine will work is that it is programmed as part of the main game engine/logic and can be tied (as in programmed/latched) to some or a particular/specific or all components that make up the game) this of-course depends on the type of game being developed/programmed, since some games (or game types) only benefit (logically) from a random system engine by latching it onto particular/specific or some components of the game and some games (or game types) will benefit (logically) from a random system engine by latching it to most or all the components that make up the game within the game engine/logic

 

 

 

Additionally for modern games (which obviously use the console or computers memory as a scratchpad) a section of that memory will be given over to the random system engine for two purposes) the first purpose is for a compressed ‘ramdom system engine ram’ and the second purpose is for a random system engine ram buffer, what happens is that the random system engine compresses the system engine ram, so lets say you allocate 1 meg for this memory, the compressed version will be 1meg by the power of 1 meg and each compressed area of that memory is transferred over to the system engine buffer memory and once that is used the next compressed area is transferred into the buffer memory and the previous compressed area is replaced with a new random system engine and so on and so forth for the next area of compressed area of system engine ram (so effectively you end up with an ‘infinite’ amount of possibilities), since the system engine compressed ram (and each compressed area within the system engine compressed ram) is constantly updating itself with new random system engines, each random system engine is basically the various (or all) game components that you latched or programmed the random system engine onto within the realm of the game logic/engine (the user will of-course be able to configure how much memory is given to the random system engine compressed ram and ram buffer and also the ability to program in which game components (that’s attached to the game logic/engine) can be programmed/latched or tied to the random system engine and also save those settings for that game, so you can use that setting each time you play that same game or make new settings)

 

 

 

 

For Classic systems (i.e atari, commodore or sega/nintendo etc etc) the random system engine could be programmed as a game cartridge, which you then either load in the game itself (i.e tape/tape) or plug in the game cart via the random system engine’s game cart port, or since most classic systems now support Sdram cards/cf cards/usb memory sticks, the random system engine could be programmed as a game Sdram cards/cf cards/usb memory sticks, it works the same as the version for modern systems in that you configure how much memory will be used as the compressed system engine ram and how much memory will be used as a system engine ram buffer (since the random system engine game cart will have its one memory for that purpose and the sdram/cf card or usb memory stick will also configure a section of it’s memory for this purpose, outside the memory used to hold the ramdom system engine of-course)

 

 

 

Once you load in the game (be it tape/disk cartridge etc) you enable the random system engine device (be it the game cart or usb etc ) by pressing the little button, you are taken to a menu which will basically guide you through the various and all components of the game (that’s attached to the game engine/logic) that you can program/latch the random system engine onto, so you can basically program or latch the engine onto whatever component(s) of the game you feel would make the game more challenging and make the game unique each and every time you play it

 

 

 

Of-course with regards to the classic systems version of the random system engine, you will of course be able to save your settings for that game (or make new settings each time you play that same game)

 

 

 

The idea being that the random system engine basically/essentially controls every (or certain/specific or particular) element(s) or component(s) within the game (depending on how the random system engine was programmed in the first place) effectively changing the game control/physics, layouts/levels/paths/movements etc as you get further into the game and for each/every time you play that game which makes the game more challenging to play (since you won’t know what will come next as the game engine will randomise everything) and therefore make the game play a unique experience each and every time you play it, which should logically mean the game player will play the game more and more therefore extending the lifespan of that game as far as the game player is concerned

[Protoplasym]

The AI Director in Left for Dead does exactly what you propose..... now, why it hasn't become a standard in Gaming by now... is beyond me. I wholeheartedly concur with your post... and it pains me to see Devs and Pubs continue to pan over the possibilities of randomizing certain gaming mechanics.

 

Doom 3 could be the best FPS known to man with a proper AI Director and random monster placements (there was a mod supposedly going to cover that, but it never was completed)... damn shame too as the creator sounded extremely ambitious with regard to what he wanted to change.

 

 

Imo, every RPG and FPS (at minimum) should have randomized elements incorporated. It is too bad that the majority of todays Devs and Pubs simply do not know how to 'fit it in' with the rest of their schedule. I think it goes to show how truly poor todays Devs are when it comes to bringing worlds to life. That's why when I see people go apeshit over the latest RPG (Skyrim for example), or the latest shooter.... I yawn knowing deep down that it'll be just like the last RPG or Shooter I played. Not 'yawn' because I'm a prick and I'm too good to enjoy a new game, but 'yawn' because I know the Devs will not have taken any positive steps forward towards bringing that level of randomness to my Gaming Experience.

 

Either they're underpaid, lazy, or a combination of the two... whatever it is, it's obvious and very apparent with every new release. If Randomness was correctly incorporated, games could last nearly indefinitely, and 'that' is most likely the MAIN reason Devs will never strive to bring it to fruition. They're more in the business of making money than they are making art/entertainment. If they cared (and I suppose endlessly funded, lol... one can dream) about giving the Gamer this kind of freedom... games like FO3 would/could potentially last forever. Imagine if every playthrough FO3 was drastically different... you wouldn't give two shits about FO4 coming out because you'd be fine having a new adventure everytime you booted up FO3.

 

 

Hi, Devs..... WAKE UP... we don't want 5000x4000 resolutions... we want randomized Gaming!!!!!

Edited September 11, 2012 by Protoplasym

[Brian O]

Random Terrain will be here in 3...2...

[Drixxel]

There's a lot of potential for randomosity to improve the longevity of games in general, I think, and the idea of incorporating random elements into games that didn't feature them previously has definite potential. Things like randomized item placement and AI behaviour are some of the simplest ways to inject ongoing freshness, and while it's obviously pretty common to find that sort of thing, it's also rarely enough to hold player interest once the potential for surprising results becomes exhausted. Attempting to take it further are games like Azure Dreams, F-Zero X and Diablo that boast randomly generated content (dungeons and race tracks), but I find that these tend towards level designs that bore, feel thrown together and seem somewhat predictable despite the possibilities. Having random content be the game is definitely a risk, as it's hard to consistently replicate the result of thoughtful and deliberate level design, but it's definitely cool when a developer offers a tangent mode like the aforementioned random track generator in F-Zero X that helps retain interest beyond the main game.

 

A bizarre example occurred to me from the OP's mention of randomizing play control, I'm imagining a 2D platformer where the rates of player acceleration & deceleration are randomly set every time a new game begins. You might wind up a practically immovable object, or slick as a man wearing mucous shoes, or, once you get going, unable to change direction or even stop. Something as unpredictable as that would impose tricky restrictions on level design, resulting in stages that are purposely bland (in order to remain functional across the range of random outcomes) or rendered impossible (because they don't properly account for the randomized controls). Worse still, if the stages were randomly generated on top of that, you'd have such a huge amount of variance to take into consideration that you'd probably end up with shit as boring as Rastan Saga 2 in the majority of instances, assuming that all unsolvable stages be discarded. There's no limit to how sophisticated random level generation can be when you combine talented programming with a large assortment of highly versatile level design elements, but more randomness does not necessarily mean more fun. More junk, though, that's nearly guaranteed.

[BinaryStar]

Solution : Quit videogames and play pinball.

 

Seriously though, just adding more random elements in itself would not make a better game. Many games require memorisation of patterns etc for success, randomising these elements would make many games un-masterable. Imagine playing Gradius with randomised baddie positions, it'd be horrible! IMO videogames shouldn't be completely predictable if the levels and AI are well designed enough. Things like rank in games are great for providing extra challenge to good players and stop games getting too old too quickly. I'd much rather see more rank in games than too much random stuff.

[+Gemintronic]

How do you manage the same question on multiple sections? Does it get different results? Doesn't it get confusing?

http://www.atariage.com/forums/forum/12-atari-8-bit-computers/

http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/202716-an-idea-for-all-game-programmersdevelopers/

[nanochess]

It's not really a new thing. My games Princess Quest (MSX/Colecovision) and Mecha Eight (MSX) integrate random appearance of enemies so the player does not get bored with same order each time.

 

The random counter is active all the time while the title screen/story runs, so when the player press the start button the seed is always different.

 

And ability to redesign levels on the fly is still in early stages, as human creativity is what makes them challenging/surprising/beautiful.

[SlowCoder]

Once again, I did not read through the entire initial post. Just too long.

 

I think it would be nice to see more randomisation, but HAS ANYONE ASKED A DEV WHY THEY HAVEN'T INCLUDED IT? There may be reasons that have been thought through during the internal game design process that could explain why randomisation isn't included.

 

Maybe it's too difficult to randomise a level because it could potentially make that level too complex or unbeatable. Or maybe they need to ensure a specific series of events MUST happen in a certain order, that couldn't be guaranteed by randomising it.

 

The point made by Protoplasym that game devs don't want to include it because gamers may not want to buy the next version, was a good one. On the other hand, maybe the devs figure most players will play that game one time through, and not again, before moving on to the next game. Therefore randomising isn't needed compared to the time/money they'd have to put into the development of the randomising element.

 

I do think some games could DEFINITELY use randomisation; most specifically, multiplayer FPSs. It would definitely level the playing field (double-entendre) , allowing newcomers a better chance to compete, and keeping the "elite" players from camping in their favorite sniping locations.

[Arkhan]

Random games are hard to implement. It was never done on old machines because there isn't enough hardware present to do it right, so you're better off just making a game that progresses in difficulty.

 

You could introduce AI that learns how to keep beating your ass, but some of the fun of games is getting so good you beat the games ass instead

[TMR]

Maybe it's too difficult to randomise a level because it could potentially make that level too complex or unbeatable. Or maybe they need to ensure a specific series of events MUST happen in a certain order, that couldn't be guaranteed by randomising it.

 

Actually generating a random map isn't too difficult, but the heavily story-driven games people are wanting on current generation machines won't work because they're all about scripted events at specific places in a developer-designed map. It could be done with some level of randomness but imagine one of those timed A to B dashes where the random generator occasionally builds a level just a little too convoluted to complete within the time limit. Or a hideously subtle bug that very occasionally places a required object on the wrong side of a wall.

 

I do think some games could DEFINITELY use randomisation; most specifically, multiplayer FPSs. It would definitely level the playing field (double-entendre) , allowing newcomers a better chance to compete, and keeping the "elite" players from camping in their favorite sniping locations.

 

That's another problem from a design perspective; players like having the ability to learn the map and finding ways to exploit it (most of us will return to favourite games despite knowing the levels backwards to see if there's somewhere to improve how we're going through them) and building a truly random level even within sanity checks and constraints makes any multi-player situation more about sheer luck than any kind of accumulated skill.

[Arkhan]

That's another problem from a design perspective; players like having the ability to learn the map and finding ways to exploit it (most of us will return to favourite games despite knowing the levels backwards to see if there's somewhere to improve how we're going through them) and building a truly random level even within sanity checks and constraints makes any multi-player situation more about sheer luck than any kind of accumulated skill.

Yeah, Contra 1 on NES is about the most predictable game ever now, but it doesn't stop me from going back and playing it over and over. If that game was entirely random, it probably wouldn't be as fun.

 

 

 

I used randomization for my Insanity game. The robots all have a threshold for shooting/not walking into walls.

 

As the levels progress, the chance they shoot/avoid walls increases. So eventually you have a 90% chance the robot shoots you in the face.

 

 

 

 

Even at the lower levels you can't always predict when they will shoot, so it makes the game all actionpacked.

 

 

Randomization past really goony old arcade style games would probably work poorly and irritate people.

 

 

 

I am trying to imagine a game like RType with randomness. I'm pretty sure I'd break the TV

Edited September 18, 2012 by Arkhan

[SlowCoder]

I am trying to imagine a game like RType with randomness. I'm pretty sure I'd break the TV

Just about any game that can't be saved would probably be horrible. Imagine trying to beat Mario on NES if it was random every time you turned on your console. At least for games where there's a definite end to reach. Not so bad for high score games.

Edited September 18, 2012 by SlowCoder

[TMR]

Not so bad for high score games.

 

i'd have said it was because there's no even playing field to compete against anyone else for score; the guy holding the record may have just lucked out and had every single enemy spawn in front of his gun whilst everyone else has lots of places where they can't get every enemy or places where they clump together and there's not enough time to shoot them all.

[Schizophretard]

Just about any game that can't be saved would probably be horrible. Imagine trying to beat Mario on NES if it was random every time you turned on your console. At least for games where there's a definite end to reach. Not so bad for high score games.

 

But what about a mixture? Imagine Super Mario Bros. with the ability to save, the ability to play randomized levels, the ability to load previously played worlds with a password, and the password works on every cartridge. It would be like Super Mario Bros. with a thousand sequels. You could explore, memorize, beat, and master a version. You could play a different version and you could always go back to a previous version. It would be like being able to play our Super Mario Bros. plus the Super Mario Bros. of other world lines.

[Schizophretard]

 

 

i'd have said it was because there's no even playing field to compete against anyone else for score; the guy holding the record may have just lucked out and had every single enemy spawn in front of his gun whilst everyone else has lots of places where they can't get every enemy or places where they clump together and there's not enough time to shoot them all.

 

Randomness isn't just luck. Skill is still involved. An example would be sports. Every time an athlete plays a sport it is a different game every time. It isn't just luck and since the randomness is controlled by rules it is an even playing field. The real world is governed by rules and randomness.

[TMR]

Randomness isn't just luck. Skill is still involved.

 

 

That isn't really what i was getting at though, i was responding to SlowCoder's comment that it's "not so bad for high score games" and the luck element is more important in that context because no two plays of a game are the same, so the scoring potential for each play is different. Sometimes a novice will luck out and breeze through and get a staggering score, other times a well-practised, skillful player will get the backside handed to them on the first level.

[Schizophretard]

 

 

 

That isn't really what i was getting at though, i was responding to SlowCoder's comment that it's "not so bad for high score games" and the luck element is more important in that context because no two plays of a game are the same, so the scoring potential for each play is different. Sometimes a novice will luck out and breeze through and get a staggering score, other times a well-practised, skillful player will get the backside handed to them on the first level.

 

But adding a little luck is a good thing. Part of skill is playing well with what cards you are dealt. If you already know which cards are going to be dealt then it takes less skill.

[TMR]

But adding a little luck is a good thing. Part of skill is playing well with what cards you are dealt. If you already know which cards are going to be dealt then it takes less skill.

 

Again, i'm talking specifically about playing games for score. The difference between a good or bad hand of cards isn't anywhere near as variable as what a random game can throw at the player from session to session; the rules essentially change each time so, to borrow the card game as an example, it's like putting down a royal flush and being beaten by four sixes (all diamonds), two Top Trumps from different sets, Mister Bun the baker and a supermarket loyalty card.

[Schizophretard]

 

 

Again, i'm talking specifically about playing games for score. The difference between a good or bad hand of cards isn't anywhere near as variable as what a random game can throw at the player from session to session; the rules essentially change each time so, to borrow the card game as an example, it's like putting down a royal flush and being beaten by four sixes (all diamonds), two Top Trumps from different sets, Mister Bun the baker and a supermarket loyalty card.

 

So, am I. That's why I originally used Sports as an example. They are random games that include a score. I'm not a sports fan but I have never heard anyone give a description that would match your card analogy.

[TMR]

That's why I originally used Sports as an example. They are random games that include a score. I'm not a sports fan but I have never heard anyone give a description that would match your card analogy.

 

That doesn't mean they fit any better as an analogy though, most sports won't work in the same way a card game won't because they're about player(s) versus player(s) on a fixed playfield rather than two players on different playfields with different scoring potential.

 

Something like skiing fits a little better because it's a competitor up against a course, but to make it comparable to the situation with a random game you'd have to re-organise that course after every run.

[Schizophretard]

 

 

That doesn't mean they fit any better as an analogy though, most sports won't work in the same way a card game won't because they're about player(s) versus player(s) on a fixed playfield rather than two players on different playfields with different scoring potential.

 

Something like skiing fits a little better because it's a competitor up against a course, but to make it comparable to the situation with a random game you'd have to re-organise that course after every run.

 

I think you are missing the analogy. Anyway, we don't even need analogies since there are already random games. Tetris is a perfect example. There isn't an order to the blocks to memorize. It is random and it is based on score. Getting a high or low score isn't just good or bad luck with the order of the blocks. Skill is involved. It would be ridiculous to say that it isn't an even playing field all because you get a different order of blocks every time because dealing with the unpredictability of which blocks will fall is the game. A game doesn't have to be exactly the same every time to be an even playing field.

[TMR]

I think you are missing the analogy.

 

No, i'm aware of the analogy but feel that it isn't representative of what i was talking about.

 

Anyway, we don't even need analogies since there are already random games. Tetris is a perfect example. There isn't an order to the blocks to memorize. It is random and it is based on score.

 

And we weren't just talking about random games with score; the point i made that you responded to was about there being "no even playing field to compete against anyone else for score".

 

i can have a go at demonstrating this using Tetris in fact; lets say the two of us are competing for score and we're sat next to each other with a machine each. On starting the game, i get lucky and am repeatedly given four by one bars just when they're going to be useful to earn lots points for clearing three or four rows at a time. You aren't quite as lucky though, so when the game does dish out four by ones they all seem to arrive when you're not quite ready and you're only clearing two or even one line at a time.

 

The score issued for a single line is nowhere near as big as that for a Tetris, so you're being placed at a scoring disadvantage that your skill can only partially counter.

 

A game doesn't have to be exactly the same every time to be an even playing field.

 

If the scoring opportunities aren't the same every time a game is played, any comparison between scores is also going to be skewed.

[Schizophretard]

It is an even playing field and scoring opportunities are the same because the players are dealing with the exact same odds.

[BinaryStar]

No they aren't. The chances for scoring/winning would be different every time. That is BAD games design.

Edited September 20, 2012 by KidQuaalude

[SlowCoder]

If I read that right, it sounds like you're saying the Interstate was badly designed because you don't know where the cars will be.

 

In contrary to your statement, Tetris is a prime example of great randomization. The opponents in Tetris are time and randomization. The player must gain the skill to defeat both of these opponents for as long as possible, whether they are tossed "lucky bricks" or not. Games like Tetris would get old very fast. Tetris would probably have been forgotten 20 years ago had it not been for randomization.