On Randomly Generated Content In Games

Thanks to Skotos.net for their article discussing randomly-generated content in videogames, in which the author discusses pioneering games with random elements, suggesting: "One of the reasons [classic RPG] Rogue was so popular (and spawned so many children) is due to its generation of random content." But he goes on to point out: "Computers don't have the imagination to make good puzzles... asking a computer to create an interesting puzzle is very similar to asking it to tell a story, make up a joke, or create a riddle." The suggested answer is game elements "placed randomly within the [linear] structure", but with recent random level-generating games such as Toe Jam & Earl III striking out, how far should randomness be taken in games?

Comments

An Old Joke

[NickFusion]

There's an old saying that goes, Art hung in restaurants is usually as bad as food served at museums.

Paraphrasing, asking a computer to do level design is as bad as asking a level designer to do math.

This is one of those features that the marketing department loves ("Infinite Gameplay!"), but in practice almost always sucks. It's the rare game (Populous?) where random numbers can deliver a enjoyable level.

Re:An Old Joke

[Zathrus]

Rogue/Nethack/etc. are no different from Civ/MOO or any other strategy game (because that's what they all are - strategy. Rogue/Nethack/etc are certainly NOT RPGs) -- the location of content is randomized, but content itself is not dramatically different. Nor is the strategy for beating the game different, despite the randomization. In fact, people who have mastered the game and can beat it on a regular basis have to invent challenges for themselves -- Nethack has a whole list of things like vegetarian, vegan, atheist, pacifist, etc. intended purely as additional challenges.

When it comes to puzzles though they don't offer anything different from game to game. No, I don't consider maze levels to be "puzzles" -- they're merely tedious. Look at the Sokoban levels in Nethack 3.4 and up -- they're always the same, simply because writing a generalized puzzle generator for such a thing would be very difficult.

What Rogue/Nethack/etc have isn't graphics, it's gameplay. They're damned difficult, even for those who are good at them.

Mission generation, etc

[MightyTribble]

The games I have the most fun with are those with decent random content generators. Done right, they can really add to the replayability of a game. Port Royale has suitably 'open-ended' gameplay (within the confines of its environment) through random mission generation and all the fun of trading.

The thing that really gets me, though, are games that are billed as 'open-ended', infinitely replayably, etc, that are instead cripplingly linear. (Republic : The Revolution is a great example of this - a game *crying out* for decent random mission generators, but instead has a lockstep set of objectives that you have to complete to advance ).

No, it can be done right.

[Vaevictis666]

Take Ancient Domains of Mystery - This is a roguelike game in every sense of the word, and the only maps that are static are the world map, towns, and a select few dungeon floors.

There is only one pure level-up dungeon, the rest all have limitations and hard-coded stuff - ie the first dungeon will always have 7 floors, and it's associated quest will climax at that point. The floor layouts are always random, and in a roguelike game (where death is permanent) not having the same floorplan all the time is a GREAT benefit - I doubt I'd have half as much fun with it after the first 5 times through the beginnings of the game.

Re:It's a creativity issue.

[cbiffle]

> Computers can't be creative,
> at least not in the way humans _can_ be.

Oh, poppycock.

We humans have a very nice, cushy, arrogant view of human creativity. I see it in movies, where the humans win over the 'calculating machines' by creativity or love or some hogwash like that. Scifi's traditionally very bad about this as well.

My degree is in psychology with a tendency toward physiology. The brain is a deterministic machine -- or at least, as deterministic as anything else. This hypothesis is as strong as nearly anything else in science: it fits the data well, and has yet to be proven false.

A statement like "computers can't be creative" has the assumption (correct me if I'm wrong) that a deterministic, calculating, "pure-logic" machine like a computer isn't capable of producing the same level of creative work as a human. I would argue that a human is just as deterministic as a computer, though the calculation and logic functions in a very different fashion.

I say the problem is in the algorithms. I've seen properly trained computers draw brand new Picassos and compose fugues as good as anything from Bach. "Oh," the critics would say, "they're just taking the input data and modifying it and reproducing it."

Yes. Yes they are. And so are you. That's why we have a concept of 'inspiration.' Of 'derivative works.' That's why each song that's written, each house that's designed, isn't a completely new, off-the-wall creation. That's why we can categorize things into 'styles' and 'genres.'

A properly trained (read: programmed) computer could generate levels for your-game-of-choice that would be on par with a human designer. And chances are good the computer would take some directions that the human wouldn't have thought of.

By contrast, I doubt Bob off the street would design a very interesting level for Counterstrike. It's all in the input and training.