Does Mathematical Tuning Make Games Better?

simoniker writes "What do game designers need to know about statistics? Age Of Empires DS designer Tyler Sigman focuses on statistical topics that he believes should be understood by game designers, in a new article. His reasoning: 'In the game I just finished, we recorded data from play sessions and then set challenge levels in the game based upon the mean and standard deviation values from those recorded data. We set Medium difficulty to be equal to the mean values, Easy difficulty to be equal to the mean minus a certain amount of standard deviations, and then Hard difficulty equal to the mean plus a certain amount of standard deviations.' Would all games be better if they were tuned mathematically?"

Comments

Leave out "Mathematical"

[AKAImBatman]

"Tuning" makes games better. Period. End of story.

Since tuning is all about improving the feel of the game to the humans who will interface with it, it all depends upon the creator for how he wishes to accomplish this. In this case, the creator was looking for sweet spots that he was able to find through mathematical manipulation of sampled data. In other cases, using math to tune the results might give the game a clinical feel; something that's generally bad for video games. (Unless you're playing Trauma Center. :-P)

So the question is pretty much moot. Creating a good game is an art form, but even art can benefit from a few structural calculations. :)

Re:Leave out "Mathematical"

[Wandering Wombat]

That's architecture... the blending of form and spirit, with the cold hard numbers that make it possible. A painting can be done with ANYTHING, and still fulfill it's role. If a building looks the way you want, but you forgot to carry some threes, you're probably going to kill some people, and go to jail for neglicence.

More games need that kind of accountability. :)

Re:Leave out "Mathematical"

[lostboy2]

I'll hop on the agreement bandwagon. Mathematics alone does not make for a better game.

Case in point: I once had a cribbage game where you could play against the computer and set different levels of difficulty. I quickly discovered that "Expert" level just meant that the computer got better hands more often -- it had nothing to do with the quality of the computer's strategy. After getting lousy hands several games in a row while the computer consistently drew hands like 4-5-5-6, I simply stopped playing. While "Expert" level was certainly harder, it was also not fun to play.

So, while TFA has a point about statistics being important for game design, that's not much more profound than saying that vision is important for driving cars well.

developers

[the dark hero]

I always figured that there was some sort of mathematical tuning in videogames. I mean, there has to be a better way of balancing a game than just plugging in numbers by trial and error. Maybe its that i've played too many RPGs where math is an obvious factor, but every punch or every bullet has a numerical value right? It only makes sense to me that there would have to be some kind of number crucher on the dev team.

Re:developers

[paeanblack]

It's not trial and error. It's a binary search algorithm [wikipedia.org] that executed within O(log n) time. :P

Think of it like turning a knob back and forth, getting closer to the setting you feel is best.

That method will only deliver a local maximum of a polynomial function. If your game has any complexity at all, your proposed method is even less useful than trial and error.

my take

[dosboot]

I'm a mathematician and amateur game programmer. The problem I have with tuning is that you aren't paying attention to the actual game design when you make stupid changes like adjusting health/damage parameters. Games can be equally hard but not equally fun. If a boss (or level, or anything) is too hard then maybe the problem is with everything else in the game up to that point which did not prepare the player for that challenge. i.e., the player should have had opportunities to learn the techniques needed (which themselves can either logical techniques or twitch techniques). The same goes for something being too easy: you've in effect over prepared the player to beat X and need to add more depth to your game (different things to master) or make the game shorter.

You don't want to end up with a game that plays like a steady hike up the side of a foothill. These games are only 'hard' because you aren't stimulating the player to learn. A fun game has hills and valleys which in the end has the player standing on top of a mountain.

Re:Sims Designer Chris Trottier on Tuned Emergence

[drinkypoo]

While I really have to apologize to the author of the game for using it as an example, 2H4U (Too Hard for You) demonstrates exactly what happens if you throw all the elements in the pot, but don't take the time to balance and tune them

to be honest, I read the name and the premise and decided not to download. there is no reason for the premise to be exciting. it's more of a demonstration when you throw all the elements for one meal into one pot, and all the elements for another meal into another pot, and then accidentally combine the two pots.

Not to mention the inexplicable decision to name a game "too hard for you". Is it? Hell with it then. I'll go play some Gate 88.

Re:You call that "mathematical modelling"?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am constantly amazed at how much game programmers know about the mathematics and algorithms for computer graphics, and how little they know of everything else.

Ah, I see that you are from the CS department at CMU. As it seems you are unaware let me relate to you a fundamental flaw in the general social environment of game development: game developers are not computing scientists. For the most part those constituting 'old hat' developers are self-taught and have developed a chauvinistic narrow-minded view of that which is pragmatic and applicable knowledge to game development. Eg, "You may have a Ph.D. in Physics but without being a C++ guru I feel I can belittle and admonish you for even presuming to enter my field." (Disclaimer: I am not a physicist).

In my experience Game Developers are fair programmers but mathmeticians, physicists, and computing scientists they are not. The curiosity present in graduate researchers is absent from much of the lot, wherein there exists little desire to understand the slick new algorithm they picked up from SIGGRAPH. Yes, yes, exceptions do exist, but the Carmacks of the world amount to but a single percent of the greater whole.

That said, I'm not certain they need to be, or should be, of the same character as those that pursue academics. Pragmatism allows games to release on schedule, and Designers pick up the curiosity slack in order to make the games fun. I simply wish the elitism would dissipate and the field could learn to accept itself for what it is: a commercial, industrial endeavour to meet a target market demand in order to produce sustainable profit margins. It is not amenable to creative computing research, but merely a consumer of the output of said research.

Re:I bet Easy isn't actually easy.

[Anonymous Coward]

And unfortunately, it's people like yourself that take away what makes games great: Interactivity and the depth of control and manipulation you have over you virtual character. That sense of control, the challenges that you overcome while learning a game are what make games great to begin with.

In YOUR opinion.

Some people find micromanagement tedious as hell, some people get off on having to tell each individual unit in a strategy game what to do. Some people have physical disabilities that mean they CAN'T, no matter how hard they try, bounce Mario up a vertical wall by hitting the jump button three times with split second precision, some people get a huge rush when they finally succeed at something that pushes the limit of their reflexes. Some people like to explore gameworlds, and combat is just this thing they have to put up with to do it, other people could care less about the world as long as the combat mechanic is fun.

All of them are right.

Game makers have the right to target whatever market they think will be most satisfying (profitable, high-status, whatever criteria they chose to use). And if you're not in that market, I'm sorry, but you don't get to kick everyone else out so they have to cater to you.