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.