Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:18 pm
Real life has both randomness and behaviors you can predict. Try to emulate that.
Denial
The Commodore Vic 20 Forum
https://www.sleepingelephant.com/~sleeping/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/
Randomness in games
https://www.sleepingelephant.com/~sleeping/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=6171
Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 6:17 pm
Steve Rabin (Nintendo) has written several articles on randomness in games that are worth reading. For example, if you google "filtered random sequences Steve Rabin" the first hit gives some great examples of why pure randomness is undesirable in a game, and explains what to do about it. Unfortunately the code would be rather bloated on a VIC.
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 8:09 pm
Very interesting. I would love a link; I only found a PDF glossary of the term. Unfortunately, most readings on game design assume one has mighty resources, not 3.5 kilobytes of Basic :p
I like the Hammer Bros. example because short bursts of random events can be very exciting.
I like the Hammer Bros. example because short bursts of random events can be very exciting.
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:39 am
Games with designed levels reward learning patterns more than random design, which lends to replay value for me. It's more like a dialogue between the player and the game designer.
Raid on Fort Knox had nothing random in it, yet was one of my favourite games for the Vic.
Manic Miner / Perils of Willy, same thing - but I'd get frustrated at having to start at the beginning every single time.
Raid on Fort Knox had nothing random in it, yet was one of my favourite games for the Vic.
Manic Miner / Perils of Willy, same thing - but I'd get frustrated at having to start at the beginning every single time.
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:53 am
Agree. The worst is when a game lies on a random level generator, and you have to restart when you die, e.g. in Sword of Fargoal (interesting interview with the author):
This makes no sense to me, as a dungeon should remain the same. See also the old thread about Sorcery, which was modified to v1.1 in order to eliminate randomness not in the maze structure, but in its orientation:wikipedia wrote:Sword of Fargoal has remained somewhat notorious within C-64 fandom as being extremely difficult to win. Due to the random design of the "Sword Level," it is possible that the player may enter it with no way of actually reaching the Sword room, and he or she must exit and return to that level for another chance. Further, once the Sword was claimed by the player he or she had exactly 2,000 seconds (33 minutes and 20 seconds) to escape the dungeon by going back through each level, or the Sword would be destroyed by a curse. Of course, since all levels are newly generated when the player returns to them, they must be fully explored to find the correct staircases leading upward, of which there is usually only one per level on this return trip. Complicating matters further was the fact that if the Sword was lost for any reason (such as being stolen by a wandering foe), the player must return to the level he or she originally found the Sword to re claim it, and the clock did not stop or reset when this occurred.
Brendan Jones wrote:The maze is the same, but the four exits shift will change, so when we restart the game keeping move e.g. S/W with the odd N or E until you get in the e.g. SW corner, then you'll be oriented for your hand-drawn maze. Yeah; since the maze moves it isn't *exactly* the same, but that is the only difference (Well, that and the monsters). We did know about this, but for some reason we rationalised it.
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:23 am
Games like moria and nethack have full random levels and monsters + artifacts and special monsters. So mostly random but a lot of fun for months of gameplay.
But, globally, there is a "pattern" and a "quest" which keeps it "consistent" as a whole.
I think that's because a long enough sequence of random numbers has a quite predictable mean and other indexes.
But, globally, there is a "pattern" and a "quest" which keeps it "consistent" as a whole.
I think that's because a long enough sequence of random numbers has a quite predictable mean and other indexes.
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:16 am
Yes, this kind of randomness is OK, but as long as you play the same game, and go back and forth one level, at least the map (if not the monsters) should remain the same.
Although I prefer games where the world is procedurally generated: every game has the same pattern, so you can develop startegies for each level, and exchange information with other gamers. This is particularly important in exploration/conquest games, such as Elite, or Noctis.
Although I prefer games where the world is procedurally generated: every game has the same pattern, so you can develop startegies for each level, and exchange information with other gamers. This is particularly important in exploration/conquest games, such as Elite, or Noctis.
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:22 am
That's not the case of rogue, moria and hangband (I believe it is for diablo instead).orion70 wrote:Yes, this kind of randomness is OK, but as long as you play the same game, and go back and forth one level, at least the map (if not the monsters) should remain the same.
On moria you run thru hundreadths of levels and, with limited resources, it would be impossible to save them all somewhere, in case you go back. Actually you finish a level, take the teletransport scroll or speel, go back to top, then to the new level directly, so it's not a problem (you never go to the same level two times).
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 8:08 am
This is a good compromise and cuts all problems with randomness!