Randomness in Gaming: Good or Bad?

[RomanLegacy]

It is true that far too many RTS don't randomize maps. It gets boring and stale for strategy.

Also, how cool would it be if there was an FPS that randomly generated a new town everymatch?

 

[ae86gamer]

Randomness is fine as long as it doesn't go too overboard.

 

[Kiutu]

Anything done using humans has randomness in it. Anything.

 

[BonsaiK]

One of my favourite ever games was Diablo (the first one not the rubbish sequel with stupid respawning enemies). I love the random maze generation and how all sorts of stuff was totally different every time you played. I played right through that game at least 20 times.

I also enjoy the old ASCII games as well as Treasure Of Tarmin/Minotaur on the Intellivision for the same reason. Randomness brings massive amounts of replay value to a game and isn't used anywhere near enough these days.

 

[IADaveMark]

Normal distribution curves for the win.

Amen.

I was at Greg's lecture specifically because I wanted to see his take on how to use it. While he focussed a lot of randomness of outcome (damage, etc.), he didn't cover much of the use of randomness in action selection. That is, using randomness (like the aforementioned normal curves) to provide variation in the selection of possible actions by NPCs. This is a major topic of my own book, "Behavioral Mathematics for Game AI", and was a component of my own lecture at GDC Austin, "Cover Me! Promoting MMO Player Interaction through Advanced AI"

This is an extraordinarily powerful use that makes for far deeper gameplay. As long as the actions that you are selecting from amongst are reasonable, there is very little disconnect from the point of view of the player. What we are simulating is the fact that people are different. Not every person is going to make the same decision given the exact same circumstances. We don't need to know WHY any given person makes slightly different decisions... we just need to simulate the fact that it happens.

 

[Valiance]

Terrible for competitive FPS games, but none of those would have random critical hits or varying weapon damage, right? (Even TF2 tournaments turn it off.)

Terrible for competitive fighting games - look what competitive gaming did to SSBM - only 3 characters and a couple of stages are even viable for such a game.

Great for fun, though.

And even games with random elements have their own competitive bases who work on trying to play the odds/numbers with them, trying to force luck in their favor with better equipment or training, minimize enemy luck, and use luck to advance their position. (Diablo, Pokemon, WoW, etc.)

But the time-tested concept of randomness is that it can create a different item, a different location, and keep the game new and interesting for longer than it normally would be.

 

[IADaveMark]

Anything done using humans has randomness in it. Anything.

Which is why, if we are constructing games and/or game AI that is supposed to replicate human (or whatever) behavior, we need to lean on randomness in order to simulate this variation.

 

[randomrob]

depends on the context. In a serious game no. In a kids game or a lego game or a nintendo game then it usually works.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

it depends on the randomness but for the most part they add something interesting to the game and make it a bit more fun. it makes it harder to do things in the game and gives it a bit of a risk to doing things

also it tends to level the playing field in the game

 

[edgeofblade]

I think randomization is one of the great formless powers designers can pull down and mold to their own needs. I particularly like it when these powers are applied to level design.

 

[LockHeart]

I like structured randomization, a la Diablo 2 - it just mixes up the weapons and the landscape but tends to leave the enemies balanced to the player's ability and so on. It's one of the reasons that I'm looking forwards to Borderlands so much.

 

[Lt. Dragunov]

randomness ok good for only certain games. Like in l4d, randomness ok, i don't wanna play a map four time and know were everyting is. Randomness in ff7cc bad idea, nothings worse than fighting sephiroth and getting five useless limit breaks in a row.

 

[rampantcreature]

What is he and the Computer hiding from us?

What is your security clearance, Citizen?

.>
Orange! No, Ultraviolet!
I'm fucked, aren't I?
NEXT CLONE!

Die mutant commie scum!

OT: I think randomness has it's place and usefulness in games for certain things. In pen&paper games, it sometimes works...and sometimes doesn't. In Chaosium's CoC, I thought it added an element of frustrating realism. In Decima's Corporation, I found it really easy to pick up and deal with, and it added to the game without hindering. In some D&D games I've been in, dice have been a pain and adding this to that to that gets frustrating outside of the story. In card games, randomness is necessary for card dealing.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

To me, a random factor in a video game is a handicap for an AI that can't possibly match human thinking. You're fighting a boss, but there's also some element to the fight happens at random, sometimes it'll screw you over, and sometimes you can bypass it, but learning how to bypass it even in the worst of situations is how you truly master fighting that boss.

Meanwhile, in a PvP situation I feel that random luck should not be even a subtle factor. After-all, a human doesn't need a handicap to make-up for his lack of ability to think on a human level (I should hope), so when you're playing a game against a friend, rival, random person, or whomever, you always feel cheated when some random stroke of luck gives him the upper hand and then he's on top for the rest of the match.

Human vs Human should always be purely a game of skill (casual family games like Mario Party or board games being an exception), where Human vs AI pretty much needs to be down to a few random elements that help give the AI some edge to make-up for your ability to adapt and improvise beyond what's programmed.

 

[scotth266]

If by randomness you mean if my attack does 250 or 350 damage, then that's fine.

but if by random you mean getting an item can actually HURT me, then no, not at all. I don't play Brawl anymore after I figured out it was one big game of luck.

Turn off items, or the ones that are instakills. Problem solved.

That's what me and my buddies do, though we leave in the less powerful items sometimes to make things interesting.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

I can't honestly argue that games would be good without randomness, but I LOATH games based around luck instead of skill or planning... I almost ALWAYS suck at them big time.

 

[Captain Blackout]

Furthermore, his example of Texas Hold'em leaves much to be desired. I've seen poker players play blind as to the cards (completely removing Costikyan's suggestion that they are using statistics to win) and still win. Does he not understand poker as a psychological game apart from the cards?

Wrong. He described that quality of poker for an entire paragraph.

His summation was a failure in it's own right.
Costikyan says, "If randomness dictates outcomes, many players will find the game unsatisfying(.)" When I was in a cards group playing daily, the Rummy section (random game) was far bigger than the Spades and Hearts section (skill games). Which players did Costikyan use as his sample for that statement? Either he hasn't said much (as many players also find games of skill unsatisfying) or he's trying to sneak in the opposite, that games of skill are preferable to games of chance.

The word "many" seems too complicated for you.

I re-read the section on poker. He does not specifically cover playing poker well without relying on statistics or odds. That's what gets me about it: I've seen it done. It cracks me up every time someone says poker is purely a game of chance. If you know how to read others and manipulate them, you never have to look at your own cards. In fact, I beat the guy who taught me the trick. Once, and only once. I was drunk as hell and was able to ignore the game completely until I wanted to win a hand (when the cards were in my favor), and not reveal what I was up to. I used the random nature of poker against a better player, but I damn near had to "cheat" to do it (by rendering myself unreadable).

As for problem with the word 'many', he makes a weak final statement. My epistemology professor would have said the same thing. To show what I mean:

And that perhaps is the main reason why serious gamers, at least, tend to view games that are excessively luck-dependent as poor games by nature; unlike primitives, or the superstitious, we see no significance to the outcome of random processes, and therefore no sense of triumph at winning a luck-dependent game. We do not have the favor of the gods, the mystical forces of nature are not aligned in our favor, it is not an omen that our endeavors today will likewise be met with triumph. It was just a game, over which we had no real control, and therefore not a very interesting one. -Costikyan
He goes on to talk about game aesthetics and relates it back to randomness. I still haven't read the whole thing but I haven't seen a good strong final statement.

Mine would be: Saying randomness makes for a poor game ignores a valid aesthetic. While skill is what makes a good game for many chance still makes for entertaining games for others. A game designer who can intelligently and artfully use chance in a game designed for players of skill games can raise the level of intensity and enjoyability. The players know they have to do their best to make the most of their luck when its good or they will surely lose when their luck turns, keeping them constantly on their toes. Perfect examples of this are games like Paranoia. (I would have chosen the board game Arkham but in deference to the brilliant author of the essay...)