voxelproof wrote:I agree with everything you've written but still there're certain exceptions. I'll give you an example of a simple space shooter I'm playing for... well, long time:) It was not until after many years of playing it when I realized that the author of this game apparently implemented some algorithm which checks out the player's activity and which is adjusted to detect inexperienced type of gameplay. If such kind of behaviour is detected, the probability of weapon upgrade noticeably rises, which makes possible some non-standard tactics enhancing the chances of winning the game. Of course the simple way of thinking about such exploits is that it's a game's shortcoming, but I wouldn't say so, especially that when I realized it it gave me a real, profound joy of discovery of a hidden game mechanics (btw this kind of discoveries is discussed in the video linked in one of the previous posts). And even in this simple game there're some other not so obvious rules concerning tactics that an attentive player may figure out only after many played games(usually referring to probabilities of different power-ups).
Yes, there are exceptions. It's interesting how some simply-looking games are much more exciting than the big games with a huge set of naïve rules. After all, games like Tetris, Snake or Arkanoid are still played. And they are very simple.
Astrobe wrote:
Those examples are remarkable in two ways:
- they use combinatorial explosion in some way (except Mandelbrot)
- they exclude luck or randomness
I'd like to mention that luck isn't the enemy, on the contrary. It can have two positive roles:
- Simulate complexity, as illustrated by the use of Perlin and Voronoi noise in MT. Those noise generators allow us to simulate the result of the natural processes that create landscapes; processes that would be way too expensive to simulate "by the equations".
- "buffer" the mistakes of players and offer a second chance, or on the contrary disturb the players when they are in a winning spiral (the more you have equipment or resources, the easier it becomes to get more) - perhaps even open the possibility of regression to slow down progression.
Well, there is a thing called
deterministic chaos. It means that whole future of given system is determined by its current sate. However, even a tiniest change might result in a massive change of the future. The examples I listed use deterministic chaos. For example, in chess, you might be winning but one bad move can turn the situation. Of course, these games might involve randomness too but they actually don't need it.
There are also examples those involve randomness, for example Perlin noise. Or also Tetris might be a good example because you are free to think your own strategy and you always get a random piece. There are also rules with random pre-sets, like most of card games. The cards are always mixed randomly at start but the rest of the game doesn't involve randomness at all.
And there are also bad examples those involve randomness. Imagine this simple sword generator. Each sword has a random power between 10 and 100. This actually provides no depth because none of those random swords are special. A sword with power 67 is not special at all, it's the same as sword 65, just a bit stronger. This is a naïve rule. Some designers solve it in the way, they add another aspects those can be randomised. Let's say that each sword has random attack speed between 0.5 and 2.0. The depth is increased a bit but it's still too low. A sword with power 67 and attack speed 1.2 is not much different than a sword with power 65 and attack speed 1.1. Now there are two naïve rules. Well, if there are more aspects randomised, there is a smaller probability of getting swords with close aspects. However, it's only a question of time when you get them. Adding more and more naïve rules really increase the depth but not much. Randomness might be good, but the logics of the generator shouldn't rely on randomness too much.
If you lack the reality, go on a trip or find a job.