ID:27444
 
When I was a kid my family's first computer was the 16K Atari 400, for which we got a cassette drive, and a few years later we upgraded to the 64K Atari 800XL and got a disk drive. We had a lot of great games on that, both on cartridge and on disk, but there were several events that came later which increased my game stock considerably. One of them was, in the now-defunct Camillus Mall a store opened that sold games for the Atari. Antic magazine also became easier to find and often included disks right in the issue. Another time, my dad managed to pick up a boxload of stuff for $20 that included an old Atari 800 (I don't think it worked), a color printer (we couldn't get it to work but the output from a partial test page was beautiful), and several games. Those games included some great classics on disk like Temple of Apshai (sort of a graphical Roguelike) and Zork, along with a few other one-offs I recall fondly. But also there were a couple of cartridges, one of which was River Raid.

River Raid is best remembered for its appearance on the Atari 2600, but the 800 version was far superior and more colorful. Activision was known for producing some great colorful games, by making the most of a trick the Atari could perform (more on that later). The object of the game is simple: Your low-flying strike plane is flying down a river valley filled with enemy ships, helicopters, balloons, and more, and you have to navigate the river without bumping into the banks or the enemy craft, kill as many of the enemy as possible, and destroy a bridge at the end of each stage. The Atari 800 version also includes tanks, some of which will shoot at you from the riverbank, others which try to cross the bridge and will shoot at you if you don't get to them in time (or if you hit the bridge before they cross). Fuel barges could also serve as targets, and would keep up your fuel reserves so you could continue flying. This game is widely considered to be the best 8-bit scrolling shooter of its day.

The Atari had very limited graphics. It could display up to 8 colors, 4 of which were background graphics and 4 others for "players" using its player-missile graphics system. In that system, each player was a vertical strip, 8 pixels wide, that could be positioned along the horizontal axis. To move a sprite up and down, you had to wait for the vertical refresh interrupt (every 1/60 of a second when the TV's electron beam would return to its original position) and then move the sprite's data up or down. There were 4 players, and 4 missiles which were literally 2-bit versions of the players. Any of the above could be positioned independently, and they could be stretched to 2× or 4× width if desired.

Activision had a neat trick that they liked to use for getting around the Atari's graphical limitations, and they used it often. After each line of the display, they could use the TV's horizontal refresh interval to change the colors of the graphics mode and the players and missiles, and the positions of the players. In River Raid, no two enemies shared the same horizontal strip at the same time (except for those tanks on the side), so one player could be used for all the enemies at once. And because of the color trick, the normally single-color players had multiple colors. The result was amazing.

But even more amazing was that all this fit on an 8K cartridge. That's program code, sprites (facing left and right), the colors used for each kind of sprite, etc. In this game, it would have been impossible to do any level planning--so no one did. The only nod to level planning I've seen is that some enemies become more frequent in later levels, and of course the river tends to get narrower and trickier as well.

The game's designer was Carol Shaw, one of the first female programmers. At the time she wanted to make a space game, but Activision thought the market was saturated with those, so she made a river game instead. Her solution to the problem of having no room for levels was to use a pseudorandom number generator. Given a seed like the level number, it could generate a map with several different "blocks", break those up further and generate enemies, and then randomize the river banks a bit to make them ragged. You would have to play a long, long time to ever see a level repeat.

All of my games released on BYOND so far have also used dynamic content. Clever level design is challenging and can make a good game, but it also has the down side of reducing gameplay value, increasing production time, and even making the game end sooner than it has to. A good level generator, on the other hand, may require extra thought to work out but will reap huge benefits in keeping players interested.
I think in the dedicated softcore gaming crowd, you'll find wide support for the ideal of having random content. Your average teenager who plays Halo until his eyes bleed, on the other hand, just wants the same machine-stamped levels and fears the unknown.
I was working on a random map generator a while back, but quickly got bored with it and moved onto my current project. I didn't have any need for it, though I have thought up a few for my upcoming game, whenever it gets out (likely a while yet). I do plan on finishing it sooner or later, hopefully.
Jtgibson wrote:
I think in the dedicated softcore gaming crowd, you'll find wide support for the ideal of having random content.

Random content to me is a great concept, and I wish it had more support.

Your average teenager who plays Halo until his eyes bleed, on the other hand, just wants the same machine-stamped levels and fears the unknown.

I actually think of the way my friends act after reading this. They think that memorizing the maps makes them the best players out there---if Halo's maps were all nice and random, I wonder how these kiddies would fare against people that play with a bit of depth and reasoning.
As primarily an explorer type, I love the feeling of hugging a wall and sidestepping quickly into the next room and back out to check for baddies (in FPS's). I also love that first part of the civ's where one is exploring and checking out the continents. I get bored quickly when I know a map, and because of that I prefer randomly generated maps, too.

However, I think procedural and random mapping can also lead to a sense of repetition and boredom. If the procedure isn't 'deep' enough (IOW, use enough randomness or complexity), over the long run it can seem just as familiar as a single hand-crafted map.

I always liked the hack mixture of the two types.

There are parallels to AI, I think. Procedural and scripted AI are both methods of handling the 'content' of an antagonist's behavior, with similar drawbacks and bonuses compared to mapping.
You don't actually have to give up memorizing maps to use dynamic content--you can just use a seeded PRNG. Maybe I'll create a library to use independent PRNGs for just such a purpose.
I've always adored one of the mainstay features of several roguelikes: vaults. The premise being, of course, that while randomness is the norm, there are certain situations that are most exciting when designed by hand.
I never liked randomly generated content very much. :(

I like exploring in games too, but if I know there's nothing to backtrack too, it really demolishes the feeling that I'm finding new areas. Like what TheMonkeyDidIt mentioned, layouts are so randomly different that they end up all feeling the same. It becomes less of "what will I find when I go down this path" and more of a "what did the computer end up slapping here?"

Maybe I just played bad examples, though. If someone could whip together a decent platformer (maybe with a multiplayer competitive theme?) it might be fun. Something like what I saw in Dark Cloud 2, ick ick ick.
River Raid was awesome. It's too bad River Raid 2 over-complicated it all by adding the landing/take-off stuff (I remember it being real hard, but I was very young at the time).


I tend to find games aren't complex enough with their random content. They'll make a random level, but it's usually just the same level with the elements placed differently each time. That gets old much faster than any scripted stuff.
Taxi Missions in GTA are a perfect example. You're just racing from location to location (getting slightly harder as you progress). If they made it so that some Taxi mission levels required you to pick people up from dangerous situations, escape rival gangs/drivers, etc unlocking those bonuses wouldn't be so painful.
That's one of the reasons my friends and I loved Command & Conquer Tiberian Sun. Back in the day it was HUGE where I lived. The game had a pretty nice random map generator. You would enter variables like a how much water, how many cliffs, how many bushes (though a bit less vague) and it would spit out pretty nice maps.

It pretty much made up for the shoddy AI elsewhere. =)
It is an interesting are. I think it has been said that, ideally, procedural content would be indistinguishable from hand made content. However, while computers are good at number crunching, they aren't very creative. And so procedural content varies from inane and jarring to somewhat dull with some clever elements. Which is just fine for many games.

The problem is when people expect procedural content to be highly unique. Doesn't work that way. It's like expecting a Picasso from a Ford car-coating machine. That's not to say the machine can't paint well. But it paints in the lines. With guidance. If you tell it to paint one particular Picasso, or even all Picassos, it can, but it can not paint a new Picasso. Or even an original stickman. But it can crank out shiney cars in a ton of colors! Could Picasso do that? So it boils down to what you want. RPI environments probably require hand crafted content with attention to detail. Action and hack n slash thrive on variety and don't need such depth.
I should mention, since TMDI and DarkView have brought it up, that I absolutely despise random map generators that discard the data if you leave the location. Diablo II did it quite nicely: it randomly-generated the wilderness and saved it (at least when you play single-player). It's never the same game twice, but it never spontaneously changes on you until you start over, either.
Hiead wrote:
if Halo's maps were all nice and random, I wonder how these kiddies would fare against people that play with a bit of depth and reasoning.

That would definitely be interesting. I don't get into online shooters much (or really at all, apart from the occasional LAn game), partly because I suck at them and partly because I don't want to sink in the huge amounts of time required to become familiar with the maps. It would be interesting to see a 3D random map generator for games like that.

I remember reading that Soldier of Fortune II had a random map generator, but according to Wikipedia it wasn't very interesting because all the areas were too bland and same-y. Still, as long as the layout was different enough it would be enough to avoid the memorising meta-game.
Jtgibson wrote:
...I absolutely despise random map generators that discard the data if you leave the location.

Oh, yeah. Those are a pain. Compare Angband to Hack, for example. For one, it would totally remove that feeling of accomplishment having to go back up in Angband. The level you just cleared was now a brand new level. For another, if you had to leave something behind (like a chest that was uncrackable at your level), there was no second chance at it. In Hack, on the other hand, you could climb back up to where you might have stashed something.

Darkview brings up another fantastic example of dynamic v. crafted: quests. I remember a vaunted plus of Star Wars Galaxies when it first came out was a dynamic quest generation system. It was horribly repetitive. People began to call the mission terminals 'ATMs'. Wow (from what I've heard) has very good quest lines (for a corporate MMO) because they hired a gajillion people to crank them out.

Still, I think procedural content could be great. Maybe someday we'll have an editor that content writers can 'play' like an instrument with each edit they make procedures could expand on exponentially. If the writer knew well enough what the engine/editor would produce, you might get some amazing combination of the two types.
The degree to which a random generator can be blah depends a lot, I think, on the sophistication of the generator. Given quality guidelines, it can produce some pretty amazing things.

I'm not so sure I can totally buy into the Picasso analogy, because with proper design a random generator can produce some pretty interesting stuff--and it can even be seeded with some hand-made content as well. Also, there has been some work done on the front of Artificial Creativity, which could well go into deciding how to shake things up or whether something new might be worth trying.
Crispy wrote:
I don't want to sink in the huge amounts of time required to become familiar with the maps.

Oh come on. It takes one or two rounds per map to learn the layout. Save the stereotypical time-sink comments for mmo's! =p

Monkey, what they did on WoW was take an idea based on the area's lore then make a simple quest based on the standard formulas. You'd either have to kill something, grab something, escort something...the list goes on. After the quest, you'd get a followup of some sort. All the quests in every area work like this. They all tie in to the general lore of Warcraft. Once you're done with an area they'll ship you off somewhere else...with a quest! zomg!
SuperAntx wrote:
Monkey, what they did on WoW was take an idea based on the area's lore then make a simple quest based on the standard formulas. You'd either have to kill something, grab something, escort something...the list goes on. After the quest, you'd get a followup of some sort. All the quests in every area work like this. They all tie in to the general lore of Warcraft. Once you're done with an area they'll ship you off somewhere else...with a quest! zomg!

Not so! Deadron vaunted about some of the gems of quests -- in one quest, your job is to request aid from another city to protect a town. In another, your quest is to kill an undead wife's husband because it was his wish that he be buried next to her! You wouldn't see that sort of sophistication in a random quest generator.

Morrowind quests were hand-created too, and Deadron hated them. So it says a lot if he finds an MMORPG that has better quests than Morrowind did. Oblivion has much better quests since each one was written as a mini-story -- a particular vampire hunter, for instance, made me seethe with rage when it came to me to dole out his punishment.

That said, there's nothing better to relieve stress than getting paid just to off some random stranger in a random quest.
Yeah, they do have a really well-crafted quest here and there.

There's a specific quest that stands out to me in one of the Horde beginner areas. You have to defend a small outpost against a clan of centaurs. After you kill enough of them, their leader comes and you have to kill him. What's so awesome about this quest is you're actually running out there with npc Horde grunts fighting along side you.

What I'd kill for are randomly generated dungeons. Say, 20 premade sections of cave tunnels strung together leading to a main chamber. The npc's would all follow a theme of some sort.
Jtgibson wrote:
Wow (from what I've heard) has very good quest lines (for a corporate MMO) because they hired a gajillion people to crank them out.

Yeah, but I think what really made the quests good was a combination of things. The chains were interesting because they mixed up what you were doing. You'd go kill someone for the first part of the quest. Then you'd have a quest where you need to gather three items. Then you'd need to take the head of the person you killed and those items to someone and have it made into a potion.
It also really helped that starting/ending quests often resulted in a reaction from the NPC to go along with the text. They'd give you the 'debriefing' dialogue window, but they'd also make the NPC walk over to the table, say a few things through the chat window then do the mixing potion animation. Nothing super advanced, but it removed the feeling that you were just walking up to an NPC and hitting the submit quest button.

TheMonkeyDidIt wrote:
Still, I think procedural content could be great. Maybe someday we'll have an editor that content writers can 'play' like an instrument with each edit they make procedures could expand on exponentially.

That could actually be really cool. I've just got an image of someone using DJ-like equipment to mix a dungeon a minute. =P
DarkView wrote:
Jtgibson wrote:

[snip]

Nope, that was TheMonkey'sProsecutor too.
Page: 1 2