5 ms·

For anyone who plays video games, any form of randomization is often a bad thing

• dgellow 8y ago
  The Diablo serie is almost entirely built around some kind of randomization. And it’s a pretty good game IMHO.
  • throwdaddy425 8y ago
    Path of exile is like Diablo for smart people.
• LoSboccacc 8y ago
  dunno, random maps are a fundamental aspect of survival games and other where the challenge lies in optimizing the result more than the result itself, like tycoons.
• lawn 8y ago
  All ARPG's are massively relying on randomization for both map layouts, enemies and rewards. Weapons in FPS games have random accuracy. Same in RTS games. How about the random generated worlds of minecraft? Also sandbox games like SimCity and The Sims are full of random events. You're massively overgeneralizing.
• CM30 8y ago
  Depends on the game. In competitive multiplayer games, then sure, randomness is almost always disliked, and any form of luck mechanics are usually loathed by the fanbase. See for example how unpopular tripping was in Smash Bros Brawl, or how items tend not to be enabled in tournament play. On the other hand, less competitive multiplayer games and single players can have randomness work well. Few complain about randomly generated levels in single player games (at least on a 'this is unpredictable' level, roguelikes are basically entirely random, many sandbox games have random systems of events that could happen at any time and party games tend to be heavily based on random mechanics overall.
  • gameswithgo 8y ago
    PUBG and Fortnite are the most popular competitive games ever? and randomness is paramount in both.
    • kakarot 8y ago
      Let's be more specific. The concept in both games is securing equipment which can aid you. Randomness only applies to your drop line and loot dispersal. After you get your gear, randomness is no longer in play other than the circles of death. A shot to a player's head should always connect. There's no element of randomness when engaging with another player. If there was a noticeable random element of accuracy in your weapons, the community would drop PUBG in a hot second. Fortnite's scene isn't nearly as competitive so it's possible there is more leeway for random combat, but in PUBG dependable combat is a MUST.
      • jimmaswell 8y ago
        Hip fire bullet spread isn't random?
        • kakarot 8y ago
          Bullet spread is present in every modern FPS, with most weapons and not just in hip fire mode. Bullet spread as a stratagem isn't random because the idea is that you can choose: Quick, reactionary hip fire or slow, focused aiming? One guarantees a hit at the expense of speed, the other guarantees speed at the expensive of maybe not hitting. But no one using hip fire will be angry that their gun might have missed, because the system is predictable, non-random and non-changing. However, if we were talking about a system where sometimes your aiming is precise and sometimes it isn't, with no clear rules, then your strategy begins to depend on randomness instead of interfacing with it. That's why randomness isn't "paramount" to the combat of PUBG. This is why the game is successful. Bugs nonwithstanding, once a player secures loot they can form predictable, actionable strategies that do not depend on RNG. If this wasn't the case, and randomness bled into combat itself, nobody would play the game.
    • 8y ago
• kevinventullo 8y ago
  I think this is more true for highly competitive games. Speedrunners are often found lamenting "RNG". Even in the physical world, the most contentious moments in sports arise from "bad calls" by the ref.
• kakarot 8y ago
  What games have you played that don't feature randomness, exactly? Can you name a single one?
  • philipov 8y ago
    I think Randomness has a role to play in games like Poker. Its role is to create unknowns the player has to use statistical reasoning to overcome. However, not all games rely on randomness as a crutch for removing information. A great example is Diplomacy[0]. Instead of randomness, you have asymmetrical information, for which you have to use the same type of statistical reasoning. This is much more satisfying than randomness, because there is substance behind the veil. There are 7 players, and each starts with 3 or 4 units. The outcome of an attack is determined entirely by numerical superiority. If you attack with more units than are defending, you win. However, because there are so many more players than units, and all orders for a turn are resolved at the same time, you don't know what's going to happen because you don't know what other players are going to do. Will your allies actually support your attacks, or will they backstab you and defend your opponent instead? People can make your attack or defense fail simply by not writing the order to support you, because you don't have enough units to do it alone. Therefore, the outcome is dominated by cooperation between players. You don't know what will happen only because you don't know who's lying. And this gives you a way to overcome the "random" element by finding out who's really lying using... Diplomacy! Mafia is another game that relies on asymmetrical information instead of randomness, if you forgive the fact that roles are randomly assigned. This is a less pure example, because there is some element of randomness. However, the information game is still more important, because the randomness is limited to setting up the board. Poker uses this kind of randomness, because once you shuffle the deck, the result of drawing a card is not random. Procedural generation is a mixed case, but I think it usually falls into this bucket as well. In general, randomness is good when it is used to hide information, but it can become very frustrating when it is used to create information independent of any other causal structure. Randomness is bad when it destroys the narrative a player is forming about their experience. If the causal structure of your game is capable of hiding information without relying on randomness, like with Diplomacy, then you don't need any. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game)
• cableshaft 8y ago
  As a game designer I have to disagree, but you do kinda have to massage the randomness to the player's benefit sometimes, especially since players will see things that didn't happen sometimes ("the computer player got all the good cards and I got only bad cards!" ...you got the same cards, just in a random order, that's literally not possible). Randomness can make a game endlessly replayable (or at least until you get bored of the game), but there is something to be said for constructed levels as well, as they can keep the game interesting and not make it seem like it's just more of the same. If both are feasible I try to include both when I can (like random maps and designed maps). If we're talking tabletop games, though, there are some people that just hate randomness for some reason, to the point where even a random but full information setup will anger them. And yet they don't want to play combinatorial abstract games, which are better suited for that. I don't get it (I do love abstract games myself, but I'm also fine with randomness)
• 0xcde4c3db 8y ago
  I think the issue isn't randomness in general, but rather randomness where part of the outcome space is just "you lose" instead of being a different challenge that you can somehow overcome. Even then, it depends on the overall flow and UX of the game; if it's cheap enough to try again, even a pretty bleak outcome space can become tolerable or even interesting (cf. slot machines).
  • alchemism 8y ago
    Dwarf Fortress is an example of ‘you always lose due to randomness’ which is not cheap to retry, but remains vastly entertaining anyway.