|
| T O P I C | |
|
Randomness: A Seed of Doubt
April 22nd 2002, 14:22 CEST by m0nty The new 1.21f patch for Civilization 3 introduces a new option to the world-building screen to incorporate more randomness into the game mechanics, which raises issues about game design and customer feedback in patches. Previous versions of the Civ3 executable generated a single "random seed", a string of numbers which is referred to by the in-game random number generator, and used it for all battles and other events within the Civ3 game which required an unpredictable element. The random number is usually entered into an equation with a number extrapolated from the PC's internal clock to generate the random number, although in the case of Civ3 it seems the random seed is the only external element introduced into the equation. What this meant in game terms pre-1.21f was that the "random" events would stay predictable after they happened, so that if your Musketeer lost a fight with a Rifleman, when you loaded a savegame back up again and went through the same movements, you would lose that fight in exactly the same way. The new patch allows the option for the program to regenerate a new random seed every time a game is loaded, so that quickload-freaks who want their Spearman to beat that Tank can conceivably keep reloading and reloading until the random numbers fall their way. Personally, I thought the original design to maintain the original random seed was a good one, because it forced savegame whores like me to come up with clever strategies to win battles and achieve in-game goals, rather than just hitting reload every time they lost a unit. Playing with the new patch with the option to change the seed at every reload makes it feel like a different game - one which took the requests of players too far. Some of the fans even complained that the options couldn't be changed for old saved games. There are some times as a developer, I would contend, when you have to disregard the bleating of the hardcore fans for their pet gameplay change and stick to your design principles. Do you agree, or is the customer always right? Should developers cave in to pressure from gamers to let them win with less effort by, in effect, breaking their game? Are savegame whores playing the game wrong? How often do you hit reload just because you lost one hit point or 5% stamina, or spent more than the minimum amount of ammo to kill the umpteenth Skaarj, shambler or Stormtrooper? |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: Randomness: A Seed of Doubt
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
|
devttys0 Time to join the professional gaming league for BIG MONEY PRIZES! Clans are great for teenagers, but they don't work for me. The only people I play with on a regular basis are those who don't make me wish team damage was on. And there's not enough of those in the world to form a clan. What would Jesus warez?
|
|
Love the quicktime. Well, compared to realplayer at least. Warez is naughty, saving your game is a personal choice and the coffee was just too damn hot.
|
|
There's been a few interviews about GTA3 PC (or rather one interview cloned three times) and it was announced that there will be no multiplayer, and apparently no first-person mode. Suck. But one feature that has me excited is a replay mode with saveable replay movies. I love replays. I still have a batch of replay movies from Carmageddon 2 that I sometimes watch. But anyway, they say that the replay movies are limited to the last 30 seconds. I was wondering: is there a technical reason for this? It seems that the replay length should depend on the memory available; that's how the the Carmageddon games handled it. My digital camera does that too -- only 60 seconds, no matter how big the Flash card is. Can anyone who knows more about this than me explain it? |
|
GTA3 without MP isn't even worth warezing. Get creative or get the hell of my internet. What would Jesus warez?
|
|
GTA3 without MP is still the best game released last year. If you don't have a PS2, and you're avoiding the PC release because of a lack of MP, then more's the pity for you. -chris |
|
I finished the PS2 version, so what the hell does the PC version have to offer? Oh, right, jack all. Pass. What would Jesus warez?
|
|
It's called a port. What did you expect? --jmc
ICQ-121684 AIM-jmcdavel U=FAG0T |
|
I bet you think Halo will have all sorts of PC only special features too right? --jmc
ICQ-121684 AIM-jmcdavel U=FAG0T |
|
So pass. =) If it comes down to a question of time/money, and Rockstar decides that they won't make enough of the latter to justify the former, then they're not going to add multiplayer. I don't think they're expecting anyone who played through and finished the PS2 version to buy the PC version. That's not why companies make ports. -chris |
|
Quicktime sucks. Although I have it installed on my system, all I can see of a Quicktime movie in IE is a tiny white rectangle with coloured geometric figures inside. <sob> Kittens fucking burn.
|
|
JMCDaveL The point is, anyone who wanted to play/see Halo or GTA3, probably has by now ... how many sales can possibly await these games on the PC platform? Halo may do alright with proper multiplayer support, but GTA3 ... no multiplayer? What's the incentive to buy it? I don't get their logic. I'd bet money they won't even up the res on the textures ... it'll end up like the MGS PC port ... a straight, direct port. Blah. WoT?
|
|
JMC I bet you think Halo will have all sorts of PC only special features too right? I'd lay odds it's going to have net multiplayer, and that's enough reason to at least take a look at it. crash So pass. =) I assure you, I'm passing water all over Rockstar's formerly good name. What would Jesus warez?
|
|
I'll buy Halo for the PC because I won't be buying an xbox anytime soon. As for GTA3, you all might shun me for the leper I am but I thought it was just o.k. Maybe I'm too used to PC games but I played it for a couple of days and haven't touched it since. Warez is naughty, saving your game is a personal choice and the coffee was just too damn hot.
|
|
I just figure I'll buy GTA3 for my PC if a decent mod scene springs up around it. I'd love to see new car/skin/weapons, even new cities and missions. All of which could be done if Rockstar is smart about it. Florida is the New Nazi FuckMonkeys.
-LPMiller (warzed quote, used without permission) |
|
I have a PC but no PS2 so that would be reason for me to buy GTA3. -- Martin
Business as usual. |
|
You can rent a PS2 and GTA3 for a week, and it'll cost less than buying the PC version. What would Jesus warez?
|
|
I don't have the time to finish it in a week. And my PC really sucks so I can't play GTA3 on it anyhow. Just arguing. -- Martin
Business as usual. |
|
Your argument is receiving the same treatment as Rockstar Games' formerly good name. What would Jesus warez?
|
|
You all brought up points I made in my topic submission. Luckily I made them first ;) I'm still buying the game. I just hate getting Developer Excuse A : "We don't do things half-assed". |
|
So you'd rather developers threw together some sloppy multiplayer gameplay and a half-hearted attempt at decent splitscreen code or whatever, just to get another selling point. That wouldn't piss you off at all? professional philosophical level design monkey.
|
|
You mean they don't already? "If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." -- Lewis Carroll
|
|
I have never played GTA3, but due to many endorsements (some of which were written here) I am buying this game for my PC. No Multi is a let-down, but since I have never played this game, I am glad that Rockstar is porting this over for PC users like me...the ones that hate consoles. According to IGN, Rockstar has increased the texture resolution to utilize the capabilities of the PC...so my 128MB of video ram will be very content. They have also allowed mouse/keyboard combo along with the console key pad style control. "Good health" is merely the slowest rate at which one can die.
|
|
From what I've read, they are going to increase texture resolution for the PC version. For what it's worth. "I want you to remember me just as I am...filled with murderous rage!" --Homer Simpson
|
|
Damned lightning-fast posters!!! "I want you to remember me just as I am...filled with murderous rage!" --Homer Simpson
|
|
#91 But will you use a gamepad? I just can't play racing games without at least a gamepad or, better yet, a wheel. I rented GTA3 on the PS2, played it for awhile, haven't gotten around to buying it... so many good PC games that come before my console obession. My name comes up in conversation when you mention teh spelin.
|
|
#94 Wizard I don't know if I will use a gamepad...it's unlikely given the fact you are on foot at times. Some racing games are ok on gamepads...but I usually just use the keyboard. Gamepads seems to have been relegated to NHL 2002 and MAME sessions. "Good health" is merely the slowest rate at which one can die.
|
|
Also, I spoke with Rockstar's Dan Houser over the phone today and it really just came down to the fact that the multiplayer component had a very "tacked on" feel to it and they didn't feel right releasing it in that state. from gouranga.com. Are we to believe that they had functioning multiplayer and then removed it? |
|
Might want to think about a joystick. The game was designed with analog controllers in mind, your keyboard's going to be saying "hard right" each time you try to change lanes. What would Jesus warez?
|
|
#95 Then you don't deserve the goodness of GTA3... Your buying power shall be taken from you until you realize the need for the gamepad!!! or something. Caryn, can I have a free copy of Bridge Commander?
|
|
#96 by BobJustBob I spoke with Rockstar's Dan Houser over the phone today and it really just came down to the fact that the multiplayer component had a very "tacked on" feel to it and they didn't feel right releasing it in that state. from gouranga.com. Are we to believe that they had functioning multiplayer and then removed it? Ugh I hope that's not the case. Granted they're in the area of damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they had implemented it as a "tacked on" portion many people would be thrilled; in the same token many people would complain that it feels "tacked on". So damn. Personally, even if the mp portion of GTA3 PC had sucked, at least I could have seen for myself that it sucked. Now we'll never know if it would have been semi-fun or not. Obviously that is up to the developers to decide what is best for their game. But as a consumer I'd much rather be given the option of trying it instead of having that decision made for me. The other possibility <pulling straight out of my ass> is perhaps they're working on an expansion pack that will be more suited for MP play on the PC... One can dream, can't he? ... These aren't the craps you're looking for ...
|
|
Are we to believe that they had functioning multiplayer and then removed it? Would that be the first time that ever happened? I remember reading something about that happening before, and I want to say it was Deus Ex, that a game had MP in but it was pulled because they could not get it to work right. Again, I could be wrong about the exact game, but I do remember that happening. |
|
off topic: halo port to PC #77 by JMCDaveL 2002-04-23 08:09:04 I bet you think Halo will have all sorts of PC only special features too right? reply: JMCDaveL, I am certain that the Halo port will have at least one special PC feature that the XBox version doesn't: Mouse and Keyboard support. I might just play it. -Demo_Boy |
|
on topic: cheating in single player games Remember that winning the game is only part of the fun the player recieves. The other part of the fun is just playing with the toys and looking at the graphics/etc... A previous poster said it best when he wrote that he used the godmade cheat to zip though Unreal levels that he did not have time to beat otherwise. For example the winning movie in Unreal1 is really cool and fun to watch, or to show off to friends. There is no reason that a player who paid his 30 bucks shouldnt get to see the whole game, then he can play for the "win" on the second pass. |
|
Warren: The point is, anyone who wanted to play/see Halo or GTA3, probably has by now ... how many sales can possibly await these games on the PC platform? Halo may do alright with proper multiplayer support, but GTA3 ... no multiplayer? What's the incentive to buy it? i wouldn't mind playing halo or gta3; kind of want to. not bad enough to bother renting a console and spending a weekend doing it, though; i kind of enjoy playing games at my own pace. and lack of multi is hardly a deterrent, at least to me. so they've got a market of at least one. not enough to pad those spreadsheets, but hey, there is an audience. - if you can laugh at it, you can live with it.
- "Hey, how 'bout this: fuck you." -LPMiller |
|
I hate the idea that I should pay $50 for a game and then be told that I'm not good enough to finish it and I will not purchase or play games like that. It's a problem I have with a lot of console games, I'm not going to spend even more money to buy a lame game shark or whatever to finish your stupid platformer because you wanted to make it insanely difficult and not allow me the option of saving or cheating. Screw that. Let people have the options and if you're too weak willed to go with the challanging-but-possible way for you to complete the game then that's your problem. They're cute, they're cuddly and jam shoots out their heads. I want 'em all!
|
|
#104 Oh no! You pressed the button! Here comes jafd!!! "I want you to remember me just as I am...filled with murderous rage!" --Homer Simpson
|
|
I wish I could have precision mouse aiming with GTA3-PS2. I'm stuck on that one mission where 8ball plants the explosives on the boat and you have to take out all of the guards. I simply cannot aim for shit with the dpad or analog stick. And it bothers me that I can't just cheat my way through it, say taking the Rhino over to the boat and crushing everyone. And then that moron 8ball has to go run up right away, why not wait for me to shoot them all? That makes much more sense to me. You're the new nazis.
|
|
Eh? What button. I agree completely. Er, except for this part, maybe: then be told that I'm not good enough to finish it I'm not sure if I understand what FB is trying to say here, but people can only say the above to themselves. You just don't like being told what to do. Admit it.
|
|
You're right not to buy games that are too hard for you to finish. If you don't enjoy a challenging game, a challenging game is not for you. Try not to sound like it makes the game bad, though. A game is NOT a movie. Not being able to win a game is NOT the equivalent of being thrown out of a movie theatre half way through the performance. They're different mediums, and incomparable in those terms. The trait of being too difficult to finish is a strength for some, and a weakness for others. As said before, without a conflict, there can be no resolution. Some play games to earn victory. Others, just to finish the game. That's not to say that PacMan is bad because it's nigh in impossible to see all 99 levels, or that FF7 is stupid because it's impossible not to (eventually) complete. It's all personal taste. As far as general randomness in games goes, the rule of thumb is that any randomness that assumes the player's skill for them, or gives them random rewards makes the game's scoring/contingancy system a less accurate portrail of skill in the game. Randomness, ofcourse, can be cancelled out by drawing the game out along a long enough time line, but sometimes it's better to have a game that can ascertain skills of players in as short a time as possible (again, this is personal preference. Some like to pick up and play. Others prefer a more drawn out game, full of surpise and lucky or unlucky scoring). Chris Crawford: Inasmuch as all games have the potential for being played in an overly competitive way, some people who are especially sensitive to the social risks of game-as-conflict refuse to play games, for they do not perceive the games to be safe. If they do play, they prefer to play games of pure chance, not so much to disable or discourage the shark as to create a situation in which winning is patently unrelated to prowess. If winning is arbitrary, social risk is eliminated and safety is restored. Which is why I'm often irritated by people who claim they are "skillful" at CounterStrike... a game with much inherant randomness (No offense Bailey/others: It's not ALL luck, but there are far better tests of raw FPS skill). Victory in a game not suited to competitive play is not victory at all. It's an inevitability, eventually. Such games do not annoy me, only those players that would claim feats of skill where lady luck was the true protagonist. Sick and tired and not impressed with shoehorning art into a profitable industry.
|
|
#107 by jafd Eh? What button. I think that Ergo think that everytime the option of saving is mentioned you and Warren will get a hissy fit.Just guessing of course. -- Martin
Business as usual. |
|
Re: cheating to get through games I'm looking forward to Unreal 2 like there's no tomorrow but I know that I'm going to cheat my way through it sooner or later just because I want to see all the stuff they've put into it and I'm way too impatient to play through the game to see it. Am I robbing myself the true experience of the game? I think not as that is what I want to get out of the game. Others, like Bezzy, probably scoffs at this approach but this is how I want to play the game. Not to be able to "win" as fast as possible but to see all the neat terrain and new effects and cools cutscenes and all the rest of the goodies. If it would have had co-op I would have played it through w/o cheating but that's a completely different thing. -- Martin
Business as usual. |
|
If you don't enjoy a challenging game, a challenging game is not for you. And that's not what I'm saying at all. What's challanging for me may be very easy for someone else or too damn hard for another person. That's why I like options and I don't like games that lack them. They're cute, they're cuddly and jam shoots out their heads. I want 'em all!
|
|
HOLY SHIT! i just killed 6 american dogs! Sick and tired and not impressed with shoehorning art into a profitable industry.
|
|
Others, like Bezzy, probably scoffs at this approach but this is how I want to play the game. Not to be able to "win" as fast as possible but to see all the neat terrain and new effects and cools cutscenes and all the rest of the goodies. I have no problem with that in itself. I just have a problem with the misplaced sense of achievement some people I know seem to have. You don't >deserve< to see the next area due to cheating, BUT, that's not why you're playing the game. As long as people don't kid themselves into thinking that finishing a game that way is any achievement, I have no qualms. You're not cheapening the game if you're not really aiming to play the game in its intended state in the first place. Some people like to see a game as a series of setpieces with the game-play elements as filler. I guess that's fine. It's not to my personal tastes, but I'd be silly to critisize it, considering the amount of financially successful games that already cater to this taste. Sick and tired and not impressed with shoehorning art into a profitable industry.
|
|
I like how the 7th Guest dealt with cheating. Most of their puzzles were semi-challenging, but they had built in hints. And, even if you were unable to complete the puzzle with hints, you were given 3 free passes. That way you could bypass a seemingly difficult puzzle, and get on with the game. It was a neat idea on how to allow the player to complete portions of the game they'd have stopped playing at in other games, while not adding hidden cheat functions. Greg
-Swallow it all and be glad, for a shilling I've paid and a shilling's worth I'll be having! |
|
Uh, finishing a game in any way isn't any kind of achievement that's all that impressive to begin with. As to what you do or do not deserve; that depends on how much value you place upon 50 dollars. Will warez for food.
|
|
Look, there's a mountain. It's the highest mountain in the world, and moreover the view from the top is life-alteringly spectacular. Mountain climbing is acknowledged to be cool, arduous stuff. And some folks are going to conquer that mountain. Climb up it inch by agonizing inch, risk everything, and finally, maybe, reach the top. And other people are going to ride a helicopter straight up in heated comfort and be there in an hour. If you're not interested in the arduous climb, and just want to be able to say "I stood at the peak of the highest mountain inthe world, and the view was fucking spectacular.", so be it. As long as you don't make a lot of boastful claims about kicking the mountain's ass, that's all I'd be annoyed by. As long as you aren't hurting anyone, who cares what you do to get what specific things you want out of the exprience? Personally, I don't use cheat codes or whatever. But if you want to see that last level/boss/fmv sequence, who am I to say you haven't "earned" it? You paid for the game, and I don' tthink the EULA says anything about experiencing "x/y/z part of the game contingent on suffering enough". How many of us, with siblings or spouses or buddies or scary little twitchy 11 year old prodigy neighbors, have helped or been helped through tough sections of a game? Some of my most enjoyable gaming experiences have come from this kind of hot seat "co-op" play, but it's still "cheating" in a way, if you don't actually do all the work that gets through the game. Bah. |
|
Case in point, I like to time trial myself on SinglePlayer FPS games. The first game I play, I go on a binge, cheatless, and see how fast I can get through the game, first time. JK2 was around 16 hours over 3 days. Max Payne was around 12. Now, this is useful, because some other people do the same, and I can compare notes, and see if I did the game better or worse. In that sense, although the game is single player, I'm aiming to get a universal score to compare with others. It's not my first and foremost aim, as I'm also checking out this iteration of FPS's new neat features, taking note what works and what doesn't. I guess it sort of tests how fast you can learn the new game, since a lot of time is spent experimenting with the new features. But because one of my main personal reasons for playing is competition, I've automatically turned a single player game into a multiplayer game, where I'm up against other people who do the same. I ask people how long they took, or they tell me willingly and I secretly thing "I beat you!" or "Wow.. nice time". But once people admit that they cheat at a game, their score is null. It's not that they're evil for cheating in our unwritten multiplayer game. We just can't use their score. Plus, completeing Max Payne in 6 hours with the cheats all on makes you feel a little vindicated. They're playing for other reasons. Those reasons are not comparable, therefore our scores are not comparable. It's all about different audiences. I can't MAKE anyone want to play every game competitionally, nor should I try (and I don't). And it sounds like I'm sneering all through this post, but I don't mean to, so sorry if it sounds like that. People play games for different reasons, and many games cater for those varying reasons. It is only the competitional aspect that must be kept as a constant across games. So competitional players naturally feel a knee jerk reaction to a game's exploits, because they're thinking "Hey, I'm playing fair here, and that guy over there has a big advantage through no skill of his/her own". Single player games can be multiplayer games, too, but just in parrallel, rather than direct competition. It's the fact that some are cheating in this unofficial multiplayer game that competitionally bent players are bothered about. I'm not saying that it's RIGHT to take such an attitude, but I think it is there. Sick and tired and not impressed with shoehorning art into a profitable industry.
|
|
Greg: It was a neat idea on how to allow the player to complete portions of the game they'd have stopped playing at in other games, while not adding hidden cheat functions. remember the old adventure game 'Amazon - Guardians of Eden'? it had a built in hint function. if at any point you were stuck you could cash in some of your hint credit. if the hint was unclear, you could buy an even more precise hint. if you did that too often you would die or generally lose the game (don't remember exactly). I like it leng. And I like my leng leu, not chai.
|
|
See, I'm the exact opposite. I can't fathom why people would be interested in comparing times. Absolutely no offense intended by that remark... everyone should do their own thing. I'm just explaining how my brain works. =) -chris |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: Randomness: A Seed of Doubt
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
| P O S T A C O M M E N T |
|
|
| C R A P T A G S | ||||||||
|
|
| There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details] |
Powered by blah 0.9.1-dev •
PlanetCrap is © 1997-2035 Hendrik "Morn" Mans
|