Kind of a development of my thread about having randomly generated levels, that would encourage the player to think on the fly. Well, this is for action/simulation games such as Thief, Deus Ex where there the depth of simulation (and map design) often allows you to find or discover several ways to complete an objective. Ie. Do you knock the door down - lockpick it - find a key or another entrance, knock out the guard - or sneak past him? etc. Well, how about having games like this.. where the level structure (ie. the map) is always the same, but where the contents of the level is semi-randomised! Certain items appear in different places, and sometimes items won''t be in the game at all, whereas other ones will. (The level designer would set these up) For instance, imagine if there was a locked door, you could knock it down, but what if there was a key hidden somewhere nearby? Maybe under the doormat? Or in the postbox? - Well, the designer could randomise this so that sometimes there would be a key, and other times it would be in different places. Sometimes it wouldn''t be there at all! This would make the player have to devise a different plan, depending on guard patrol routes etc. It wouldn''t just be keys that could be randomised though. Lots of problems for Q+A

Don''t know if that would add to the replay value (if that''s what you wanted that is)..I would probably just get frustrated because I had to run around in 20+ places to look for every bloody item in the game if I ever want to replay the game.

-Luctus
Statisticly seen, most things happens to other people.
[Mail]

Note. It could be very annoying if you looked around for a key that WASN''T there. But if there was a clue that it was actually there it might be ok.

There''s providing free-form gameplay and then there''s annoying the player. Unless there is some form of clue, and hence a prolem solving challenge, looking for a key in a random location is just mundane.

The only way I could see this working would be to have a number of set-ups for the level, each one with a different combination of items and associated clues. I get the feeling the pay-off from this will be limited in comparison to the work-load.

The concept of multiple options regarding problem solving is always welcomed. However, I think it would be counter-productive to randomise content.

Well, you wouldn''t actually NEED the key, as it is just one of several solutions.

But, I see that this could be annoying depending on how it was done.

What about randomising other things, like which doors are locked?
Or guard duties?

A variation perhaps: Semi-Randomized objectives. Various characters and objects existing on the map may have differing levels of importance depending on the way the mission objectives are pre-generated. There could even just be several existing objectives, and the game could randomize which ones actually are required to complete the mission.

I don''t know if anyone else has mentioned it, but the recently released Zelda Ocarina Master Quest (as bonus disc with Wind Waker) is identical to the original Ocarina of Time except that in the dungeons, the puzzles are different (the walls are the same, but the furniture differs). Having a system like that where various areas have alternate layouts, particularly when you can guarantee getting the other layout on a second game, definitely adds to the replay value

I would steer clear of randomisation in any game that requires some form of puzzle solving. The two are counter productive and un-intuitive. Random layouts do work better where success is more a matter of trial and error. So for example, a Diablo map is just a matter of strolling round, hacking and slashing. Your task is to just go with the flow and explore so the random element is perfectly welcome.

As soon as the task becomes more demanding, lets say via ''puzzle-solving'' and ''stealth'', the random element will start to work against you. You will be working with tight design rules to achieve the desired playability, yet the random element will be constantly taking control away from you as a designer.

For something like a shoot''em''up, which is fairly loose in design, you can get away with randomisation because it will not alter the basic premise of shooting moving things.

quote: Original post by m_wherrett
I would steer clear of randomisation in any game that requires some form of puzzle solving. The two are counter productive and un-intuitive. Random layouts do work better where success is more a matter of trial and error.

I disagree. There''s no reason a randomised game would preclude having bits that require thinking. It''s just that the random generation needs to be a bit more involved than "see if this tile fits that other one".
It''s not so hard to make a probability list for the generation results of a randomly-generated locked door. Something like:
20% chance of no other option but bashing it.
20% chance of a doormat with a key under it.
20% chance of an NPC in the neighborhood with a key.
40% chance of a nearby button or lever that opens the door.

So sure, initially players will be locked into their typical RPG mode of expecting the solution to be obvious, but after a while, they''ll get the hang of it. "Was there an NPC nearby? Maybe he has a key." "Hey, no doormat, and can''t see a button, might as well bash the thing down."

Those are the mechanics of having a choice in overcoming the obstacle anyway. You should never know 100% if a given approach is going to work.

I can get with that, and I would''nt say randomisation is impossible or a bad idea, but I would rather leave it alone. especially in terms of a game based around cognitive processes.

At the end of the day, adding a random element would concern me due to the, obviously, unpredictable nature. I suppose it depends on quite to what extent you utilise it, but I''d rather not bother at the end of the day. I''d say there''s nowt wrong with using it, just do so in moderation.