Procedural Snake Eyes (Michael Cook)

Michael Cook takes a look at the way procedural generation interacts with other game systems, using Invisible, Inc. and XCOM2 as a lens.

He touches on an important distinction that’s come up before–that procedural generation is not random–and then dives into a discussion about how both games handle unpredictability. Specifically, about how the game handles the extreme results, when the generator fails and produces something at the edges of the possibility space:

Why is this such a big deal? Because sooner or later, your content generator is going to make a mistake, and it’s going to make the player feel like you’re not playing fairly. The role of a level generator in a strategy game like this is almost like a DM in a pen and paper game: it’s setting up a scenario, and asking if you can solve it, and the implication here is that a solution exists because the DM is really there to make sure you’re having a good time. When a generator messes up, it feels like you’re being treated like a fool – the DM is either stupid or vindictive, throwing down eight dragons and smirking at you when you protest.

How the rest of the game handles this determines the frustration the player experiences when the generator throws something more difficult than expected at them. Michael references the way that Spelunky plans for the worst result and gives the player enough bombs so that a total failure of the generator is still a fun challenge. 

I’d also throw on Crypt of the Necrodancer and the way that its digging mechanics soften the excesses of the generator and make how you alter levels into its own kind of side puzzle.

He also mentions the problem that just testing levels can only ever give you a fraction of the possible results. I’m looking forward to more information about the analysis tools that he’s working on.

http://www.rogueprocess.run/2016/03/03/procedural-snake-eyes/