"I
returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the
battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of
understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to
them all."
Ecclesiastes 9:11
Introduction
Luck plays a significant part in many games. Indeed, some games, such as
snakes and ladders, are entirely a matter of chance yet still manage to
captivate their players.
One of the many decisions, therefore, that the
designer of any game must make is whether or not to add an element of luck in
the form of probability-based randomness.
Chance outcomes clearly do not always
improve gameplay, but nor do they always necessarily hinder it.
In some
circumstances, luck enriches the very forces that motivate players, whilst in
other circumstances it does the exact opposite.
The nature of luck, however, is
not always self-evident as the following well-known and enigmatic aphorism of Stanislaw
Jerzy Lec illustrates.
"If
a man who cannot count finds a four-leaf clover, is he lucky?"
Unkempt thoughts (1962)
Game developers are sometimes faced with similarly challenging decisions
when contemplating whether to include some kind of deliberate randomness. For
example, in the video game Unreal
Tournament, when a player shoots at a target with the "enforcer"
weapon, the projectile does not necessarily hit the point that is aimed at; a
random deviation is added that scatters shots.
 This introduces a degree of
realism from an observer's perspective and no doubt gives beginners a fair
chance against more experienced players, but it can also potentially frustrate
skilled players.
Is it overall a good idea and, if not, could realism have been
introduced in a better way?
Here in this article, with particular reference to computer games, we
present a formalism through which designers across all genres and platforms may
better understand not only the nature of luck, but also the effect that it has
on gameplay and player motivation.
We show that luck is easily broken down into
individual categories and that in doing so, a positive or negative effect on
particular aspects of gameplay is observed.
First we investigate and classify the various types of luck that occur. Next
we enumerate various qualities of gameplay such as motivation and learnability.
We then relate the types of luck to their effects, good or bad, on these
qualities.
The designer of a new game examines each proposed probabilistic
feature and determines which types of luck it produces within the taxonomy. The
influence of the proposed feature on each of the various qualities of gameplay
is then readily calculated.
|
Printer-Friendly Version
nice punchline :)
a critical strike in WoW, and, if i recall correctly, a dodge in Diablo, are not what i would classify as luck. the randomness of these events is determined entirely by the stats of the actors involved. These stats can be manipualted by the player. over a long enough timeline the randomness (luck) is removed and the player will find himself with a solid rate of occurance. luck, by its very nature, is not alterable except by the superhero Longshot.
I believe he attempts to take this into account with the variable named "congruity", but yet he also classifies randomly generated minesweeper maps as having proper congruity. the player has no control over weather he is given a map solvable by pure deduction or one that requires guess work. similarly, he is not able to increase his odds when attempting to solve a map that requires guess work.
i guess the meaning of congruity is more in line with positive rewards for appropriate gameplay, which if it is the case doesn't make sense to me. if you're classifying an event as luck determined, then the scenarios put forth also have a mirror scenario where the player has the opposite luck based outcome. that being so, i don't know how you can attribute one type of luck as positive and another as negative. unless the scenarios are not meant to be types of luck, but rather specific instances where luck is perceived to play a roll.
I, for one, was hoping for more of a comparison of execution across game titles in this article. Perhaps we can see this in the future? I'd be very happy to read a related follow-up or extension on this article.
You make it sound like it's a separate feature but wouldn't it instead simply be a way to make the random scatter evident luck rather than concealed which would rate more favorably on your chart. Also for proper analysis of random scatter you'd probably need to include some other factors including something relating to gun balance, which can be improved by random luck.
As a gameplay mechanic, the most important thing it does is to make certain weapons less effective at long range, and that very real effect completely overpowers the "attainment" that any individual shot might do.
For instance, a shotgun has extreme scatter, but nobody would complain about being "cheated" out of a well-aimed shotgun shot that targeted an enemy 500 meters away.
A great example of extreme luck paired with strategy is Culdcept. For those not familiar with the game, it plays a lot like Monopoly, but with a deck of Magic the Gathering cards. Random dice rolls and a shuffled deck add elements of randomness, but there are also many known formulas that control the rest of the game.
I have had many instances where I played a very difficult game where luck seems constantly against me, but a sound strategy pre-game and during the game could pull me out of it every time. I found that if I could stay in the game long enough, there was always a chance to let my deck building strategy show through. And all the drama was just icing on the cake.
I am a huge fan of frequently repeated random dice rolls because the distribution becomes evident to the skilled player and can figure into their strategy. It doesn't take a degree, but knowing what a normal curve is helps.
One thing to consider is the balance of all forms of luck in a game. In your Call of Duty example, while it's true that reducing random scatter gives player more control, there is an exciting contrast to this when players are given weapons like shotguns and airstrikes.
To compensate for the randomness of it, they thematicize these, justifying with VFX, animations, or the shotgun idea, and this way still achieve player "attainment". Maybe the way to think about this is that there must be commeasurate pay-off with decreasing congruity and transparency.
@Vali: For the purpose of this article, "luck" can be equated to "probability-based chance" (among other things). When defining terms and discussing something this broad, you have to discard everyday meaning to things like "luck", "competitive", "balance" and so forth; otherwise you argue on semantics and completely miss the point. Sadly, this is what you've done.
It really got me contemplating on how luck will affect gameplay down the line. I think the next step, or more accurately a few steps down the line, would be to have an engine recognize the types of luck the player enjoys or dislikes, and when they like these types of luck. By avoiding certain things in an open-ended gameplay format, the engine could detect what to put in front of the user, and so on. But that's just wishful thinking at this point.
Going back to the core issue, games like Madden Football, which I hate with a passion, where there are probabilities all over the place, it greatly takes away from end user experience. But, it can also enhance because you can get unlikely turnovers at opportune times.
Botton line for me, luck is a huge aspect of gaming because one that takes no luck to complete, or win, leaves less replay value.
@Velli: The example you give of a "Minesweeper Map" seems to be defined as a "Luck Mechanism" rather than an "Example" of luck and would therefore not be directly associated with Congruity which seems to be there just to classify Examples.
@Walsh: I believe by "random perturbation" he's referring to the physical crosshair movement, as seen with the sniper rifle in Call Of Duty and other games.
@Paquin: You're correct that Shotguns, and Machine guns are an obvious contradiction, however it's only because they offer a very specific additional game mechanic which can (I guess) only be achieved in that manner. The values of the said game mechanic towards the final product must be calculated on top of the tables associated with their luck mechanisms.
Random scatter IS a bad gameplay mechanic, and better means of replicating inaccuracy exist.
I too, will use this article as a reference. Many thanks.
The English language is ridiculously convoluted, and constantly evolving. When going into extreme detail with any subject (such as the details of "luck" in game design in this case), you cannot rely on layman definitions of words.
There is also a perceptual difference between events depending on how they originated. Think of the difference between playing a rock, paper, scissor game with another person rather than against a computer opponent. When playing against a person, the result of a game has a different affect on the player than a game played against a computer with the same result. I think the difference has something to do with the fact that when playing against a person the random event is the result of a choice made by each player, where as when playing against the computer the random event is purely random. The probability of winning against both the human and computer is the same, and yet there tends to be a higher notion of personal responsibility when played against a human opponent.
One thing I think is interesting to consider is that the analysis for "Concealed Positives" and "Concealed Negatives" seem to point to a logical conclusion that it would be beneficial to replace such situations with a concealed non-random positive.
When people (as evidenced in players of many games of chance) consider "luck" as one of their skills, does that mean they also get a sense of "attainment" from winning purely by chance? Although of course we can still classify that as a different kind of "reward" satisfaction for this approach of analysis. Still, it would be interesting to see how attainment feelings figure in someone who considers themselves a masterful snake and ladders player.
Kelly also has a very good point about the way randomness may be perceived differently if it was instigated by a human or a computer opponent. I guess this change is dependent on the player knowing that he was against a computer opponent rather than another human. The only real crucial difference that I can think of is that the player would also know that the result was not down to luck, but down to the other player's actions or competence/incompetence further affecting the player's value of "attainment" as competitive nature kicks in. Against a computer it would be much more meaningless as the player would (probably) know that the event was entirely randomly generated and the only measure the player would have in the field of attainment is against his previous accomplishments. Attainment aside, I feel all other attributes remain the same in the event of randomness being instigated by a human or computer opponent.
http://community.usatourist.com/members/rolex.aspx
http://community.usatourist.com/members/breitling.aspx