next »

[Riley Adams]

Hmmm... isn't this thread emergent gameplay? The creators of the forum software never envisioned such an argument occurring, and I can only assume this is some sort of game to bvanevery, who seems to love provoking this sort of thing...

[mirosurabu]

This played out like that first case in Phoenix Wright 1.

Wikipedia is therefore not guilty.

[The Monster King]

whats emergent gameplay

using a bug or feature that wasn't thought of to win? then theres a lot of that everywhere, that's what i get from op's post

[snowyowl]

whats emergent gameplay

using a bug or feature that wasn't thought of to win? then theres a lot of that everywhere, that's what i get from op's post

I would say, it's usually playing the game to do something other than winning. And still making it fun. If the players are playing tennis with rockets instead of trying to kill each other directly (Team Fortress 2, and it seems like the sort of thing that should happen a lot), that's emergent gameplay.

But yes, I would love to see bvanevery's definition of "emergent".

[JoGribbs]

Emergent gameplay doesn't necessarily require you to ignore the rules of the game though. Here's a good article by Randy Smith about it(though it's a bit artsy).

[bvanevery]

http://www.math.com/students/wonders/life/life.html

What does Life offer you as a player?  What variety of experience can you get from it?  You have some cells, you put in a pattern, things flip around, and then stabilize eventually.

That's not at all true.  GoL is turing-complete - one can try to perform any algorithm that a normal computer can do on it.  (I don't know how relevant GoL is to this discussion - I don't think that it is, but given that you responded I will take it that you do view it as a game).  In principle (though not in practice) if you learned a sufficiently elaborate interpretational framework internalized, you could program in it like most other languages - this means that even though "the designer knows that your experience as a player is going to be watching these patterns and nothing more", the pattern-watching bit encompasses a lot.  (Minesweeper has similar properties as a ruleset).

Are you expecting the player to become a programmer, in these difficult Turing Complete media?  If not, then the question of emergence is irrelevant.  The player experiences what the game designer laid out for him: a screenful of blocks that make weird little patterns.

There's nothing new in these variations of experience.  If you're an experienced chess player, you will experience similar games over and over again.

Do you think the vocabulary that exists today for playing, thinking and strategizing about chess existed when it was originally conceived?  (which is what it can be inferred that you're claiming).

Yep, considering that opening chess books are known as far back as 1497.  I don't think Renaissance thinkers were inherently smarter than the ancient Chinese thinkers who devised the game's precursors. 

edit: It's also not clear to me what your working definition of emergent gameplay is -

Looks like I'll have to play the concise definition game at some point.  I don't have one right now, nor does Wikipedia have an adequate one.  My definition would have to encompass the expectation of novelty.

[Xion]

My definition would have to encompass the expectation of novelty.

why? I mean, not why does your definition need to encompass it but why do you expect novelty?

[bvanevery]

A rocket launcher that makes you go airborne isn't emergent gameplay.  It's a consequence of implementing a physics system, and a fairly straightforward one at that.

No actually that is emergent gameplay, so long as it's a consequence of the game engine and not an explicitly coded feature.

Why are we privileging a special class of rules and calling them "emergent?"  We could describe every example that's been offered in this thread as "rules based gameplay."  Let's say a game designer's hard coded rule, like "you score 2 points for shooting a basket," is a 0th order rule.  The rules of a physics system as typically seen in games are at best 1st order rules.  Jumping with a rocket launcher is not exciting from this perspective, it is simply a function of the 1st order physics rules.  It strains credulity that game designers add such physics systems to games and don't expect such physics to be readily and obviously used.  That's why they put the physics system in the game.  The game designer has designed your world experience for you, whether by 0th order or 1st order techniques.  Nothing further is emerging from the system.

A truly emergent system should produce Nth order results.  Game designers should be continuously discovering ongoing rule interactions that surprise them, as long as the system is in operation.  Not just finding 1 glitch or cheat here and there.

Cheats are not emergent gameplay.  They are violations of known and expected game rules.  If I rush across the scrimmage line in a real game of football before the ball is snapped, and the ref doesn't call it, I haven't changed the game of football any.  I've merely gotten away with something fully anticipated by the game designer.

[s0]

According to the definition I just made up, a vehicle has to have at least 5000 wheels to qualify as a car.

Face it sheeple, CARS DON'T EXIST!

[OneMoreGo]

Why are we privileging a special class of rules and calling them "emergent?" 

Because that's how things get named.

[The Monster King]

can your emergent games exist?

if no, why call it something if its something nobody will ever use thats dumb

if yes, why arent you making a game with emergent gameplay right now

[bvanevery]

According to the definition I just made up, a vehicle has to have at least 5000 wheels to qualify as a car.

Face it sheeple, CARS DON'T EXIST!

You're not dealing with what I said.  I said, the car didn't arise out of thin air, the game designer made it for you.  Real life is a Nth order emergent system, although individual people's local conditions are usually a lot more predictable than that.  No game comes even remotely close to providing the open endedness of real life, although gamers fantasize about such games being made.  Game designers exploit this fantasy.  They use 0th and 1st order rule production techniques, give them a marketing and brand identity of "emergent," and get players to fantasize that the game is far more open ended than it actually is.  It's all smoke and mirrors.  If we were critiquing classic text adventures, we'd readily acknowledge the fact that the game designer created the entire world for us, that there's nothing else about the game for us to experience.  But if you throw a "physics system" in there suddenly everyone goes ga ga that they're discovering something.  It's rubbish, the game designer made that for you as well.

[bvanevery]

Why are we privileging a special class of rules and calling them "emergent?" 

Because that's how things get named.

People also don't accept definitions just because someone else made them.  Consider Consubstantiation vs. Transubstantiation.

[bvanevery]

can your emergent games exist?

if no, why call it something if its something nobody will ever use thats dumb

if yes, why arent you making a game with emergent gameplay right now

The point is not "I can make an emergent computer game and you can't."  The point is not "we can make emergent computer games, here's how."  The point is we are not making emergent computer games, it's a lie.  Anything you've done in a game, a game designer has designed for you, by 0th or 1st order techniques.  Not even a 2nd order technique has existed in gamedom, let alone a Nth order technique.  Game designers have a false model for how to create the illusion of openness in games.  A more accurate model will enable them to produce better smoke and mirrors.

Some Nth order emergent games do exist.  They're just not computer games.  For instance, freeform RPG without any rules at all is a Nth order game.  AKA "collaborative writing."  Each player / writer brings his personal sensibilities to the writing exercise.  Players take turns writing what happens next, perhaps to their character in particular, or perhaps one player has an elevated level of authority such as "the Gamemaster."  The interactions can be somewhat political, as players sometimes vie for which direction the story is going to go.

[RCIX]

First, let's define emergent gameplay:
Emergent gameplay refers to complex situations in video games, board games or table top role playing games that emerge from the interaction of relatively simple game mechanics.
A critical assumption you're making is that if the game designers of a game architected it, it's not emergent gameplay. Look reeeeeeallly closely at that definition: does it say anything about intended or unintended? No. Emergent gameplay is anything the designers didn't explicitly write rules for (with a couple of constraints on relative complexity).

Let's take Supreme Commander 2 as an example. It physics-simulates all of its projectiles. There are no complicated programmed rules about the behaviors of high-arc projectiles or low-arc projectiles, its just that all projectiles are shot and simulated with the same (simple) set of physics rules. From this arises more complex concepts like shot travel time, shot randomness, leading the target, etc (some programmed in and some not). The result is that mobile artillery is virtually useless, due to the high mobility of land units clashing with the high shell travel time meaning that with micro, artillery shots will lead the target too far and be dodge-able. However, that only applies if the player is smart enough to micro their units (and i've seen a surprising number of people who don't), Do you think they explicitly programmed that in? I don't.

A small note: my example hinges on you not ignoring the paragraph above it.

[JMickle]

I think your raising a very interesting point, but coating it in this misnamed emergent gameplay "lie" is confusing people.

this 1st order technique is where we should be looking. I'm assuming you mean 0th order are the explicit rules of the game, 1st order is the resulting gameplay because of the 0th, and 2nd is gameplay resulting from the 1st order (this is hard to define, which is why you are saying it doesn't exist)

an example; tetris. 0th order is sorting blocks to clear layers. 1st order is the players having to see slots and react quickly to place blocks correctly. there is no 2nd order in tetris. the designers INTENDED this 1st order, seeing it would make the game fun. In practice they were right.

[shrimp]

This thread should have been called "RA RA RA I'M STILL ANNOYED ABOUT MINECRAFT RA RA", since I can only assume it's spurred by the dissonance of things like the Minecraft ALU, giant starship Enterprise, etc.

Games are a system of rules. What is special about a game that excludes it from having emergent behaviours, especially given that part of the system is the player's brain?

Maybe you think no systems can have emergent behaviour? I know some people do hold this view although I find it akin to solipsism or some or definition-mincing nonsense.

[salade]

Game designers exploit this fantasy.  They use 0th and 1st order rule production techniques, give them a marketing and brand identity of "emergent," and get players to fantasize that the game is far more open ended than it actually is.  It's all smoke and mirrors. 

I would agree that most gameplay is intended by the designer (all of it some level), but you describe the process of game design as if it were fraud. They are not trying to "trick" us into thinking their games have depth, they are just creating deep games. What else should they be doing?

[bvanevery]

First, let's define emergent gameplay:
Emergent gameplay refers to complex situations in video games, board games or table top role playing games that emerge from the interaction of relatively simple game mechanics.

I don't accept your (or Wikipedia's) definition of "emergent."  You have added no informational value over "a simulation devised from relatively simple game mechanics."  There is no need for a new term, if emergent merely means "a simulation."

A critical assumption you're making is that if the game designers of a game architected it, it's not emergent gameplay. Look reeeeeeallly closely at that definition: does it say anything about intended or unintended? No. Emergent gameplay is anything the designers didn't explicitly write rules for (with a couple of constraints on relative complexity).

Now you've written 2 definitions.  Which one do you want to use?

• Emergent gameplay refers to the interaction of relatively simple game mechanics
• Emergent gameplay is anything the designers didn't explicitly write rules for

Let's take Supreme Commander 2 as an example. It physics-simulates all of its projectiles. There are no complicated programmed rules about the behaviors of high-arc projectiles or low-arc projectiles, its just that all projectiles are shot and simulated with the same (simple) set of physics rules. From this arises more complex concepts like shot travel time, shot randomness, leading the target, etc (some programmed in and some not).

What you're calling "emergent," a Marine sniper at Quantico would call "how to shoot."  This demonstrates how your 1st definition of "emergent" is not useful.

The result is that mobile artillery is virtually useless, due to the high mobility of land units clashing with the high shell travel time meaning that with micro, artillery shots will lead the target too far and be dodge-able.

Moving targets are hard to shoot in the real world too.  Big deal.

[deathtotheweird]

You seem like a very angry person. Why bother coming here if all you are going to do is argue with people?