Game News Oblivion - the best game evar. No, seriously.

[Gambler]

If it wasn't planned for, then why did designers add all those non-combat skills and augmentations, as well as a heap of non-lethal weapons?

Are you saying that the mere presence of non-lethal weapons means that there must be a completely non-violent way to end the game?

in Doom it's possible to kill a zombie with the pistol *or* with the shotgun

Both pistol and shotgun were designer specifically to kill monsters.

Either absolutely everything "acts in an organized fashion beyond the sum capabilities of its individual parts.

Absolutely everything in real life has a potential to act in an organized fashion beyond the sum capabilities of its individual parts.

my coffee mug holds coffee, yet none of its atoms could alone - emergence!!

Exactly.

the "sum capabilities of its individual parts." includes combinations of those capabilities.

That is your own definition that has nothing to with the quote I posted.

Every system does things the designers didn't plan for - it's a question of the level on which that happens.

It is mostly the question of which level it was planned for. Doom is nothing like Thief or Deus Ex in terms of possible situations.

 

[galsiah]

Absolutely everything in real life has a potential to act in an organized fashion beyond the sum capabilities of its individual parts.

Last time I checked, computers and computer code exist in real life, so have that potential.

This makes it pointless to debate over the presence of emergence by that definition - since it automatically exists in any system with more than one element.

It is mostly the question of which level it was planned for. Doom is nothing like Thief or Deus Ex in terms of possible situations.

Sure - it's a grey area as I've said all along. The definitions just don't really help.

However, the common emergence in Deus Ex is simply predictable from the rules - even if the designers didn't plan for it. Given any commonly occurring Deus Ex case, you can go back to the rules and say "oh yeah - that's obvious" (e.g. explosive enemies + lockers / climbing with proximity mines).

The situation you mentioned - i.e. going through the game without killing anyone -, is a one off, and also predictable: it's just complicated to predict, since you'd have to follow the choices of the player through the game.

The difference between that and a case of interesting emergence is that you don't need to switch the game on to see it - it can simply be presented with a walkthrough.

The type of emergent behaviour you get with things like flocking, or various life sims are quite different. You can see the behaviour emerge, you can understand (after analysis) the gist of the reason behind it - but there's no way to go through it step by step without running the program (or 100 years with a pen, paper and patience).

This interesting emergence pretty much necessarily involves the interaction of many different objects (so that it isn't possible simply to follow the rules step by step to work out what will happen). That usually excludes games where only a few objects are simulated, since there aren't enough interactions to produce any non-obvious behaviour.

The increased environment complexity from say Doom to Deus Ex just takes us from entirely trivial non-planned cases, to obvious non-planned cases (perhaps only obvious in retrospect, but still obvious). That's a step forward, but it isn't really that interesting.

Something like Radiant AI would have enough complexity to create interesting types of emergence - to an extent where situations would come up whose cause was not immediately apparent.
That sort of system leaves designers with two options:
(1) Conduct a careful and lengthy study in order to fully understand the system qualitatively (i.e. its emergent high-level "rules"), and make changes to introduce (self)balancing elements where required.
(2) Cripple it and move on.

I haven't played Oblivion, so I couldn't tell you which option was chosen.

 

[Solaris]

Kind of scary how bad PC Gamer has gone in recent years, but then again it is a global problem. Everywhere is full bullshit/hidden agendas now...

Only thing that remains unanswered here is if it was Todd or Pete that gave the PC Gamer staff the obligatory blowjob

 

[OccupatedVoid]

Kind of scary how bad PC Gamer has gone in recent years, but then again it is a global problem. Everywhere is full bullshit/hidden agendas now...

Only thing that remains unanswered here is if it was Todd or Pete that gave the PC Gamer staff the obligatory blowjob

It was a threesome.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Both going through the game without killing anyone and LAM ladders were not only unplanned by the designers but contrary to their intentions. However, there are flags that cause the game to behave differently based on whether or not you killed Anna past the point the designers intended her to live.

 

[Admiral Rimjob POOBUM]

Kind of scary how bad PC Gamer has gone in recent years, but then again it is a global problem. Everywhere is full bullshit/hidden agendas now...

Only thing that remains unanswered here is if it was Todd or Pete that gave the PC Gamer staff the obligatory blowjob

It was a threesome.

Actually, I think it was Pete. Todd has Summer to rub down his misshapen penis with margarine.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Both pistol and shotgun were designer specifically to kill monsters.

Likewise, if the player can push a crate and an NPC can push a crate if it's blocking his path, those were specificly designed circumstances. There's nothing emergent at all about pushing a crate in front of a door and then the NPCs just doing what they're designed to do.. Push the crate back out of the way to continue their path.

Now if the AI could build crates from materials he gathered, then block the door for the player, you might have a case for an emergent event. However, the NPC's AI picking a path to the player while ignoring the crate as an obstance in the path is definitely NOT emergent.

 

[denizsi]

What games would be classified as having 'emergent gameplay'? What aspects of these games are emergent?

Tresspasser. Still, to this day, there's no other game (with a plot - so Incredible Machines doesn't count ) where environments are not set up in a specific way to let you use physics the way designers wanted you to. HL2 is especially guilty of this so much more than any other recent game because of the ridiculous hype they created around something a middleware developer provided them with and they applied with least bit of creativity.

Designers of Tresspasser definitely set up some of the locations with objects and visual hints about them so if a player was desperately stuck, he would hopefully notice the hints and find a solution. That wasn't the sole solution imposed by the designers though. Despite the game's linearity, it had truely emergent gameplay to a degree.

This is why Saint talks about chains of events around you - it's not just choosing a fucking branch, that's not emergence. You must be able to influence a shitload more variables (which themselves have influence) than tactical shooters like DE or go-anywhere shooters like Oblivion currently offer, for the tag to begin to apply.

I can't defend Tresspasser any more in that sense though and I would agree with that kind of definition without going to the extreme. Farmer example was a nice and close one. But still.. No one did physics like Tresspasser and still no one does..

 

[Gambler]

Last time I checked, computers and computer code exist in real life, so have that potential.

Game world is not a part of real world. It is not affected even if computer acts like a part of a larger system.

Sure - it's a grey area as I've said all along.

I didn't say that. I said it depends on the level where game designer operates. Meaning there is a difference between scripted bridge collapse and the one caused by realistic physics.

The definitions just don't really help.

Sure they don't. They are the worst thing that you can do to buzzwords. If you define some term you can no longer use it any way you want. That's horrible.

However, the common emergence in Deus Ex is simply predictable from the rules - even if the designers didn't plan for it.

One day ago you said that "simple" is too wague, now you're using it yourself...

Anyway, it worls like this.

No emergence (hardcoded, thus predictable):
http://www.planetdeusex.com/witchboy/GD ... sld026.htm
Emergence (not hard-coded):
http://www.planetdeusex.com/witchboy/GD ... sld027.htm

Why can I say that it's not "simple" to predict the secod scenario?

Because of this:
http://www.planetdeusex.com/witchboy/GD ... sld040.htm

Binding intermidiate variables. You do not make oil flamable because it can damage guard in case he falls with a totch. You make it flamable because it makes sense. And afterwards any kind of fire can light it up.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Emergence (not hard-coded):
http://www.planetdeusex.com/witchboy/GD ... sld027.htm

Again, then Doom has TEH IMERGENTS.

-> Player in open area with barrels starts fighting some pinky demons.
-> Imp hears player firing and goes in to room.
-> Imp fires at player fighting pinky demons in an area with barrels.
-> Imp hits barrel instead, barrels explode, thus killing some of the pinky demon wave.

Basically, that's the same thing as a guard falling on oil with a torch.

 

[Gambler]

Again, then Doom has TEH IMERGENTS.

Maybe. But that would not make Doom an emergent game. Doom does not rely on the emergent situations and they are insignificant there. Neither does it show that DX is not emergent.

Anyway, I gave you the description of the concept. You may disagree that the concepts should be labeled by the word "emergence," or you may argue that the concept does not fit Deus Ex. The former would be pointless. The concept is already formed and labeled by game designers, and the magazine guy who reviewed DX probably meant it that way. Of course there will be plenty of people who say that emergence is something else, but that is simply labeling. It does not affect the original meaning of the word.

 

[galsiah]

Game world is not a part of real world. It is not affected even if computer acts like a part of a larger system.

Are you sane? Your computer, your monitor and everything else are part of the real world - as is your computer's memory, the information in it, the code that produced it etc. etc.

If everything in the real world has the potential for emergence (as it does by your [vacuous] definition), so does everything in the game world (since it is a representation of a section of computer memory - which does actually exist).

I didn't say that. I said it depends on the level where game designer operates. Meaning there is a difference between scripted bridge collapse and the one caused by realistic physics.

Yes - the scripted collapse is not emergent in any sense, but (by your definition), seeing the scripted collapse on the screen at the same time as a small dog is emergent - since neither the bridge, nor the dog could produce that image alone.
Yes this is idiotic. Yes it is what your definition implies. Yes this does make it vacuous.

[also, note that neither collapse is an example of interesting emergence if the bridge is specifically set up to collapse - either through scripting or physics]

If you define some term you can no longer use it any way you want.

And if you fail to understand your own definition, you should just give up now.

One day ago you said that "simple" is too wague, now you're using it yourself

Let me make this simple:
I think the definition is useless - because it is so vague.
In order to show that it is useless, I need to use it.
That means using it as it is presented - i.e. containing the word "simple".

Showing that it doesn't even lead to any examples of emergence in Deus Ex (for any reasonable interpretation of "simple") implies that it's not even useful on an intuitive level - never mind an exact, scientific level.

Why can I say that it's not "simple" to predict the secod scenario? Binding intermidiate variables.

Yes - it's not utterly trivial from the code.

However, "Binding intermediate variables" mean absolutely nothing.
For example:
An apple is defined to have mass.
Things with mass are defined to fall.
When you drop it, an apple falls.

OMG emergence. The apple wasn't made to fall directly!!111! It emerged from the fact that it had mass!! Combined with a simple physics system, it fell to the ground. Bring out the champagne.

Now put that in a game about dodging falling apples, and you have emergence (not "simple", since there was an intermediate binding variable!!) which is central to the entire game.

This all comes from your definition, which is trivial, useless and vacuous - and did I mention pointless?

The concept is already formed and labeled by game designers

And game designers never disagree on anything? Never use buzzwords inappropriately?

You should think for yourself. Just because a game designer put something idiotic in a powerpoint presentation does not make it fact.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

The concept is already formed and labeled by game designers, and the magazine guy who reviewed DX probably meant it that way.

I can point to several places where BioWare employees said Knights of the Old Republic was turn based and follow that up with shitloads of examples of reviews which called it turn based because BioWare did. KotOR is definitely not turn based just because someone at BioWare said it was.

 

[elander_]

You should think for yourself. Just because a game designer put something idiotic in a powerpoint presentation does not make it fact.

galsiah you are an imbecile.

Just because you can't reason with an idea it does't make it pointless. Warren Specter isn't just some game designer. There are game designers that are worth listening to and spector is one of them.

Emergent gameplay is nothing new Specters idea. It has been studied in AI and artifical life simulations as emergent behaviors. I don't think he ever said that DeusEx provided emergent gameplay but he may have designed the game with that in mind. His interview is the best source for info on this not what dumbfucks say he said.

"Maybe. But that would not make Doom an emergent game. Doom does not rely on the emergent situations and they are insignificant there. Neither does it show that DX is not emergent. "

What makes emergent gameplay different is how it is created and not what that gameplay is, thats why the term is confusing. First a game needs to have a certain complexity and a good number of different ways to solve problems. Second the game designer creates some interesting gameplay without trying to predict how the player will solve every quests and every situation in detail. A interesting behavior that happens this way is called emergent.

 

[Mr. Teatime]

The concept is already formed and labeled by game designers, and the magazine guy who reviewed DX probably meant it that way.

I can point to several places where BioWare employees said Knights of the Old Republic was turn based and follow that up with shitloads of examples of reviews which called it turn based because BioWare did. KotOR is definitely not turn based just because someone at BioWare said it was.

And at a tangent, I've never really understood why developers like BW are so keen to market their games as turn-based, when they repeatedly rule out turn-based combat in their games. Is it because they think peoples' associations with TB are deep, tactical gameplay or whatever? If it's something they're so keen to market on, I don't get why they never implement it.

 

[Gambler]

I can point to several places where BioWare employees said Knights of the Old Republic was turn based

That was after the concept was formed. TB existed decades before KotOR.

KotOR is definitely not turn based just because someone at BioWare said it was.

Yes. But the only way to prove it's not a turn-based game is to apply the definition of "turn-based" and see if it matches. To do that you need the original definition of that concept that fits the context of computer games. Othervise you enter a chaos of bullshit where anyone can use any word to mean anything, and claim to be 100% correct afterwards. (Like PR people frequently do.)

...

If everything in the real world has the potential for emergence, so does everything in the game world (since it is a representation of a section of computer memory - which does actually exist).

Your argument sucks. I could say that anything in real life follows the law of physics. Would you then claim that (by "my" definition) every game wolrd has to follow the laws of physics as well?

This all comes from your definition, which is trivial, useless and vacuous - and did I mention pointless?

First of all, it's not my definition. Second, I can apply your "logic" to anything. It is standard nesolipsist BS.

And game designers never disagree on anything? Never use buzzwords inappropriately?

Are you saying that just because someone disagrees about the meaning of some word, the word becomes useless? ZOMG, words are useless!!! Symbolic interaction is pointless!!!

 

[galsiah]

Your argument sucks. I could say that anything in real life follows the law of physics. Would you then claim that (by "my" definition) every game wolrd has to follow the laws of physics as well?

Not the same principle - not everything in the real world is physical. Ideas, images, abstract concepts etc. are all part of the real world. Any system containing any two items has the capacity for emergence by the definition you're following. [e.g. 2 < 4, 3 < 4, but 2+3 > 4 emergence!!]

First of all, it's not my definition.

Ok, granted.

Second, I can apply your "logic" to anything.

First, that's not true.
Second, it's already been made clear that the definition isn't even helpful used in an imprecise common-sense manner.
Equating "simple" with "doesn't use any intermediate binding variable" is nonsense.

Are you saying that just because someone disagrees about the meaning of some word, the word becomes useless?

No. I'm saying that the definition you're using defines an apple falling in a physics system as emergent behaviour. I'm saying that's useless.

I'm saying that for that definition to be vaguely interesting, you'd have to significantly raise the bar on what counts as not "simple".

I'm also saying that explanations of emergence by example are much more useful than definitions. If Spector/Smith/Smith want to give a load of examples of what they mean, it's easy to see the level they're referring to. Introducing a definition only helps if it actually defines what they're talking about correctly (which it doesn't, since they don't mean to include apples falling to the ground under physics).

If they want to use technical terms, why not say that an emergent event has this property:
Its occurrence could not have directly [clearer than simply] been inferred from the system's rules.

That is a property of emergence (as they mean it) - it is not its definition.

As for this bit, I don't see how it adds anything:
Emergent behavior occurs when a system acts in an organized fashion beyond the sum capabilities of its individual parts.

In what sense is any of the Deus Ex stuff acting "in an organized fashion"? It just follows the rules which have been coded. The "organized fashion" stuff would seem to refer to some higher level interesting emergent rules. Are there any non-trivial examples of this in Deus Ex?

"Guard falls on oil puddle so torch ignites puddle" is not organized - it's just following connected rules in a linear path.

If you have a system containing birds which fly according to simple rules, and end up with flocking behaviour, that is acting "in an organized fashion": you can describe the system according to new high-level rules which have nothing directly to do with single low-level interactions, or trivial chains of about three low-level actions.

Can you honestly say that you'd describe "Guard falls on oil puddle so torch ignites puddle" as "a system acts in an organized fashion" in any non-trivial sense?

By the way, I know I'm being vague at times, but that's fine - I acknowledge that this is a vague topic. You are the one arguing for definitions, so you ought to be precise (where those definitions are concerned) - or willing to abandon/adapt the definitions.

In any case, I don't think it makes much sense to call connected game mechanics "emergent".
If you are going to say that, say it's a property of emergence - not its definition.


@elander_
I've not said anywhere that Harvey/Randy Smith or Warren Spector don't make some interesting points. I've said that they've used one bad definition. I'm sure I've done that in my time. They can both be interesting people, and be wrong about this.

Also, I think it's going a bit far to say that Deus Ex was designed with a view to emergent problem solving. Nearly every barrier has the standard: blow it up / crawl through a vent / use a multitool/lockpick solutions.

I don't think it's reasonable to think that they designed vent systems which just happened to bypass almost every door. It was entirely intentional.

Similarly with a high system of lasers which just happen to have a large amount of stackable crates / barrels right next to them. Or with gas filled barrels / explosive crates which just happen to be placed where many guards might be standing

Some non-designed problem solving was possible in Deus Ex, but it was the exception rather than the rule.

That's not necessarily a bad thing - it's good that designers were able to create some interesting challenges, and were able to predict many solutions / what items would be useful where. However, it is still planned.

 

[Gambler]

ZOMG, Santa Claus is real!!!

 

[galsiah]

ZOMG, the number 2 doesn't exist!!!!111!!1!

Has it occurred to you that there might be a reason that these expressions are not the same:
(1) The real world.
(2) The physical world.

Also, context is important. When discussing a game world, the "real world" is usually meant to mean the world outside the game world - not a distinction between imagination and physical substance. The player's immersion / enjoyment / frustration all happen in "the real world". They don't have to be physical to be considered real.

Also - good job on picking the most important, relevant point to reply to.

 

[elander_]

The word emergent is used in AI and games in a certain context. Theres emergent behaviors but emergent gameplay as it relates to solving problems and quests i only herad that from Specter. It's easier to create simple behaviors that are emergent, but emergent gameplay i have never seen anyone doing it. WS tried but he failed because he was using scripts. I don't think games tech is yet prepared for this.

Todd Howard tried this shit at E3 with that dog on fire example and then i tried to bullshit everyone saying it wasn't scripted. Later Oblivion has proven that its RAI idea may be technologicaly interesting and in wroks in the TESCS but it's still inflexible and hardcoded into the game so it's useless. Oblivion dumbfuck NPCs has proven this. Plus in Oblivion you only solve problems with combat and there is too much stupid limitations like you can't lock doors, you can throw anything and use it as a weapon, when you talk to npcs the game enters menu mode and stops (no real-time dialog or dialog with multiple intervinients). This sucked but at leats they tried to go beyond the scripted model.

 

[Gambler]

To galsiah:
I hate quoting dictionaries, but it's kind of difficult not to in this situation.

re‧al1  /ˈriəl, ril/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ree-uhl, reel] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent: the real reason for an act.
2. existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious: a story taken from real life.
3. being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary: The events you will see in the film are real and not just made up.
4. being actually such; not merely so-called: a real victory.
5. genuine; not counterfeit, artificial, or imitation; authentic: a real antique; a real diamond; real silk.
6. unfeigned or sincere: real sympathy; a real friend.
7. Informal. absolute; complete; utter: She's a real brain.
8. Philosophy.
a. existent or pertaining to the existent as opposed to the nonexistent.
b. actual as opposed to possible or potential.
c. independent of experience as opposed to phenomenal or apparent.
9. (of money, income, or the like) measured in purchasing power rather than in nominal value: Inflation has driven income down in real terms, though nominal income appears to be higher.
10. Optics. (of an image) formed by the actual convergence of rays, as the image produced in a camera (opposed to virtual).
11. Mathematics.
a. of, pertaining to, or having the value of a real number.
b. using real numbers: real analysis; real vector space.
–adverb
12. Informal. very or extremely: You did a real nice job painting the house.
–noun
13. real number.
14. the real,
a. something that actually exists, as a particular quantity.
b. reality in general.
—Idiom
15. for real, Informal.
a. in reality; actually: You mean she dyed her hair green for real?
b. real; actual: The company's plans to relocate are for real.
c. genuine; sincere: I don't believe his friendly attitude is for real.

I said "real life" in a context that made it perfectly clear what I meant. However, you chose to ingnore my meaning and came up with your own. Afterwards you posted numerous counterexamples and arguments that refuted your interpretation. What exactly was it supposed to prove?

I would not bother pointing all this out, but it is a cornerstone of your argument. It's not my problem if you don't want to understand what other people say. And it is not my duty to defend words like "simple" and "real" against nitpicking. Which leads nowehere, by the way. It is simply not constructive.

Falling apples and math operations have nothing to do with either emergence or the given definition.

Besides, the whole argument started about someone using the word "emergence" to describe Deus Ex. Guess what? I already spoke about similar case:

But the only way to prove it's not a turn-based game is to apply the definition of "turn-based" and see if it matches.

If there is no definition for the word (which is what you're saying), then anyone can use it however they want.

 

[galsiah]

Gambler:
True - my argument wasn't reasonable in that sense.

However, the important point here is that your definition does apply to any "real life" (in the sense I mean it) system - physical, abstract or whatever. I interpreted you to mean it that way because it seemed the most useful, general way to mean it - thus IMO the most useful thing you could be saying.

Take this system: {2,3} - i.e. an abstract set of two numbers.
Taken together in some combination (e.g. added, listed, multiplied...), those numbers have qualities which neither one of them possess alone.
Big deal.

Two men can lift a piano when neither one alone can.
Big deal.

A man slipping on oil with a torch can set the oil alight.
Big deal.

There is nothing interesting about any of these cases, all of which fit the definition you are using. (since you seem to mean very little by "organized", and something trivial by "simple")

And it is not my duty to defend words like "simple" ... against nitpicking.

It is if a reasonable interpretation of "simple" in your definition can lead people astray.

For example, I think every example we've mentioned in Deus Ex is "simple", in the usual sense of the word. If you don't mean it in the usual sense, then you allow Doom to qualify as emergent, and the crappy-physics-based dodge-the-falling-apple game to be emergent.
How is that helpful?

Falling apples and math operations have nothing to do with either emergence or the given definition.

I don't get you?
Would you also say that men slipping on oil and igniting it with a torch has "nothing to do with either emergence or the given definition."?

If not, why not? The apple situation certainly has the intermediate binding variable you were so keen on earier as the answer to "Why is this not simple?".

If there is no definition for the word (which is what you're saying), then anyone can use it however they want.

Read my above post.
A word/concept can have properties which apply to it, without any one of those properties forming a good definition. So long as you're clear on those properties, it is no longer possible to apply the word however you want to.

The definition of emergence you're using should be a property of emergence. Calling it a definition, then saying something like "Clearly you're being silly - I didn't mean it like that. Stop nitpicking." is just pointless.

Call it a property and everyone'll know what you mean, and you won't get a load of Doom / apple based examples of emergence.
Use Deus Ex as an example, and people will know what level you mean it at.

There's no need for confusion here. Most of it is created when people are talking about different things. In that regard, a bad definition is as bad (I'd say worse) than none at all.

 

[Twinfalls]

This discussion sucks monstrous and demonstrable cock.

 

[Admiral Rimjob POOBUM]

This discussion sucks monstrous and demonstrable cock.

Indeed.

 

[Astromarine]

but the question is, is it defined by the cock it sucks, or is the cocksucking merely a propertya of the discussion, or even the participants in it?