Defining Random

Randomness and Game Design by Keith Burgun

Using that article as a springboard for this one, I've known since the 7th grade that random events are mathematically impossible. There's always parts to the equation. The more random something might seem, the more complex the equation might be. Of course all of this is relative and difficult to define. Some people believe in fate, some in willpower and determination.

I define random as an event that has the appearance of unpredictable. This is why Math.Random number functions work so well in programming - they're specifically designed to produce an unpredictable result. When we see the event enough times or we look into how the event breaks down, we find the pattern and therefor destroy its randomness.

When someone swings an axe at a tree numerous times, each swing is directed towards the same area and comes from the same direction. Likewise, when an arrow is shot at a target it follows the same rules as the axe. The equation for the result might include things like wind speed, air temperature, altitude, the person's strength, what materials the object is made of, how many times it has been used, if the person has done the action one time or one hundred times, is the person angry or calm or focused or distracted, etc. For our two examples: the axe hits with differing force at various angles and displaces a seemingly random amount of wood each time; the bow flexes a predictable amount, and the arrow's accuracy depends on the steadiness of the archer - the arrow may still land in seemingly random spots relative to the target's center. Even if we built machines to do these actions for us specifically to remove some of the unpredictability, there would still be some randomness left regardless. In math, the amount of randomness would be the standard deviation. Since the deviation is smaller with the machine, the random element can essentially be refined out to such a small amount that we would no longer detect it.

LAN Gaming

I want to document an evolving phenomenon. Local area network (LAN) gaming isn't a new concept. Since the introduction of computers, we have been linking them together to play games or run simulations. Currently, LAN gaming only happens under specific conditions: at dedicated events, such as conventions (QuakeCon), church functions, or club activities, or as established companies (ShadowLAN). The primary difficulty being to transport and organize many desktop PCs in a small physical space. Given laptops and wireless networking, that challenge has been made easier, but LAN gaming is still a relatively rare occurrence.

The majority of multiplayer gaming happens over a wide area network (WAN). This poses the comparatively and similarly difficult challenge of virtually connecting people's computers through a service provider. That process can involve port forwarding and other dangerous firewall holes, and expensive and problematic servers (rubberbanding). So in essence, we sacrifice security and synchronization for convenience. While that's expected to some degree, I still find it interesting that even with laptops and more manageable and lightweight gear (and more powerful computers across the board), we still have trouble managing to organize LAN events on a more frequent basis.

Part of the issue is that the more potent gaming rigs are most commonly desktop computers, or ATX Mid towers. While they offer the most space to customize and upgrade, they are also the most bulky design to transport. Combined with the various peripherals (monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers, etc.), getting multiple people enthusiastic enough to move their equipment to a temporary space becomes more unlikely.

The primary solutions would be to improve the internet or to change the topology (individual fiber optic service, neighborhood intranet LAN, dedicated school networks). Alternative solutions include customizable lightweight technology that can handle extreme computing needs. Keyboards are large enough to enclose much of the circuitry needed on the motherboard, so perhaps using the physical space underneath the keyboard as a PC would be an innovative way to reduce the overall size of a desktop computer. A fairly old concept used the base of a monitor as the housing for a PC. Perhaps we could revisit that concept with the ability to customize in mind.

It would be a very difficult task to change my mind about the idea of LAN gaming, but I'll only be able to continue being its proponent we keep progressing forward.

Never Pay for Premium

In a world dominated by business and politics (as opposed to philosophy and philanthropy, and you know, progress) computer game entertainment has fallen from a unique pastime to a stifling alternative to worse options. Especially with the advent of slower and less customizable "mobile" options, computer gaming, and desktop PCs moreover, have survived largely due to the efforts of efficient distributors such as Steam, GOG.com, and the more generally, the advent of digitally downloadable content. Instead of fumbling through a large CD/DVD collection, gamers can quickly browse an ever growing list of games and then download and play them as long as their hard drive functions.

After observing an era of anti-PC/pro-mobile propaganda, and the rise of the free-to-play, downloadable content, and premium account business strategies in games, we can safely pronounce that the game designers have either lost their minds or that business people are making the decisions. Business people are more or less involved in business-related politics, and, as a result, instill the quota, bottom-line, and/or investor viewpoints on the highly educated, creative, and innovative gaming industry. While the industry continues to thrive, gamers and consumers in general suffer from poor decision making and biased design choices.

Video games are theoretically the most effective method of entertainment human beings have ever maintained. By simulating an ever increasing variety of environments, rules, and events, video games give us much more access to our imagination. If that isn't by itself worth investing time and money into, an historical analysis of video game's ability to make money shows why the industry is now more or less controlled by people who have no idea how to make games. Especially now, video games are software simulations that can be sold with high returns. On average, a video game takes around three years, and $60 to $100 million to make. Newer Indie or crowd-funded projects develop  video games for much less money, often less than $100,000. Regardless of how much money is dumped into a project, one thing remains the same. Games that sell for a consistent amount have a solid indicator of popularity. Games such as premium account games, could in reality fail in the public eye, while reviewers, critics, and publishers remain ignorant to fundamental problems.

Let me remind you that almost all critics are in some way influenced by their proximity to the industry they critique. In the case of computer games, reviews can be directly bought in the form of a marketing campaign. In essence, that's what advertisements for computer games are - positive reviews. Demos are unfortunately not as common as they once were - mostly because of the programming hurdles presented with limiting players and protecting content. Demos are still extremely effective, however, for those developers that continue to offer them. They have evolved now, into in-development versions of the game. By buying the game for a typically small amount long before the game's actual release, players can support a good concept and save money at the same time... as long as the game actually gets finished.

I will not be the last to say that computer gaming was at one point simple and straight forward. You went to a store, picked up a game box, used physical media to not only install the game, but also to play the game. Even longer ago, there wasn't even a key. But I digress. Now that games come in many different models, makes, and brands, it's easy to let your passion for an idea to overtake the logic behind a purchase. Never pay for premium. A simple solution is to compare the amount of money you're prepared to spend on any game idea (pre-release, downloadable content, premium accounts, in-game content, etc.) to the amount of time you expect to get out of that form of entertainment. If the amount of time you'll spend on a game largely outweighs the required average amount of money to maintain that game, then I am incapable of influencing you further.

In conclusion, I postulate that business models other than a one-time purchase of the software aren't as effective, and the game, subsequent games, and overall brand suffer in the long term. Players get alienated by the business side of things, and that slight afterthought throws them out of the game world and right back into the reality that we all so hopelessly attempt to escape in our own ways.