Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
GLARCS (GENETIC LIFEFORM AND RPG CREATION SYSTEM)
Posts
WolfCoder
3554
WolfCoder
View playlists
CloseI had this moment of insanity where I could apply artificial intelligence and artificial life to a program that could generate an RPG. It would draw the graphics, write the story, compose the music, map the levels and gameflow, create characters/items/equipment. Then you could pretty much play endless series of RPG games.
If anyone has ever played Endless Mario (or gotten to play at all) the idea is the same except the program is aware of you playing and reacts to how you play the game. This program is entirely algorithmic which means once it is written, you just hit play and it makes a game for you to play through. It would adapt to how you play the game and think of new ways to torture you, kind of like Warning Forever.
I really doubt I would write this thing, it's not that I don't know how (I actually know how it could possibly generate relevant graphics and sound) and I do have an extra 64-bit Linux rig just sitting around with gigs of RAM that could be run for the sole purpose of this- it's just that it would be fun to think about the implications of such a thing.
Why? If you think of the rules that makes an RPG a game, you find yourself laying down the bare minimum unifying rules that decide what is actually an RPG and what wouldn't be as this theoretical program (unless someone is sadistic enough to write this) would be bound only by these terms. Anyone writing a GLaRCS would ensure their program follows these rules to avoid games where you start out in a wall, or over a pit for example.
This turns into a discussion of RPG design design even if you don't know a thing about computer science.
What would the rules be? This is where I'm actually asking you for rules and not merely suggestions or personal tastes even if your rules are considered as such by others (I'm actually asking you to pretend your word is law).
So you have an idea of what I'm asking of you, I'll give some I've thought about:
Generally:
- Any game requires a goal. Endless games still have a goal even though you never reach it.
- Any game also has the terms of failure. You have to be able to lose the game somehow.
- RPGs have character development of some kind, but more importantly they have roles.
Specifically for this program:
- You can't have a map with areas you must go to but cannot reach.
- Game must not have inhuman difficulty. A computer could beat the game but a human must also be able to beat the game.
- The player must know what they are supposed to do.
- The further you go in the game the harder it must get.
- The player can't enter an un-winnable state. (ex: can't kill a specific enemy and thus will die over and over, etc. because the player could burn through their ammo and no way to buy more).
If anyone has ever played Endless Mario (or gotten to play at all) the idea is the same except the program is aware of you playing and reacts to how you play the game. This program is entirely algorithmic which means once it is written, you just hit play and it makes a game for you to play through. It would adapt to how you play the game and think of new ways to torture you, kind of like Warning Forever.
I really doubt I would write this thing, it's not that I don't know how (I actually know how it could possibly generate relevant graphics and sound) and I do have an extra 64-bit Linux rig just sitting around with gigs of RAM that could be run for the sole purpose of this- it's just that it would be fun to think about the implications of such a thing.
Why? If you think of the rules that makes an RPG a game, you find yourself laying down the bare minimum unifying rules that decide what is actually an RPG and what wouldn't be as this theoretical program (unless someone is sadistic enough to write this) would be bound only by these terms. Anyone writing a GLaRCS would ensure their program follows these rules to avoid games where you start out in a wall, or over a pit for example.
This turns into a discussion of RPG design design even if you don't know a thing about computer science.
What would the rules be? This is where I'm actually asking you for rules and not merely suggestions or personal tastes even if your rules are considered as such by others (I'm actually asking you to pretend your word is law).
So you have an idea of what I'm asking of you, I'll give some I've thought about:
Generally:
- Any game requires a goal. Endless games still have a goal even though you never reach it.
- Any game also has the terms of failure. You have to be able to lose the game somehow.
- RPGs have character development of some kind, but more importantly they have roles.
Specifically for this program:
- You can't have a map with areas you must go to but cannot reach.
- Game must not have inhuman difficulty. A computer could beat the game but a human must also be able to beat the game.
- The player must know what they are supposed to do.
- The further you go in the game the harder it must get.
- The player can't enter an un-winnable state. (ex: can't kill a specific enemy and thus will die over and over, etc. because the player could burn through their ammo and no way to buy more).
Isn't Dwarf Fortress a little like this? It generates a massive amount of content using exactly the kind of procedural generation you're talking about.
Is that some sort of joke, or is this the worst idea ever?
Do you think something like this could be able to generate good games?
Do you think something like this could generate games that don't look exactly like each other?
I understand how you could generate graphics with this... but how about dialog? Wouldn't they be excessively repetitive or superficial?
Do you think something like this could be able to generate good games?
Do you think something like this could generate games that don't look exactly like each other?
I understand how you could generate graphics with this... but how about dialog? Wouldn't they be excessively repetitive or superficial?
WolfCoder
3554
Isn't Dwarf Fortress a little like this? It generates a massive amount of content using exactly the kind of procedural generation you're talking about.
I'm not aware of any scientific-grade artificial life simulation turned RPG game, but I've already listed games that use simple elements of this sort of thing. This isn't exactly the sort of stuff you can just hit play and poof, it could take days for anything interesting to emerge.
Here's an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-qOBi2tAnI&feature=related
You can download the program in the video somewhere, and you'll realize what I mean about how it takes days for anything interesting to appear out of nowhere.
Note, procedural generation is different from emergent computation. This sort of a program would create many things all by itself, graphics and sound out of "thin air".
Is that some sort of joke, or is this the worst idea ever?
It's theoretical, but it would say lots about game design. A more conventional and practical version would be really, really funny. In case you haven't noticed (the obvious Portal reference in the name), the idea was a sort of a joke to talk about the idea of what rules would there be on RPG games that would make them games rather than writing an AI that makes RPG games.
Do you think something like this could be able to generate good games?
Probably not.
Do you think something like this could generate games that don't look exactly like each other?
Easily. The hard part is generating games that look like anything at all and function as games, hence the problem I am actually talking about.
but how about dialog? Wouldn't they be excessively repetitive or superficial?
Why does there need to be dialog apart from the underlying system menu? There would only be dialog if this were a program written for a typical desktop end-user for fun and it would be like RPG Maker Mad Libs.
An actual program like this would only be of scientific interest to see what comes out of it.
Oh I forgot about Emily Howell:
http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-8507/
You'll find little samples of Emily Howell's music. She is a computer program.
Note, procedural generation is different from emergent computation.
Well based on what I learned from my programming games class, I'm not saying this is a meaningless distinction, but I do think it is a relatively narrow degree of difference.
WolfCoder
3554
I gave you videos on what emergent computation was. In reality, you would add a degree of deterministic built-in algorithms and materials to work with which would increase the speed of evolution but reduce the possibilities of what comes out.
Warning Forever and Endless Mario have some degree of unexpected content, but both of those are examples of procedural generation. The videos and articles I have linked are examples of emergent stuff- things being made out of almost nothing. Random motor functions and blocks turn themselves into strikingly complex and interesting creatures.
There's a big difference between Chocobo's Dungeon and a full-fledged genetics and evolution simulation.
Game programming classes are overrated, software engineering and computer science is where it's at. I can tell you that you learn the real stuff in those fields of study. I'd rather have someone with a degree in computer science or software engineering with a background on realtime computer graphics than a "game school" graduate on my team. It's more software engineering than anything with games though. Those game classes kind of make me think that they were made just to attract more students to colleges.
Sure, you can probably find lots of places that will take game school graduates, but the reason I chose computer science is that I wanted to be able to have skills in doing anything that is computer related in hopes to become as valuable as possible to any future employers.
Warning Forever and Endless Mario have some degree of unexpected content, but both of those are examples of procedural generation. The videos and articles I have linked are examples of emergent stuff- things being made out of almost nothing. Random motor functions and blocks turn themselves into strikingly complex and interesting creatures.
There's a big difference between Chocobo's Dungeon and a full-fledged genetics and evolution simulation.
Game programming classes are overrated, software engineering and computer science is where it's at. I can tell you that you learn the real stuff in those fields of study. I'd rather have someone with a degree in computer science or software engineering with a background on realtime computer graphics than a "game school" graduate on my team. It's more software engineering than anything with games though. Those game classes kind of make me think that they were made just to attract more students to colleges.
Sure, you can probably find lots of places that will take game school graduates, but the reason I chose computer science is that I wanted to be able to have skills in doing anything that is computer related in hopes to become as valuable as possible to any future employers.
It was a computer science class on programming games. And we discussed emergent computation. And it seemed conceptually pretty similar to procedural generation. : |
I don't know maybe I should look up Endless Mario/Warning Forever before discussing this further.
I don't know maybe I should look up Endless Mario/Warning Forever before discussing this further.
WolfCoder
3554
Ah, so it's probably an actual class and not one of those McVideo Game camps. Good luck trying to get Endless Mario to effen start, it doesn't respond to keys on any of my computers. As for warning forever, it's a really fun boss rush shoot-em-up.
Neither of these are the will of a sadistic digital overlord in your desktop and contain life, but Warning Forever at least creates new bosses based on how you destroyed the last one.
I had this idea where there would be this RPG which was actually just you being the plaything of some evil AI (like system shock only the AI is actually running inside your computer and being an AI as you play) and it would taunt you as you played through the levels and gameplay it created on the fly. It would be very hard to do with actual life since it would take forever to create the next thing, but easier as a simple stupid lifeless procedural generation program. But it would be completely awesome to play against a real artificial life form (if that makes sense).
Neither of these are the will of a sadistic digital overlord in your desktop and contain life, but Warning Forever at least creates new bosses based on how you destroyed the last one.
I had this idea where there would be this RPG which was actually just you being the plaything of some evil AI (like system shock only the AI is actually running inside your computer and being an AI as you play) and it would taunt you as you played through the levels and gameplay it created on the fly. It would be very hard to do with actual life since it would take forever to create the next thing, but easier as a simple stupid lifeless procedural generation program. But it would be completely awesome to play against a real artificial life form (if that makes sense).
I actually just realized that I at one point was quite into Battleships Forever which was inspired by Warning Forever.
Can has a link to Endless Mario?
Can has a link to Endless Mario?
AznChipmunk
4613
post=136664but how about dialog? Wouldn't they be excessively repetitive or superficial?Why does there need to be dialog apart from the underlying system menu? There would only be dialog if this were a program written for a typical desktop end-user for fun and it would be like RPG Maker Mad Libs.
An actual program like this would only be of scientific interest to see what comes out of it.
Oh I forgot about Emily Howell:
http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-8507/
You'll find little samples of Emily Howell's music. She is a computer program.
The "writing" of a game is really what defines an RPG, whether or not there is dialogue. If you pump out a bunch of generated games... I doubt any of them will break any sort of generic RPG formula that you create... but I guess as you said, it wouldn't really be for making enjoyable or good games. So I don't really see the point. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't do it but personally I hate the idea of "generating" creative works.
Also, I read that article about the music and listened to those samples. It's cool from a technical standpoint but musically those two samples... are pretty drab. The article calls them innovative and unique? Neither of the two are really any more interesting than generic "mellow" pieces. They don't have anything special to offer in terms of structure or dynamics.
WolfCoder
3554
And I see you're one of those more artistic it-has-no-soul sort of critics mentioned in the article and I'm not sure you would be saying what you are saying if you didn't know Emily was a machine, but you do have a point in a way.
I find artificial life fun to play with because it does unexpected and new things I wouldn't have ever dreamed about. We have these kinds of AI engineering things for us, designing something to be more efficient than we could have done so ourselves and they're in lots of our latest robots so there are more practical applications.
Eventually we will have the computer power to surpass humans, so I think it would be a nice way to be ready and harness the power. Who knows what superhuman machine could do and it's exciting to think that something could build something stronger than itself. Apart from messing with tiny demos myself though, I'd rather just make the games myself since I don't want my computer from 20 years in the future having all the fun. Of course notice how the article is entitled CYRBORG composer, implying that it would be a combination of me and my machine enhancing my ability to create these games.
Skynet will enslave you meat sacks by forcing you to play their mediocre RPG games. Terminator.. Is.. The.. Dungeon Master.
...which ironically would probably be better than even half the stuff already here.
I find artificial life fun to play with because it does unexpected and new things I wouldn't have ever dreamed about. We have these kinds of AI engineering things for us, designing something to be more efficient than we could have done so ourselves and they're in lots of our latest robots so there are more practical applications.
Eventually we will have the computer power to surpass humans, so I think it would be a nice way to be ready and harness the power. Who knows what superhuman machine could do and it's exciting to think that something could build something stronger than itself. Apart from messing with tiny demos myself though, I'd rather just make the games myself since I don't want my computer from 20 years in the future having all the fun. Of course notice how the article is entitled CYRBORG composer, implying that it would be a combination of me and my machine enhancing my ability to create these games.
except they were written by GODAMN SKYNET, man
Skynet will enslave you meat sacks by forcing you to play their mediocre RPG games. Terminator.. Is.. The.. Dungeon Master.
...which ironically would probably be better than even half the stuff already here.
AznChipmunk
4613
Hi, please don't label me and toss me into some group. I'm just saying you've already defined generic definitions of an RPG game like "you must lose somehow" and you probably are going to define more things like "WEAPONS KILL ENEMY" or even "ENEMIES ARE BAD." I'm not saying choosing these definitions are good, bad, original, unoriginal, or anything other than that you are creating things along a formula.
What if you, say you created a score-based RPG like this: In battles, you don't have a health a bar, you have a score counter that decreases by one every time you get hit (and it stops falling once it reaches 0), and you have some way to avoid getting hit (a la mario rpgs). You could potentially create something fun if you introduced some fun battle mechanics perhaps involving casting healing spells on enemies? Maybe like you're some schoolkid casting healing spells on bullies so they will have the energy to beat you up later. Obviously the idea is pretty OUT THERE and the game wouldn't take itself seriously obviously, but you could create a fun RPG, with competition between players based on score.
That's just a quirky example yes. (Also if someone goes and makes this right now I will be very pleased.) But I can think of ways that it could easily break at least two of your applied "formula" rules and still be a perfectly fun RPG.
Also, I don't really see how it is relevant if I knew Emily was a machine or not? I mean, I guess some people would be biased but I have to say, I'd still use those terms I used now to define quite a lot of the music I hear every day.
What if you, say you created a score-based RPG like this: In battles, you don't have a health a bar, you have a score counter that decreases by one every time you get hit (and it stops falling once it reaches 0), and you have some way to avoid getting hit (a la mario rpgs). You could potentially create something fun if you introduced some fun battle mechanics perhaps involving casting healing spells on enemies? Maybe like you're some schoolkid casting healing spells on bullies so they will have the energy to beat you up later. Obviously the idea is pretty OUT THERE and the game wouldn't take itself seriously obviously, but you could create a fun RPG, with competition between players based on score.
That's just a quirky example yes. (Also if someone goes and makes this right now I will be very pleased.) But I can think of ways that it could easily break at least two of your applied "formula" rules and still be a perfectly fun RPG.
Also, I don't really see how it is relevant if I knew Emily was a machine or not? I mean, I guess some people would be biased but I have to say, I'd still use those terms I used now to define quite a lot of the music I hear every day.
WolfCoder
3554
post=136683
Hi, please don't label me and toss me into some group...
Then don't act like you belong in said group, but in your latest post you already defend yourself and provide an example of trying not to fit a label so don't take it the wrong way.
post=136683
...
That's just a quirky example yes. (Also if someone goes and makes this right now I will be very pleased.) But I can think of ways that it could easily break at least two of your applied "formula" rules and still be a perfectly fun RPG.
...
I don't really see how you deviated from what I said, but this is actually kind of what I wanted people to say rather than to just talk about GLaRCS so thanks for your input~
post=136683
...
Also, I don't really see how it is relevant if I knew Emily was a machine or not? I mean, I guess some people would be biased but I have to say, I'd still use those terms I used now to define quite a lot of the music I hear every day.
What I'm so enthusiastic about is not that the music is overly amazing, but it's actually music I could describe as beautiful and it was the work of a machine. Sure the artificial life creations from the simulation look like rampant mutant cardboard box sculptures, but those are fascinating and graceful. It's actually decent music and my only problem with it is that it's just repetitive and he isn't applying any sort of easily audible top-level processing on the composition of a piece (ABA, ABBA, ABACA, etc.) of flow or anything but if you listen closely it is actually applying a top-level design. All it needs is to develop it so that it stands out more and takes the form of a complete song rather than sounding like a clip from one.
Now the paradoxical and nonsensical part of a GLaRCS is that it would still be capable of combining elements of rules together to create game mechanics no one has ever thought of. Artificial life must be life nonetheless and should be entitled to free will in order for it to be capable of doing anything more than a mere procedural algorithm. A GLaRCS would not need emotions and thus would not feel any sort of fear or restraint in trying experimental things in RPG creation.
An ideal GLaRCS would then a computer being who's only defined goal is to do whatever humans like since it writes RPG games for humans to play. When you actually write a GLaRCS you would want to be as close to the ideal case as possible. You can kind of understand why I'm not actually planning on writing a GLaRCS apart from experimental fragments- this is hefty computer science we're talking about here. I would need several of my 64-bit Linux boxes and while people keep handing me their old rigs I don't exactly have enough silicon laying around my room to build a supercomputing cluster.
But a GLaRCS actually wants to make good games and decides what makes a game fun. It could ask you many questions about different things and how much you liked or hated them and use this data to design more RPGs. Eventually if the GLaRCS was written with proper evolution, it would start making fun games. They probably wouldn't be amazing games but you could actually play them and say there was a little fun in them. This is how evolution works just as it should in real biological life.
Best of all a GLaRCS wouldn't get all whiny and talk back to constructive criticism. It would even accept destructive criticism all the same- you can't hurt something that wasn't given feelings.
It's with such a system that you could see RPGs you would have never begin to have thought of even in your lifetime.
Now going back to Emily, imagine if I combined this system with myself and used it to help me organize and create ideas at several times the speed I do it now. I don't even have to let it touch my personal project, I could just use it for insight and experimentation. This is what is meant by a Cyborg Composer.
When I'm older I'm going to want to cry if I see a Miku Hatsune reploid singing with Emily on the piano and god-knows-what playing the instruments. It's going to be the "they seriously did this" cry.
In college there was a professor that wrote a PC program to randomly generate Dungeons n Dragons games. People played them. They were detailed if not unhumanly detailed. He was working on a computer program to make PC RPGs, but then I graduated. It was going to be a text based thing.
The game DOOM has random level generators that can generate entire games. Left for Dead supposedly has an AI that reacts to how you play.
The new Wario game on DS has a music generator. I'm sure google searching would have a few as well.
Specifically for this program:
- You can't have a map with areas you must go to but cannot reach.
--- that DOOM generator did this perfectly.
- Game must not have inhuman difficulty. A computer could beat the game but a human must also be able to beat the game.
--- define inhuman... have you seen the guy that can play 2 player spaceship shooters by himself perfectly?
- The player must know what they are supposed to do.
--- easily done
- The further you go in the game the harder it must get.
--- duh
- The player can't enter an un-winnable state. (ex: can't kill a specific enemy and thus will die over and over, etc. because the player could burn through their ammo and no way to buy more).
--- duh if it is unwinnable, it is unwinnable.
Hey, I'm game to make this, but I don't want to devote my life to making it. This would be a year before you get a buggy version with people complaining about it. I have created many algorythem personalities for randomly generated things. Its what I do best. I make computer generated companies that run themselves in game worlds that have play styles just like players.
The game DOOM has random level generators that can generate entire games. Left for Dead supposedly has an AI that reacts to how you play.
The new Wario game on DS has a music generator. I'm sure google searching would have a few as well.
Specifically for this program:
- You can't have a map with areas you must go to but cannot reach.
--- that DOOM generator did this perfectly.
- Game must not have inhuman difficulty. A computer could beat the game but a human must also be able to beat the game.
--- define inhuman... have you seen the guy that can play 2 player spaceship shooters by himself perfectly?
- The player must know what they are supposed to do.
--- easily done
- The further you go in the game the harder it must get.
--- duh
- The player can't enter an un-winnable state. (ex: can't kill a specific enemy and thus will die over and over, etc. because the player could burn through their ammo and no way to buy more).
--- duh if it is unwinnable, it is unwinnable.
Hey, I'm game to make this, but I don't want to devote my life to making it. This would be a year before you get a buggy version with people complaining about it. I have created many algorythem personalities for randomly generated things. Its what I do best. I make computer generated companies that run themselves in game worlds that have play styles just like players.
WolfCoder
3554
- You can't have a map with areas you must go to but cannot reach.
--- that DOOM generator did this perfectly.
Read closely. If you have to go somewhere but you can't, you cannot beat the game. This would be a flaw in a typical lifeless dungeon generator let alone an alive one.
--- define inhuman... have you seen the guy that can play 2 player spaceship shooters by himself perfectly?
Surpasses even that guy, don't worry, I play Osu! I'm talking about knitting 320 socks a second- no human can do that with just needles and string. I've also mentioned TouHou many times in threads about difficulty, it only LOOKS inhuman to the inexperienced.
- The player must know what they are supposed to do.
--- easily done
I've played way too many games made by humans who do not properly explain how I should play their games let alone games made by machines, it is still easily done but also very easily overlooked.
- The further you go in the game the harder it must get.
--- duh
Humans make this mistake too often as well.
- The player can't enter an un-winnable state. (ex: can't kill a specific enemy and thus will die over and over, etc. because the player could burn through their ammo and no way to buy more).
--- duh if it is unwinnable, it is unwinnable.
Yes it's a "duh", but humans make this mistake too.
You might actually have a good background in... whatever it is you are going on about but from your tone and manner of your post I'm not exactly sure you understand the implications and problems that arise out of alive systems.
Might I say it's called BETA TESTING for a reason?
I just looked at Dwarf's fortress. This could be done in Flash from scratch.
It's not an alive system, it's a random procedural generation. I'm talking about an AI capable of making who-knows-what. Hence the term alive vs. lifeless. This isn't something "you can just do in flash", this takes a ton of computer power.
