Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (
More info?)
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:04:14 -0000, "One Punch Mickey"
<fantantiddlyspan@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Jonah Falcon" <jonahnynla@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:4Q6%d.16004
>
>> I wonder why more games don't have random enemy emplacement (and in
>> SWAT3/4's case, enemy/hostage).
>
>Because most first-person games are a linear progression of set pieces, and
>doing that would mess it up.
>
There are level randomizers for Doom, which swap around the different
objects and monsters on the level. (Some were better than others - one
group blindly scrambles the location of objects, others made attempts to
keep the level playable by only moving non-blocking objects.) The worst
case scenario is that you have to run past hords of monsters to get the
ammunition to kill them - other than that, most of the maps were playable
and sometimes interesting.
Quake has monters walking along a patrol path. The linear progression of
the game was never damaged as these monsters moved around - it still
wouldn't be damaged if a lesser monster has a 50/50 chance of appearing in
a gameplay session, nor would it be damaged if such a monster was replaced
with a different lesser monster.
Out of all the games in the market, I'm not aware of any game that would be
harmed by a little randomness. Even if there is one, it's probably so
tightly railroaded that the development wasn't placing focus on making the
game fun.