Talk:Emergent gameplay

Where is the source for the other sections? Stuff like this is rarely to never going to be "officially" documented anywhere. AbstractClass 17:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact I don't see a single source in the entire article? Why was my contribution singled out? AbstractClass 17:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources can be found for many of them. That has to be done. Some have their own articles. It's just that your entry seemed to read very much like someone had just added some method of play they and their friends came up with.--Drat (Talk) 14:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I didn't come up with it, and in fact I didn't much like it. But it was very popular and was played all the time and is a perfect example of what this article is discussing. BTW, how do you indent?AbstractClass 15:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, your going to be another (PROFANITY DELETED) on Wikipedia I see. Well I'm going to delete the unsourced sections and will prepare to indulge in an Orgy of deleted unsourced material across wikipedia. You (PROFANITY DELETED) (PROFANITY DELTED). AbstractClass 15:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Charming.--Drat (Talk) 14:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This text from Emergence in games which could be merged in somewhere. Marasmusine 14:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Emergence is the principal that several items with simple behaviour can produce complex behaviour by following a set pattern of instructions.

This is the idea that several small things acting together can act as more than the sum of their parts.

In games, this principle applies if something needs to follow something else, this could be easily achieved by adding that condition, it would then appear that the two items were intelligent, whereas they are just following instructions.

One application of emergence is to model flocking, which shows how birds and other animals travel together in groups.

--paolor (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC) I completely agree, this should be merged in as an alternative definition at the beginning of the article. In my experience, emerging gameplay (complex behaviors that emerge from the interaction of simple game mechanisms) can be either expected or unexpected by the game designer. Is there consensus on this?

I always thought of emergent gameplay as arising from the AI doing things unexpected or creating an unexpected effect, more like in http://www.rampantgames.com/blog/labels/Game%20Moments.html

I though this had it's own article; emergent behaviour, but it just redirects to emergence. I've added a section to this article; add references at will! Marasmusine 09:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So, a combo, as defined in Combo (video games), would not be an example of emergent gameplay, even considering that it was something the game designers did not specifically intend? Just checking because I'd rather have a discussion about it, instead of re-adding it just to have it deleted again. --nothingxs 01:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It's emergent gameplay if it has been described as such in a reliable source; we don't do original research. Marašmusïne_Talk 08:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It is an example of emergent gameplay. I don't know about it being described as such in a reliable source, but it essentially was an unintended feature that actually made the game what it is today by changing the dynamics of how the games were played. I have added a reference this time! --nothingxs 02:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the 1UP reference cites the Street Fighter 2 glitch as the origin of what we call 'combos' (a gameplay element after all) I think we can allow that. Marašmusïne_Talk 08:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Surfing actually originated in the original Counter Strike, before CS:S even came out, I remember surfing for hours at a time in Counter Strike, then being somewhat saddened by the amount of time it took for surfing to come to CS:S. 98.148.220.150 (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Related? I know they're not the same thing, etc etc.  Aar  ►  06:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? What kind of hacking and what is being hacked?--Drat (Talk) 06:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As Drat suggests, "hacking" is a bit of a loaded term. In the narrow sense of hacking as in compromising computer security, not directly, but the notions of subversion are there (but that's a loose connection). In the broader informal senses of exploiting (non-security) glitches and doing low-level programming work, yes. See the Glitch or quirk-based strategies section. Low-level programming work has been used in developing speedruns (especially tool-assisted) and in developing machinima (movies made with 3D video games as the animation engine). — TKD::{talk} 06:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to come over all fussy here. I'm a linguistic dinosaur who has real trouble with the verb form 'to leverage'. I've never known why 'to lever' stopped working for this purpose. But I recognise that it's used and I'm not about to start removing words from Wikipedia to suit my preferences. But the article includes the following statement:

"Emergent play usually involves leveraging one or more of these components."

The word 'leveraging' in this statement was linked to Leverage (disambiguation). I don't think this really helps because it links to a number of different possible meanings and applications of the term, and none of them refer to game mechanics (at least as far as I can see). I've taken the link out for the moment because I believe it's likely to confuse more than it helps. Could someone who better understands the usage of 'leverage' in this context please decide on a specific article to link the word to? - Laterensis (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole statement appeared to be WP:OR anyway. Marasmusine (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The Left 4 Dead reference is fluffy. Enemy and spawning AI is not storytelling. Under a 'dramatics and pacing' definition, even Pong qualifies -- "...and then, it came at me!"

I submit you need a persistent world and a player community for a story to emerge in any meaningful sense. The concept is embodied in, e.g., Dungeons & Dragons. The article would benefit from such a reference.

I removed this section from Nonlinear gameplay, as it was copied there in its entirety. Era139 (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Deus Ex reference in this article does not provide any evidence of intentional emergent gameplay. They game is fairly linear, and offers the player a lot of choices when it comes to how problems are solved, but all of those choices were carefully crafted by the developer. The ability to walk up walls on mines is a bug in the game, and is most assuredly an example of unintentional emergence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.153.129.39 (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sandbags within the first game were broken because the computer players did not know how to destroy them. The single player missions were skewed by this knowledge where the objective particular to that mission was second preference until a player could successfully block and stop the computer controlled player. Once this was achieved (even to a partial blockage) then one could play the mission normally to achieve the objective.Until Red Alert 1 was released, Command & Conquer was a game where the 'Sandbag Blockage' objective was always first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.80.179 (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emergent gameplay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061125040658/http://www.eve-iss.com:80/marginis/index.asp to http://www.eve-iss.com/marginis/index.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061220110337/http://eve-iss.com:80/ISSO/ to http://www.eve-iss.com/isso

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)