Do truly random enemies exist in any game, or is there always

>>3958551
No. Computers can only generate pseudo-random sequences, unless they have a true source of random numbers, like a geiger counter.

Everything in videogames is pseudorandom

>>3958551
>speedrunners have found that the number of seconds on the clock when you clear a level in Super Mario Bros. determines where the enemies will load in the next level.

I'm confused. I've been playing that game for 20 years and every time the enemies are always in the same places.

>>3958551

You could make one that does that if you have the game base the enemy movement on current real world atmospheric noise. You could argue that's still not truly random since the atmospheric noise would be determined by prior causes like any other attempt at randomness would be, but it would at least get you answers that weren't generated by the machine's own deterministic processes.

Doing that would be unnecessary though since pseudo-random is random enough to work fine even for the most high stakes real world security applications, so they definitely work well enough for games.

"True" randomness is hard as hell, but entirely unnecessary for games anyway.

>>3958578
They spawn on the same paths. But it determines where along that path they are when the level loads.

>>3958551
Depends on the game.

>>3958553
This. Computers are deterministic machines. That being said, even without incorporating something like a true physical random number generator, more or less non-deterministic can be generated from unusual sources, like reading an empty bus on some systems.

>>3958551

This video does a very good job of explaining how Super Mario 64 creates randomness:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiuLeTE2MeQ

A word of warning: This video is pure autism. You'll probably need a CS/EE background to understand it.

TL;DW Video games programmers use short & fast formulas to create seemingly "random" behavior.
If you know how the formula works, you can influence the result, ie. exploit it.

>>3958551
>Do truly random enemies exist in any game

No, because there is no such phenomenon as "randomness" in our physical universe; every action is driven by cause and effect. Computers can only produce ostensibly random outcomes by doing complicated math, and pulling values from constantly changing variables such as RAM states. But a computer game can be programmed in such a way that enemy patterns are simply too difficult (or impossible) to predict by casual observation, because the routines and other variables that drive those patterns aren't necessarily knowable to a casual observer.

File: HyperSpeedFlying.webm (3MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 854x480px

>>3958739
BUT FIRST

>>3958551
Random would imply the result of some function for which not all input the variables are known. Obviously if you know the input variables you'll know the outcome. Early hardware had a limited number of ways to generate these "unknowns", developers usually resorting to things like time or frame counters or such since that's more than good enough for a video game.

Some modern hardware utilize specifically designed entropy hardware to generate randomness, which being based on actual physical phenomena would be impossible to predict. There's also software tricks to build up entropy pools, like having the user randomly move their mouse around and shit.

>>3958551
If you're using tools or actively trying to break down the game, then no.
But most random algorithms are good enough to trick a player, as long as they're based on an invisible value.

It's kind of like a coin flip. That's not random either, but there's no way you're going to figure out the physics in your head fast enough to call it correctly.

>>3958937
This.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYnJv68T3MM

if you play a device that uses the current time as a seed then you can't predict the results unless you research it ahead of time

one could just memorize the results of a particular time and set the device's clock to it though

File: 1088M.png (2KB, 256x224px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 256x224px

>>3958578
They mainly use it for Hammer Bros. because those enemies usually spawn near rows of bricks like pic related. If you can get them to spawn on the top row, instead of on the ground, its much easier to just run under them.
They'll always be in the same place in the level, but their height/position is always different.

>>3958553
Plenty of games use player input timing as a source of true randomness.

>>3958963
A famous example of this failing hard is Golden Sun for GBA. The PRNG saves it's entropy pool along with your file, and only generates a new number based on actions taken in battle. You can game the fuck out of the RNG such that you can guarantee drops of normally 1/256 drop equipment.

If you use savestates, it's RNG abuse 101 to spasm your guy out to get favorable outcomes.

Of course, a properly designed algorithm that updates often based on periodic and aperiodic events can't manipulated by a person.

>>3958553
Using a geiger counter would be way too slow.

>>3958867
Holy.....

>>3958978
I mean, it's far easier and more fun to just play Golden Sun normally.

>>3958978
>If you use savestates

Might as well just use a memory editor or cheat codes then.

>>3958551

Nothing in the entire UNIVERSE is random. Everything, all of our behavior, has a formula that determines the movement

>>3960283
lol. do you even quantum, bro?

>>3960249
it's more a curiosity because of how badly thought out the RNG system was, although it does makes getting a kikuichimonji easier.

>>3958553

> Implying humans can.

>>3958551
For retro games nothing is truly random. Modern ones could make use of true random numbers available from online services but it's really pointless. A good pseudo random algorithm is sufficient. Many retro games used shit pseudo random algorithm though.

>>3958847
It's not the 1800's. Quantum mechanics is a thing. You'll learn about it when you go to high school.

>>3958963
That wouldn't be true randomness then would it?

>>3959130
No it wouldn't. In fact one of the few methods to generate truly random numbers is based on radioactive decay.

>>3960309
>That wouldn't be true randomness then would it?
With actual humans playing it pretty much would be. The Linux kernel does the same thing for /dev/random

>>3960487
Actual humans would exploit it to cheat. Many cheats work that way. It might possibly work for posthuman homo millennialus. They wouldn't be able to figure out how to exploit it and everything they do is so random lel.

>>3958847
>every action is driven by cause and effect
What about the first action?

>>3960751
Fuckin casuals too dumb to time their inputs down to the microsecond lmao

>lol but Quantum

Not truly random, read a book

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u7Sj0PDV5I

>>3961832
Okay i got 3:30 in and his constant "HURR DURR RNG STOP CALLING IT RNG CALL IT LUCK STOP SAYING RNG TELL A FUCKING STORY STOP SAYING RNG RNG STOP IT RNG STOP THAT RNG RNG STOP RNG CALL IT NOT RNG RNG STOP THAT AT ONCE HURR DURR!!" got on m fucking tits. Is that seriously all this video is?

>>3961048
>What about the first action?

No one can answer that. We're not even sure if whatever resulted in the creation of this universe abides by the same laws as this universe. Something like "true" randomness might be possible in whatever realities exist outside out universe, if any. But here? No. We're very much slaves to causality.

>>3961949

I've never seen a Newtonian shitposter before. That's new.

>question about retro vidya
>turns into a discourse on modern vs. classical physics in 10 posts

never change fellas

File: 1488875190455.jpg (69KB, 306x331px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 306x331px

>>3961828
Please tell us your Nobel winning non-local hidden-variable theory on how quantum mechanics is not truly random.

>>3958551
Read Difference & Repetition by Gilles Deleuze to find out

>>3961998
>"I cannot understand the relationships behind quantum phenomena, therefore it must be randomness... or magic!"

This pretty much echoes the same sentiment as arguments for religion, circa 1600.

Humans don't have perfect knowledge, much less appropriate scientific or technological advancements to explain everything. That doesn't mean you should resort to magical thinking. We don't have to draw conclusions about things we can't yet explain. And indeed, science does not draw conclusions, it devises theories and frameworks that are free to be contradicted and revised.

>>3962028

Hi Einstein. God still plays dice.

>>3962028
>"I cannot understand the relationships behind quantum phenomena, therefore it must be randomness... or magic!"

Wrong, I asked you to explain why you don't think quantum mechanics is a stochastic process. If you could come up with a theory to explain what is observed, then I will listen. You instead offer some vague philosophical appeal to imperfect knowledge, and failed to say anything of value.

If you want an analysis of the indeterminism of quantum mechanics, I suggest reading about the EPR paradox and Bell's work. That is of course presuming you are familiar enough with the subject to have the capacity to appreciate the arguments, which clearly you aren't.

Sure, maybe things really are deterministic. That hasn't been ruled out. But no one has been able to construct a deterministic theory that matches observations, and furthermore there such a theory would have to satisfy some very unusual constraint that are sometimes at odds with ideas that have been found to be useful (little things, such as causality).

The fact of the matter is the only adequate theories and models that describe observations in a theoretically consistent way at the quantum scale incorporate randomness. Whether you find this repungent or whatever doesn't matter, all that matters is that the quantum theory has explanatory and predictive power within its realm of applicability that are consistent with observation.

Your ignorance of a subject is not equivalent to what is not known about a subject.

>>3961914
Yes, it's a hilarious autistic rant, didn't you read the title?

>>3962091

You're asking an impossible question, which was the point of my reply, which you disregarded in favor of posting a rather long ad hominem and / or straw man. I'm not sure which, but your critique of my post definitely isn't quoting anything I said. This is arguing for the sake of arguing.

>>3962137
Where I come from R. White is a lemonade not an autistic e-celeb.

>>3962141
You are equating attributing something to randomness as "magical thinking". It's not. Saying something is random because that is its nature, versus saying something is random because you are ignorant of deeper behavior, are two completely different things. Determining which statement reflects our theoretical understanding of quantum systems is the topic of both the history of the EPR paradox and Bell's theorem.

As a scientist, I reject the claim I asked you an impossible question. If you made an assertion that the uncertainty of quantum mechanic is somehow in error, all you have to do is devise an experiment at the quantum scale that is deterministic but not explained by normal quantum theory to convince me. One example is all it takes.

In contrast, assuming that randomness is a key part of nature has been enormously profitable. Every piece of semiconductor electronics you use and every laser you see are engineered using well understood quantum mechanical processes that are modeled using randomness. Transistors approaching the size of molecules and atoms is testament to this.

You can save the "ad hominem" claim for after you supply a concrete example, which you haven't.

>>3958947
Cheep Cheeps can appear in different places too.

>>3960309
White noise can be used to create random values as a modulation source in analogue synthesizers

>>3962231
Why do fedora tippers love to act smarter than everyone?

>>3958578
Speed runner here. No.

>>3962028
You're free to contradict them and revise them sport. Your ignorant shitposts don't do either though. They just shit up the thread.

>>3962274
That's good enough randomness not true randomness.