While I don’t find the idea particularly appealing personally, there are modified versions of Zelda games that randomize various aspects of the game (like what items are in which chests) and apparently a decent number of people do actually enjoy playing them. (Usually not on a first playthrough though!)
To be fair, I think you hit the nail on the head regarding what works and what doesn’t. I guess it’s possible for every situation to have some edge cases, though
I enjoy A Link to the Past Randomizer, but primarily because it adds replayability to a game I’m already so familiar with. ALttPR becomes a puzzle of which chests/dungeons have the highest probability of containing progression items. Calculating that optimized routing in realtime while racing against a clock is fun. Also figuring out the best way to deal with a boss that you already know well, but now you have an unexpected equipment loadout is fun to me.
However. If I were to play a new game I didn’t have any familiarity with and its item placement and/or map layout was procedurally generated, I don’t think I would enjoy a first playthrough. I don’t enjoy variety just for the sake of variety. The proc-gen would have to have some known parameters that allow me to strategize in how I approach it in order to not seem arbitrary. If I didn’t enjoy the first playthrough of such a game, I might not be motivated to learn enough to enjoy future runs.
That’s why I think I don’t love Spelunky or Slay the Spire despite loving games that play similarly like Cave Story and Magic the Gathering respectively. I think I could love these games if I could reasonably plan ahead, but I feel those games have too much variance and the outcomes feel arbitrary as a result. Though that could just be my lack of dedication to understanding the bounds of the generated content.
While I don’t find the idea particularly appealing personally, there are modified versions of Zelda games that randomize various aspects of the game (like what items are in which chests) and apparently a decent number of people do actually enjoy playing them. (Usually not on a first playthrough though!)
Ah, I’ve fallen for the classic blunder :)
To be fair, I think you hit the nail on the head regarding what works and what doesn’t. I guess it’s possible for every situation to have some edge cases, though
I enjoy A Link to the Past Randomizer, but primarily because it adds replayability to a game I’m already so familiar with. ALttPR becomes a puzzle of which chests/dungeons have the highest probability of containing progression items. Calculating that optimized routing in realtime while racing against a clock is fun. Also figuring out the best way to deal with a boss that you already know well, but now you have an unexpected equipment loadout is fun to me.
However. If I were to play a new game I didn’t have any familiarity with and its item placement and/or map layout was procedurally generated, I don’t think I would enjoy a first playthrough. I don’t enjoy variety just for the sake of variety. The proc-gen would have to have some known parameters that allow me to strategize in how I approach it in order to not seem arbitrary. If I didn’t enjoy the first playthrough of such a game, I might not be motivated to learn enough to enjoy future runs.
That’s why I think I don’t love Spelunky or Slay the Spire despite loving games that play similarly like Cave Story and Magic the Gathering respectively. I think I could love these games if I could reasonably plan ahead, but I feel those games have too much variance and the outcomes feel arbitrary as a result. Though that could just be my lack of dedication to understanding the bounds of the generated content.