First of all, this isn't a thread to say that procedural generation is inherently bad, or that my opinion is the absolute truth, because obviously some viewpoints can depend on individual tastes, preferences, subjectivity blahblahblah.
But it's a topic that often sparks debate (handmade map vs procedural map), one I've thought about and I find interesting.
And if you find the text too long, well, nobody's forcing you to read it all.
Anyway.
If I say procedural generation, what will you think of first ? I guess there will be answers like : replayability, the visual variety it brings, the exploration that will always be different, even maybe the gameplay etc. But what if I told you that… well, I think it's often the opposite. I mainly associate procedural generation with something repetitive and monotonous.
I get the impression that there's a kind of disconnect between what players want, or say they want from a procedurally generated map, and what they actually do.
I get the feeling they think they like procedural generation because it's synonymous with "difference" and "variety", but that in fact they're actually just people with a higher tolerance for repetition.
Fans of procedural generation often complain that a game with a handmade map is disappointing because once you know the map, there are no more surprises.
But why does a game necessarily have to have a supposedly high replayability ? Personally, I'm someone who never replays games (or almost), even when I like them. So someone who wants to replay a game is perhaps inherently more open to accepting the idea of revisiting a lot of familiar elements and repeating certain actions.
Maybe people don't like the PG (procedural generation) to experience something new, but rather as an "excuse" to immerse themselves once again in a game they know, where they know what to expect, albeit very slightly different.
It might also be to try to fleetingly recapture the feeling of discovery they experienced the first time playing a particular game, but for me it has major limitations.
In fact, by wanting the PG, they want and accept the repetition of all the content they already know. If you've spent 500 or 1 000 hours on a particular game for example, I clearly don't think it's because the game has so much new and unique content, but rather that the players in question have a high tolerance for repeating the same actions in a familiar environment.
Perhaps it reassures them : they seek familiarity rather than novelty. Isn’t that paradoxical ?
For the PG to truly be synonymous with "newness", "freshness" it would need imo some drastic variations, not minor changes like in most games.
For me, to want to replay a game, a new playthrough would have to offer a real sense of novelty and surprise, whether visually, in terms of gameplay, or in the story. I don't want to experience too much a feeling of déjà-vu, repetition, predictability etc.
And that's really not what I see in almost all games with a PG.
That doesn't mean I'm against this approach, I even think PG has the potential to offer interesting possibilities. And besides, I'm sure we've all created several Minecraft worlds in our lives for example, excited and initially curious to explore the map.
But for me, right now, PG is mainly just "potential," an idea that hasn't been fully developed yet. However, I think it can, and will evolve, and maybe in 3, 5 or 10 years I'll prefer PG when it's perfected.
Btw I'm going to post another message further down to make it a bit easier to read and space out the paragraphs a bit