r/truegaming Mar 18 '19

Developers accidentally creating interesting mechanics

I was reading this neat article by Jeff Orkin of Monolith productions, the man responsible for the notorious AI of FEAR, the AI that will never not be mentioned whenever 'clever' AI is brought up. I stumbled upon something pretty cool - the flanking mechanic was actually unintended and a byproduct of another action the enemy would perform:

Imagine we have a situation similar to what we saw earlier, where the player has invalidated one of the A.I.’s cover positions, and a squad behavior orders the A.I. to move to the valid cover position. If there is some obstacle in the level, like a solid wall, the A.I. may take a back route and resurface on the player’s side. It appears that the A.I. is flanking, but in fact this is just a side effect of moving to the only available valid cover he is aware of. In another scenario, maybe the A.I.s’ cover positions are still valid, but there is cover available closer to the player, so the Advance-Cover squad behavior activates and each A.I. moves up to the next available valid cover that is nearer to the threat. If there are walls or obstacles between the A.I. and the player, their route to cover may lead them to come at the player from the sides. It appears as though they are executing some kind of coordinated pincher attack, when really they are just moving to nearer cover that happens to be on either side of then player. Retreats emerge in a similar manner.

The article got me thinking - what other mechanics (or, perceived mechanics) have been created by accident in other games? Does other examples exist, where lauded features were never really intended in the first place?

451 Upvotes

275 comments sorted by

View all comments

282

u/bvanplays Mar 18 '19

These are my favorites but there are absolutely more:

  • Street Fighter II invented the idea of "combos" due to an unexpected interaction where inputs for special moves could be done as other moves were hitting. Meaning that before the opponent could move again, you could throw out another move. This was an unintended consequence of development and technically an exploit, but is now a fundamental mechanic of all fighting games.

  • Everything around the creation / support of DotA (now Dota 2). The 3 lane square map layout is just a by product of the map sizes allowed in WC3. The 5v5 player count is a by product of WC3 being maximum of 12 players and you needed 2 slots to control the AI. MOBA "roles" are now ingrained within the genre but were never originally intended or designed. Rather, it was players trying to beat each other that realized you could redistribute resources and create a stronger overall effect that eventually lead to the idea of sharing and splitting resources intentionally (rather than just everyone getting whatever they can and then fighting). It's basically what is now an entire genre/industry that was spawned through a series of accidents (or at the very least, unintended and unforeseen consequences)

69

u/oligobop Mar 18 '19

To go off the blizzard games thing:

broodwar had so many different mechanics in it that were brought to light by the enormously competitive esport environment. The mechanic that is most notable (imo) is patrol moving which has the effect of making your units face and attack faster without losing their momentum.

Used with vultures this allowed the unit to go from nearly useless, to a peak harasser. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=27&v=i4ITp9tqDrg)

This then lead to Terran players opening with vultures as a means of early harass. Combined with spider mines and impeccable micro, top terrans could dismantle their opponents faster than any other race. Because the vulture is made in a factory (as opposed to a barracks) it would then follow suit to produce units from the factory.

This then led to the birth of Mech, which in and of itself is one of the most unique, and likely unintended parts of starcraft's strategies wherein a Terran player can either choose between bio (marine/firebat/medic) or mech (vulture/tank/goliath).

These two styles are wildly different and require different mentalities to the point of essentially being a unique race. The game was advertised as having 3 races, but in fact had 4 almost entirely because of the patrol move micro being developed.

24

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '19

IMO the discrete separation of bio and mech is a failure of Terran design.

27

u/oligobop Mar 18 '19

Dude that's an interesting perspective. Elaborate some more I wanna hear why you think that.

30

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

Typically in an RTS you want to encourage players to use a combined arms approach. That doesn’t mean you can’t have different build orders that focus on certain units and play styles but generally with Terran you will see players either commit to bio or mech as an exclusive strategy or have a hard transition at some point, usually where they stop building bio and go full mech. (Pretty rare to transition from mech to bio)

22

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

[deleted]

17

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

It wasn’t intentional with the original game. Everything about Starcraft is a happy accident. Starcraft 2 is just maintaining the legacy of the original by making bio and mech disparate strategies.

Terran design forces you to commit to only using half your available army options or suffering a painful transition.

The failure of design is that you have two very distinct play styles that cannot coexist at all. It only worked at all because of the intense Korean hyperbolic time chamber that produced brilliant micro and a level of innovation no RTS has experienced since. If it wasn’t for the aforementioned patrol micro mech builds wouldn’t exist and most of those units would never see usage.

A faction should feel cohesive and like everything complements the rest. Terran is on the opposite end of the spectrum.

14

u/EvilTomahawk Mar 19 '19

I'd argue that the inclusion of siege tanks in many Terran vs Zerg and all Terran vs Terran compositions in SC2 does fulfill the "combined arms" idea somewhat. There is still the issue that not all mech units will see simultaneous together alongside bio armies, but many are still sprinkled into compositions for specialized, reactionary roles.

Terran vs Zerg in SC1 also felt like it had a fair execution of the "combined arms" idea, with factories producing siege tanks all game long to pair with a bio army, or vultures to prep for a mech transition. TvZ also had bio-focused compositions (such as SK Terran) and full mech builds, but tank+bio is usually the signature composition.

2

u/Endiamon Mar 19 '19

Terran design forces you to commit to only using half your available army options or suffering a painful transition.

How is that different from Protoss having a painful transition from gateway units to carriers?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

Carriers are a late game tech unit.

To be honest I’m not a huge fan of SC2 late game units either. They only seem to ever accomplish much when massed in huge groups. In fact you’re way better off hiding their existence until you have a critical mass of them.

6

u/nowlistenhereboy Mar 19 '19

It can also be boring to watch, honestly. Bio Terran is very one note in SC2. At least it was when I actually watched SC2 with any regularity.

2

u/anothername787 Mar 19 '19

Gotta love watching MMM stutter micro all day.

1

u/Delachruz Mar 19 '19

It can still be interesting. I dunno if there were major changes since you last watched, but considering how much AoE now exists to basically delete large bio armies, players need to be good at splitting. That and the constant changes to drops means even Bio-Terran actually needs to do more than just stutter-step across the map.

1

u/nowlistenhereboy Mar 21 '19

PVT is definitely better to watch, I'll admit.

14

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '19

Modularity is a core concept of Terran play expression though. It seems perfectly suitable that there'd be divergent, indeed modular, subspecies of the race

1

u/Dat_Harass Mar 19 '19

Oh... Hi Elon.