Re:Actually no. That's completely wrong. (Score 1)

I personally am most impressed by games that are 'compact', in that they define as little as possible and let a world expand from there. I actually picked up the terminology from Python, which has the philosophy that a good language has a few core ideas and everything expands from that.

But anyway, so you picked a few boring games (although I disagree about Civ) you didn't like. But lots of people like games with "repetetive actions" - Tetris probably being the most famous. I think of a game like Starcraft which seems like a pretty small game, but the huge amount of intricacies people have extracted from it is incredible. Contrast that with a 'high information game' where everything feels pre-scripted. I hate the feeling of the 'invisible hand' guiding my experience. I prefer the 'here are the rules, now run with it.' To each their own.

As for random level generation, obviously on some level, there is no reason why a human should be any more capable of creating a fun level than a computer. There's also no reason why a computer shouldn't be able to write a good song. Well, there are reasons, like the human experience, but with sufficiently advanced AI we could have a computer experience that.

Instead, we will have to hope that instead of true AI, you have a human carefully define the kinds of constraints that can make a level more fun. A game like mario is a pretty well defined domain, arguably far more defined than 'rock music'. So I imagine a computer will be able to do an adequate job, although we are as far away from truly innovative randomly designed levels as we are from a truly innovative computer musician.