<- Back
Comments (19)
- tasukiYes, this page is a good overview of the sorry state of maze generation. The maze-creating algorithms might be interesting for computer scientists, but they're terrible at creating mazes interesting for humans!First, I'm not sure "perfect maze" is a good requirement - well placed loops make mazes more interesting. Second, "uniform" is a useless metric: generating all mazes with equal probability leads to the mazes being visibly uninteresting, with many short dead ends. Same goes for the other metrics.Sean C Jackson makes some good mazes: https://www.seancjackson.com/---Inspired by the above, I'm in the process of creating a maze game for my kid: https://maze.tasuki.org/So far I hand-crafted the mazes. The initial idea was to generate them, but I quickly found out that generating interesting mazes was hard. And generating interesting mazes in 2.5D with with weave and without walls is even harder.So I'm practicing maze creation. My newer mazes are much better (and take me less time to create) than the first attempts. I think eventually I'll be able to write down the algorithm I use for maze creation.
- convexlyThere's something really satisfying about reading a 1997 paper and seeing that it is still completely relevant. The fundamentals haven't changed but the scale at which we can apply them has.
- GavinAndereggThis is a great list! A while back I also enjoyed reading “Mazes for Programers” and playing around with different maze generation algorithms from that book over a holiday break. The book isn’t super deep, but it has a fun set of projects and further ideas/reading as well. https://pragprog.com/titles/jbmaze/mazes-for-programmers/
- tomhowPreviously:Maze Algorithms (1997) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10101728 - Aug 2015 (10 comments)
- fjfaaseAre there also algorithms for (incremental) generation of infinite mazes?