What properties of existing PRNGs didn't you like?
Realistically, for games and most things short of cryptography, even a weak PRNG is normally random enough. Even visually obvious patterns like odd, even, odd, even... won't be obvious in a game that shuffles cards or has monsters drop random loot. And few implementations of rand() generate such an obvious pattern.
But as far as I know the only real test of quality is to provide the source and see how long it takes for someone to find an exploit. This is why
cryptographically secure PRNGs are proven by reduction to a mathematical problem that is known "difficult" to solve. In particular, the Blum-Micali algorithm mentioned on that page depends on the difficulty of the discrete logarithm problem, which is hard to solve using conventional methods, but may in the future be solvable in much less time using Shor's algorithm on a quantum computer. (True randomness, like you get from a hardware RNG, is actually impossible -- not just difficult -- to crack.)
Bookmarks