Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Warsong

less is MORE, so keep it logicaly simple

Recommended Posts

Warsong    100
Less is MORE, so keep it logically simple. That’s my view of it since games that withstand the test of time are the ones that are fun for the whole family. For example Chess, Tetris, and Mario. Well too simple is a too dull, thing have to be a balance like the saying does everything to moderation. But if you see a game genre that is failing then it has to be boosted up more to the standards since so many got use to it, and are up to speed with things. Games and the game itself has to gradually increase in difficulty and skill to master. So many bad game ideas and so few good ones that come out. Everything seems good in our head but in practice it would not play out as well. Just one side and many some think otherwise. Don''t sing me a song :''( noooooooooo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iNfuSeD    128
ahh but at least give other games the chance to percivere this test of time. i bet in 20 somewhad years grand turismo, mario sunshine, all these newer games filled with alot more complexity than the ones you''ve listed off, will be percivering.

one game that has allready paid its tole on this test you speak of is civilization. not the simplest game at all by far yet it is still by far one of the greatest. did not it win game of the year?

keeping design simple may be good for graphic design, because thats what pleases the eye. but for games its a totally different principle. desiging something simple but fun is alot harder than making something fun thats a little complicated. its all about pleasing the mind in this case which is alot harder than just pleasing one sence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TechnoGoth    2937
I disagree, making a game simple doesn''t make it better. In fact the more compliacted gameplay makes for a far better game. Take risk very simple and then compare it axis and allies. A&A is alot more complex and because of that leads to much more challenging and enjoyable game.

Complexity is what makes the gameplay interesting the fact that you can do many diffrent things is what draws people back to the game time after time.

-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
liquiddark    350
quote:
Original post by TechnoGoth
Take risk very simple and then compare it axis and allies. A&A is alot more complex and because of that leads to much more challenging and enjoyable game.

Really depends on your POV. Axis and Allies is a much-hated game where I come from, and Risk well-loved. I''d argue that Risk''s simplicity is its strength.

ld

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
syn_apse    122
as long as gameplay is smooth and intuitive i don''t see any reason why games should not be complex. the reason that i started thinking about designing games was that i didn''t find enough to keep me interested in all of the games that i''ve played. i found myself playing dungeon siege, trying to increase my strength so that i could...wear a different pair of boots. i was just doing the same thing over and over again -- because that''s all i could do -- for footwear. that isn''t fun, and it certainly isn''t what i would call interactive.

of course, i''m looking at this from an rpg point of view. some games don''t require complexity at all. fighting games, for example, can be very simple and not necessarily suffer because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rmsgrey    153
The concept of "simplicity" isn''t well-defined - it could refer to number of lines of code required to implement a design (in which language? and how well coded?) or to the length of the design document, or to the shortest synopsis that adequately describes the games basic ideas, or...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Odd the Hermit    122
Simplicity can be good; think of Othello ("minutes to learn, a lifetime to master") and Go. However, complexity can also be good--Chess is much more complex than checkers (6 types of pieces instead of 2, and those 6 each have unique movement & attack patterns, not to mention oddball rules like capturing "en passant" and castling Queen's-side...), and yet I'd be willing to bet money that more people devote themselves to becoming Chess masters than Checkers.

And, on the flip side, simplicity can be bad--how many people do you know of who continue to play Tic-tac-toe frequently? (I've also never heard of a Tic-tac-toe Tourney.) And yet that's an extremely simple game. Complexity can also be bad--I've a friend who makes his own boardgames, many of which could never be published because no one can remember all the rules.

Of course, for computer games (that's what we're here for, right?), there's evidence on both sides of the argument. There are some games which people are still playing, many years after they were released (which most would agree is the sign of a truly successful game). Many of these are, indeed, simple: Solitare, Mine Sweeper, Sokoban, and Myst, to name a few. Others, however, are very complex: Nethack (one of my favorites), Team Fortress, etc. There are more simple games than complex ones, true--but that's probably caused more by the ease of producing a simple game, than by any inherent magic in "simplicity".

To sum up: simplicity is good, in so far as it lets you actually finish what you begin. But simplicity does not make a game great (or even passably good)--you need something more for that. If you have the resources and ability to make a complex game with good, intuitive controls and great "gameplay" (we'll leave that definition argument to another debate), don't cheat yourself and your customers by cutting everything down for the Grail of "simplicity".

-Odd the Hermit

EDIT: The board didn't like some of my HTML, so I removed it.

[edited by - Odd the Hermit on October 14, 2003 2:58:54 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Warsong    100
Simplicity up to the point of moderation of course
Different levels depend on the skill level of the fan, but “simple” is the “best” for the “majority”.

For example: hardcore complex VS. calm simple VS simply boring

RPG
ultima series VS. Final Fantasy VS intelevision’s D&D

fighting
(sadly non made) VS. capcom style fighting VS. karati champiion

strategy
Axis Alies VS. Chess VS. checkers

1Hadcore for the dedicated fans
2Middle for the majority
3Boring to pass 2 min of time

Games should have a true difficulty adjustment but for the mean time we buy more junk.

Don''t sing me a song :''( noooooooooo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neoshaman    180
quote:
fighting
(sadly non made) VS. capcom style fighting VS. karati champiion



well you never play virtua fighter 4, it take TWO our for a mild train player to take through the practice only, you end with more than 20h with all character only to finish the practice mode, actually the game is deeply strategic and maybe the more complexe fighting game ever made

as for chess vs go
computer can beat the champion of chess
but computer cannot even beat common average player of go

the things you don''t know is complexity is related to simplicity
the complixity is what arise from interaction of simple element and create EMERGENCE

go is more emergent and than chess and have only 2 kind of piece and a board and the rule are simpler

boring game is game which has not deep variety in emergence (no life) OR which doesnot fit your taste (many people enjoy dungeon siege which is only hack n slash for the others)

actualy we must make a difference between complicated and complex
a game with lot of rule or element is complicate while a simple game has few element

for ex, i''m a fan of fighting game but i''m very open minded too
a love virtua fighter because it''s complex AND complicate
but i prefer dead or alive which is much more simple and still have a lot emergent gameplay (we discover new style of gameplay each day from casual gamer which not use to play fighting game and then has a different aproch of the game) but the game still lack some subtlety to surpass virtua fighter without complication (which is more complexe and emergent still)
but THE game of fighting (which is not take seriously by most gamer) is SMASH BROS MELEE, at first sight, i have thought that it''s a pure "blast happy" game too simple and too confuse to have depth and strategic value, but''s really it''s not, it''s far one of the more complexe game i have ever play (in the genre), it let you reinvent every second a play style, because you master the command in no time you focus on the play style and strategy (just like dead or alive) but every move are double edges, the fact is you have to read intention of the opponent many move in the future (like virtuafighter game) within the context (the field, the novelty from previous fighting game)
a lot of the fight is on the psychologic layer (bluff, faint, taunt) which lead to many reversal situation
you just keep finding new pattern of strategy each time
well, reading the opponent move is a mark of a good fighting game and the basis of martial ART (bad game are game were you can put an unbroken combo in the face of the opponent which cannot do a thing, and turn to be a race to the first which make the combo, i hate these kind, because you KNOW what would happen and there is no enough room to avoid this but to do the same, no thinking only skills)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
be good
be evil
but do it WELL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rmsgrey    153
In line with my previous post, an alternate concept of simplicity is the simple/compound distinction. For example, I regard Dungeon Keeper as a compound game due to the possession spell - remove that, and the game has a lot of conceptual unity, but with possession, it becomes the simple game with an FPS bolted on.

In the case of Dungeon Keeper, there are very few occasions where going FPS is necessary to the game, and it does tend to expose the weaknesses of the game as well - the ability to sneak in and beat up the computer player dungeon heart without him noticing is an AI flaw on the same general level as not attacking walls in the original Command & Conquer - it lets you essentially short circuit the intended game-play and score cheap victories.

On the other hand, a case where a compound game works well would be the XCOM games (except e-mail and enforcer which are blatant cash in attempts and provided most of the justification for abandoning the series) which take a fairly uninspired resource management/strategy game and an above average isometric turn-based squad-based tactical game (though Apocalypse had a pausable real time option and Interceptor used a generic space dogfighter instead) and use each to give more depth and meaning to the other. Removing the strategy game leaves a series of seemingly unconnected missions with apparaently arbitrary objectives (E-mail XCOM was essentially a 2-player cut down version of the original game''s tactical engine - and sold solely on the brand name) while losing the tactical game would leave a relatively dull resource management/strategy game which would need some serious redesign in the mission assignments to allow for the varied range of objectives possible in the original games (though to a much reduced extent in Interceptor)

I''m not sure I understand liquiddark''s attempt to define simplicity correctly. It appears to say that a hypothetical game where you simply need to hold down the spacebar for 10 hours is less simple than, say, Commander Keen Episode 1 which can be completed in about 2 hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smiley4    193
Structure is just as important as simplicity in my opinion.
Simplicity just gives the game a sleek look. Sturcture puts in the game only what is needed in the game, and only what is related to the game. That is what makes it look well designed.

If the game is about time travel, then use as many elements as you need for such an experence. If it is about fighting with great Kung Fu then realy work on the Kung Fu animations for the characters.
Something must be a focal point for the game, and the rest should support that cause.

Take Morrowind, for instance. It is a very complex interface, but an epic story is what the game is about. Everything that your character is supports that story. That's why you start out as level 1 and work your way up instead of already being a certain level.

What makes some games better than others is their structure is better than others and the focal point of the game appeals more to the basic human istincts, morals, and ideals.






[edited by - smiley4 on October 17, 2003 1:47:47 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scint    355
I think the goal of a game designer should be to make a game that is easy to learn, but hard to master. If it is easy to learn, it will attract both casual and hardcore players. Previous posters have already cited chess as an example.

IMO, if the interface is intuitive, and the game follows a set of simple rules, you can make the rest as deep and complex as you want. Take Final Fantasy battles for example. The moves and rules are always the same: Attack or use item or cast spell, be wary of HP and MP. Turn based, win if all enemies have 0 HP, lose if all your characters have 0 HP. In this case, as is true in most RPGs, the complexity comes in variety of attacks, items, and spells. But all of these are executed within the same simple interface.

More complex RPGs have more action and resource types. Instead of just HP and MP, you have to worry about dexterity, stamina, charisma, etc. (OK, so Final Fantasy *does* have those, but it is much more transparent to the player than, say, in Neverwinter Nights).

So I suppose you could view game complexity as a tree, where each branch is an interface, and then that interface has some sort of depth with various sub-interface trees. I''d say a game''s complexity is proportional to its branching factor, not its depth.

But anyway I am making this more post more complex than it should be...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neoshaman    180
quote:
Original post by Scint
So I suppose you could view game complexity as a tree, where each branch is an interface, and then that interface has some sort of depth with various sub-interface trees. I''d say a game''s complexity is proportional to its branching factor, not its depth.


hum actually THIS is depth!

there must a core simplicity which is the trunk wich support the whole branch, the branch EMERGE from the trunk and the deeper you go the more there is branch and the more complex became the shape of the whole tree

promising but bad game suffer from growth rate and branch cant'' go far from the trunk because it was not feed enough

bad game are branch lying on the ground they are dying because they has no consitency from a trunk and cannot grow as well

good game are game where the trunk is solid and deploy healthful branch

when we play game we have acces to the branch and if the game is really complexe the trunk is hidden by the branch and we have difficulty to understood how it is shape, only gardener could do by experiance, but casual just try to do the same and product only branch without trunk then would die on the floor, casual don''t know about seed, and seed never seems like the tree

good gardener know that they will wait the cross of a pollen from a different tree on his flower to get some seed for a perhaps better tree (if the two parent tree is healthful and compatible there is no reason that the child wouldn''t, unless the weakness of one would be tranfer, about hybrid it''s problematic because you never know what it would give)
some opportunist gardener will try to get some branch to plant them to have the same tree, but these clone never give a tree as strong as the previous or if they will they will never surpass the original because they are the same (unless it was a good promising tree that a bad gardener feed bad and then suffer in his growth)

complicated tree is tree which as in their branch to much parasite which disturb the growth process, the tree can''t produce as branch as it want and suffer, it''s something which happen when a bad gardener transplant branch which are not or badly compatible with the tree (good one choose branch from other species which are compatible)

sometimes some branch disturb the growth of the tree, the good garder never hesitate to cut them, it''s a sacrifice which would help the tree to grow stronger

game are tree, firts plant the seed (concept), feed it with idea from good grounds (influance), and then it would make a trunk (the game) and will give branch (depth), if the fruits is juicy (gameplay) people would start to plant seed as well from this tree and then we get a forest (genre)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
be good
be evil
but do it WELL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites