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.
less is MORE, so keep it logicaly simple
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]
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]
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...
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...
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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
