Rampant Games - Is Simplicity Overrated?

[Couchpotato]

The Rampant Coyote gives his opinion on the recent articles that criticize Simplicity on the internet this week. I found it interesting ,and I hope most of you enjoy reading it.

Anyway, all this is really an introduction to a fascinating piece by Craig Stern, “Against the Cult of Simplicity.” He makes a ton of arguments (he’s a lawyer by day, so he’s good at this) that while simplicity may be a virtue, it is not the only virtue. It seems that the indie community is perhaps getting pushed too far in that direction. While it may be a good thing to correct some poor tendencies, what we’re really going for is a balance. Simplicity is not the end-goal for many (or even most) games.

It’s something of a companion piece to his earlier article at indieRPGs.com, “Where are all the RPGs at IGF?” This article illustrated another bias against more complex games – simpler games are faster and easier to “get,” which makes them more likely to get a fair shake from harried judges at these shows. If a game even sounds like it’s going to take more than ten minutes to evaluate, many judges won’t bother even looking at it.

Much of the challenge and delight (I like using that word – it isn’t exactly the same thing as “fun,” but it can encapsulate fun, fascination, admiration, and many other factors) of RPGs is in the interaction of these systems. Even in relatively simple RPGs (think 16-bit-style JRPGs), these systems can get really complex, balancing combat, exploration, some skills, leveling, gear, and expendable items (which represent a cost in gold, replenished through combat and exploration). But this is something that can’t be fully introduced to a player in five or ten minutes. You can touch on it, but it’s still a lot for a player to absorb, let alone gain any kind of mastery.

I think I’m in complete agreement with Craig, here. I believe that the quote attributed to Einstein (whether or not he really said it, it’s a good one) should be applied on a per-game basis, not to games in general. Extremely simple games are awesome, and can be both critically and commercially successful (Flappy Bird, anyone?). But that’s not the be-all, end-all goal of game design.

More information.

 

[HiddenX]

Game rules can be simple or complex. In all cases it is important that

• you find a way that the gamer can understand the rules
• the rules allow interesting, challenging and fun game situations

And old saying under developers is the KISS principle:
Keep It Stupid Simple.

I prefer my version:
Keep It Smart & Simple.

Meaning:
Make software in such a way that is accessible, easy to use and understandable for the user. Keep the complexity in your software, not in the GUI.
And the software must be as complex as the problem to solve requires, but not more.

 

[rjshae]

Yes, a good game can be both simple to learn and difficult to master. Chess, for example. Those are the games that can become classics. Hopefully now we don't end up with games that are more complex than they need to be, just for the sake of avoiding simplicity.

 

[DArtagnan]

The thing to pursue is not complexity in itself, it's diversity and interesting choices. If you can make a game full of diverse and interesting choices - and AVOID complexity, that's what you want.

Talking about simplicity as a problem in itself is missing the point.

As such, I agree with HiddenX to a certain extent - except that I don't think there has to be complexity as much as diversity.

 

[Deleted User]

I think I am more in favor of deep complexity because in the end, learning the rules and delving into a deep system is going to be what really hooks me in a game.

If the game is simple, it just won't keep my attention like a complex system in an RPG would.

I don't mind simple when I'm playing Super Mario Bros. or something, but for RPGs, the more complex the better, IMO.

 

[GothicGothicness]

Well, there is a balance, an MMO game, not that I play much of those anymore because there aren't any good ones these days, can be really complex because people might spend 1000 of hours on it, but a single player game that takes 50 hours to learn, will probably be over by the time you've come to understand it, so it really is a balance.

 

[HiddenX]

I think I am more in favor of deep complexity because in the end, learning the rules and delving into a deep system is going to be what really hooks me in a game.

If the game is simple, it just won't keep my attention like a complex system in an RPG would.

I don't mind simple when I'm playing Super Mario Bros. or something, but for RPGs, the more complex the better, IMO.

I like complex rules, too, but only if they generate interesting diverse gameplay.
And they must be explained in an entertaining way. In the manual and/or in-game.

And they are games with very simple rules that can generate extreme complex and difficult gameplay: Example: Incubation: Battle Isle Phase Four

 

[Zephyr]

I guess it all comes down to what a player wants out of a game. Some like a button masher where they are funneled toward a predetermined goal or objective. Others want to micro-manage an inventory, skill, and crafting system while having multiple choices and outcomes to every encounter. And all the while roaming an open world.

In painting, it all comes down to how you combine 3 primary colors and apply them to a surface. The art emerges in how elegantly and creatively you do this.

 

[daveyd]

Well, there is a balance, an MMO game, not that I play much of those anymore because there aren't any good ones these days, can be really complex because people might spend 1000 of hours on it, but a single player game that takes 50 hours to learn, will probably be over by the time you've come to understand it, so it really is a balance.

But in an MMO aren't you often doing the same things over and over again? Just because someone puts 1000 hours into one of those things doesn't make the game complex... They could've spent 500 hours grinding / killing the same handful of enemy hordes over and over again. At least that's my impression of most MMOs; full of grinding (and generally isn't that the big incentive for players to pay in F2P (P2W) games? To make them less grindy). Perhaps some people even like the repetition / simplicity of MMOs.

 

[TheMadGamer]

...except that I don't think there has to be complexity as much as diversity.

I too am in this camp, not that complexity isn't wanted too. But to me, there is nothing more satisfying than playing many many hours into a CRPG to discover some interesting way of interacting with the game that was perhaps there all the time. It takes an incredible amount of diversity for that to happen as people like me tend to explore the extent of which you can interact within the game world with ferocious velocity from the very start.

 

[TomRon]

The mechanics should be complex, the UI should be simple. I absolutely loathe single mechanic games, except for some puzzle games that can be entertaining on a phone. They would get nowhere near my PC though.

I also agree with Dart, diversity is key. But diversity probably means more complexity too right, it's hard to imagine one without the other.

 

[GothicGothicness]

But in an MMO aren't you often doing the same things over and over again? Just because someone puts 1000 hours into one of those things doesn't make the game complex… They could've spent 500 hours grinding / killing the same handful of enemy hordes over and over again. At least that's my impression of most MMOs; full of grinding (and generally isn't that the big incentive for players to pay in F2P (P2W) games? To make them less grindy). Perhaps some people even like the repetition / simplicity of MMOs.

Obviously, there'll be a lot of simple MMO's, but what I wrote was that it makes a lot of more sense to have a very complicated system if players spend 1000 hours with it, instead of if players spend 40 hours with it. It is not in relation to what is in the MMO market today.

 

[DArtagnan]

The mechanics should be complex, the UI should be simple. I absolutely loathe single mechanic games, except for some puzzle games that can be entertaining on a phone. They would get nowhere near my PC though.

I also agree with Dart, diversity is key. But diversity probably means more complexity too right, it's hard to imagine one without the other.

I don't really think so.

For instance, if you take Diablo 3 - and you focus exclusively on the skill system - you get a TON of diversity, but limited complexity.

There's more variety in terms of active skills in Diablo 3 than pretty much any other RPG I can think of, but it's designed in such a way that most people will get the gist of all the skill combinations at a glance.

In that way, you're overwhelmed by (very) interesting choices - but you don't have to understand some obscure intricacies of the underlying systems to succeed. Understanding the "finer points" will make you MORE succesful, sure, but you don't need to know everything to make a good build.

That's a well designed skill system, if you ask me.

There's another problem with Diablo 3, though, which is about how skills aren't permanent choices - and that makes replaying the game with the same class uninteresting, as you can just switch around at will. But that's another story.

If you take something like Path of Exile - and you look at the passive skill tree, you'll find a TON of diversity with a TON of complexity. Personally, I think the complexity level is way too high - and the diversity is kinda deceptive, because most of the passive skills represent minor incremental adjustments. That makes much of what you do in that tree rather dull - and you're just building up to the exciting bits.

Thankfully, the active skills in Path of Exile are great fun - because of how you can combine them.

 

[TomRon]

I don't really think so.

For instance, if you take Diablo 3 - and you focus exclusively on the skill system - you get a TON of diversity, but limited complexity.

There's more variety in terms of active skills in Diablo 3 than pretty much any other RPG I can think of, but it's designed in such a way that most people will get the gist of all the skill combinations at a glance.

In that way, you're overwhelmed by (very) interesting choices - but you don't have to understand some obscure intricacies of the underlying systems to succeed. Understanding the "finer points" will make you MORE succesful, sure, but you don't need to know everything to make a good build.
.

Alright, I see your point although I haven't played D3. But does understanding of a system make it less complex? That's what I meant when I said simple UI, complex system. If everything is right there in front of you and easy to understand it still doesn't mean the system is simple, it just means it's easy to understand. While similar, not exactly the same thing is it? But in regards to the discussion, maybe "simple" is easy to understand while "complexity" is not, and it that case I agree.

I just wouldn't define a deep complex system as simple even if it's easy to understand, I would define it as elegant and/or logical.

 

[DArtagnan]

Alright, I see your point although I haven't played D3. But does understanding of a system make it less complex? That's what I meant when I said simple UI, complex system. If everything is right there in front of you and easy to understand it still doesn't mean the system is simple, it just means it's easy to understand. While similar, not exactly the same thing is it? But in regards to the discussion, maybe "simple" is easy to understand while "complexity" is not, and it that case I agree.

I just wouldn't define a deep complex system as simple even if it's easy to understand, I would define it as elegant and/or logical.

I guess I'm talking about the systems relevant to the player, which will be visible to the player - and which the player is expected to understand.

This part of the system can be complex (hard to understand) or simple (easy to understand) - and, obviously, anything in between.

As for the underpinning for such a system, or what goes into "making it work" that the player doesn't see and doesn't need to see, that can be extremely complex. I just don't see how that's relevant to games as players play them.

Does that make sense?

But, obviously, it can quickly devolve into semantics. There's no shortage of "complexity" in Diablo 3 when it comes to understanding all the possible interactions between skills.

But, I like to consider that diversity instead.

A system like D&D 3.5, however, is EXTREMELY diverse AND complex. It takes an almost insurmountable amount of time getting to grasp with how all those rules and systems interact.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

Simplicity has this over complexity: it makes it shorter to determine if a product is a game, a broken game, a failed game or a non game.

You have not played a game until you've learned to play it, studios and players alike hide behind games being pastimes to consider them only as pastimes. They use content or complexity to boost the time needed to determine the quality of the product.
When the operation ends by taking 10 or 15 hours, they are quick to declare that the product reaches its goal as a game, even when it is not a game. Just because it serves its purpose as a time killer.

Simplicity shrinks the room to hide, it leaves content to meet the objectives.

 

[DArtagnan]

The thing about a broken game is that you can enjoy it a hell of a lot while you're figuring out that it's broken.