lol.
then i guess we all should have gamedev.net''s of our own.

about the most complex games i ever played where the Civilization serries of games, Civ 1 had a bit of a learning curve, but after that the following games where easy.

It''s like dropping a peanut on the ground to get an animal to go to that spot, and then dropping an additional peanut every foot for a mile. The animal will eventually walk the full mile. If you simply dropped 5280 peanuts in a big pile one mile away from the creature, it wouldn''t care; in fact, it wouldn''t even notice the pile is there at all.

That''s the way games and players work. You must always be rewarding the player for everything he does, and not put it off until the end. That''s why leveling up is so popular - it''s rewarding. And it''s always implemented such that it takes no time to reach level 2, but the time to level up each additional level increases, so it takes a long time to go from 30 to 31. By that point, the player has seen much of the game and is familiar with it, and enjoys it.

I personally like complexity in games, but in most cases things should start off simply and grow more complex as you get more involved with the game. This can either happen in the game or just in a tutorial. Many RTS games start off with a very limited selection of buildings and units, and unlock more as you get further in the campaign. Of course most RTS games are pretty simple anyway...

~CGameProgrammer( );

quote:

---

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
well for any game to be good it has to have a deep (or at least interesting) storyline.

---

This isn''t true, I don''t feel like arguing it again, so look up the "More important, storyline or gameplay" thread if you''re wondering why I''m saying this.

I personally think that the basic gameplay, and especially the interface should be simple and pretty easy to pick up. The game itself however can be very complicated, "easy to learn, difficult to master." You can use something like chess as an example, the basic ruleset is pretty simple, but if you combine those rules you end up with a pretty complex game. In a lot of PC games (less so on the console, because there is usually a limited very limited amount of buttons) you have overly complicated interfaces and your skill in the game becomes more related to how well you can use the interface. This is okay in genre''s that focus on realism or management of a lot of data (strategy games and simulations) but isn''t a good thing in most other genres (action, RPG, adventure, etc.) In my opinion games are more for enjoyment than challenge, and playing a game that isn''t really fun but is hard work wouldn''t be enjoyable, simply because I could use that same energy for difficult things that are a lot more meaningful than a game.

no argument here.
though i couldn''t find the post you were talking about.
but true some games don''t a storyline (tetris, chess, dig dug).
but most games need a storyline (maybe i''m a sucker for good storylines and intros).
the shoot ''em up-til the screen flashes 20 different colors-and get
an attack of epilepsy doesn''t do it for anymore. at least give me
something to work with or look forward. i don''t need a Final Fantasy
or Metal Gear Solid type of storyline (boy that MGS storyline was
rough) but something to look forward to and keep me interested.

gimme the address to that topic if you have the chance.

general public... main audience for buying these computer games. they''re simpletons. they don''t like to think. its true. yes there are the appreciators out there that love the design and skill put into a game.. the presentation of a game is probably one of the most important parts of game design. the interface in which the player gets info and interacts with the game is also part of this presentation. if its all complicated, cluttered and is hard to figure out.. people get scared of it. but lets say u have a game that works in a complicated way under the hood.. recording stats for everything the player does.. pumping those all through equations at every corner.. dealing with all the complexities itself.. then presents it to the player in a form that is simple an easy for the player to go "ohhhhhh.. okay"... thats what i''m getting at.

i''ll explain this rpg example a lil more. standard computer rpg level system.. usually has a few stats. agility, strength, intelligence.. etcc. etc.. why not have everything in the game recorded an kept track of. experience points can be gained for so many different aspects of everything. anything u do, let it be picking up a rock , buying something in a market, getting drunk, walking lightly, eating, climbing trees, using certain weapons, swimming, whatever... would be plugged through sets of functions to create things like personality attributes, physical appearance, character background, favourite color, favourite song, what you''re most famous for , weapon of choice, and the list can go on an on forever.
now having TONS AND TONS of these kinda records like i''m proposing would be feasable... it would just take a lil bit of imaginative thinking. but the player would see it all an think "AHH TO MUCH STUFF!".. so thats why you make a simple interface to the game. lets say it shows the player their character class and a couple percentages for things like overall strength, overall charisma, just generalize the huge amounts of stats into a few ones. the character class would just be the name of what your character is.. but how many different types of characters could u have based on the branching effect of how many stats there are. again just sit down with a pen an paper and start thinking of names. of course there would be the traditional classes like theif, warrior, sorceror, etc.. but there would also be many many different styles per class. you could get hundreads of different names. and then ultimately having one ultimate class which would take an entire character lifetime of dedication and training to obtain.
wrapping this idea up... ultimately it would make this simple user interface to the game be so diverse in what it feeds you because of the fact that under the hood it is fulllll of stats and factors to take into consideration.
with this kind of complexity in an rpg system, character development would become way way more the way it should be.


"The human mind is limited only by the bounds which we impose upon ourselves." -iNfuSeD

fuzztrek-
Not meaning to be facetious, but you are being very simple minded if you think all people want simple games. Why is there a market for flight sims if all people wanted simplistic gameplay? The simple fact is that some people do indeed prefer a more involving gameplay than pac-man or tic-tac-toe. Look at some of the posts in here is proof that not everyone wants simple. I suggest you reconsider your design philosophy if you think no one wants complex gameplay. Fuzztrek, read my comment below to MSW about movie-like games. And maybe I can illustrate my point best like this: you are a programmer correct? Do you not have a sense of accomplishment in doing something as hard as programming? What if someone could make a game out of learning programming....by having puzzles that require developing flow structures, or developing algorithms to solve problems? I''m still learning to program, and although it is very diffucult, each time I create a tiny program that does something as simple as store a value on the memory heap and I can retrieve it...I''m elated. Did you not feel a sense of enjoyment as you started to learn to program?

MSW-
There''s a difference between how hard a game is to play, and the skill required to play it well. Go and Chess are examples of games with fairly simple rules and yet which are very hard to Master. But even though the rules are simple, if you wish to become good at it, you must still invest your time in it to become good. And that really is what I mean.

My initial post was basically a rant at why players want to invest nothing into their entertainment. Basically they want to sit back, relax and enjoy something. It''s like gamers want to watch a movie, but a dumbed down action movie. One that does not make them think or question anything about themselves. While maybe there is a certain sense of gratification from this....it also leaves an empty feeling, a feeling that can only be satiated by being given even more.

I think that when you take your time to invest in the learning curve, it does two things:
a) it makes you better, and therefore you can do more challenging things
b) there is a feeling of accomplishment that comes with doing something hard or at least not easy.

So in some ways, the learning curve is not as important as becoming good at something that is hard to do. I''ll even argue that although FPS are somewhat mindless, the national level contenders at least have put in enough hard work and time in it to become top competitors. So I at least respect them in that they have put in a lot of hard work into getting where they did.

Maybe it''s my martial arts background, but I believe that there is a ''do'', way of things. A skill learned in one area can be used in others, if not directly, then by the attitude required in life. An old saying goes, "A Master will reveal himself in every action", meaning, EVERYTHING a master does has a certain quality to it. So in other words, having a game that is harder or more complex can actually be a lesson we can use in life in general.

nono.. i think that YOU are not realizing that there are complex games out there. I mean, your ideas of a complex game just sound really boring, really stupid and pointless in my mind. I want to see something new! I want to see something innovative! I mean.. look at it this way... Look at warcraft (again). You COULD create your very linear structured game with it if you want. But you also give the user the more popular choice of playing a good game.

¬_¬

fuzztrek-
if you think my games are not innovative, then I''m not sure what your definition is. I have things in my mind for my RTS game that in my knowledge, have not been done before.

1) Officers as points of control
2) Hybrid turn/RTS
3) Officers as autonomous agents

and while not completely innovative I think I am also blending in concepts from other games that altogether haven''t been done before.

If you think they are boring and stupid, well, that''s your prerogative. My audience is not intended to be mainstream, but people with a serious interest in REAL strategy games. To be quite frank, anyone that thinks Warcraft or Starcraft are strategy really don''t know what true strategy is. Granted, they are fun games in their own right...but not really strategy per se.

But getting back to complexity, my point is that if you make a game more complex, you introduce the need for a learning curve and the chance to improve your skills. This in turn leads to a better sense that you have accomplished something diffucult. Yes, there are complex games out there, but it is people like you who seem to think that all games must be simple to be enjoyable and anyone who thinks differently is out of their mind. I actually understand that my game will have limited appeal....mainly because I understand human nature. This does not mean that one shouldn''t try to at least get players to broaden their minds and think about other styles of gaming don''t you think?

As for linear gameplay, you think this is stupid, but if you look at many popular games they are VERY linear. If you go beyond the PC systems, no one will argue that some of the most popular games of all time are the Metal Gear series and the Final Fantasy series....both EXTREMELY linear. So I would actually say that non-linear games are what people DON''T find as entertaining and intriguing. Just because computers offer interactive modes means it is a program requirement.

To be frank fuzztrek, I find your thinking very narrow-minded. I understand that there are complex games out there, but do you realize that there is a market out there that wants something that is more than simple?

linear -> non-linear

syncronous -> asyncronous.

You can see that the future is dynamic games. Sure, liner games are popular, but warcraft and starcraft are best sellers, breaking records in the game industry. After two months, going on three, warcraft is stil number one. Why? It''s innovative. It''s dynamic. It''s taken a new look on an old concept. Not trying to revive what didn''t work in the past.

What I really don''t get is why you''re trying to convince everyone that they should be making boring games.. let them make what they want to make. And for as for you, make that linear very boring non-dynamic game!! see what happens! you really can''t say that warcraft is not really a strategy game. Actually, your very foolish to say that it''s not really a strategy game. Perhaps not in your eyes, but in the eyes of millions of others it''s top of the line.

And as for being complex, I really think you need to play more games. Most games are complex. Sure, you don''t need a university degree in comp sci to play them, but who wants to make.. much less play a game that takes five years to learn?!? i mean.. you''re turning gamming into something that it''s not. Game''s are very much entertainment. They are more than entertainment, and if you havn''t discovered this, you seriously need to play more games.

I may be narrow minded, but that is beside the point. Sure the only games I play are made by blizzard, but blizzard makes the best games. They entertain me.. they excite me. They give me something that nothing else can give me. There is always a learning curve. You would prove your point to me if you became the top playing in every single game out there. That would tell me that there is no learning curve and they need to be improved. But just walking in and saying, MAKE GAMES MORE COMPLEX AND MAKE THEM MORE STRATEGIC tells me that you don''t really know what you''re talking about.

They way you are talking, it''s as if you are saying after grade 12 you never learn anything in your entire life. It''s like saying, I want life more complex than it is because it''s too easy for me. You''ve hardly experienced anything yet and you want it more complex? I really don''t think you could pick out a complex game if it was shoved right under your nose.

I mean, in the beginning I was kind of interested in your "complex" game, until I understood that it wasn''t really a complex game, but more of a very structured by-the-book sort of game that would prevent you from being creative.

- fuzztrek

¬_¬