Alpha_ProgDes> Hey! I''m also a life mage ^__^

/MindWIpe

we shall save the world.....
hmmm... i think realistic applications of potions and such should wait until DX9 and Pentium V based machines!

it seems like a lot of CPU extensive work to calculate all that...

I think that some of this talk of "complexity" needs to be more strictly defined. You should say exactly what you mean by it:

Many variables in the code and all that
Huge games with tons of rules
Few rules with complex play mechanics
Interactive instruction
Steep learning curve
Pure hardcore skill
Games in which you must learn in order to progress but are not a part of the playing mechanics (the subject I am discussing)
Etc...

I love when puzzles are separated from the playing mechanics of the game. What I mean is something like Zelda or Ico (haven''t played that one). When there are puzzles, you need to understand how everything is working together to get past but at the same time, you can battle monsters or perform other difficult tasks, try out new weapons and other items, and explore the areas.

There are several examples of this kind of thing in The Diamond Age, my favorite book. In it, Nell, a young girl is taught through an advanced AI primer. The book tells stories and makes situations to teach without lecturing. Later in the book, Nell learns to program through (at first) somewhat simple situations. One of the things she learns is Boolean gates in a castle of water channels. I plan to include a puzzle similar to that last example in a game I am making. You don''t need superfluous variable complexity or tons of rules to do this. Real learning is about abstraction and often somewhat complex ideas can be taught through simple means. It''s what the player takes in and gives back from/to the game that determines this kind of complexity.

There is no right or wrong to this question. It''s simply a matter of personal taste.

I appreciate complex games with depth and detail.

wow, I''m gone a day and the thread grows by 28posts.....guess my topic struck a nerve.

Sorry if I''m missing some things as I''ve only skimmed through some of the other posts.

fuzztrek-
in your mind, games must be dynamic to be fun. I make no such assumptions. Neither do I propose that ALL games must be complex and challenging. I believe there is a place for the simple and mindless....especially after a long day at work and my brain is dead My point is more that I keep hearing that games MUST be simple and that if you want a game to be succesful it must not be so complex to scare off it''s audience. My point is that there is a market out there for people who care for both intricate, detailed, complex AND linear games. Again, I can point out Metal Gear and FF as excellent examples of linear games that sell extremely well.

I think alot of people here are presupposing something that I hadn''t really intended. And that namely is creating a game for commercial and/or mainstream success. Personally, I''d like to see my RTS game as an open-source design that people can freely take my ideas from. I''m not aiming my game for commercial success, but more as a sort of proof of concept. When I get more proficient at programming, I will outline my ideas from a design perspective into more concrete code and post it up somewhere on the web for people to use. I think the hard thing for people right now is to envision how my game will really work until they see an example.

But really, whether my game is popular or will make me rich is the least of my concerns. I''m doing this partially as a mental exercise, and partially out of the sheer fun of it. I understand my game will have a smaller audience but I don''t mind. And maybe, just maybe some of the elements will creep its way into other games. It''d be nice if I''m at least mentioned in the credits, but since it''s open source I want people to use my ideas.

Redbosh-
here's my take on complexity, though this is not meant to be an exhaustive defintion, but hopefully it will give you a clearer picture of what I mean.

A complex game is one in which there are many variables that one must take into account in order to play successfully. Another key component is that the player should have to "train" to be good not just to excel, but to be able to "control" the interface as well. I'll touch on this a little later. A complex game requires an even greater attention to detail to be good at. This differs from the philosophy of "easy to learn, hard to master".

The less variables that the player has to focus on, the simpler the game and the simpler the learning curve. As a simple example, let us say that you have a RPG game in which players only have the option of three weapons, a sword, a spear, and a bow. The player also only has a choice of three kinds of armor; none, leather, or plate. Well, the players will quickly realize from the limited choices what will suit them best depending on what quest they will play. But what if your rules do not factor in encumbrance? Then other than monetary concerns, everyone will buy plate mail. If you do not have rules that take into consideration the advantage of long range, why would anyone want a sword if the spear is cheaper?

The more elements that your rules convey, the deeper the player must think.

But complexity goes beyond this. Complexity concerns not just the elements of play, but how you play it. What do I mean? Take racing for example. The object is very simple...drive as fast as you can. But that's easier said than done. The ability to physically handle the car is the a part of the key to success (which is what I mean), but deciding when to slow down, when to take pit stops, when to accelerate...those are the thinking (rules-based) elements. So there is a control issue, and there is a rules issue, and both sides must be addressed. In a racing game, if there is no fine motor skills necessary then players will be differentiated only by their tactical decision making abilities....which may be fine for some kinds of games, but not for many other types.

[edited by - Dauntless on September 15, 2002 11:36:56 AM]

Dauntless - I can see what you meen now, and I agree. My only concern is that the core deep down rules be simple and allow for a variety of outcomes. Let complexity result from the way the rules interect with each other...But this is the way that I design games.


There was a PSX strategy game named Carnage Heart . This game didn''t sell very well, despite haveing much more gameplay depth then even 95% of the PC games out there.

In the game the player controlled a army out to win a war. This was done in turn basied style on a hex type map with minimal features. This portion of the game wasn''t nearly as important as the real-time battles that took place when the armies attacked each other. You see, the armies were formed from a varity of mechs...actually robots...and the meat of the game involved the player programing said robots.

The programing of the robots was simplicity itself. Essentualy it worked like a map editer, in which a small variety of "program command chips" (tiles) could be placed. there were only 40 different "chips" in total that represented direct actions like "turn left", "walk forward", "fire weapon A" as well as some of these that represented conditional statements for example "is the enemy infront of me?", "do I have a target in range?", "Is there any ammo left in weapon A?".
Some of the chips had a tiny set of ajustments that could be tweaked (turn left by 90 degrees could change to 30 degrees for example). But the point is each of these chips are very simple structures, and one of the most complex strategy games resulted from how you created a program with them.

Needless to say that this is one of my favorite games :D And I encourage everyone to seek it out

hmm, I''ve never heard anyone say that games must be simple to be successful, but I think that very few games are simple. Every game can be taken to a new level if you are creative enough. Saying that something is simple is relative, and even the most "simplest" game can be the most complex game in someone else''s mind. It would be one thing if you had said something like, "complex games can be fun and enjoyable too", but they way you described it it was as though you thought all games on the market today extremely extremely simple and you wanted something so much more "complex". Really, there is nothing stopping people from making an extremely "simple" game or an extremely "complex" game. It just seemed to come across as though you were demanding "complex" games, and making fun of everyone who made "simple" games. I say that the designers and programmers of all games will create the type of game that they want to play. The type of game that they know their fans will enjoy and that they will continue to play it and improve it after it is released.

- Fuzztrek

¬_¬