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.

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.

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

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

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.

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...

Simplicity = 1/(number of complete actions needed to be able to play a game * length of time needed per action)

ld

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]

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.

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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>