Wow,after a month of abscence from Gamedev i return with this simple question: Why is Simple so Beautiful? As technology evolves ,games tend to become more and more complex. But sometimes it is the simple things that make a game beautiful. I am personally fed up with all these complex strategy and FPS games that want to Simulate reality. And i wonder why i like more a game with simple,non-realistic rules than a high-tech 3D FPS? Why do i call Prince Of Persia more beautiful than Soldier Of Fortune? I don''t know why,but i would never call Quake a beautiful game. Addictive yes.Competitive yes.But not beautiful... Maybe i can''t solve my question but i''m so Glad i''ve returned to GameDev! Voodoo4 ------ AncientCode A site dedicated to VB Game Development. By Voodoo4

quote: Why is Simple so Beautiful? - Voodoo4

- Because complicated games suck . They are complicated because they add extra rules and secondary objectives to the game, because the main objective is poorly thought out (that is, too easy by itself), or even totally absent.
- Checkers is a beautiful game: there is only one objective, the rules are simple and few and all relate directly to that objective, and only one player can possibly complete it, and yet the game allows complex play. Very few modern games (computer or otherwise) have been designed so well. - Lubb

I think complexity can be okay,but the Landifsh 1st Commandment must apply: Unified. There must be a central theme to hold everything together.

"'Nazrix is cool' -- Nazrix" --Darkmage --Godfree

Thank you Nazzlie.

I have to agree. Simple IS good. Some systems, namely those created for technically themed worlds, can benefit from a little in-game complexity, but generally complex interfaces and rules of interaction are a big nono for me.

This is the reason I dislike manyof the Sqaresoft games of late. Their idea of better is more menus. Not cool (to me...)

Very philosophical But i disagree that simplicity means beautiful. Maybe to the untrained eye simplicity is beautiful but appreciation is a disipline that comes from experience. I believe that the beautiful things in games are caused not just by there own structure buy the other structures around them. Just think "Orchastra"!

I think that it all comes down to creative talent when building something complex or simple and making it hold beauty. Although i didn''t say that THE MOST beautiful things are complex, maybe the most beautiful things are simple.

"So your the one that designed that game are you?"
*Gulp* "Umm, yeah"

So you''re becoming a Myst / Deer Hunter fan, hey?

I don''t like being accosted with racks of buttons and fifty bazillion interface options the first time I start playing, but I become so *bored* with simple games after the first few plays. A friend turned me on to MAME, the aracade game emulator. At first I was so jazzed to be able to play old childhood games like Venture, Wizard of Wor, or even Asteroids.

Then I realized that bone simple is great if you''re not going to be doing much in the game. If you''re taking a quick break, or about to head home, it''s great to play for 10 to 30 minutes.

Otherwise, give me a real game.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Yes,i''m also getting bored with Asteroids but there are some NEO-GEO games for MAME like Metal Slug or Magician Lord for example that make me stay in front of my screen for hours.
I liked these games as coin-ops and i love them now.
The rules of these games are simple.Hurt the bad guys and advance levels.
No design complexity.
However,their graphics and gameplay are amazing(i always liked cartoonist graphics).But this has little to do with game design as we mean it here.

Or even Street Fighter.The rules and objective of this game is more than obvious even for a 5 year old kid.
But it is an all-time Legend in game history.For its graphics and gameplay again.And its competitive nature.
And i can''t get bored with it until i finish it with all heros.


------
AncientCode
A site dedicated to VB Game Development.
By Voodoo4

In real-time (esp. arcade) games, simplicity is key, because the player only has so much "brain-time" to devote to each new activity you work into your design.

Another thing I''ve noticed is that part of the appeal of these games is that you have near-total control over the environment. The conceptual space of asteroids only holds your spaceship, the asteroids, and the occasional pissed off martian .

So if you die, its your fault, if you win, you know why. There are few unknowns, but the system itself is relatively complex (i.e. there is a surprising number of viable strategies to "beat the system"). And I think thats where the "beauty" comes in: A complex system arising from a small ruleset. The key is that the ruleset is immediately comprehensible.

Of course, its Monday morning and I''m still reeling from last night, so I could be wrong. (but the daquiri tasted so goooooood )



If you see the Buddha on the road, Kill Him. -apocryphal

Take a look at one of the most studied games in history: chess. Dozens of computer programs and hundreds (if not in the thousands) of books have been written. But the rules of chess are quite simple; it''s in the application and combination of those rules that provide the challenge.

Even simpler than chess is Octi. I''ve not yet played it myself, but it''s supposed to have just as much depth as chess in gameplay if not more.

Works similarly for computer games. Find a simple mechanic with deep applicability and you''ve got a great game. I''d like to see some RTS deal on that level rather than constantly throwing more and more units (of limited use) into play.


---- --- -- -
Blue programmer needs food badly. Blue programmer is about to die!

I absolutely *LOVE* top down space shooters (of which few are made today ), but I''m wondering: At what point does simplicity become a turnoff?

There''s a great game called Swarm that I''ve absolutely played to death (beaten three or four times). It''s simple, but now that I''ve beaten it I find that I want it to be a bit deeper: Smarter AI, more ships, more strategy, maybe a save game and a bit of ship building... I''d like to do an improved clone, but I think that if I don''t understand why the simplicity works so well I may ruin it.

Not to hijack the thread, but what makes complexity bad? Can you start a game off simple then gradually make it complex, or is this totally a mood / personality thing?

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...