Complexity versus Accessibility

[Ando85]

Game mechanics might be daunting and confusing at times when you first start. But, often times when you master it, it becomes ultimately satisfying. Then there is games that you can jump right in and play without many problems and not have to sit through a bunch of tutorials.

I actually prefer some sort of middle ground. Easy to start and difficult to master. A game that starts out simple and gradually introduces you to the new mechanics instead of all at once.

Which do you prefer?

 

[Kahunaburger]

I like games that combine relatively simple elements and allow tactical complexity to arise from the combination of those elements. Like Rome: Total Realism or Brogue. [https://sites.google.com/site/broguegame/]

 

[krazykidd]

Complexity ... Added with difficulty. I have grown past simple games and easy games . I want a run for my money. Simple and difficult works for me too . But complex and hard is what i seek . I start most my games on hard mode , since most current gen games are simple enough . Thats why i have recently found refuge in online fighting games . Going up against other players online in a fighting game gives me an adrenaline rush i haven't had in quite a while . Timing , execution , prediction , technique , some of the few things fighting game players do in a split second during a round . It makes me giddy just thinking about it.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

I prefer the "easy to learn, hard to master" approach. Start off with simple instructions that get increasingly complex. You can teach so much to a person through this.

 

[Dandark]

I would agree with some kind of middle ground. I usaully don't like elements that are too complex straight away but I do enjoy games that start off simple then gradually introduce you to more complex situations.

Pretty much what the guy above said, has simple elements but can introduce you to complex scenarios with those simple elements.

 

[DoPo]

I prefer the "easy to learn, hard to master" approach. Start off with simple instructions that get increasingly complex. You can teach so much to a person through this.

Well I was going to write something else but I saw this comment. I now support it. I was going to effectively say "we can have both and different people can go with different complexity" but honestly, Soviet Heavy's way is better.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I prefer the "easy to learn, hard to master" approach. Start off with simple instructions that get increasingly complex. You can teach so much to a person through this.

basically this, as long as it's easy to figure out or tutorial the main HUD/buttons on screen or what i'll be using, then i'll probably do well, but if they have alot of background stuff happening either through shortcuts or other mechanics, then yeah after i learn the basics it'd be nice to be able to attempt at using those (such as very fast paced RTS, or difficult combo's in fighting or hack n slash games.)

 

[Gamer_152]

I don't think complexity and accessibility are polar opposites, the opposite of complexity is simplicity. More complex games are generally less accessible, but accessibility is also largely dependent on how information is presented to the player. Difficulty has nothing to do with complexity either, there are plenty of simple games that are much harder than more complex ones (think masochistic platformers). I also think that any game where you have to sit through a bunch of tutorials that don't feel like part of the main game is doing it wrong, titles like Portal show that it's perfectly possible to teach the player game mechanics and to have them engaging in proper gameplay well into the game itself. Personally I like a range of games, from the simple to the reasonably complex, but on average I guess I'd go for what you call about medium level complexity games.

 

[The Abhorrent]

Accessibility, all the way. The phrase "easy to learn, hard to master" fits under this in my opinion, as "accessibility" doesn't directly translate into "easy"; games should be easy to get into, but have enough depth such that the player doesn't get bored with the system. Simple and elegant tools which can be used in many creative ways is a great way of doing so.

Some games do require a level of complexity, but the main issue is unnecessary complexity. Any idiot can make something more complex, but it takes a genius to reduce that something to its core essence and use it simply. It's statistics versus calculus. The former is easy to understand, but even more easily misused (usually by making the matter more complex than needed); the latter isn't all that complex (surprisingly simple, actually), but it requires some abstract thinking to even understand and much more can be done with it.

---

Structural engineering is complex enough on it's own, I don't need to deal with anything excessively complicated for my entertainment. If anything, it's groan-worthy with how bad it can get; all that unnecessary complexity seems more like stupid design decisions rather than catering to a more intelligent crowd.

More complexity does not mean more intelligence.

Unnecessary complexity is for those who can't use higher-level thought processes, so they substitute it with doing many lower-level ones to give off the effect of being smarter.

 

[Condiments]

My answer: Both.

There should games that provide complex or accessible types of qualities rather than mixed hodgepodge that will piss off purists or casuals. You can only compromise so much before the game loses its sense of identity. Sometimes I want to play a game for its simplicity or fast paced action like Devil May Cry 3/Ninja Gaiden, and other times I want to play a civilization simulator or turn based tactical RPG. Holding all games under some assumption of difficulty and complexity encourages homogenization and stagnation.

There is nothing wrong with people playing Wii for games like wii sports, and they don't need 'gamer cred' or some retarded thing like that. Neither should less accessible games have to be "STREAMLINED"(politically correct word for dumbed down) to accommodate others so they can play on their terms.

 

[arnoldthebird]

I prefer the "easy to learn, hard to master" approach. Start off with simple instructions that get increasingly complex. You can teach so much to a person through this.

I like this approach too. Because when you continue to advance you feel challenged, it isn't too easy, but it's not too hard either.

 

[JamesCoote]

There are no easy solutions. For example, I've been designing the UI for an RTS set in space. However, it is for mobile, which means limited screen real estate. That means reducing number of buttons on screen. That in turn means either more scrolling for the player to get through to what they need, or menus with deep hierarchical structures, lots of pressing the back button. Neither is particularly desirable

Touch screen adds further issues, such as how to switch between panning around and drawing a rectangle to select a group of units, whereas you'd just have right and left click on a mouse for pc.

I think the reason we haven't seem more complex games to date on mobile platforms in particular, is that the problems such as the ones I highlighted above, have not been solved. Most games are simply ports or rehashing genres that have UI's designed for bigger screens and different input systems

Edit: oh, and UI / controls should be 'intuitive' whether or not the game is complex. Accessibility to me means designing stuff for partially-sighted/deaf/colour-blind

 

[Esotera]

Complexity isn't a bad thing, and can add to the mechanics of a game. But you've got to introduce mechanics slowly to a game (Portal is a brilliant example of this, Mirror's Edge is a prime of example of how not to do it) otherwise the player gets fed up.

Basically the two things should go together, it shouldn't be one or the other.

 

[Ando85]

I don't think complexity and accessibility are polar opposites, the opposite of complexity is simplicity. More complex games are generally less accessible, but accessibility is also largely dependent on how information is presented to the player. Difficulty has nothing to do with complexity either, there are plenty of simple games that are much harder than more complex ones (think masochistic platformers). I also think that any game where you have to sit through a bunch of tutorials that don't feel like part of the main game is doing it wrong, titles like Portal show that it's perfectly possible to teach the player game mechanics and to have them engaging in proper gameplay well into the game itself. Personally I like a range of games, from the simple to the reasonably complex, but on average I guess I'd go for what you call about medium level complexity games.

Aye that makes sense. I hadn't really thought of them as not polar opposites, but what you say is true. A simple game could be made extremely difficult by reducing how many hits you can take before you die for example. Some of the later levels of Super Mario Bros are quite difficult. I notice in world 8 if I didn't get past it on the first try as fire flower Mario (or whatever it was called) it became tough as nails when you could only take 1 hit before dying. But, that game basically has little more than moving left and right and jumping.