Game Conversation: Simplicity vs. Complexity

[northeast rower]

I was just looking through some of the "Extra Credits" videos (check them out if you have the time) and came across "Mailbag #2". This episode had one reader asking why Minecraft is so damn popular. The reason given (and one that I agree with) is because simplicity is, ultimately, appealing. The easier a game is to play, the wider an audience it can reach. No one feels left out by complex mechanics and techniques that veterans have had time to master that would give the newbies a disadvantage and there isn't such a steep learning curve that said newbs would be discouraged from online play. However, this could keep people from playing games for a long period of time: N+ is one of the simplest games ever (and an excellent platformer, buy it if you can) and it's more or less dead now.

One of my favorite examples of balancing simplicity with complexity is Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. There are 2-3 upgrades for each gun, unlocked as your skill with said gun progresses, there are 3 groups of 4-5 perks, and there are a good number of weapons. There is enough simplicity in the gunplay and the Create-a-Class that newcomers can access the game, but there is enough complexity that veterans will still find new ways to do things, not to mention challenges, which reward players for acquiring skill. The Prestige system is the epitome of this near-perfect formula: a player gets so advanced that he will have a huge advantage over the others players. What do you do? Well, that's simple: you set him back down, while giving him a reward for it (bragging rights, in this case).

An example of an overly complex formula comes from the sequels to COD4. Every game past that has oversaturated the players with weapons, attachments, killstreaks, and perks. There is so damn much that it can be a little overwhelming for newcomers, and this was something that put me off of Black Ops: I bought it when it first came out, but it seemed to require such a time commitment to master that I couldn't get into it when school and athletics got in the way. Simplicity went out the window: quality was replaced with quantity.

Here's where you come in: what do you favor, simplicity or complexity? I personally value simplicity over complexity, but I know that many love having untold amounts of depth to their games.

tl;dr: do you like your games easy to access or with loads of stuff to try out?

 

[Bags159]

I prefer simplistic games with great depth from what little is given instead of games that attempt to emulate depth with complexity.

A good example is Team Fortress 2 upon release.

 

[Vern5]

I don't think it is a wise decision to simply choose one or the other. Simplicity is nice for the reasons you stated; the players don't feel alienated or outwitted on their first hour of play. However, a game that starts simple and stays simple can be labeled as being easy or mundane. A good game would need to go somewhere, sort of like those upgrades on the guns.

A good game starts out simple so that the average gamer can grasp the basic game mechanics and start to improve their skills with these mechanics through constant use. As the game progresses, complexity needs to be injected in order for the player to start finding new ways to implement their newfound skills. This pace of progression would need to be defined by the player as well. Ever played a game where you were given a weapon and then immediately forced to use that weapon on a boss that could only be killed by that weapon? You usually end up spending your time trying to figure out the best ways to use the weapon while avoiding being torn to bloody pieces. That is not a nurturing learning environment.

What I'm saying is that games need both simplicity and complexity but they also need Paced Progression in order to safely make the transition without enraging the player.

 

[Bags159]

I don't agree that complexity needs to be added for a game to have depth. Just look at chess.

 

[Vern5]

Well, I'll admit its not like you can hybridize your chess pieces together or upgrade them in the field (excluding pawns reaching the enemy side of the board). There is complexity to chess, though. Creating complex strategies using the specific abilities of each piece is an example of complexity. The simplistic part of chess if figuring out how each piece moves. The complexity is using those pieces to outmaneuver your opponent.

I'm using complexity as a blanket term, really.

Also, Chess isn't a great example of Paced Progression, either. I can sit down with an opponent and get wrecked because he has more skill at Chess than me. The only way I could ever beat him would be if I got really lucky. Of course, i would have to practice playing chess in order to get into the more complex portions of it and I don't really like chess enough to do that. You know... because I get flattened every time I play.

 

[Bags159]

You should most certainly get wrecked in any competitive medium by someone who is better than you. It's absurd to think the game should be designed so that new players can be on the same level of veterans without actually practicing (think the RPG in COD4).

 

[Vern5]

Okay, maybe chess isn't the best example. TF2 makes more sense for this. It's current and it has progressive updates. You're right, skill should be what sets players apart in the field. However, cheap armaments should not be the deciding factor for this superiority. TF2 has an ever expanding database of interchangeable weapons for each of the classes. Each weapon has advantages as well as drawbacks so that two players of equal skill, playing with different weapons, are more likely to be decently matched. Of course, depending upon the situation one weapon might be better than another but lets not get into that mess.

Someone who has just bought TF2 will only have access to the default equipment for each class. These weapons are as balanced as they come and a player can still score decently well while using them. It takes time to acquire new items so the new player will be forced to perfect their abilities with the default weapons before being introduced to new ones. That is what I mean by paced progression and complexity. The player will start off simple with the default weapons but, a significant amount of practice later, newer options will be available.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Is Minecraft simple?

I mean sure, the concept of a huge, mostly empty environment with no gameplay obligations whatsoever may seem simple, but the flipside is that having a world of literally infinite possibilities stretching in every conceivable direction, with no help or instruction, thows up some pretty complicated issues for some people.

I know I'm not the sort of person that could get into Minecraft. I'd just stand around in despair thinking, "All the possibilities, where the fuck do I start?"

Edit: So to answer your question, I guess I prefer a degree of what you would call complexity, but for the reason that I find it much easier to get my head around (if that makes sense)

 

[Aijou]

Complexity, hands down.

This preference probably stems from how I like to play games - Over weekends and vacations, for very long stretches of time per sitting. I do very little gaming on weekdays, and don't find that I derive much pleasure from a 1-2 hour gaming session.

The game needs to take my mind away from the real world completly, and I find this is much better accomplished by involvment than engagement. Sifting through the infinite possibilities and combinations of a complex leveling/loot system keeps my brain pleasently occupied longer than any remarkable action game set-piece.

Ideally, you do want a combination between simple and engaging game mechanics with complex and involving meta-rules, but this is nearly impossible to accomplish at this point.
So until I can get Disgaea's class and leveling system in my God of War gameplay set-pieces, I'll choose the former over the latter.

 

[valleyshrew]

It's like the difference between The wire and Jeopardy. You can enjoy watching jeopardy, but it's not significant enough to affect your life. A complex game is far more memorable and meaningful than a simple one. I hate that people seem to think a simple game with no flaws is better than a game 10 times as complex and interesting that has a few flaws. Fallout new vegas is far better than a linear shooter, but because it has some glitches people just hate it. GTAIV is infinitely superior to any of the other sandbox/openworld pretenders who have negligible character depth or interactive/entertainment variety other than combat, yet most of the discussion on the internet has people chiming in with how they think it sucks and is the most over-rated game ever, while games like just cause 2 which offer next to nothing of value get unanimous praise because no one can hate a game that is mindless fun.

Sure I loved portal, like I can enjoy a racing or sports game. But I'd not think about it ever again after playing it if other people didn't bring it up. I value meaningful thought provoking experiences and simple games are holding the medium back from it's potential. One of my absolute hates is when a game series fail to accumulate much needed complexity and instead complacently reproduces the same game formula over and over with palette swaps (ratchet and clank). Or even worse, slowly takes away the complexity and variety that made the series special to begin with (FFXIII is the equivalent of GTAV turning into Twisted Metal, except TM at least has fun gameplay!).

 

[Scottay]

Thats a difficult question. A game being simple does not mean it can't be complex at the same time. A game can be either based on how you play it. Conversely an elegantly design game isn't necessarily simple. Look at minecraft. It's a very elegant game. It will cater to those that like simplicity and will offer a lot to those that crave complexity simply in the freedom you have in choosing your own goals. In some games I love its simplicity in other I love how complex it can be. Some times I will like how complex you can make simple games and how simple you can make complex games.

 

[pyrosaw]

Simplicity for one reason: Fun. Katamari Damacy showed me that a gameplay mechanic can't get boring if done right, while other simplier games blend skill within gameplay. Take fighting games for example. Really simple mechanics like "Punch" and "Kick", usually blend into the players own skill into how you can flow with the punch and kicks. Or Portal's simple mechanics that made it freaking awesome to play. Most good games blend Simplicity with skill, or Complexity with skill, depending on which you like more.

 

[Wolfram23]

I'm always in favour of "easy to get into, difficult to master". I mean I used to play WoW. Nobody would claim that game is hard, but, there is a hardcore edge to it if you choose to explore it. I mean, min/maxing stats and building just the right talent trees, getting exactly the right armour/weapons for your build... and ideally, do all that on your own (rather than looking at guides).

I think Minecraft falls into that category. Anyone can play it. But not anyone can make a cool song or an amazing redstone calculator with a friggin display. And yet we can all have fun.