Making games simpler

[DraQ]

The game of Go only has a handful of rules and is at least as deep as chess.

Except go is an abstract game existing on its own, while cRPGs and most other computer games are simulations trying to mimic some events, real or imaginary,

So what? The theory that applies to one also applies to the other.

Not neccessarily when a game has to simulate first, while reducing redundancy and maximizing depth remain secondary.
We are not talking about some completely abstract stuff like Game of Life or whatever here.

 

[Raapys]

The game of Go only has a handful of rules and is at least as deep as chess. You can play chess for a lifetime and still learn new tactics, yet learning chess rules can be explained with one page of text. Compare this to learning how to play a DnD game.

Hmm? If anything the DnD game will be much harder to master, simply because of the added complexity.

Anyway, chess is inherently flawed. Given two perfect players that both play, well, perfectly, the white/starting player will always win the game. That's bad game design.

 

[Jasede]

And THAT, folks, is why Realtime with Pause is better than Turn-Based combat!!

 

[The_scorpion]

yeah. chess would totally rock in rtwp

 

[Lumpy]

Anyway, chess is inherently flawed. Given two perfect players that both play, well, perfectly, the white/starting player will always win the game. That's bad game design.

Are you Sirius?
For all we know, playing chess perfectly (100% chance to win) might be impossible, might require making the first move yourself, or might require letting the adversary make the first move. But only a supercomputer (way more powerful than what we currently have) would be capable of such a perfect play, so the point is moot.

 

[Raapys]

Well, strictly speaking real-time in computer games is just a simultaneous turn-based system with quick, auto-ending turns.

 

[fastpunk]

I generally dislike bloated systems to be honest. Fuck, give me a system with a list of 10-20 different skills, the opportunity to put them to good use in a gameworld that reacts to my actions and I'll be very happy. Like Fallout did. The SPECIAL system used in FO1 & 2 is pretty much my favorite rule system from the ones I've had the opportunity to play with. I'd go for more complex stuff too, it's nice to have many options in char customization, but only if they actually do something. If half of the skills, feats, spells etc. I get are there only for dick waving purposes then fuck it. Like I said, I dislike bloated systems.

 

[elander_]

Not neccessarily when a game has to simulate first, while reducing redundancy and maximizing depth remain secondary.
We are not talking about some completely abstract stuff like Game of Life or whatever here.

I have to disagree with you here. Maybe in a commercial training simulation depth is secondary, but in a simulation game depth is never secondary. This is what makes the gameplay experience interesting and is also what makes it a game.

 

[racofer]

Anyway, chess is inherently flawed. Given two perfect players that both play, well, perfectly, the white/starting player will always win the game. That's bad game design.

I see this in a different way. White oppression on the Blacks. Yes folks, it's the old racism screwing up everything, even games. Why can't the Black start? Because they are inferior?

 

[PorkaMorka]

Does anyone have an example of a game being ruined by being too complex?

I know I've always enjoyed complicated systems for designing and equipping my characters, as long as they're well explained. examples: Wizardry 8, D&D games

Systems that are too simple often make leveling up and designing your chars somewhat boring.

 

[Thrasher]

If the rules aren't explained well, or are implemented in a buggy way, then too complex can be nightmare of trial and error.

I prefer complexity if it's well explained and not buggy, though.

The problem is that many new game developers/distributors are too lazy and cheap to put out good manuals, and bugfree code in the latest batch of complex games.

Development spent on graphics rather than gameplay is a contributor.

So they take the easy way out and make them less complex...

 

[Ashery]

I'd rather have 101 useful skills than 200 total skills where only 100 are useful.

As someone else said earlier, this falls into the category of trivial differences in dialogue options and choices without consequences. There has to be a reason for the skill to exist beyond complexity for the sake of complexity. This is by *no* means an argument for dumbing games down, but rather simply for a well developed system.

 

[DraQ]

I have to disagree with you here. Maybe in a commercial training simulation depth is secondary, but in a simulation game depth is never secondary.

Maybe, but cutting down on redundancy is. The main point here isn't creating deepest, least redundant game, but making mechanics illustrate, for example, "a knight on horseback running around killing things". Depth is all important, but for depth to have any point, the simulation needs to already be there.

 

[RGE]

I like simplicity, if only so that the game's AI can understand what the hell the PC is doing, and respond in an appropriate manner.

You mean that Oblivion wasn't simple enough? :shock:

I never played it. How well did the unfettered Radiant AI handle the game? Did a lot of NPCs exhibit truly insane behaviour? Such as starving to death because there are no forks to be found? I think I heard something like that.

If I'm going to play a singleplayer game with the computer playing the opposition, I would want that AI to have full access to tactics, just like I do. And the more complicated the game is, the more difficult it is to program the AI, resulting in hamstrung opposition that can only hope to win by having superiour numbers/values.

 

[Raapys]

As someone else said earlier, this falls into the category of trivial differences in dialogue options and choices without consequences.

Well, that shows how different we are. I actually prefer those 'trivial differences in dialog', rather than just having one option. In a game I feel it's as much how you say it as what you say, thus I think having e.g. 3 ways of saying something( even if it's the classical 1. Good 2. Neutral 3. Evil ), of which all options give the same result, is better than just having a single generic way of saying it.

 

[Thrasher]

That's the diference between "imagining" a role vs. the game "computing" it based on your actions..

The roleplaying in Oblivion is mainly imagined.

 

[Shoelip]

That's the diference between "imagining" a role vs. the game "computing" it based on your actions..

The roleplaying in Oblivion is mainly imagined.

Not really, in most cases they only gave you one dialogue option, or if it was more than one it had nothing to do with saying the same thing a different way.

 

[Thrasher]

So the player would imagine a role, rather than the game enfocring a player made "roleplaying" decision.

 

[Shoelip]

I think I confused you post with the post above it and sort of melded the two.

 

[Lemunde]

I think one of the problems is bad organization. Many games, like NWN, deluge you with hundreds of skills, weapons and effects and only give you a vague description of what they do and how useful they are. And when they do describe something they use that dammed DnD lingo. I wish they'd realize not everyone speaks DnD. And it's not just the DnD based games that do this.

They shouldn't dumb it down or lower the complexity by any means but they should present it in a way that's easy to comprehend.

 

[sportforredneck]

I guess maybe it simply comes down to whether useless skills actually add anything.

Well wouldn't useless skills never end anything being that they are...useless?

 

[SkeleTony]

I generally dislike bloated systems to be honest. Fuck, give me a system with a list of 10-20 different skills, the opportunity to put them to good use in a gameworld that reacts to my actions and I'll be very happy. Like Fallout did. The SPECIAL system used in FO1 & 2 is pretty much my favorite rule system from the ones I've had the opportunity to play with. I'd go for more complex stuff too, it's nice to have many options in char customization, but only if they actually do something. If half of the skills, feats, spells etc. I get are there only for dick waving purposes then fuck it. Like I said, I dislike bloated systems.

Factor in the PERKS, the skills and the attributes and Fallout was one of the more complex(not 'complicated' though) CRPGs ever released. It is NOT a '4-attribute + 10 skills' game by any stretch.

A "bloated" system would be D&D(specifically OD&D/AD&D) and not because the number of skills/spells and such but because the system unnecessarily employs several 'mini-systems' that confuse and often detract from the game as a whole. JUst plain lacking elegance and consistency.

 

[Jasede]

Never got why people freak out over D&D 3.0/3.5. All the skills do something useful, all the feats, all the abilities, everything. PRCs are the only thing that's bloated, and the many supplementary spells. Even less useful feats can be great for role-playing reasons. [Poison-tester!]

 

[Mareus]

Anyone saying, let's make games simpler is worthy of a title douchbag with Todd Howard tag. I agree with Jasede, but you have to note that skills in good games of old were never completely useless. The problem with games today is that they are done by a bunch of retards who don't understand the basic rules of RPG making and thus you have games like Oblivion and Mass Effect who not only don't have a lot of skills, but all of them feel completely useless. In Oblivion it is because of level scaling and hand guiding, while in ME skills just don't seem to have that huge effect on the game. They help, I know, but you really don't feel the difference in gameplay after leveling up, because the whole gameplay is simplified.

So if games continue to be dumbed down, maybe it is better to just forget the skills and all the clusterfuck of options, because they don't add to gameplay much. Why make skills and levels in Oblivion when whole game is scaled and works like a shooter? Why not just make a shooter out of it and be done with it?! Same goes for FO3.

If on the other hand developers decide to go back to the roots, the more skills the better. I can't remember one skill trait or anything in games like Fallout, BG or Arcanum, Bloodlines,.. that were completely useless... That reminds me of something.

Isn't Wyrmlord the heretic who said he never played Fallout?

 

[Damned Registrations]

Does anyone have an example of a game being ruined by being too complex?

I know I've always enjoyed complicated systems for designing and equipping my characters, as long as they're well explained. examples: Wizardry 8, D&D games

Systems that are too simple often make leveling up and designing your chars somewhat boring.

The only thing that comes to mind for me are roguelikes. I love them to death, but to be honest, winning a roguelike without reading several pages of spoilers and having tables of information at ready access is pretty much impossible. Complexity needs intuitiveness to really shine. Being able to engrave words into the floor permanently with a wand of lightning or fire in Nethack is awesome- the fact that engraving 'Elbereth' will ward off creatures, but only if you're standing on it and they aren't humanoid and they have eyes is a bit of complexity that balances it, but isn't very intuitive and is generally more complex than something you'd realize by natural experience. Walking down stairs and being killed by the ball and chain you were dragging behind you and forgot about is good- having to memorize the prices of scrolls to prevent accidently reading one that might give you said curse (Or something worse) is not.