DraQ, I appreciate your distinction between "gamist" games and "simulationist" games, but simulationist games are not the only kind of good game. Also, even simulationist games can be focused and uncluttered.
And I am arguing here that cRPGs are inherently anti-gamist.
Gamism benefits from lean mechanics that can designed down to the tiniest detail of what might happen.
cRPGs OTOH are embodiment of combinatorial explosion meaning it's not humanly possible to enumerate all possible variants.
That's guaranteed by stat systems alone unless you purposefuly curb their potential by only making archetypes viable (at which point - why even have stat system).
And if you can't guarantee anything, then you should harness the power of statistics and make it highly improbable that players lock themselves out of the game by providing options. And the best source of options is simulationism because they are already given to both you and the player on a silver platter by being what makes sense in the world.
If you want to play a gamist game, play an abstract strategy (Go, Chess), oldschool shooter, arena shooter or a platformer. Those are genres that fit the philosophy of having lean, gamist mechanics the best.
RPGs don't, just like detailed vehicle sims don't.
It's just that RPGs mostly concern themselves with reflecting how the world works on a different level (how it responds to different "heroes" and differ for them).
Definitely. And even in games where anything is interactable, there should be easy to read distinctions between what's useful and what isn't.
I raise you System Shock 2.
It's by far not a new game, but it does its best to make visually busy environments and actually make that clutter matter in the gameplay.
Namely, while it makes a point of adorning pretty much anything usable (and most things not) with colorful leds, displays and fluorescent patches so you generally don't get any cases of usable dark item being invisible in a dark corner, it goes out of its way to place usable loot in such ways that it's obscured from most angles or blends in with the environment.
Here perceptive players are rewarded with much needed loot just because they have to parse their environment rather than rely on it to be neatly tokenized. This contributes to getting immersed in the environment (as you really need to take everything in or you miss most of the useful stuff) and to game's famous scarcity mechanics.
Amusingly enough, where SS2 went for gamism instead (large parts of its character system, rez mechanics) the results are less than stellar, with poor balance and a lot of trap or nonsensical builds, generously sprinkled with pure nonsense (hurr... OSA grunt can't shoot a pistol, durr...).
The other thing with simulationist approach - which I'm genuinely all for, otherwise I wouldn't be trying to play immersive sims - is how much of this stuff is actually useful. Sure you can throw a wooden plate in Skyrim to keep attention away from your location - but how many times in the game do you actually need that? Yes, in theory, simulated systems allow for a wider variety of approaches - but that doesn't mean you can just throw a bunch of simulated trash in and call it a day. You still have to design your levels in a way that would incentivize the player to tap into that variety.
And what do you mean by useful?
Because, for example Deus Ex had tons of clutter, garbage flavour items and even garbage flavour weapons (has anyone honestly used pepper spray or PS20 in any remotely normal circumstances?), yet every of those was potentially useful - what other game allowed you to blind a guard with an extinguisher, then beat them into submission with a baton while escaping imprisonment by shadowy conspiracy?
The thread started because of visually cluttered, confusing games which are that way apparently not by design but due to simple thoughtlessness, or a misguided assumption that more is always better. I hope we can all agree that a thoughtless design is a bad design.
Yes, but you haven't exactly discovered America here. Yes, thoughtless design is bad design, but neither toughtlessness nor bad design has anything to do with clutter or lack of thereof.