Reduced Complexity

Post » Fri May 13, 2011 8:35 pm

On the greatest gaming podcast in history, the now defunct "Idle Thumbs" (which mr. Breckon was a part of for a while) they once discussed the two type of complexity that you encounter in games.

There was the type of complexity that had the player do more. This was the old kind, more skills, more button presses, more weapons, etc. The player had more choice and had to work more to accomplish something.

The second type of complexity, the one that almost universally game developers love more and more, is that an action the player does has more effect in the game world. The metaphor that might work best is throwing out a single stone, but having more ripples.

Now, it's easy to see why game developers might like the second one. From their perspective it's cooler to build. They get to do more, and see more results from their work. And the player get's to see more results from their actions. It seems like a win all around!

But, this is a thing I just thought of, and I've seen zero game developers realize despite my somewhat obsessive hobby of seeing what they're thinking about. If you reduce the first type of complexity there's less for the player to do. There's no two ways about, giving the player less options, means there's less gameplay for him or her. There's less game to, your game. Oh sure, you could argue that players might have to think more about their actions, since they have somewhat larger ramifications. The player has more to watch now.

But playing a game isn't about watching. It's about action, that's what separates them from every other form of media. The consumer is an active participant, and this notion of "less to do more" is actually "less for the player to do, with more results." Giving the player less to do is, well it's just less. Advancements in games are supposed to give more for the player to do. Giving them more to watch, more to react to is all well and good. That's perfectly fine fun. But there's no reason that anyone must simultaneously give the player less actions they can do.

Edit- As for the reduction in skills specifically, I would love to have seen more gameplay mechanics added than a reduction in choice. Adding a quick way to dodge and/or the ability to cling to and shimmy along edges (neither overly difficult) to acrobatics would have been a funner thing to do than eliminating it (I'm assuming it's been merged with athletics). Similarly having mercantile get you better quest rewards and/or having it affect how you bribe people to say, not arrest you for a crime, or even not report a crime, would have been funner than merging it with speech (again, assuming here). That way people would have had more game mechanics and just as much choice. Rather than less choice in exchange for being more likely to use those game mechanics. After all, a big part of TES has always been "choice" and eliminating some of that doesn't seem like the best idea.
User avatar
Naughty not Nice
 
Posts: 3527
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 6:14 am

Post » Fri May 13, 2011 2:06 pm

I'm inclined to agree with you. I'm more of a "give me as many options as possible" kind of guy. Give me a thousand paths that eventually lead to the same road instead of 5 branching paths that in the end aren't really that different. :shrug:
User avatar
Charlotte Buckley
 
Posts: 3532
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:29 am

Post » Fri May 13, 2011 2:44 pm

less complexity doesn't necessarily mean less you can do, computers have gotten way less complex from when they were first built and instead of feeding it bianary we now can just let the computer do the work for us. And also compare nifskope and blender, nifskope is extraordinarily complex, but it can't do as much as blender.

Also yeh we want more things to do, but it shouldn't be overwhelming
User avatar
Guinevere Wood
 
Posts: 3368
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:06 pm

Post » Fri May 13, 2011 11:34 am

I want more everything :P
User avatar
Connie Thomas
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 9:58 am

Post » Fri May 13, 2011 6:40 pm

I want more everything :P

:goodjob:
User avatar
Christina Trayler
 
Posts: 3434
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:27 am

Post » Fri May 13, 2011 8:24 am

Nice rant, but shouldn't this be in the Community forum or whatever it's called? I haven't been outside the Elder Scrolls section for ages :P

But since I'm here I might as well comment....

I don't think the two have to be mutually exclusive. You can have lots of possible actions that have lots of possible repercussions. It's possible to create lots of stuff for the player to do while also letting the players choices have an impact on the game world... I think Bethesda's on the right track there. And about here I forgot what I was going to say when I started writing. I'm tired.

oh yeah: I think it's almost pointless to give the player a lot of choices, but not have these choices have any effect. What's more rewarding: doing lots of stuff, or seeing the stuff you do affect the world around you?
User avatar
BRAD MONTGOMERY
 
Posts: 3354
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:43 pm

Post » Fri May 13, 2011 11:31 am

It's nice to have more options of spells and weapons but the problem is there is a point that you get too many options compared to what you can get with a reactive world. A reactive world has innumerable reactions to what the player does so it opens even more options. If you think about games that have had plenty of options to use in past games like Daggerfall, you will notice that people only use a select few of the options because the more options you have the increased chance that you will get less useful options than others. People will always pick a select few of options that are the most effective or fun. Less choices doesn't mean that it is less freedom for the person, it just means it narrows down to the features that players actually use.
User avatar
lauren cleaves
 
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:35 am

Post » Fri May 13, 2011 5:04 pm

If you are saying less complexity in base gaming system mechanics and shifting focus to complexity in player/world interactions, kinda I'll agree.

Just that the first type of complexity... You've lumped too many things in there that do not belong. if you remove entirely anything like content ie the extra/more weapons part, which I believe has little bearing on either type of complexity.

It's like you set up the second type of complexity to mean a lack of actual content, when the 2 aren't mutually exclusive. Why do this?

Games today, and in particular TES, have loads of content. More content would imo have no impact on player/world interaction type of complexity. It's just game content. And doesn't mean complexity of the first type... until you have weapon enchanting or weapon upgrades and a zillion options in each. Then it's a system.
So more content isn't game mechanics, until it does something else than just being 10 more different sword models to choose from.

too vague a concept, needs refining.
User avatar
Ian White
 
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:08 pm

Post » Fri May 13, 2011 5:48 am

Good post OP, an interesting trend to consider.

I want more everything :P


Hehe, it could be as simple as this! I'm a huge fan of Dwarf Fortress, which, despite its superficially "terrible" graphics and wholly terrible interface, gives the player much more interaction AND emergent action than any other fantasy game ever made - and it is extremely popular. WoW also gives the player a lot to *do*, and emergent action comes from there being other players in the world.

I'm worried about the trend of late for single player RPGs to try and emulate the feel/style/mechanics of WoW (to appeal to that huge market) - thus the simplification of interfaces and mechanics - but fail to compensate for not having the emergent gameplay produced by other humans, so they end up with, as the OP says, a simpler game with less for the player to do (I think Oblivion is a classic example of this). Attempts to create the ripples of player actions (eg. Bioware games of late, Radiant "AI") have been embarrassingly over hyped when compared to something like Dwarf Fortress.

Edit - and that's the worst part... we can see games where your choices do have effects, and NPCs do behave dynamically (scripted is not dynamic in the sense I mean here), but production houses with 100+ staff can't pull it off. I understand the difficulties of creating assets for modern games, but I really hope Skyrim isn't just Oblivion on steroids :)
User avatar
Steven Nicholson
 
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:24 pm

Post » Fri May 13, 2011 4:45 pm

So, Mercantile, acrobaticts and mysticism are the skills that were merged with others, correct?
User avatar
Dagan Wilkin
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 4:20 am

Post » Fri May 13, 2011 2:01 pm

Edit - and that's the worst part... we can see games where your choices do have effects, and NPCs do behave dynamically (scripted is not dynamic in the sense I mean here), but production houses with 100+ staff can't pull it off. I understand the difficulties of creating assets for modern games, but I really hope Skyrim isn't just Oblivion on steroids :)


If you search around you will see that there are many RPGs made by small developers that offer a big range of choices ( have you checked out http://www.irontowerstudio.com/features.htm ? ) of course you can not expect an AAA low budget title but the meat is there. Beth wasn't that big when they made DF or MW neither was Bioware when they released KotOR , my point is that the bigger a gaming developer becomes the more "streamlined" their games are getting and the less content they have.
Intentionally leaving stuff out ( like the extra dungeon in North American version of 2 Worlds 2) , poofering on the press and specially designed exclusives on big gaming sites is their way of going . So far there are no interesting interviews for V but if you search a bit there are some very good ones about new Dragon Age where devs answer questions like "why there are no elves or dwarves?" with replies that include 3 times the word "cost" .
Just think of it , the whole point is maximising profit NOT making a better game for you (so it is not a surprise so many people are playing games from 2002) of course there is nothing wrong with profitssss but not when those are coming from chopping down content and have DLCs on release day.
User avatar
kat no x
 
Posts: 3247
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 5:39 pm

Post » Fri May 13, 2011 7:57 pm

On the greatest gaming podcast in history, the now defunct "Idle Thumbs" (which mr. Breckon was a part of for a while) they once discussed the two type of complexity that you encounter in games.

There was the type of complexity that had the player do more. This was the old kind, more skills, more button presses, more weapons, etc. The player had more choice and had to work more to accomplish something.

The second type of complexity, the one that almost universally game developers love more and more, is that an action the player does has more effect in the game world. The metaphor that might work best is throwing out a single stone, but having more ripples.

Now, it's easy to see why game developers might like the second one. From their perspective it's cooler to build. They get to do more, and see more results from their work. And the player get's to see more results from their actions. It seems like a win all around!

But, this is a thing I just thought of, and I've seen zero game developers realize despite my somewhat obsessive hobby of seeing what they're thinking about. If you reduce the first type of complexity there's less for the player to do. There's no two ways about, giving the player less options, means there's less gameplay for him or her. There's less game to, your game. Oh sure, you could argue that players might have to think more about their actions, since they have somewhat larger ramifications. The player has more to watch now.

But playing a game isn't about watching. It's about action, that's what separates them from every other form of media. The consumer is an active participant, and this notion of "less to do more" is actually "less for the player to do, with more results." Giving the player less to do is, well it's just less. Advancements in games are supposed to give more for the player to do. Giving them more to watch, more to react to is all well and good. That's perfectly fine fun. But there's no reason that anyone must simultaneously give the player less actions they can do.

Edit- As for the reduction in skills specifically, I would love to have seen more gameplay mechanics added than a reduction in choice. Adding a quick way to dodge and/or the ability to cling to and shimmy along edges (neither overly difficult) to acrobatics would have been a funner thing to do than eliminating it (I'm assuming it's been merged with athletics). Similarly having mercantile get you better quest rewards and/or having it affect how you bribe people to say, not arrest you for a crime, or even not report a crime, would have been funner than merging it with speech (again, assuming here). That way people would have had more game mechanics and just as much choice. Rather than less choice in exchange for being more likely to use those game mechanics. After all, a big part of TES has always been "choice" and eliminating some of that doesn't seem like the best idea.


Dude, we've all been through that lament for one period of time or another. It is usually summarised as "Give us a Morrowind 2!". Problem is, you won't get far in the game industry if you don't seek as wide an audience as possible. And Morrowind lacked in that aspect - is was catered to a very narrow group that you and I belong to. Long story short: Bethesda is faced with a cruel choice - purity or success. :spotted owl:
User avatar
Laura
 
Posts: 3456
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:11 am

Post » Fri May 13, 2011 3:19 pm

The problem with adding more and more stuff is there is always a cost (of money and assets and bug-testing) and watering things down so it doesn't matter what options/items/weapons you use. Or there would be options/items/weapons that the devs may not have time to work with or may not put much care into them at all.

I would LOVE lots of stuff added, but I want them to be implemented correctly and done with care.

I guess this is a quality vs. quantity thing. :shrug:
User avatar
MARLON JOHNSON
 
Posts: 3377
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 7:12 pm

Post » Fri May 13, 2011 5:50 am

Give us morrowind 2 !
User avatar
ANaIs GRelot
 
Posts: 3401
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:19 pm

Post » Fri May 13, 2011 5:34 am

I think you raise a lot of good points under the right circumstances. In particular, the point about "doing less" is very pertinent in my opinion.

That said though, I don't believe that reducing the complexity of certain game systems or mechanics is necessarily mutually exclusive with giving us comparable or greater content. I also don't think time invested in a game is directly proportional to content. For example, I had a 900+ hour character (not kidding) in Morrowind. I only had a 500+ hour character in Oblivion (lol@ "only," but I digress.) So one might wonder whether Morrowind had more content. But in reality, at least in my experience of both games, most of those 900+ hours in Morrowind were spent walking great distances and trying to locate NPCs or objects. Conversely, the majority of the 500+ hours I spent with Oblivion were spent actually experiencing narrative, combat, and character development. So, it could be argued (whether you agree or not is up to you of course) that Oblivion gave me more to actually do, while being less complex relative to Morrowind in several ways. Of course, walking great distances and looking for NPCs could be considered content, too, if that was an important part of the experience for you.

Elder Scrolls games are always exceptionally long, and incredibly packed with content. So I don't think a reduction in complexity is necessarily going to spell doom for content in Skyrim. We're talking about games with 10 - 20+ hours of main quest content usually, and hundreds of hours of additional content. Bethesda has yet to produce a game that didn't meet those aims. I doubt Skyrim will be the first to fail in doing so. But that doesn't mean that there won't potentially be less of certain things to do. So then the question becomes: were those things you wanted in the game and will miss out on now? Were they redundant? And even if they were redundant, do you just want them anyway for roleplaying purposes? Those are very valid and important questions in my opinion, and different people feel and think very differently about them.

I'm of two minds about it, honestly. On the one hand, for the sake roleplaying, I wouldn't mind having - as one example - Mysticism present in the game. I might want to make a character focusing on that school of magic, who it wouldn't make sense from a characterization point of view to also have the abilities and spells now associated with whatever school (or schools) Mysticism's spells have been absorbed into. On the other hand, what if there is something about the pace and nature of the content that they do have in the game that would have been somehow interfered with or unbalanced by, keeping Mysticism in the game? We can say we can't imagine such a scenario, but we're not the developers. Or, what if there are story/lore reasons for its absence now? Do I want to give up the experience they're trying to give me by keeping around something that could diminish it for all I know, particularly when I can still roleplay in such a way that I skirt around that experience if I choose to do so?

So I think, ultimately, it depends on the game, the context, and the reasons for reduced complexity. But I definitely don't feel that reduced complexity and enormous quantities of content (not just observed consequences but actual content) are mutually exclusive. I think Elder Scrolls has proved that they aren't thus far. Hopefully Skyrim will be another example of this.
User avatar
Leilene Nessel
 
Posts: 3428
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:11 am

Post » Fri May 13, 2011 8:14 pm

Give us morrowind 2 !


AGREE AGREE AGREE! make Morrowind 2
or give it someone who can!
User avatar
ImmaTakeYour
 
Posts: 3383
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:45 pm

Post » Fri May 13, 2011 1:55 pm

I agree in general with the OP. But I believe there needs to be a balance. Too much detail in user controls is a turn off to a game in my opinion. For example, I played the Arma demo and was completely turned off by how overly detailed the control was... it was practically impossible to shoot and hit anything. That's no fun.

The ideal for me would be to have this sort of thing being able to be turned off or on in the game's preferences. For instance, in Call of Duty Black Ops one can turn off "aim assist" if one prefers to be in complete control.
User avatar
Tammie Flint
 
Posts: 3336
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:12 am


Return to V - Skyrim