Sid Meier: Too Much Complexity Can Kill Genres

[ND]

Right now there is probably a game design professor from your average tertiary education institution out there somewhere sitting back, smiling smugly to themselves getting ready to prattle on about concepts such a scope creep and how ol' Sid is pretty much just quoting something from design 101...

But anywho - as many have already mentioned it's about the balance really and a game like Civ does not need to be anymore complex to be fun, in a way, keeping the complexity down whilst either maintaining or increasing the challenge and depth is one of the hallmarks of a great designer and I think when it comes to this kind of fine tuning Sid really is the ultimate master here - so it's probably worthwhile to take that into consideration (along with extensive notes perhaps) before we humble masses start up the wild uninformed speculations of "dumbing down" and "cutting features for future DLC".

 

[praetor_alpha]

Wow, he hit it on the head. This is the exact reason I like SimCity 2000 more than SimCity 4.

Disclosure: those are the only SimCity games I have.

 

[Frost27]

I agree to an extent. I think both types can coexist just fine. I prefer simpler, less micro manageament and a ps4 Civ Revolution 2 (please).

 

[gunny1993]

Complexity with bad presentation and implementation can kill genres. Most of the time it's about the presentation as the saying goes "first impression always count".

This is just a sign that Sid Meier and Fraxis studios are going the way of EA; trying to appeal to as many audiences possible.

And this is somehow wrong? Why does every game have to be niche or indie these days?

I dunno but it sounds a lot like:

<img src=http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/a/image/1371/30/1371301807729.jpg>

to me...

Because the lowest common denominator has already been done.

 

[A_Parked_Car]

I'm not sure I completely agree with that statement. I enjoy Hearts of Iron III a lot, in fact I play HOI III with a mod that makes it even more complicated. A good complicated game mechanic is fine, a poorly implemented one is not. Using the HOI III example, the combat system is quite complex, but it is also well-designed and intuitive. On the other hand, the logistics system is complicated, but overly-obtuse and doesn't follow the basic logic of how a real logistics system would run. Therefore it just frustrates many people and turns them off the game.

 

[Fox12]

Not sure I agree with this statement. Paradox have been making far more complex and in-depth strategy games for some years now and they seem to be doing just fine.

I think maybe he should have used the word streamlined. I'm playing crusader kings 2 now, and I enjoy it, but that game may have the largest learning curve I've ever seen in a game. If I wasn't already a strategy buff, and if I wasn't obsessed with medieval history and politics, then I would have given up by now. As Yahtzee once said, the games not here to impress you, your here to impress the game. Crusader Kings is a great niche title, but if every strategy game were this complex then I think the genre would die out. In that sense Sid Meier has a point about complexity and accessibility. I have noticed gameplay in civilization is very organic, starting of simple and growing more complex over time.

 

[Ender910_v1legacy]

With regards to gameplay, I'm not sure I quite agree. People who are more adept at whatever genre the game fits in are more than likely going to be able to figure out how to play the game just fine, regardless of the complexity (in most cases). Usually, the only times I've seen complexity go too far is where it's overreaching to the point of being poorly designed, or it's extremely hardcore, for anyone who has little experience in the genre (Like hardcore military flightsims).

Overly complex stories on the other hand...

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

I don't think it's the adding complexity. It's more when games focus on their core players then focus on their core players each time narrowing and narrowing the player base. An example not based around complexity might be a game pushing online play more and more till they eventually lose anyone who isn't a hard core online player.

 

[crepesack]

I pretty much agree with him. Many games have a very high barrier to entry now even though I would like to play them. I simply don't have the time in my work/school schedule to sit down and get good at a competitive game these days. I want a game I can just pick up and play. Not have to read an entire novel or wade through pages of online help guides in order to get started.

 

[cardinalwiggles]

That being said,

I think thinking about going in the other direction, that ROME: total war 2, took out seemingly a lot of complexity, while long time in development, grand strategists looked towards other directions like CIV and the paradox series (europa, CK2, victoria) which coming back to Rome total war, seemed to be a big step backwards for the series and the genre (case in point i stopped playing after the first day) and went back to CK2, because the complexity is the itch it scratched, and it seemed to just be a case of eliminating all of that.

In a more specific example, look at buildings in Rome: total war 2, took a major step back in only having like 4 possible buildings in an area, while CK2, even though nothing to do with development of towns (mainly vassal relations and world conquering) had it more complex to supplement what it was trying to do,

I am sad for Rome total war in it taking away what i liked, the complexity is the mainstay of strategy games, and as long as it remains accessible and (perhaps even a good tutorial).

It's just about making the complexity transparent.

 

[zerragonoss]

He just said he wants to keep the complexity from growing, not that he wants to dial it back. Saying that for every new things he takes something out does work in reverses, for everything you take out you add something. Overall his statement is not about appealing to a wide audience as opposed to allowing new people into the genera that want to be.

 

[tmande2nd]

While I think its important to let someone get into a game quickly, I think it should still take time to master.

Civ 5 is not really all that difficult to master.
I kinda wish it had stuff like pollution from Civ 4, or like a more in depth espionage system perhaps.

 

[Amaror]

Well Obviously, since all the Civ addons that added new features and complexity were hugely unpopular ... oh, wait.

I am not saying you can't overdo it with complexity, because you obviously can, but trying to make games as widely accessible as possible has ruined a lot of games.
I agree that some paradox games have a pretty big learning curve and sucky tutorials, but they are actually pretty easy to play when you just watch someone play for a bit.
That's why i think they should just embed some youtube videos directly into the game to watch. Then you know a basic way of playing the game and can then try and find other ways for yourselve, while always having a backup strategy.

 

[VikingKing]

I think what Sid Meier should have said is that an overabundance of game play factors that the player needs to actively manage each one without being given enough time to really handle them. That's how Flight Simulators got to be after awhile.

Complex isn't a bad thing. But the same way that Power Creep can ruin a game for a person, Complexity Creep can end up doing much the same.

Pokemon's been suffering from this recently, just to use an example. Over seven hundred different members for your team of six, each using only four moves, with element types for the Pokemon, then for each of the moves, then stats for each of the Pokemon, then the items, followed by that Shiny thing, and the EV training. It hasn't gotten to the point where people dislike these games, but I can see that it might be moving closer and closer to that status if they keep adding on more game play factors without removing others on a more even basis.

 

[Erttheking]

So am I the only one who's been playing CK2 for nearly fifteen hours and I still only have the basics down? Frankly I respect the guy, I'm more concerned with having fun in a game then me having to wade through hours of tutorials and learning new mechanics just to prove that I could.

 

[LaoJim]

For me, Civ 4 was just about perfect in terms of complexity (without the add-ons as I didn't think corporations added much). Every tech upgrade had at least two or three potential benefits and on each play through an alternative route through the tech tree would suggest itself. I didn't like Civ 5 so much, it just seemed to lack that infinite replay value. (Though admittedly I didn't spend much time with it, have the expansions really improved it that much?)

The thing about Civ is that, at the end of the day, it's a numbers game, balancing food, production and trade and then balancing research vs gold and building armies vs building city improvements. There are a lot of little rules in the game, but all of them are basically easily understood in terms of if I research this tech, I get to build this building which will allow me to increase this stat by 20% and so on. Everything has to be clear to the player, so they can work out the opportunity cost of everything. One of the small problems my beloved Civ 4 struggled for example was that it was never obvious how the Trade mechanics worked. You couldn't really do the maths yourself to know exactly how much trade any given city was going to produce.

I've felt for a while that possibly there needs to be two versions of Civilization, an advanced version and a basic version. They kind of already did this with Civilization Revolutions but to my mind that was a little to simplified (and far to easy to Wonder-build your way to economic/cultural victory). The advanced version wouldn't need to have fancy graphics (in fact it would be easier for the mod community to keep things simple) and it shouldn't become needlessly complex, but there probably would be a market for a fun streamlined version and a fan-pleasing version that required more commitment. I think this is completely viable because we only really need a new Civ every 5 years or so, so they could alternate releases.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I can agree with that to an extent. (definitely for flight simulators)
Though at some point, complexity must be at least attempted to see if something useful can come out of it.
After all, we learn mainly from our mistakes.

Such experimentation is the role of smaller, niche markets and their developers.
And not the job of "widest appeal possible" major markets.