Sid Meier: Too Much Complexity Can Kill Genres

[Nergui]

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.

Sounds about right, CK2 is a complex game but ultimately rewarding. The EU series of games (which I preferred) was like that as well.

In a way, paradox games can be quite deceptive. Initially they are complex, yes at some point you see the big picture where all the interlocking mechanics all fit together and it all seems so simple. But at that point you begin to see the infinite variables and can be overwhelmed some times. But that is part of their charm.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

For me, complexity is only a bad thing when it adds nothing but excessive fiddling to the gameplay. If part of the simulation added in the name of complexity doesn't have some kind of strategic capacity, it's just a chore. For instance, Cities in Motion might be a very detailed and realistic transport simulation, but micromanaging fares and having to keep an eye on vehicle condition adds no strategy, just annoying time-sinks.

That said, I would love a more complex version of civ someday. One that accurately models varying urban sizes and transport networks would be awesome.

 

[Amir Kondori]

As gaming grows I think niche markets will develop to the point where small and medium sized complex games can not only survive but thrive. In fact we may be there already, just take a look at a game like Crusader King's 2, which has a pretty steep learning curve but has been blowing up. Also look at the continued success of the Dominions series and even Dwarf Fortress has a pretty hardcore following.

The large, AAA, need 7 million sales types of games will always have to be kept pretty simple mechanically I think, but there is room for the very complex and arcane games in the future.

 

[Strazdas]

What is this mystical "too much complexity". There is not too much complexity in games, only poor UI and mechanic explanations. If you got UI that can handle everything without overwhelming the player complexity doesnt matter. in fact games should have more because once you dissect the game most of actions that happen is quite blatantly prescripted and they simply dont tell you about it and you think its some random roll or something.

While I'm not as big a fan of Civ V as I was with its prior installments, I think it's taking the right approach with its methodology: keep the core game simple, add complexity with DLC (religion, spying, tourism, etc.).

you mean, take pieces of game that should be there and sell them again to make you pay twice? yeah, certainly good methodology here.

I've never understood stuff like this, going to the extreme with something is never good, complex for the sake of it doesn't sound like a good idea at all, which is why most "complex" games tend to be considered niche, yet the good ones have a reason for their complexity and usually explain the basics in a good way. In the same way "appealing to everyone" never works. Didn't thought that was a secret.

mistkae in your argument is that you dont consider niche games a good thing. They are. Ninche games are the best games, because instead of being a jack of all trades and master of none, they are master of their trade and thus end up better for people that like this stuff. There is a reason specialization in real life is that useful.

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?

It is. At least the way they are doing it. See, they are not trying to appear to as many audience as possible. they are instead trying to make the game acceptable to the lowest common denominator hoping it will hop on. You appear to big audience by maknig good games, however what they do is dumb them down for the worst players, completely ruining the experience for everyone else.
Games dont have to be niche, but ninche has very clear reason to be held above the one side fits all games simply by being master of a single trade and not scrapping bottom on all. If all games were ninche then everyone would have a game that they will really enjoy and love, but these games may not overlap and thus less sales. If every game was "appealing to broader audinece" then there would be no games you really enjoy and love, but there would be plenty of overlap.
Yes, there are a lot of people that whine about it without much thought behind it, does not mean they are wrong though.

I 'unno, I reckon he's got a point. Even at it's most feature-rich and 'complex', Civilization is just really a set of really quite basic calculations interacting with each other. Simple elements adding up to more than the sum of its parts. You could probably say the same about Paradox games - it's probably possible to analyse individual mechanics as fairly simple, but then there's the interaction with all the others on top of it.


There's a reason that Civ has a much wider playerbase than Dwarf Fortress; that's meant to be a neutral statement, I know it seems to some that accessibility = casualisation (personally I couldn't disagree harder), but I find myself agreeing. Civilization is like a gateway to strategy games that you never really 'grow out of' despite moving onto others, if you like that kind of thing.

Even at its most feature-rich and "complex, civilization wasnt really complex in comparison.
TO use a racing game example, Paradox games are your simulators, Assembly games are somewhere inbetween, when you cant call it sumulator but its at least pretending not to be arcade, and civilization is your never stop ram everything arcade racer. Civilization is the arcade of strategy games. that is not to say its a bad game, i love it and its my 4th most played game ever (civ 4 in this particular case). However it isnt really example of a "complex" game.

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.

quite the opposite. many games have very low barrier to entry. studies shown that most "gamers" cant even pass the first level of super mario brothers nowadays. games have become far easier than they used to be, the only barriers are of your own creation.

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.

Ech, 15 hours in CK2 is like your tutorial mission in a shooter. Its nothing.

 

[Joccaren]

I like the Doctrine "Easy to Learn, Hard to Master", and I've always felt that summed up Civ games. I've been playing them I kid you not since I was 2 years old [Maybe 3, a bit sketchy on the details, but before I ever went to school, when I was still in kindergarten]. Even 2 year old me could understand the mechanics of Civ, and how to play. I was far from good at it, but I could play on Chieftain and survive to a time loss about 25% of the time.
As I grew up, the new games came out, and I became a better player too. I still enjoy most of my games on Chieftain as it lets me freeform play, but I'll crank the difficulty up sometimes, and the game's autoscaling generally settles me about 3rd from the top AI difficulty.

For this doctrine to work, a game needs to be simple, but deep. Not complex and convoluted like Dwarf Fortress is [Much as I love the game, the first 3 fortresses are spent just figuring out the controls], but with the same amount of depth behind it. Simple core mechanics, but they play together in a complex way that takes time to fully understand and master. That way anyone can grab the game and play it, but it takes time and effort to begin playing it well. You can enjoy it just fine without playing well, as I had for years with Civ, but if you want something more to your experience the game is able to provide.
Those are the best kinds of games IMO, and often end up the reason for the whole "One more turn" addiction. Its so simple to do things, and it is just one more turn, but you always want that extra, easy turn because you have a grand plan in your head that you want to see play out. A truly horrible affliction, but one I couldn't live without. [Alt-tabs and continues playing Civ].

 

[Frankster]

As a paradox fan I take offence with some of Sid's views. Also goes to explain why I felt civ5 and xcom 2012 were so "limited" and shallow in comparison to the originals, though the expansion packs helped address that by...adding unnecessary random crap to the base game More options and toys to mess with isn't a bad thing damnit!

 

[NortherWolf]

As a paradox fan I take offence with some of Sid's views. Also goes to explain why I felt civ5 and xcom 2012 were so "limited" and shallow in comparison to the originals, though the expansion packs helped address that by...adding unnecessary random crap to the base game More options and toys to mess with isn't a bad thing damnit!

Yes, it is. It is a very bad thing. It's the playground of fanatics rather than fans.
To me, the notion of overwhelming a player with complexity takes away the fun of gaming. It's a bit like EVE online, it's not fun when it's an extra job. (Unless you're into that sort of thing.)
That said...I would not mind a hardcore mech warrior sim-style game, I might even get myself a joystick for that.

 

[Muspelheim]

No. There will always be an audience prepared to accept complexity. And there will always be games available for them.

Civilization doesn't need to be one of those games, though. Keeping it accessible is certainly for the best. But that doesn't mean the entire genre have to be like that. Streamlining every property in the genre to the same level will also kill it.

We need a healthy mix, games on all parts of the spectrum.

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...

Well, why does every game have to be accessible to everyone at all times? Wanting a more complex game now and then isn't elitism, it's personal taste. And I'd not be very happy if they would all disappear.

(Although I have my doubts that you will ever ever read this.)

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

you mean, take pieces of game that should be there and sell them again to make you pay twice? yeah, certainly good methodology here.

That's on you. I've spent only US$30 for my copy of Civ V and the DLC. Just wait for the Steam sales.

But that is beside the point. If you're willing to pay for making an already decent timesink (and my pre-DLC time tracking certainly suggests so) more complex, why not? They make the main game relatively simple so that those who are interested in the genre have a gateway and then add the elements of complexity with DLC, which those seeking more complexity can purchase without risking the sales number of the original game by making it more daunting.

Take religion for example. At it's core, it's a fairly simple mechanic, but having to layer it into the main game would have been one more thing to track in addition to food/growth, production, research, culture, gold, defenses, etc. And heaven forbid if you have a lot of cities from expansion/conquering (hell, I still don't understand the mechanics of puppet cities). I'm just glad they didn't take it to its logical extreme and have it affect units.

If you want more complex games, you have to have a gateway for others to enter. It took me years to get into D&D because 3.5 was dauntingly complex. The only way I got in was because I had a group of friends who were willing to put up with my noobishness in order to teach me the mechanics (and it took two games to fully understand how everything worked). While I despise 4.0, I understood why they had to dramatically simplify the game if D&D was to have a future.

the mistkae in your argument is that you dont consider niche games a good thing. They are. Ninche games are the best games, because instead of being a jack of all trades and master of none, they are master of their trade and thus end up better for people that like this stuff. There is a reason specialization in real life is that useful.

You know, unless that specialization has no market. Then you're just unemployed (and probably have some loans to pay off on top of that because specialization usually required some kind of investment/advanced education).

You see, niche games have a key differences: Small teams and small budgets which means smaller sales needed to turn a profit. When it comes down to it gaming is a business no different than movies or manufacturing. You have to be able to sell enough product to end users to at least recoup expenses and, if you're lucky, a tidy profit. If your game drives away interested customers because it's too complex, then there's a chance you're not going to be able to turn that profit and your game's going to be regarded as a market failure, which tarnishes both its potential for sequels and possibly whether your studio will get the investment to do its projects.

But, if you create a core game that is accessible to players of all complexities, and then add the other concepts in DLC, you don't endanger the main product and you can recoup the expenses of the added complexity for the DLC if you charge for it. It also can be a way to keep a game "fresh" years after and increase sales of the main game.

No matter how much you wish otherwise, if a studio forget's the fundamental basics of bringing a product to market, they won't remain a studio for long.

 

[shrekfan246]

To everyone in this thread who appears to think he's wrong because they love complex games: That's good for you.

But as fewer and fewer people buy games like Europa Universalis because they're getting more and more complex, the sales you give to the company in question are going to matter less and less because they just won't be able to make a profit any longer. That's what happened with flight sims, space sims, etc. Just because you can invest the time and effort into playing twenty hours of a game just to understand the very basics of it doesn't mean everybody else can or even wants to. And if the niche market continues to shrink because the games continue to just add more with no regards to their barrier of entry, they'll eventually collapse in on themselves. In that, Sid Meier isn't wrong.

At the end of the day the best way to approach it is, as with most things, in moderation. Have the complex games, but also have the simple ones which can be meant as a way to get new players into the genre. Don't blast down a game for being simple just because it doesn't appeal to you, recognize it for what it is and recommend it to somebody who expresses a passing interest in the genre but feels they would be overwhelmed by the heavier stuff. There's no winning formula to game mechanics.

 

[Grabehn]

I've never understood stuff like this, going to the extreme with something is never good, complex for the sake of it doesn't sound like a good idea at all, which is why most "complex" games tend to be considered niche, yet the good ones have a reason for their complexity and usually explain the basics in a good way. In the same way "appealing to everyone" never works. Didn't thought that was a secret.

mistkae in your argument is that you dont consider niche games a good thing. They are. Ninche games are the best games, because instead of being a jack of all trades and master of none, they are master of their trade and thus end up better for people that like this stuff. There is a reason specialization in real life is that useful.

Mistake in yor response, aside from "mistkae" and "ninche" is that it doesn't seem like you read what I wrote, "the good ones have a reason for their complexity" there's rarely a good "niche" game that's complex for the sake of it (which is pretty much the second statement in my comment), and at no point did I state "Niche games aren't good", that's something you seem to have made up just to answer to my comment.

 

[Strazdas]

As a paradox fan I take offence with some of Sid's views. Also goes to explain why I felt civ5 and xcom 2012 were so "limited" and shallow in comparison to the originals, though the expansion packs helped address that by...adding unnecessary random crap to the base game More options and toys to mess with isn't a bad thing damnit!

Yes, it is. It is a very bad thing. It's the playground of fanatics rather than fans.
To me, the notion of overwhelming a player with complexity takes away the fun of gaming. It's a bit like EVE online, it's not fun when it's an extra job. (Unless you're into that sort of thing.)
That said...I would not mind a hardcore mech warrior sim-style game, I might even get myself a joystick for that.

More options is never a bad thing. owerwhelming player with those options is. A good game is both complex and allows user to easily manage the complex settings. Complexity without appropriate UI will end up bad. complexity with appropriate user interaction will overshoot every simplistic game.
Modding and tweaking is playground of fanatics and obsessives like me, complexity is the food of fans though. Sure, there are exceptions, like the completely ridiculous fanaticism Coutner Strike has when all the game can be summed up as "w+mouse button one". But those are called exceptions for a reason.
ALso eve online is not an extra job unless you make it so. you can go and shoot spaceships all day long and do as well as a person with spreadsheets, provided you are good at shooting ships. I know people who live off PVP alone because they are good enough. We often joke about Eve being excel with graphics but it really isnt that much calculating, or rather, you dont really need to know it to enjoy it (and in this case it really is you because i must know mechanics of every game. its the first thing i do when i want to play a game - look up the mechanics).

you mean, take pieces of game that should be there and sell them again to make you pay twice? yeah, certainly good methodology here.

That's on you. I've spent only US$30 for my copy of Civ V and the DLC. Just wait for the Steam sales.

You bring poor argument. Just because steam sales exist does nto negate the fact that they put full price on only part of a game and then sold the rest separately. the only excuse they can give is greed.

But that is beside the point. If you're willing to pay for making an already decent timesink (and my pre-DLC time tracking certainly suggests so) more complex, why not? They make the main game relatively simple so that those who are interested in the genre have a gateway and then add the elements of complexity with DLC, which those seeking more complexity can purchase without risking the sales number of the original game by making it more daunting.

Civilization series, as a whole, are relatively simple. There is no problem for it being gateway game as it is. I guess if next shooter will launch with only meele weapons and they sell you ranged weapons as DLC your going to say that the first part will introduce people to shooters and they can then make their games "more complex" too, right?

Take religion for example. At it's core, it's a fairly simple mechanic, but having to layer it into the main game would have been one more thing to track in addition to food/growth, production, research, culture, gold, defenses, etc. And heaven forbid if you have a lot of cities from expansion/conquering (hell, I still don't understand the mechanics of puppet cities). I'm just glad they didn't take it to its logical extreme and have it affect units.

So you actually want features to be mroe useless instead of more useful. i dont even....

If you want more complex games, you have to have a gateway for others to enter. It took me years to get into D&D because 3.5 was dauntingly complex. The only way I got in was because I had a group of friends who were willing to put up with my noobishness in order to teach me the mechanics (and it took two games to fully understand how everything worked). While I despise 4.0, I understood why they had to dramatically simplify the game if D&D was to have a future.

Civilization was never complex and would fit the gateway quite well. it isnt a geopolitical world simulator (yes, thats an actual game). It was extremely simplistic model of civilization, and one without any future to boot.
Civilization is the arcade of grand strategy games, there is no reason to simplify it further, its already oversimplistic.

You know, unless that specialization has no market. Then you're just unemployed (and probably have some loans to pay off on top of that because specialization usually required some kind of investment/advanced education).

millions of sales says there is a market.

You see, niche games have a key differences: Small teams and small budgets which means smaller sales needed to turn a profit. When it comes down to it gaming is a business no different than movies or manufacturing. You have to be able to sell enough product to end users to at least recoup expenses and, if you're lucky, a tidy profit. If your game drives away interested customers because it's too complex, then there's a chance you're not going to be able to turn that profit and your game's going to be regarded as a market failure, which tarnishes both its potential for sequels and possibly whether your studio will get the investment to do its projects.

Niche games do not necessarely mean small teams. ninche games mean that games are specialized for certain markets rather than trying to get everyone and grasping neither. If your game is ninche then it will scratch the itch of certain market, especially when your opponents arent even trying to do that, which means loyal costumers, so loyal that they will for example choke down X-rebirth and still buy the next game. A smaller but guaranteed costumer base is much more economically sound that a small change at large base. And the need to "Sell 7 million copies" can easily be removed by, for example, being smart about your marketing and budget. Since you dragged movies into the mix, do you know how much the most profitable movie ever in film history took to make? 450,000 dollars.
Another thing to note with movie industry is that you should always double the estimated budget, since they spend and extra that on marketing. and this seems to become a tendency with games too now. a marketing without aim with lots of expenses you have to recoup.

But, if you create a core game that is accessible to players of all complexities, and then add the other concepts in DLC, you don't endanger the main product and you can recoup the expenses of the added complexity for the DLC if you charge for it. It also can be a way to keep a game "fresh" years after and increase sales of the main game.

what "main product". your main product in this case is a game that doesnt really apply to anyone but is just barely enough for people to try it out. Its a money weasel. And you are charging extra just to make it an actual game, so we are back to the first paragraph.
The keeping game "Fresh" argument has been proven wrong already and it seems that gearbox is the only one still arguing that.

No matter how much you wish otherwise, if a studio forget's the fundamental basics of bringing a product to market, they won't remain a studio for long.

So, then, you think most AAA studios are going down soon?

But as more and more people buy games like Europa Universalis because they're getting more and more complex, the sales you give to the company in question are going to matter more and more

here, fixed that for you.

And if the niche market continues to shrink because the games continue to just add more with no regards to their barrier of entry, they'll eventually collapse in on themselves.

Erm what? the only market thats shrinking is the "simple, appeal to everyone" market. Meanwhile niche and indies are on the rise.

snip

I guess my grammar represented my mental state at that time. I got no idea why i misread your post so much.

 

[Vrach]

That's not to say that complex games are bad, but that a rush in that direction can undermine a potential audience. "You have to convince people they like strategy," Meier says. "It seems a little daunting at first, when you hear about Civ... But once you get them to try it, they see how it works and what kind of fun it is."

I get where he's coming from. Playing Civilization for the first time is daunting as hell. It's why I skipped out on Civ IV, which was sadly supposedly the best one.

That said, could you be so kind as to deliver a post-alpha version of the game on release next time? And maybe look into that whole "optimization" thing, so that people with cutting edge PCs at release date wouldn't still be experiencing lag when they're not even running the game on some extraordinary settings. Oh and memory leaks? Bad. Very bad. Seriously, there's bugs in a game and there's an absolute mess that looks like it still needs to go into beta. I can handle the former, the latter made the game literally unplayable for a long while.

Oh and maybe make the AI options you put in there actually work. Until Gods&Kings, I haven't ever gotten a leader to actually accept any Negotiation option, however favorable. I mean, if I'm the most powerful military force on Earth and a tiny little nation out there is about to get creamed by a much bigger one, I don't expect them to go "Nah, don't sweat it, we got this shit".