Sid Meier: Too Much Complexity Can Kill Genres
- Thread starter IanDavis
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
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.AldUK said:
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...
Overly complex stories on the other hand...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sounds about right, CK2 is a complex game but ultimately rewarding. The EU series of games (which I preferred) was like that as well.erttheking said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
you mean, take pieces of game that should be there and sell them again to make you pay twice? yeah, certainly good methodology here.The Gentleman said:
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.Grabehn said:
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.Jasper van Heycop said:
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.
Even at its most feature-rich and "complex, civilization wasnt really complex in comparison.Pink Gregory said:
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.
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.crepesack said:
Ech, 15 hours in CK2 is like your tutorial mission in a shooter. Its nothing.erttheking said:
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].
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].