Do Gamers Want Simpler Games?

[Corrderio]

It seems to me that due to the capabilities of the newer consoles, companies are trying to make games too flashy. I'm going to take FF13 for example here. IMO they tried to make the game way too fucking flashy with the battle system and the levelling system, that in my opinion, makes for a lesser overall game. Now look at FF4. Shit was easy, Fight, Magic, Item, and a character ability. The game was easy and fun.

To be honest, I miss the old days of gaming when you didn't NEED the manual to figure out how the fuck to play it.

This is one problem that's been plaguing the games lately to me. It seems like they make everything flashy for idiots with low attention spans.

I'm not saying current gen is trash, however stuff seems to be getting less memorable to me.

[Kayos]

however stuff seems to be getting less memorable to me.

This is true for me as well. But I think it's more a function of being older, less impressionable, and having more shit going on than that the games are actually getting less memorable.

Maybe they are though... I can still vividly remember playing Xenogears when it first came out, and the whole story for the most part...

[TheDirtyHobo]

Fuck 'simple vs. complex'. All I care about is 'fun vs. not fun', and I don't care how I get it.

I can have just as much fun playing a 'simple' game like P.B. Winterbottom or Plants Vs. Zombies as I can playing a 'complex' game like Dragon Age or STALKER. I can have just as much fun playing a 'short' 2-6 hour game like Portal or Dead Rising as I can have playing a 'long' 80+ hour game like SMT or TES series. I can have just as much fun playing a 'simple' story with 'complex' game mechanics like Crackdown or Street Fighter as I can have playing a 'complex' story with 'simple' game mechanics like the Final Fantasy series.

It's pretty easy to tell when a lot of love and care (read: budget) went into making a game, and more often than not, that's what makes it fun.

Also, two perfectly happy mediums to the 'simplicity vs complexity' arguement, imo: Mass Effect and Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines. They both had fucking fantastic WRPG-style player choices, and moderately open worlds to explore (ME more so than VTMB), but not enough to get completely sidetracked and lose sight of the main storyline. And despite being WRPGs, they both clocked in at about 20-30 hours for the first playthrough.

[Kaisha]

The games I find most memorable are always the ones with some sort of bullshit water-based stage.

[Xno Kappa]

Considering almost all fights are optional I'd say yes it's a good thing. Now if you always had to pay attention while getting into constant random battles like in RPG's of old...I'd hate the game, lol.

Pretty much this. The fact I can avoid fights when I feel like it yet I always have to pay constant attention when I do decide to engage, even in endgame, is a huge plus. I can't stress enough how more RPG's should go this route, Chrono Trigger/Cross did it, Xenosaga did it, FFXIII did it, and they were all for the most part good games. Random battles shouldn't even exist anymore.

Back on topic, it's exactly how that dirty hobo said it. It shouldn't even be a matter of "simple vs. complex," it all ultimately boils down to "fun vs. not fun."

[Teryu]

The games I find most memorable are always the ones with some sort of bullshit water-based stage.

This.

Hard as hell, but also fun as hell.

[TheDirtyHobo]

This.

Hard as hell, but also fun as hell.

What? I don't think I've ever gone through a water level and though "Phew, that was tough but very rewarding". That's how I felt about most of Demon's Souls, but the fucking 5-2 swamp level was just pure fucking anger festering inside of me.

I'm pretty sure Vikings actually used water levels in video game to turn on their RAPE AND PILLAGE mode before landing ships in a new village.

[BRP]

Fuck 'simple vs. complex'. All I care about is 'fun vs. not fun', and I don't care how I get it.

You see after awhile simple things altogether stop being fun. Just like how children shows stop being entertaining, simple games start to be boring(or get boring quicker). Of course people who don't play a lot of games or those who never take their experience with them "into the theater", who never grow as a gamer, are not going to look for complicated games. It should be no surprise that most of the world doesn't like videogames much and that there are even fewer videogame enthusiasts. So the "casual" market is always going to be the more profitable one. Always!

EDIT: The point being that fun is directly connected with how complicated a game is. You can only appreciate complexity if your taste is developed enough.

But seriously, you don't need to bother with the simple game craze at all. Just like you don't need to eat junk food in order to get into finer dinning or you don't need to watch soap operas to get into some cool shows. For those who get overwhelmed by complicated games there is always an simpler game out there that isn't some casual cash-in and they usually always better. Maybe they can be a previous game in that series(like SF2) or something like Mario Kart. However I really don't see why you can just play SF4 and GT5(when it comes out lol).

It is unfortunate when less money goes into making complicated games because that means less good games within a year. How are they ever going to live up to their series name or compete with older games when they are not nearly as good in mechanics?

Also if one cannot appreciate the harshness of games, they cannot appreciate games at all. It is the difficulty which makes us become smarter and quicker and thus better players. It is this growth which makes us feel "fun".

[TheDirtyHobo]

But seriously, you don't need to bother with the simple game craze at all. Just like you don't need to eat junk food in order to get into finer dinning or you don't need to watch soap operas to get into some cool shows. For those who get overwhelmed by complicated games there is always an simpler game out there that isn't some casual cash-in and they usually always better. Maybe they can be a previous game in that series(like SF2) or something like Mario Kart. However I really don't see why you can just play SF4 and GT5(when it comes out lol).

EDIT: The point being that fun is directly connected with how complicated a game is. You can only appreciate complexity if your taste is developed enough.

I'm not sure how much of that was directed at my comment and how much was just the argument/thread in general, but I do have to disagree a little.

Going along with your metaphor about food, it doesn't matter if you eat caviar and drink wine all day, that doesn't mean that the occasional pizza and soda will be less delicious. Sure, if that's all you have, there's a problem, but trying to act like you can never enjoy them because you've tasted the 'finer' cuisines of the world just makes you seem like a prick.

And I hardly think complexity is directly connected with how much fun you have. You could pull the whole Sirlin argument where a complex game that your good at when playing with other people of the same high skill level (i.e. "tourneyfagging") is just as much fun to the players as the low skill level people that claim they 'only play to have fun', and I would agree with you wholly. I don't see how that stops a simple game with little technical skill like, say, Peggle, from being incredibly fun as well. I would much rather play Peggle than some of the more notorious homemade rogue-likes or ASCII with immensely complex systems, such as NetHack or Dwarf Fortress.

Difficulty is a picky subject for me. I love tough games, but I don't care for games that are 'unfairly' tough. Demon's Souls was perfect, it was very demanding of you playing the game the right way, and when you died, it was almost always a learning experience of "OK, I did X wrong. Next time I will do Y instead". The punishment of having to restart the level and lose your souls was entirely for the purpose of making you a better player. Then there are games like most modern FPSs where the hardest difficulty modes are just artificially raised by making enemies ridiculously strong with perfect accuracy. This kind of difficulty I hate, because it teaches you nothing about how to play the game right, and usually just ends up being redoing the same scene over and over and over until the game decides you can pass, then repeating on the next checkpoint. Beat 'em ups fall into a weird position between the two for me, where each death you learn a little of what you should have done, but sometimes it's just too overbearingly difficult that you can't decipher what the lesson was supposed to be.

[BRP]

I don't see how that stops a simple game with little technical skill like, say, Peggle, from being incredibly fun as well. I would much rather play Peggle than some of the more notorious homemade rogue-likes or ASCII with immensely complex systems, such as NetHack or Dwarf Fortress.

Peggle isn't related to those other games. It wouldn't matter much one way or the other.

Then there are games like most modern FPSs where the hardest difficulty modes are just artificially raised by making enemies ridiculously strong with perfect accuracy.

lol, Everything about the game is artificial to begin with. I mean the accuracy in easy or normal would be just as artificial. (You could say they were artificially decreased, or something)

Increasing accuracy of enemies means you need to kill enemies faster or use more cover. It means you can't rambo your way through or take your time aiming. How does that not teach you "how to play the game right"?

but sometimes it's just too overbearingly difficult that you can't decipher what the lesson was supposed to be.

I don't know what this is suppose to mean exactly. The lesson isn't ever going to be spelled out for you, because it is a lesson spoken with actions. Usually figuring enemies patterns and using your reflexes to take advantage of them. You can only really "decipher" it with practice.

[TheDirtyHobo]

Peggle isn't related to those other games. It wouldn't matter much one way or the other.

It's still a game, and it's still fun. It's got 'competitive' versus modes. Just because they're not the same genre and made for the same purpose doesn't mean they can't be directly compared in this light.

lol, Everything about the game is artificial to begin with. I mean the accuracy in easy or normal would be just as artificial. (You could say they were artificially decreased, or something)

Increasing accuracy of enemies means you need to kill enemies faster or use more cover. It means you can't rambo your way through or take your time aiming. How does that not teach you "how to play the game right"?

I was using Normal difficulty as a starting point for how the game was intended to be played. And by 'artificial difficulty', I mean the fundamentals of what you're doing doesn't change at all. There's a reason that most tournament players in FPS games don't use the single player campaign to hone their skills; it's because it doesn't teach you how to deal with situation you'll encounter when playing the game with other humans.

Let's use Modern Warfare 2 on Veteran. You're hardly on equal footing with the most basic enemies, let alone when you're surrounded by 10 of them. With multiple enemies around, it's incredibly luck-based to pick off even one of them and get back to safety before they can kill you. In a situation like that, your approach hardly changes between each retry. You go at it from the same angle until it actually works. And even if you do learn and develop from it, it's almost guaranteed you'll only use it on that specific situation, and would be hard pressed to apply it anywhere else. I highly doubt even the best 'professional' MW2 players can consistently complete campaign on Veteran mode with no deaths.

I don't know what this is suppose to mean exactly. The lesson isn't ever going to be spelled out for you, because it is a lesson spoken with actions. Usually figuring enemies patterns and using your reflexes to take advantage of them. You can only really "decipher" it with practice.

What I'm saying is a game like Bayonetta or Devil May Cry is in a spot right between the Demon's Souls "Each death is a lesson" and the MW2 "Just try until you get lucky" models. On the harder difficulties, you basically just flail around until something works, then try to figure out why it works, then figure out how you can apply it regularly and to other enemies/encounters.

[Elcura]

On the harder difficulties, you basically just flail around until something works, then try to figure out why it works, then figure out how you can apply it regularly and to other enemies/encounters.

Lol, no. Normal and easy mode is for flailing around and being stupid, if you wanted to play on harder modes, normal mode would be for learning enemy patterns. By the time you reach the hardest mode, you should know exactly who is doing what and how you're reacting to it.

If you really want to play like that, then have fun spending the next 15 years of your life trying to figure out how to cheese your way through the hardest modes. I'm sure its working out well.

[aduidarnenye]

Are they just talking about console games? What about games like Sims? That's a super long game but also simple, but with a lot of fiddly bits. It's really popular too.

[BRP]

Like I said complicated games are appreciated most by those who have developed their taste. But this is very general statement. When you begin thinking about genres then it becomes more about complicated games within that genre. So someone who gets bored of simple RTS games could still be interested in a simple fighter because fighters might have much less experience with them. (serious RTS player, casual fighter player).

[Zeb]

IMO, simpler can be better, but both types are necessary for the industry as a whole. Players can add complexity to simple games; whether it's doing a speed run, or playing through an rpg without using a certain character. But you can't always simplify a complicated game. Simple games can be appreciated by gamers who have developed enough of an imagination to add variety to them.

But going back and reading the article, I think the argument is supposed to be more about how much different content is included with a game as a lot of developers are putting on them. Like MW2 didn't need Spec-Ops, or Just Cause 2 didn't need the racing challenges, or GTA4 didn't need it's multiplayer. Developers can make really great games without having to waste time/money/effort half-assing some additional content on what they thought their game needs so it will stand out above the competition.

[KuroTsuki]

I dunno, I always played CoD games on Veteran from the start to make them more fun. The perfect accuracy that they have just makes it so that you actually have to be smart about when you should come out of cover and how to move after.

Anyways, as long as games like MGS/DMC/Persona/etc. still come out, I'm fine with simpler games. Simple games like Mario/Pokemon/Megaman(one of my top favorite series) are definitely fun, but I love a good game that makes me think.

[ronin sparthos]

What? I don't think I've ever gone through a water level and though "Phew, that was tough but very rewarding". That's how I felt about most of Demon's Souls, but the fucking 5-2 swamp level was just pure fucking anger festering inside of me.

I'm pretty sure Vikings actually used water levels in video game to turn on their RAPE AND PILLAGE mode before landing ships in a new village.

The fun of water stages usually is summed up as beating the level then shouting curses back at the console.

As far back as Sonic, Mario and Donkey Kong water stages have been the most fulfilling to beat to me since they were always the toughest. When you weren't worrying about drowning, you had to worry about puzzles. The Zelda water temples have special places in the heart of gamers on these boards.

Pure anger is good because it makes overcoming the challenge even more 'worth it'. To me at least.

On the topic of simulation games:

Harvest Moon is an example of a series where simplicity and a lack of flashiness can make the game fun. Back to Nature was the best entry in that series IMO.

Then again some people need excitement to keep their attentions glued to the game but that isn't any different than people wanting more big budget action flicks. It's all preference anyway.

[BRP]

IMO, simpler can be better, but both types are necessary for the industry as a whole. Players can add complexity to simple games; whether it's doing a speed run, or playing through an rpg without using a certain character. But you can't always simplify a complicated game.

Why would a player want to simplify a game? Is it because they can't play it otherwise? Too difficult and they do not care enough to overcome that level of difficulty? Pretty much the only reason I can think of.

The more complicated games can also be made even more complicated, but often don't need to because they are already fun. That's probably the main difference. (Saying simpler games is necessary for the industry might be true, many companies would need to pander to casuals to achieve the success they do now. Simpler games and the demand for simpler games is just a fact of life I guess.)

[Deadgye]

They say XII doesn't have a story when it actually has the deepest plot and characters in any FF game.

loollolololololololololololololololololololo. 12 had probably the worst character development in the entire fucking genre. The only characters that were even slightly developed were Ashe and Basch. Everyone else was completely worthless. The story sucked too btw.

[Nevex]

loollolololololololololololololololololololo. 12 had probably the worst character development in the entire fucking genre. The only characters that were even slightly developed were Ashe and Basch. Everyone else was completely worthless. The story sucked too btw.

And Fran, and Balthier, and pretty much every antagonist had development. Just Vaan and Penelo didn't, but FFTA2 and FFXII: RW fixed that, sort of.
Story didn't suck, it was just politics stuff so no wonder many people didn't care about it.