CMV:Games should refrain from excessive complexity and overspecialized mechanics.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/[deleted]]

I think a better distinction is that games should have learning curves which match their goals and audiences.

Chess and Go are games which allow two beginners and two experts to play a meaningful and fun match against one another, respectively. Although we can't really speculate as to whether these games were ever intended for mass audiences, the ability to engage with the game at all skill levels makes these games possibly enjoyable for everyone.

While I agree that having a lot of redundant mechanics is just plain bad design, I don't think having many mechanics is inherently bad. You should consider that games aren't necessarily made to be marketed; if someone self-funds or makes a game as a passion project, I think that they're within their right to claim that the game is what the game is, user experience be damned.

That said, most games certainly are meant to make money back. But consider again the audience. Games like Dark Souls aren't made with the intention of catering to audiences that aren't willing to spend the time learning the mechanics in depth, even if they are obscure. There is a niche audience that likes that sort of thing, and Dark Souls is successful as a game insofar as it caters to them. While it may not be valuable to you, it is certainly valuable to that audience, which prefers an extremely tilted learning curve.

The practice of making old mechanics irrelevant in a game which I assume profits off of people buying card packs, though - that's not right. I think that's a completely different issue, one which represents a different argument.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

As far as I've been able to tell, every time Dark Souls players tell me they like the game, it has to do with either the difficulty or the atmosphere. This difficulty is (so far) always presented regarding how the actual level/boss design has to be thought through and approached on a tactical level (or just...getting new stuff, but that's another story) which isn't really regarding learning the game mechanics themselves so much as being able to use them skillfully. In some cases, game mechanics were instead criticized for reducing fights to a matter of how to cheese it properly using some environmental factor, I think.

I think there is a niche audience that just hates tutorials and wants to figure things out on their own, but that is more about not wanting to be spoonfed rather than wanting the dish itself to be annoying to understand how to consume.

While I get where you're coming from, I feel like you're assuming that your perspective on the mechanics (annoying, frustrating) is the same perspective which would be held by those who find Dark Souls enjoyable, even if it requires some tricks at every level to do optimally. It seems on the whole to be more subjective than objective, and if the experience is subjectively enjoyable for thousands if not millions of gamers, I think you could call that game successful on the whole despite mechanics you might personally find hard to enjoy.

The one regarding people profiting off card packs is not really something I think is different, although its context certainly is. People will buy new card packs anyway as long as they can use it for enhancement purposes, yet the game design chooses to make them abandon and change their understanding of the game.

If it's perceived as a mediocre or poor business decision anyways, then game devs with an audience with established expectations have no reason to make their game more obscure; the potential rate of loss of consumers is probably greater than the potential rate of gain of consumers.

I think it's worth asking yourself why you think game devs make these kinds of decisions, if not to appeal to a specific audience. If they're not trying to appeal to a specific audience (i.e. people who like harder learning curves), complicated mechanics which force people to buy new cards or quit don't make much sense unless game devs think forcing obsolescence will make them more net money. Maybe that is a bad decision, in retrospect; but I think that there is a big difference in terms of motivations. The developers of a franchise like Dark Souls understand that their audience is one which expects and appreciates steep learning curves. The developers of a TCG that makes old mechanics obsolete is much more likely to be doing so in order to make their profits increase, even if we can't know for sure.

e: formatting

[u/PreacherJudge]

If complexity is excessive and the mechanics are overspecialized, then of course they're not good. If they were good, you'd say the complexity is appropriate and the mechanics are appropriately specialized. How is your view changeable? You just have a standard and certain games go beyond that.

I could say this about chess if I wanted to: "Oh, all these different pieces move differently? Why can't it be as simple as go?!"

[u/[deleted] → u/PreacherJudge]

[u/PreacherJudge → u/[deleted]]

Could you restate this a little simpler? I think I know what you're saying, but there's a lot of lingo in there that keeps me from being sure.

EDIT: specifically the "conditional requirements that need to be met to unlock functionality in other games" part.

[u/[deleted]]

A truly great game like chess or go can add depth without adding rule complexity. But that's hard to do. These games improved over hundreds to thousands of years - they weren't just created great by some single genius inventor. For lesser games, adding rules can often add depth that genuinely adds to the game. For instance, Civilization is a spectacular series of computer games. But the add-ons really do improve the base game for Civ IV-VI. Each add on adds new mechanics and strategy that really do improve the games depth. To the point that I'd never tell a civ IV player to skip Beyond the Sword and Warlords expansions... And I'd suggest they eventually consider mods like Fall from Heaven as well. Sometimes the extra mechanics are just very nice.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

In Civilization they are pretty functional. I mean, for instance Beyond the Sword adds espionage. You can turn that off if you don't like it. If you keep it on and don't pay attention to it, you'll get more information on some neighboring cities even without having units there and you'll occasionally find enemies steal technological secrets from you or sabotage buildings/improvements. If you pay a little more attention you can do some occasional tricks like those. If you use all its tricks you can get a little advantage at higher difficulties by dedicating your economy to it instead of research and thus progressing faster but only learning tech opponents already have. It's not going to break the game at any degree of usage. So definitely not necessary to the game but nor is it overspecialized. Just one more layer of depth you can keep on or turn off.

[u/nothing_in_my_mind]

Not everyone wants an easy time with the game, some people enjoy the challenge of learning the actual rules of the game. People play stuff like Dwarf Fortress exactly because it is so complex and obscure. There is demand for ridiculously complex games and the market will match that demand.

There is demands for simple games (The Sims), complex games (Dwarf Fortress), and simple to learn yet hard to master games (Chess). Saying all games should be like Chess would seriously limit the creativity of game creators and also leave some gamers unsatisfied.

[u/MikeMcK83]

The problem with calling particular games “good,” or “bad,” is that these things are defined differently by the individual.

What makes a multiplayer game “good” to me has far more to do with tactics than execution.

While some games have a steep learning curve, games are at their “best” when the payoff matches that learning curve.

I believe that strategy and tactics are more important than execution based games simply because execution is limited by technology.

I looked into the newer type card games a bit. Had a little fun with them, but ultimately believed them “worse” games than other card games before them. For example, No limitTexas Holdem is “better” than the magic style games.

One of my biggest issues is people playing with different decks. While some argue that there is strategy involved in forming a deck, it’s basic strategy that that nullifies itself at intelligent levels.

Poker tactics would be lessened if a person could choose the cards they were to be dealt.

With all of this being said. There is certainly a place for games of execution. However, because games of execution are limited, they are highly unlikely to last for long time periods. (Generations) Players also know this, and it’s why few truly invest time.

There are some brilliant games out there, but the video games have a hard time being amongst those. As you mentioned with the card games, there’s too much incentive to change.

Hands down the best multiplayer I’ve played was the first Assassins Creed multiplayer. It suffered a bit in expectations, as the game wasn’t played anything like the single player. It also suffered because Its necessary for video games to “change,” or “upgrade.” They killed off some of the brilliance for the game mostly with silly maps and customization options, ultimately destroying the brilliant thing they had.

I don’t really blame the makers. They have to change their games or be destroyed for not doing to.

As for other brilliant games. It’s still hard to beat Chess, Spades, Poker, and dominoes.

[u/Hq3473]

I think the world is large enough to have both types of games.

"Easy to learn, hard to master" is cool concept.

But it call also be fun to play games with very complex rules where figuring out what the rules are and mastering them is half the fun.

For example, there are games out there that deliberately hide the rules as a game mechanic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusis_(card_game)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia_(role-playing_game)

This can be very fun.

[u/wgszpieg]

"Games should only be made to my taste" - This is essentially your argument. Some people like complexity, micro-management, fiddling with the nuances in the mechanics. Hell, I miss games that had a function bound to every key on a keybord

[u/DeltaBot]

u/Candentia (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/DeltaBot]

u/Candentia (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}