Should "This is Too Complex" still be a valid excuse?

[KarmaQU_EU]

Both complex and simplistic game mechanics have their strengths.

Complex mechanics increase game depth, which increases game replayability, and caters to more mature players, not to mention fit the serious tone of a war-themed game more.

Simplistic mechanics are easier to balance, generally more fun, fair, and faster to play, and caters to all kinds of players equally.

 

But it is generally best advised to have a bit of both types of mechanics in a game.

 

Most liabilities and drawbacks occur only when the mechanics themselves are poorly designed and implemented, or beset by supplementary mechanics which are poorly designed and implemented. Whether a mechanic is itself complex or simplistic is not a marker to anticipate a typical set strengths and weaknesses.

 

Thus, whether a mechanic is too complex or too simplistic cannot be separated from how that mechanic relates to all other available mechanics, and how these mechanics all cohesively integrate together into the game system.

The correct approach is how well are these mechanics integrated together, how well do these mechanics serve their purpose.

 

Blindly aiming for simplistic or complex mechanics result in a unbalanced approach to structuring a game as a whole, resulting in a crippled and flawed product that cannot simply be fixed via tuning individual metrics. How complex or simplistic a system is as a whole, is in itself neither a positive or negative marker. Complex and Simplistic is but one of many applicable descriptives for traits of the system, and not a judgement for the quality of the system itself.

 

Finally, practically, there are many successful games out there that are not simplistic at all, and many extremely complex games that are not bad games per se, some even have a very large playerbase. By stubbornly insisting on limiting WoWs direction to certain inclinations, we are doing it more harm than good, and not seeing the problem in a balanced light.

 

 

[Yedwy]

I read your post and seem to completely miss the point or lack there of to be more precise what are you aiming at?

[Migantium_Mashum]

I think OP is saying to WG ...

 

Don't make the game too simple to pander to the brain dead and don't make the game too hard for the brain dead to pander to those who like a good fight.. Tactics and execution.

Make it middle of the road to appeal to all sides... I think.

 

[Srle_Vigilante]

The only thing that ill miss about the current CV's is their tears when they come 7.2 km from my Hindenburg.

 

[BeauNidl3]

30 minutes ago, Yedwy said:

I read your post and seem to completely miss the point or lack there of to be more precise what are you aiming at?

 

What he's aiming for is what he achieves every time, boring wall of text masquerading as an attempt to appear thoughtful and insightful. Still boring and since he's always claiming to have quit the game completely months ago it's a mystery why he plagues the forum.

[Sybeck]

I thought that one of the main underlying reasons that they are simplifying CV play, though it's not often named, was to make it playable on a console?  RTS games or RTS mechanics like CV play are notably rare on consoles due to gamepad limitations.  Therefore, if I were correct in my assumption, then it's matter of necessity that Wargaming are simplifying the mechanics to make it cross-platform playable.

 

Your point still stands though if it's the case that Wargaming are loosely using the 'complexity' arguement as their fig leaf to cover what is an understandable move on their part to want to break into the console market.

 

Addenda:  Anyone know or can recommend a good naval RTS?

[Estaca_de_Bares]

7 hours ago, Sybeck said:

Addenda:  Anyone know or can recommend a good naval RTS?

It depends on what you consider as good, but I enjoyed "Carriers at War" (to be precise, SSG's second iteration and Matrix Games' 2007 redesign) and Akella's "Age of Sail 2" a lot. I also heard good things about "Jane's Fleet Command" at the time, but there were quite the amount of bugs and stability issues although that was pretty common during the transition from Windows 98 to XP.

 

Salute.

[Fat_Maniac]

8 hours ago, Migantium_Mashum said:

I think OP is saying to WG ...

 

Don't make the game too simple to pander to the brain dead and don't make the game too hard for the brain dead to pander to those who like a good fight.. Tactics and execution.

Make it middle of the road to appeal to all sides... I think.

 

Basically again, he is trying to say leave the RTS CV game play alone, just fix the UI

[Lord0]

Please stop saying mechanics

[Linkaex]

12 hours ago, Sybeck said:

I thought that one of the main underlying reasons that they are simplifying CV play, though it's not often named, was to make it playable on a console?  RTS games or RTS mechanics like CV play are notably rare on consoles due to gamepad limitations.  Therefore, if I were correct in my assumption, then it's matter of necessity that Wargaming are simplifying the mechanics to make it cross-platform playable.

 

Your point still stands though if it's the case that Wargaming are loosely using the 'complexity' arguement as their fig leaf to cover what is an understandable move on their part to want to break into the console market.

 

Addenda:  Anyone know or can recommend a good naval RTS?

I played Command and Conquer on the Xbox 360 for giggles. 

You can make RTS work on a console. 

[El2aZeR]

9 minutes ago, Linkaex said:

You can make RTS work on a console. 

 

It's even more niche than on PC tho, thus having far less potential to make money for WG.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

[Starchy_Tuber]

6 hours ago, Lord0 said:

Please stop saying mechanics

Mekanixs? (j/k)
 

 

15 hours ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

Both complex and simplistic game mechanics have their strengths.

Complex mechanics increase game depth, which increases game replayability, and caters to more mature players, not to mention fit the serious tone of a war-themed game more.

Simplistic mechanics are easier to balance, generally more fun, fair, and faster to play, and caters to all kinds of players equally.

 

But it is generally best advised to have a bit of both types of mechanics in a game.

 

Most liabilities and drawbacks occur only when the mechanics themselves are poorly designed and implemented, or beset by supplementary mechanics which are poorly designed and implemented. Whether a mechanic is itself complex or simplistic is not a marker to anticipate a typical set strengths and weaknesses.

 

Thus, whether a mechanic is too complex or too simplistic cannot be separated from how that mechanic relates to all other available mechanics, and how these mechanics all cohesively integrate together into the game system.

The correct approach is how well are these mechanics integrated together, how well do these mechanics serve their purpose.

 

Blindly aiming for simplistic or complex mechanics result in a unbalanced approach to structuring a game as a whole, resulting in a crippled and flawed product that cannot simply be fixed via tuning individual metrics. How complex or simplistic a system is as a whole, is in itself neither a positive or negative marker. Complex and Simplistic is but one of many applicable descriptives for traits of the system, and not a judgement for the quality of the system itself.

 

Finally, practically, there are many successful games out there that are not simplistic at all, and many extremely complex games that are not bad games per se, some even have a very large playerbase. By stubbornly insisting on limiting WoWs direction to certain inclinations, we are doing it more harm than good, and not seeing the problem in a balanced light.