#22: A Case for Complexity?

[mikedsc]

It amuses me that the title of your article was the same title of a memo (read: short persuasive essay) I wrote in defense of my wanting to have an incredibly complex system in my game.

Raph Koster mentioned something -- in A Theory of Fun -- that people LIKE simplicity. The complexity needs to be in possibility, the potentiality. Then again, Raph might be wrong, considering an essay (http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/tburke1/swgmystery.html[URL=http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/tburke1/swgmystery.html) that's gotten marks of agreement from a friend of mine (who plays SWG).

Still, my stance on complexity is rather ironically simple. There is a necessity for complexity based on the mere fact that hey... we're using computers! Computers that can process painfully difficult mathematics at the speed of light! We really ought to take advantage of technology. Even more, we really ought to realize that the computer is theoretically better at coming up with new puzzles and new content than we are; and the players are even better than the computer, seeing as there are a million players per designer.

One point in Raph's presentation I liked, however, was that we need to build puzzles that we don't have the full solution to ourselves. If we can solve it, no matter how difficult, so can the players. And there are simply too many players who really are better at problem solving than designers.

[duckilama]

Originally posted by mikedsc
Still, my stance on complexity is rather ironically simple. There is a necessity for complexity based on the mere fact that hey... we're using computers! Computers that can process painfully difficult mathematics at the speed of light!

I think we're talking about two different kinds of complexity.
The article's subject didn't want to have to perform calculus or store unending amounts of unnecessary information in brain cells that could be otherwise occupied by having fun.

Yes, the environment, the context should be complex.
The game interface and the prerequisites to fun should not.

Sure, let the computer process all sorts of crazy maths at the speed of light.
Just don't make me, as a player, perform mental acrobatics to enjoy the results.

Complex environments and AI, good.
Complex interface, gameplay, necessary metagame knowledge, bad.

[mikedsc]

I agree, but not fully. There's little difference between our views; still, I feel moved to elucidate my position. :)

Yes, a simple interface is best. Hell, I favor a pure-text interface. I realize this has its own complications (arcane syntax, for one), but I've never really liked graphical. That aside...

I disagree slightly on the amount of metagame knowledge. I think a newbie should require nearly none, a veteran (who wants to do veteran things) should be required to know quite a bit. The way to implement this, I think, is to make it so that, in order to reach an intermediate level, you have to understand some minor metagame knowledge that will translate into foundation for later metagame knowledge.

I know this flies in the face of "I want fun NOW!" paradigm, but I also feel that's a design issue revolving around "casual gamer" and "newbie". A good (or just damn lucky ;)) designer can find ways to make fun accessible for newbie and veteran, casual and hardcore alike.

[duckilama]

I may be misunderstanding you, but it sounds like what you want is Depth more than inherent complexity.

Or variable complexity, or layered complexity, whatever - someone else come up with a good phrase.

I argue against mere complexity wholeheartedly, but I could definitely get behind your layered complexity, which seems to derive directly from your preference for text only interfaces - newbies mostly just need N,S,E,W,I,and L. Veterans/advanced players will learn how to really dig into the more arcane commands to make the game more, for lack of a better word, fun and accessible.

Accessible! How about this term - variable accessibility through robustness(also known as layered complexity)?

Hardcore players will devote the time required to get the most out of the game, eeking out every last drop of blood, yet the casual players can still access 90%+ of the content with the basics of the interface.


I don't think it's really complexity so much as it is robustness, just like any good programming language - easy to pick up, difficult to master.

Or did I miss the point completely?

[mikedsc]

That's probably accurate. I'm not asking for complexity for the sake of complexity; I just see it as the best route to the kind of stuff in it. It might be robustness I'm looking for... but the word doesn't have the right vibe to it for me to agree.

I think you've got the gist of what I was saying, even if the terms are a bit out-of-place from my perspective.