SIMPLE, GOOD OR BAD
Posts
Pages:
1
It is a reeeeeeeeeeeeally relative question.
For example: I hate simple settings, as I love to explore, know the backstory, politics and details of a setting, but I don´t mind a simple story or characters.
There is also execution: Good execution can make simple games shine, bad execution can screw a complex game.
For example: I hate simple settings, as I love to explore, know the backstory, politics and details of a setting, but I don´t mind a simple story or characters.
There is also execution: Good execution can make simple games shine, bad execution can screw a complex game.
It depends a lot on the type of game. If you're making an RPG, unless your going for old-school game with NES graphics, it should have more complex battle systems and backstory and such.
If you're making an arcade game, it doesn't really matter if you make it simple as long as you can repeatedly press two buttons and blow stuff up.
If you're making an arcade game, it doesn't really matter if you make it simple as long as you can repeatedly press two buttons and blow stuff up.
Actually most of my fav games is simple (grid wars, meritous, soldat, etc) but of course, in an rpg / any exploration game, it should be deatiled in most aspect, or it won't be a role-playing game anymore.
Simple to the point that the game can be played by mashing a button? Pass.
I don't want some crazy complex game that I need a spreadsheet to figure out what I'm trying to do, but I'd rather have more options and complexity than something mind numbingly simple. Being able to come up with different strategies that take advantage of parts of the battle system or building characters in different ways is what I like to see; Especially to the point of where you could beat half the game without a single experience point. The exception would be interfaces, but simple interfaces is something that (should) exists across all software.
I don't want some crazy complex game that I need a spreadsheet to figure out what I'm trying to do, but I'd rather have more options and complexity than something mind numbingly simple. Being able to come up with different strategies that take advantage of parts of the battle system or building characters in different ways is what I like to see; Especially to the point of where you could beat half the game without a single experience point. The exception would be interfaces, but simple interfaces is something that (should) exists across all software.
author=GreatRedSpirit link=topic=2547.msg46901#msg46901 date=1227586413
Simple to the point that the game can be played by mashing a button? Pass.
I don't want some crazy complex game that I need a spreadsheet to figure out what I'm trying to do, but I'd rather have more options and complexity than something mind numbingly simple. Being able to come up with different strategies that take advantage of parts of the battle system or building characters in different ways is what I like to see; Especially to the point of where you could beat half the game without a single experience point.
Depth is what you're looking for. Depth =/= Complexity, though.
author=Fallen-Griever link=topic=2547.msg46944#msg46944 date=1227601058Unless there's something higher than Proud, I can't.
Protip: Up the difficulty.
author=AeroGP link=topic=2547.msg46995#msg46995 date=1227634352
Depth is what you're looking for. Depth =/= Complexity, though.
Whoops, you're right. I still say that too much or too little can ruin a game though.
I do like simple games that don't take themselves to seriously like so many people try with Rpgmaker. You will always see people overcomplicate their games and this isn't just in the indie scene but proffesionally. Assassin's Creed, etc. Sometimes a simple story with great execution is all that's needed, take Overlord for example. A pretty simple story that ended up being so much more thanks to great writing and ideas based around it.
Pages:
1




















