FEWER MECHANICS, BETTER GAME (GAMASUTRA ARTICLE)

Posts

Pages: 1
WIP
I'm not comfortable with any idea that can't be expressed in the form of men's jewelry
11363
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3621/fewer_mechanics_better_game.php

I saw this on Kotaku and read the article. It basically tries to enforce the point that your game shouldn't be boggled down with superfluous mechanics. He gives some good examples, while others are kind of a stretch.

On the whole, I agree with him. My attitude is to find the main things you can do in your game, and polish them to brilliance. Mario can jump and run. That's his core ruleset and he does it REALLY damn well in all his games. But when you start overloading your game with mechanics, it bogs down the player.
harmonic
It's like toothpicks against a tank
4142
I love this article. It's almost like some greater power is telling me "it's okay to be the way you are, my child."

I always felt at odds with games that included an extremely complex moveset for the player character. A great example would be Killer Instinct/Street Fighter versus Super Smash Bros. SSB's moves were all very easy to pull off. And there weren't a billion moves, just a healthy handful of awesomely fun moves. In most fighters, I have to be able to recite the pledge of allegiance in morris code using my controller. I've never seen someone pull of Zangief's spinning pile driver thing.

Zelda and Metroid are perfect because of this. Link and Samus tend to have a small amount of fun/cool looking/effective things they can do. And a zero amount of useless extra things they can do.

Oh. Just thought of a PRIME EXAMPLE.

STARCRAFT versus other RTSes

Starcraft was effing brilliant. Probably the most perfect RTS to date. To be honest, while the skill cap was insanely high, still, most people could manage a sizable and effective force in that game. Not a huge amount of micromanagement. Hell, even if you sucked at micromanagement yet you were good enough at economy, you could simply pump out mass (somethings) and still be quite effective versus a varied and balanced enemy. Any more complex than Starcraft and you'd have...

MOST OTHER RTSes. Age of Empires/Kings was very fun versus the dull-witted computer, but there's simply TOO MUCH happening and too much management for the average joe.

Oh, let's not forget Warcraft 3. God that game (other than DOTA) was a nightmare of micromanagement. The computer kicked butt in that game simply because it was so good at using the billions of spells available. Joe Everyman cannot play Warcraft 3 very well, too damned complex and micromanagey.
Magi
Resident Terrapin
1028
When I had first started to have many ambitious ideas, it was instinct to cram as many degrees of gameplay into a project as I could. Too bad at that time I had never heard the saying "less is more!"

The broader that a game becomes, the more the intention and focus is lost like Rose had written. It's not surprising that a game featuring too much loses its uniqueness. I suppose the bottom line I got from this and agree with fully is that developers should remain focused on immersive depth of several mechanics instead of tacking on many shallow features.

I feel that many western RPGs are an example of how much you can get away with in terms of mechanics and gameplay while maintaining a unified feeling that you are playing a single game with a clear goal.
author=WIP link=topic=944.msg12709#msg12709 date=1208763371
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3621/fewer_mechanics_better_game.php

I saw this on Kotaku and read the article. It basically tries to enforce the point that your game shouldn't be boggled down with superfluous mechanics. He gives some good examples, while others are kind of a stretch.

On the whole, I agree with him. My attitude is to find the main things you can do in your game, and polish them to brilliance. Mario can jump and run. That's his core ruleset and he does it REALLY damn well in all his games. But when you start overloading your game with mechanics, it bogs down the player.

I agree with you on this. I read somewhere before people talking about a similar article to this and that it can be easily followed by one simple word.

Keep
It
Simple
Stupid

Overall it was an interesting read.
For the most part I agree with what he's saying. The difference is like that between a game of Axis & Allies and a game of Risk, where nobody ever wants to play A&A because it takes to long and is too complicated because of all the extra features. Risk does much better wiht popular audiences and is a lot more fun because the game hinges on only two mechanics, random battles and the multiplier effect of card bonusses. Essentially it comes down to balance, I think, where it is easy to understand how a few mechanics can work in to balance gameplay, but the more you add the less easy it is to understand how everything works in every context.

Also, I encourage everyone to read the articles at Gamasutra often. Some of them are really useful to understanding good game design.
YDS
member of the bull moose party
2516
Reminds me more of Suikoden II. That game was very simple, even graphic-wise, but I don't think I ever had more fun playing a videogame before.
I agree with what the article's saying in some ways. The simple and awesome approach is one of those that make classic games. Putting in extra features for the hell of it doesn't always work.

BUT. There are genres where you want that extra complexity. But it has to be completely integrated to the overall feel of it all. The genre I'm talking about is simulation. Simulation games are better when they do what they simulate as completely as possible. Even in simulators though, they tend to focus on one thing as the scope of the game and do that one thing really well.

Then there are larger simulators. Simulators that simulate the running of a country like Total War, which has a strategic element with diplomacy, city&army building and maneouvering, and a tactical element in the battles with formations, morale, flanking etc.

Some people say that this divide in mechanics is a bad thing. I say it's not. The reason I prefer Total War is that it has both of the elements and does both elements fairly well.

Then there's the single person simulator. And that is unfortunately not The Sims, which does the single person simulator in a few mechanics (house-building & character-building). It is the Roleplaying game. A roleplaying game is really a simulator game which is supposed to simulate a person in whatever setting the game is set in. The difference between it and The Sims is that the scope is wider.


But with all this anti-simplicity talk I'm also hugely in favour of simplicity when it's reasonable. Portal is a perfect example of perfect simple design. It also has one of the best learning curves I've ever seen. (I suggest listening to the developer commentary on that game it gives great insight in how the game was made accessible)

I'll be perfectly honest though. Simpler games are more fun. Just like blockbuster movies are more fun. But occasionally you want to watch that slightly more heavy movie that make you think. But the blockbuster Inderpendence Day movie will always make more money. And as costs for games are spiralling developers are stuck with doing what appeals to the most people.

Leaving of course all these lovely independent developers that make stuff like Dwarf Fortress.
With simulation games (and RTSs to a certain extent) it becomes far too easy to become overwhelmed by the sheer number of items that you have to keep track of.

I prefer Civ3 to Civ4, because Civ4 just has too much stuff to manage. I began relying on the AI to make 90% of the decisions for me because it became too cumbersome (read: not fun) to keep track of it all. By the end of the game it was like the AI was playing against itself and I was just watching.

I prefer the approach of "easy to learn, hard to master" to "hard to learn, impossible to master".
harmonic
It's like toothpicks against a tank
4142
author=kentona link=topic=944.msg12766#msg12766 date=1208800615
With simulation games (and RTSs to a certain extent) it becomes far too easy to become overwhelmed by the sheer number of items that you have to keep track of.

I prefer Civ3 to Civ4, because Civ4 just has too much stuff to manage. I began relying on the AI to make 90% of the decisions for me because it became too cumbersome (read: not fun) to keep track of it all. By the end of the game it was like the AI was playing against itself and I was just watching.

I prefer the approach of "easy to learn, hard to master" to "hard to learn, impossible to master".

Yeah, I find a truly well-played game of Civ4 requires frequent breaks. Joe Everyman is not an all-seeing mastermind!

I find it more fun to play smaller games actually. Fewer city captures that are much more significant. Not these sprawling empires of city after city just filling up space.
That's why I play smaller maps in Civ 3, because you have less cities to manage and the game is easier to play as a result. I can micro-manage the economy on any scale I want. I want to feel like I'm conquering the world but I don't want to spend 20+ hours on one game. What I don't like about most Civ mods though, is that they add TOO MANY extra features. My mod only has two (pirates and spies), to allow some extra strategy concerning neglected parts of the original gameplay balance (ie middle age amphibious units and manageable espionage). But having too many unique units per civ, more techs, more different kinds of improvements, throws the original game off balance and requires way too much management.

There should be something to be said for diversity. While I want the core of any game I play to be the same and not thrown off by extra mechanics, its always cool if every time I play a game it looks and feels different. That enhances replay value, and is one of the reasons why I really like Civ 3. The aforementioned mod I an working on, I am trying to flavour all the different civs, so that the workers and warriors for all the civs match thier culture, but still have the same base values as not to confuse the gameplay.
WIP
I'm not comfortable with any idea that can't be expressed in the form of men's jewelry
11363
Yeah I think Shinan makes a valid point. There are some types of games that require more complexity. But it's a fine line to walk, as you risk over complicating the game.
Craze
why would i heal when i could equip a morningstar
15150
Hey, I like The Sims 2 (re: so complex it is life).

As for other games, yeah I agree.

...


That's all.
author=Veridianne link=topic=944.msg12759#msg12759 date=1208799816
Reminds me more of Suikoden II. That game was very simple, even graphic-wise, but I don't think I ever had more fun playing a videogame before.

Actually, Suikoden II was very complex when you got to the meat of it. Rune Affinities, the intricacies of the war battles, all that stuff.
Tau
RMN sex symbol
3293
author=demondestiny link=topic=944.msg12722#msg12722 date=1208772080
I agree with you on this.

Keep
It
Simple
Stupid
That's funny you added a CMS and CBS to your game haha, you should follow your own advice DD. It was an interesting read, but with todays game you kinda have to(Not concerning Rpgmaker or anything) try something new, or add something to an old formula because not everyone(I don't usually mind) likes to play the same game they played 10 years ago?
It's not really so much about trying new things as it is keeping an overabundance of garbage out of your games, Tau.

Case in point: Ikaruga. The main gameplay concept is pretty damn original, but it still keeps things very simple.
A first-hand example of this:

Last year, I bought both Pokemon Pearl and Dragon Quest Monsters: Joker. Two monster-collecting RPGs. Objectively speaking, there's no contest between the two. Pokemon Pearl had far deeper gameplay, longer game-time, better plot (really!), better music, and much more to offer from a point by point basis than DQJ. However, I didn't play very far into Pearl, while I absolutely devoured DQJ. Why? (Other than being a Dragon Quest fanboy?) DQJ's simplistic, streamlined gameplay was more fun, while Pokemon Pearl felt like a chore.
This is very true and it's what I'm trying to do ...but it's darn difficult to follow. It's hard to make your game original, simple and has deep gameplay at the same time. I'm falling in too over complicated game myself, actually*sigh*

But hey, that's the fun part in game design , right? ::)
I suppose that if you mean trying out new things and such then yes, that does make game designing fun.
Pages: 1