# Do Simple and Complex Games Coexist?



## Ryukouki (Mar 24, 2014)

​It has been quite a while since I wrote something for you guys. I found my lucky burst of inspiration today for the first time in what feels like forever though. Interestingly enough, today I'll be using an older article I wrote a few months back as a jumping point to discuss the issue at hand today: could a game exist that has both simple and complex gameplay?​​[prebreak]Continue reading[/prebreak]​​Let's be frank. Games themselves are works of art, no matter what people say. It takes some time and dedication to find out ways to create innovations that get people to enjoy something. Sadly, I feel that games nowadays are not as great as they used to be, purely because they just don't have the proper mix of complexity and simplicity, but that is a whole different topic on its own. I'll open up with some examples on this.​​

​The easiest example to consider is Pokémon. Love it or hate it, the franchise is a great example of how a game can be both simple yet amazingly complex. But what defines complexity? What do we consider simple? To you and me, we could have vastly different definitions of the word. I like to think of simplicity as being a system that greater than 95% of the population could handle and enjoy, and then complexity as a concept that can get the majority of people to think outside of the box to work with. Anyway, back to Pokémon. I mentioned earlier that I would be taking an older article I wrote a few months back as a way to talk about this, and indeed I will here.​​Pokémon is a simple game. The plot is easy to comprehend, as most of the titles are aimed to children, teaching about issues at a very broad level, oftentimes jading out most older gamers with its simplicity and rather naïve approach to the story. Some critics even considered the recent_ Pokémon X and Y_ story lines weak enough for a five year old to have concocted. The game play mechanics are often simple, with the player operating as a trainer seeking to become a "Pokémon Master" and collecting. At the root, the game involves collecting creatures and getting these creatures strong enough to achieve success in battle, yes? You also are moving on a grid (multi-directional in the newest titles), going to predetermined destinations. However, the gameplay is extremely complex as well, or, rather, it could be so depending on how you look at it. Go to a community like Smogon University, which specializes in the analytics of team making and how each creature could possibly synergize with one another. In essence, you have an infinite number of combinations that could be used. Oftentimes, with the Pokémon tournaments that occur, the winners are those that concocted the most novel strategy based on the limitations of the game environment. You can read my analysis on the franchise here. Going by my previous definitions of simplicity and complexity, Pokémon falls into each as adults and children alike play the game, but it is complex enough for people to truly think outside of the box and achieve success.​​Let's look at a simpler example. How about chess? With chess, you get a set of units that operate in the limitations of the rules of chess. You get some units that can only go forward one pace on the board, some that can traverse the board in a specific direction, others having a more free movement, but in the end you can only move once per turn. This offers unlimited possibilities for strategy and a large set of situations that each piece could be faced with.​​

_How would you react in a scenario such as this?_​​I could go into another example, like_ Super Smash Bros. _You can move in a few directions, you can attack. Yet, at the same time, each character has specific sets and weaknesses that need to be accounted for in each match, and each character should be able to anticipate situations in the environment depending on the terrain the battle is taking place on. The rule of simplicity and complexity for _Super Smash Bros. _could also be applied to the entire fighting genre. Everyone can button mash a controller. You can do it, I could do it. It does take a certain amount of skill to be able to generate a specific set of commands to execute a particular set of skills though.​​What about characterization of characters in video games and the media though? Can something be portrayed simply? With complexity? Maybe even both?​​Simple characters exist on their own. Pokémon won't win any points in this battle today as the character's complexity is simply a projection of the experiences the player subjects the character to. The player could fill in the experiences of the character. Look at Link in _The Legend of Zelda _franchise. Link is named Link to serve as the "link" (pun intended) between the player's experience and a projection of how Link does things in Hyrule. Mario serves to save the princess. These types of characters do not really get fleshed out. They also exist in the form of NPC characters, that often enjoy a degree of stagnance, often not changing their lines, or rarely deviating in the case of certain scenarios to feel more organic and alive.​​

​Do complex characters exist? Certainly. Look at _Game of Thrones_, almost all of the characters have a degree of complexity to them, operating in their world due to a series of adverse circumstances. Unfortunately the lines for simplicity and complexity together become blurred, and start to base themselves on how each person individually thinks. For instance, I could see _Frozen's _Elsa as a character who presents herself as a simple deuteragonist character, the colder elder sibling, but later evolves into a very complex character who comes off to the viewer as a troubled woman trying to find her way. I like characters and characteristics that share simple elements yet at the same time require that thought out of the box to be able to understand them. IN video gaming, we could consider Ryu Hayabusa of _Ninja Gaiden_ as both simple and complex (of course, this is based on what I have experienced playing the character thus far). He's a killing machine that is given a bit more humanism in the failed _Ninja Gaiden 3_ game, often making the player feel a bit of remorse in his killings (to me that shouldn't exist in the franchise, but even so!).​​At the end of the day, though, do we favor simplicity and complexity in gameplay/characterization as coexisting? It depends on your definition of the two terms. People can say that complexity creates a less accessible environment, but at the same time you need just the right amount of complexity to give a game or character that necessary depth. Again, that gray line that I love playing with needs to be drawn. When is it too much or too little? Do you like complex games that will utterly bamboozle you? Do you like games to be a simple experience that doesn't require a lot of thinking? Let me know your thoughts.​


----------



## Black-Ice (Mar 24, 2014)

Pokemon is 2deep4allU come at me 

Chess is a gentlemans sport and i'll wreck you all, mad elo up in here 

Team Ninja fucked up with Ninja Gaiden after II, II was amazing then boom. 



Generally Complex vs Simple doesnt phase me. I'm hooked by really good storylines or interesting gameplay, or both.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 24, 2014)

Glib remark -- "easy to learn, hard to master" is an aspiration for nearly all game designs. Easy to learn and easy to play exists, indeed certain games aimed at breaking people into a concept are this and Pokemon has been considered as "introduction to RPG" before. Hard to learn and hard to play do also exist though I find that skews far more towards actual training/simulation, though even there a good tutorial will not necessarily be a "throw you in at the deep end" affair.

I sense this might turn into another "I love pokemon and as such I deserve respect" type thread though. Flame on though.

By simple analysis of the sorts of things in game theory or computation of games then yeah pokemon is complex, however every game pretty much is then (turn one frame or the next, entirely different strategies in a racing game as far as game theory is concerned). Previously I have argued the complexity of pokemon reduces down enough that it negates most of the first blush complexity though. I will say that again here, previously that was mostly done in service of supporting my viewpoints that generating pokemon means functionally nothing as far as being far goes. However I will dust off terms like "viable strategies" for this one -- level 100 mons all best stats and the like, I am not going to use splash now am I.


----------



## TheCruel (Mar 24, 2014)

> Some critics even considered the recent_ Pokémon X and Y_ story lines weak enough for a five year old to have concocted.


 
Please... the plot of Pokemon Y has shaped the very fabric of my being and has made me a better person overall. I will forever be indebted to what it has taught me.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 25, 2014)

Neither Pokemon nor Super Smash Bros. are complex games - they're only as complex as the fan base perceives them. Fire beats grass, water beats fire, grass beats water - bam, Pokemon. Sure, you have additional stats on top of that, but nothing beyond what any game based on a stats system would offer. The only portion of the game that's arguably complex is the IV and EV system, which isn't really so much complex as it is stupid and completely unnecessary. As for Smash Bros., it's a brawler like any other. Different movesets for different characters does not elevate the game above other fighters or brawlers - unique moves are something to be expected from this kind of a game. Anyone arguing that Pokemon is based on a complex system clearly never played any form of D&D, anyone who argues Smash Bros. is a serious fighting game never played Tekken. That's besides the point though, as FAST nails it, as per usual.

The whole point of video game design is to create systems that are straight-forward, easily understood and easily implemented, but at the same time relatively broad to allow multiple approaches, both from the designer's and the player's point of view. A game system doesn't necessarily have to be complex to be all-encompassing and wholesome, and the other way around, a simple system may be _"too simple"_, making the player feel like a complete moron, nullifying the sense of achievement when utilizing it correctly - everything depends on the game in question.

On one hand, we have games like Jetpack Joyride or Flappy Bird which are incredibly popular because the whole gameplay is controlled by just one button or tap _(with a degree of gameplay customization in Jetpack Joyride)_, on the other we have huge, complex RPG's which take into account dozens of variables, all of which are relevant at every step of the gameplay... and those games co-exist just fine.

You're not in the mood for a cinnamon bun whenever you enter a bakery, even if you love cinnamon buns. Every now and then, you're going to feel like buying a doughnut instead, and that's perfectly fine. Not only that, it's almost a given that you'll meet people out there that actually hate cinnamon buns - you'll never understand why, but you know they're out there, chomping down on a doughnut as we speak.

Games come in various shapes and sizes and they're all relevant on the market, really. Simple or complex, the game has one primary purpose and that purpose is to entertain. If a game does that, it can compete both with Skyrim and with Angry Birds, because at the end of the day it doesn't matter if a game is simple or complex, what matters is whether it's fun or not - the rest is a matter of tastes.


TheCruel said:


> Please... the plot of Pokemon Y has shaped the very fabric of my being and has made me a better person overall. I will forever be indebted to what it has taught me.


You mean pre-school level morality and pseudo-science?


----------



## Gahars (Mar 25, 2014)

Do people really like one or the other? People aren't going to find satisfaction in the simplest of tasks and most complicated games aren't suited for quick, light play sessions. It's all in a continuum; sometimes you want something light, sometimes you want something weightier, and a lot of the times you'll be happy for something in between.

That goes for anything, really - from movies to books to food.

Some people may prefer one over the other in general, but I don't think there's much of a contention. This is an industry where both Angry Birds and Dota can thrive, after all.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Mar 25, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Not only that, it's almost a given that you'll meet people out there that actually hate cinnamon buns


 
Bullshit. Bull. Shit. Everybody loves cinnamon buns  GTFO if you don't


As for the thread, Foxi pretty much hit on just about everything I was going to mention in a more fleshed out way, so what he said.

Also Foxi fix your formatting on the quote and everything below, I can't read it


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 25, 2014)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> Bullshit. Bull. Shit. Everybody loves cinnamon buns  GTFO if you don't
> 
> 
> As for the thread, Foxi pretty much hit on just about everything I was going to mention in a more fleshed out way, so what he said.
> ...


Wat? You mean my signature? That's the default colour for quotes in signatures. If you mean the post itself, everything's in default colour already.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Mar 25, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Wat? You mean my signature? That's the default colour for quotes in signatures. If you mean the post itself, everything's in default colour already.


 
You know what I meant shut up


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 25, 2014)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> You know what I meant shut up


You mean _"Ugh, Foxi! I can't read fo' s*it because I insist on using Dark Theme, the one and only theme in which 9 out of 10 times the site is unreadable! ;O;"_, right?


----------



## 2ndApex (Mar 25, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> As for Smash Bros., it's a brawler like any other. Different movesets for different characters does not elevate the game above other fighters or brawlers - unique moves are something to be expected from this kind of a game. Anyone arguing that Pokemon is based on a complex system clearly never played any form of D&D, *anyone who argues Smash Bros. is a serious fighting game never played Tekken.* That's besides the point though, as FAST nails it, as per usual./quote]


Tekken is a hard fighting game in the sense that you have a lot of lot of command normals to remember and its kind of like Smash in the sense that you have air control and tech roll coverage during your combos but doesn't have nearly the amount of depth Melee does. Unique movesets aren't what makes Melee special/hard, it's the fact that you have analog movement, dynamic hitstun/knockback, platforms, the fact that victim of a combo has +-30 degrees-ish of influence of the angle their sent back, and 7 options on knockdown.

Scroll down the the part about covering options after an FThrow with Marth against Jigglypuff: http://smashboards.com/threads/kadano’s-perfect-marth-class—advanced-frame-data-application.337035/

That's the amount of reading and factors that need to be considered during EVERY SINGLE HIT of a combo during Smash, and the example above is actually a relatively simple one because it's covering kill options and not combos into other moves and not taking platforms (or distance from the ledge) into consideration. For most traditional fighters, combos can be memorized and performed the exact same way a million times regardless of match or training mode.

What makes this such great design is that all of this complexly usable knowledge is actually a result of really simple mechanics that make casual play more fun. Directional Influence (controlling the angle where you character gets hit) was implemented for people to feel the "Mario Kart" effect where people like to turn learn entire bodies and sticks in the direction they want to go. The dynamic knockback/histun system is just a result of the core "hit them more and they'll go flying" Smash design. Tech rolls are a simple idea that have been around for forever. Yet when you put it all together it's crazy mix of analog precision and an almost jazz-like improvisation that makes the game look both crazier and faster year after year, and it's the perfect example of why accessibility and depth in video games are not mutually exclusive.

There's a reason why Melee's been out for 14 years, still has tournaments, and still hasn't peaked yet in both it's scene or metagame.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 25, 2014)

This applies to pretty much every single fighting game in the universe, 2ndApex. Chaining combos has been the basis of fighters since the dawn of time, it's not something out of the ordinary and it doesn't make Smash Bros. complex by any stretch of the imagination. The reason why the game is still played is because it's a fun game with likable, recognizable characters, not because it's terribly elaborate. If you happen to have a PS3, a 360 or a gaming PC, go online and play a little bit of Mortal Kombat _(the new one)_ - chances are that you'll meet a player who will juggle the living sh*t out of you before you can say _"that's not fair!"_ because he knows how to chain hits very well. Smash has about as much depth as any other fighter out there, it's good, but it's not special.


----------



## 2ndApex (Mar 25, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> This applies to pretty much every single fighting game in the universe, 2ndApex. Chaining combos has been the basis of fighters since the dawn of time, it's not something out of the ordinary and it doesn't make Smash Bros. complex by any stretch of the imagination. The reason why the game is still played is because it's a fun game with likable, recognizable characters, not because it's terribly elaborate. If you happen to have a PS3, a 360 or a gaming PC, go online and play a little bit of Mortal Kombat _(the new one)_ - chances are that you'll meet a player who will juggle the living sh*t out of you before you can say _"that's not fair!"_ because he knows how to chain hits very well. Smash has about as much depth as any other fighter out there, it's good, but it's not special.


 

I don't think you read my post at all. IM(very biased)O Mortal Kombat isn't even that great of a fighting game compared to something like King of Fighters 13 or MvC2 but that's not the point. In traditional fighting games the execution for a character combo is EXACTLY the same every single time, there is *zero player to player interaction* when your team is getting lightning looped by Zero in MvC3 from 100% to death.

Smash is different because the victim controls the way he gets pushed back after every hit in a large number of ways (as detailed above, moreso with the thread link) so he/she has a chance to escape and hang onto a life for an obscene amount of damage or get knocked out in a string following the first hit. The more thread relevant part of this is how it manages to do this and create more depth with simpler mechanics, compared to something like the new Killer Instinct which is also a good game but does so with a relatively convoluted and "flowcharty" combo/combo breaker system.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 25, 2014)

Again, every single fighter is based on player-versus-player interaction and almost every fighter has ways to block, interrupt or even use the opponent's combos against him by using throws or some form of deflecting moves, these kinds of mechanics are not special and exclusive to Smash. Don't get me wrong, Smash is a good game in its own right, but that doesn't make it a complex game which is what I was arguing all along - it's a very simple fighter. A well-executed one, but a simple one nonetheless. The fact that some people dissect it into atoms to squeeze out the best possible performance is a matter of it having a huge fandom, not a matter of the metagame itself.


----------



## 2ndApex (Mar 25, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Again, every single fighter is based on player-versus-player interaction and almost every fighter has ways to block, interrupt or even use the opponent's combos against him by using throws or some form of deflecting moves, these kinds of mechanics are not special and exclusive to Smash..


 

That's a lot less true than you'd think. Tatsunoko vs Capcom has 2 bar bursts and Killer Instinct has combo breakers but they're one press desperation actions and in no fighting game can you ever "throw out of a combo" or "use the opponent's combos against him" (unless your playing the bootleg Street Fighter 2 Rainbow Edition, let alone have complete analog angular manipulation over every attack. People block during combos because they're hoping for the opponent to mess up before the finish.


----------



## anhminh (Mar 25, 2014)

Does Flappy Bird count as complex game?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 25, 2014)

2ndApex said:


> That's a lot less true than you'd think. Tatsunoko vs Capcom has 2 bar bursts and Killer Instinct has combo breakers but they're one press desperation actions and in no fighting game can you ever "throw out of a combo" or "use the opponent's combos against him" (unless your playing the bootleg Street Fighter 2 Rainbow Edition, let alone have complete analog angular manipulation over every attack. People block during combos because they're hoping for the opponent to mess up before the finish.


_Pretty_ sure that SF4 offers counter-throws for every throw move and well-timed grabs can interrupt combos unless you're already being juggled, but alright. As for _"total angular control of your attacks"_, Smash doesn't have that - attack directions are completely pre-calculated, as are character animations - there's left, right, up, down and diagonals with the exception of PK Thunder and, if I recall, the grapling hooks for Link and Samus, but I may be wrong about those two. I think you're mistaking Smash with Rag Doll Kung Fu.


----------



## Felipe_9595 (Mar 25, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Again, every single fighter is based on player-versus-player interaction and almost every fighter has ways to block, interrupt or even use the opponent's combos against him by using throws or some form of deflecting moves, these kinds of mechanics are not special and exclusive to Smash. Don't get me wrong, Smash is a good game in its own right, but that doesn't make it a complex game which is what I was arguing all along - it's a very simple fighter. A well-executed one, but a simple one nonetheless. The fact that some people dissect it into atoms to squeeze out the best possible performance is a matter of it having a huge fandom, not a matter of the metagame itself.


 

Smash at, at first glance, isn't a complex game, it has very simple mechanics that anyone with pick easily. But the game is the definition of "Easy to pick, hard to master". Also, no, i cant name a single game where directional influence exists, or for the matter, there isnt a single game with the mobility of smash bros or for the matter, its depth if we dont include some hardcore jap. games like Melty Blood or Hisoutensoku. The game has simply mechanics but the way everything is related is incredible complex. Also, Smash is arguably the most complex fighting game evr made, as 2nd apex, 2 strings will not result in the same dtrajectory/combo because all the factors that affect everything, like DI, Smash DI, tech, rolls, cancels and the way the stage interacts with the characters.

EDIT: Ftilts and Fsmash dont go forward, they follow your stick direction, they can be aimed, Firefox (Fox Up b) has a total control over it, same for pikachu/pichu 's up B, aerial momentum is affected by minimal stick inputs, a 10° slant of the stick changes everything.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 25, 2014)

Felipe_9595 said:


> Smash at, at first glance, isn't a complex game, it has very simple mechanics that anyone with pick easily. But the game is the definition of "Easy to pick, hard to master". Also, no, i cant name a single game where directional influence exists, or for the matter, there isnt a single game with the mobility of smash bros or for the matter, its depth if we dont include some hardcore jap. games like Melty Blood or Hisoutensoku. The game has simply mechanics but the way everything is related is incredible complex. Also, Smash is arguably the most complex fighting game evr made, as 2nd apex, *2 strings will not result in the same dtrajectory/combo because all the factors that affect everything*, like DI, Smash DI, tech, rolls, cancels and the way the stage interacts with the characters.


...you mean to say that the game has physics? Whoopdie-doo, now that's a development! More people on the Smash Train, good for you guys, but we'll have to agree to disagree - Smash is only as complex as the fan base wants it to be.




Felipe_9595 said:


> EDIT: Ftilts and Fsmash dont go forward, they follow your stick direction, they can be aimed, Firefox (Fox Up b) has a total control over it, same for pikachu/pichu 's up B, aerial momentum is affected by minimal stick inputs, a 10° slant of the stick changes everything.


Again, rare exceptions for moves that were practically designed as escape moves or moves that are supposed to get you back in the ring more so than as attacks. Moreover, I'm not even entirely sure if they're controlled in 360 degrees or just 8 directions, I'd have to look that up.


----------



## Felipe_9595 (Mar 25, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> ...you mean to say that the game has physics? Whoopdie-doo, now that's a development! More people on the Smash Train, good for you guys, but we'll have to agree to disagree - Smash is only as complex as the fan base wants it to be.


 

Yes, the game has  (wait for it).... *complex physics ....* it's not a matter if you agree or not, it's a matter of how the metagame of the game works. You dont see new advanced techniques for street fighter third strike/Killer Instinct/Tekken in 2014, 14 years after they release. They have a skillcap. Said Skillcap has yet to be reached in SSB Melee, it has been 14 years and there are still new advanced techniques being found, every year a new player arises taking the top places (Sometimes something unexpected like a Yoshi, a low tier character, placing 9th at apex 2014 (Player: Amsa)). A game that isnt complex cant survive 14 years in a community who ditch every old version for a new one even if it's inferior.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 25, 2014)

Felipe_9595 said:


> Yes, the game has (wait for it).... *complex physics ....* it's not a matter if you agree or not, it's a matter of how the metagame of the game works. You dont see new advanced techniques for street fighter third strike/Killer Instinct/Tekken in 2014, 14 years after they release. They have a skillcap. Said Skillcap has yet to be reached in SSB Melee, it has been 14 years and there are still new advanced techniques being found, every year a new player arises taking the top places (Sometimes something unexpected like a Yoshi, a low tier character, placing 9th at apex 2014 (Player: Amsa)). A game that isnt complex cant survive 14 years in a community who ditch every old version for a new one even if it's inferior.


Yes, yes it can. There's people playing Counter Strike 1.6 to this day and the game is anything but complex, unless you treat decreasing accuracy during automatic fire _"complexity"_ in this day and age. You can believe in whatever you want to believe, I'm going to stand by what I said and maintain that Smash is not a terribly complex game, it's a simple fighter which admittedly has physics, but that doesn't make it a complex game... which is _okay_ because unless you've missed my initial post here, I specifically argued that a game doesn't have to be complex to be fun. _"Easy to Play, Hard to Master"_ applies to Smash Bros., sure, hence all the _"advanced techniques"_ which in any other context would just be called _"good combos"_ or _"exploiting the game"_, depending on how _"advanced"_ they are. 

Now can we please stop yapping about Smash and get back to the main subject at hand, which is whether simple and complex games can co-exist in the same gaming market? Great.


----------



## Dork (Mar 25, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Now can we please stop yapping about Smash and get back to the main subject at hand, which is whether simple and complex games can co-exist in the same gaming market? Great.


 
Not really much to discuss in this thread, since we know that both simple and complex games already coexist.


----------



## Felipe_9595 (Mar 25, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Yes, yes it can. There's people playing Counter Strike 1.6 to this day and the game is anything but complex. You can believe in whatever you want to believe, I'm going to stand by what I said and maintain that Smash is not a terribly complex game, it's a simple fighter which admittedly has physics, but that doesn't make it a complex game... which is _okay_ because unless you've missed my initial post here, I specifically argued that a game doesn't have to be complex to be fun. _"Easy to Play, Hard to Master"_ applies to Smash Bros., sure, hence all the _"advanced techniques"_ which in any other context would just be called _"good combos"_ or _"exploiting the game"_, depending on how _"advanced"_ they are.


 

 I guess you can say Beatmania is a very simple game no? i mean, you have 7 buttons (8 if you consider the disc) and you have to tap them in a pattern. Really simple "mechanics"  no? based on that, this is simple then?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 25, 2014)

Felipe_9595 said:


> I guess you can say Beatmania is a very simple game no? i mean, you have 7 buttons (8 if you consider the disc) and you have to tap them in a pattern. Really simple "mechanics" no? based on that, this is simple then?


Of course it's simple. Degree of difficulty and simplicity of design are two mutually exclusive matters.


----------



## Felipe_9595 (Mar 25, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Of course it's simple. Degree of difficulty and simplicity of design are two mutually exclusive matters.


 

Then thats where we are disagreeing, i find that extremely complex and i could never pull that in my life unless i spend 7-8 years of my life practicing in all my free time. Same concept than smash in a very, very superficial level. SImple mechanics, extremely hard to master = complex, at least for me and half the people out there.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 25, 2014)

Felipe_9595 said:


> Then thats where we are disagreeing, i find that extremely complex and i could never pull that in my life unless i spend 7-8 years of my life practicing in all my free time. Same concept than smash in a very, very superficial level. SImple mechanics, extremely hard to master = complex, at least for me and half the people out there.


You have 8 buttons. Notes fall down on a screen. You press buttons when the notes are at the right level. This is not complex, this is as simple as it gets, get any simpler than that and you're playing with sticks and stones. It's essentially a matter of pressing buttons when you're prompted to do so. It's _difficult_ because it's fast and there's a lot of ground to cover with 8 buttons used at the same time, but at the core of it all, it's Guitar Hero minus the strumming and all the instruments aside from the guitar. High difficulty does not equal high complexity, they're two completely different things.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 25, 2014)

Oh boy, the "Smash Bros. is deep, honest!" brigade has arrived.

If you like it, like it. You don't have to try to validate your opinions by claiming it's deep and complex. It's a party brawler/mascot fighter, you don't have to make it anything more than that.

Honestly, competitive scenes are about the worst thing to happen to games since the '83 crash. Scratch that - at least you could still have fun in the '83 crash.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 25, 2014)

Gahars said:


> Oh boy, the "Smash Bros. is deep, honest!" brigade has arrived.
> 
> If you like it, like it. You don't have to try to validate your opinions by claiming it's deep and complex. It's a party brawler/mascot fighter, you don't have to make it anything more than that.
> 
> Honestly, competitive scenes are about the worst thing to happen to games since the '83 crash. Scratch that - at least you could still have fun in the '83 crash.


No Gahars, we have to make it out to be unnecessarily convoluted and complex when all signs on heaven and Earth actually point to the fact that none of these _"competitive speshul taktiks"_ were even conceived by the developers, these guys just made a fighting game and it turned out that way, which is the case 99 out of 100 times in game development, hence games are beta tested for long periods of time and often patched post-release to handle balancing problems. No, Smash was totally designed to be complex, every degree matters, it wasn't supposed to be a wholesome couch experience for people to enjoy. 

Again, my point with Smash and its _"scene"_ is that you can dissect any game in search of exploitable moves or those pixel-perfect positions that give you some sort of an advantage. You can dissect Pac Man for crying out loud - after all, each ghost has unique A.I. so if you _really _want to, you can _strategize Pac Man_.

_*Insert "I wanna be the very best like no one ever was.mp3"*_


----------



## Ryukouki (Mar 25, 2014)

Technically based on a person's definition we can argue anything to be complex! Isn't this so much fun?!


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Mar 25, 2014)

Ryukouki, no offense, but that grey area of yours doesn't make for very stimulating conversation. Pretty much everyone who posts in these articles says "both" when it's applicable, or "yes" because you ask questions that can only be answered in an absolutist way. Yes, simple and complex games coexist, sometimes within one game itself.

Regarding the questions you asked at the end, my mood changes. If I want to think and be mentally challenged, I'll play a puzzle, strategy, or tactical role playing game, which are almost always complex (puzzles not so much). Sometimes, however, I just wanna plow through a group of enemies. A game that is reflex-based isn't necessarily simple, but because they're designed to be fast-paced, something that is too complex might be too difficult. And sometimes I just wanna play a game like Angry Birds, where I'm thinking but also often going through several trials-and-errors because of the physics involved.

None of the types of games I listed are better than others. They each serve a purpose. For example, say you're waiting for something or someone, and only have ~!5 minutes to spare. If you were to play video games during that time, it's highly unlikely that you'll pick a complex one, because they usually end up taking a long time to do, have saves few and far between, and/or aren't tailored to interruptions in strategy. In that case, a simple game would probably be the way to go.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 25, 2014)

Well I thought we were in for a "I are pokemon player, hear me roar" session. Turns out we had got a smash brothers one instead. Still amusing though.

The only real problem is for pokemon we can at least try some basic things for; as much of a wind up as I tried to be in the pokemon legitimate vs legal stuff there was at least some theory behind it, smash competitions seem to be so abysmally organised/codified* though I get hung up there. If I try to leave it behind I would probably agree that the game is not what you could call balanced, which probably sends us back along the path the contests take even if I would set about it in a whole different way.

*at best they seem to get house ruled to such an extent that the game might only be recognisable as smash brothers for the characters it features, or at least the few ones that are allowed. The justifications for a lot of it is adorable though.



Foxi4 said:


> You can dissect Pac Man for crying out loud - after all, each ghost has unique A.I. so if you _really _want to, you can _strategize Pac Man_.



Already been done.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/41888021/Five_Things_You_Never_Knew_About_Pac_Man


----------



## 2ndApex (Mar 25, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> _Pretty_ sure that SF4 offers counter-throws for every throw move and well-timed grabs can interrupt combos unless you're already being juggled, but alright. As for _"total angular control of your attacks"_, Smash doesn't have that - attack directions are completely pre-calculated, as are character animations - there's left, right, up, down and diagonals with the exception of PK Thunder and, if I recall, the grapling hooks for Link and Samus, but I may be wrong about those two. I think you're mistaking Smash with Rag Doll Kung Fu.


 

SF4 has tech throws, so if two people throw at the same time they both bounce back, but no you cannot "throw" out of combos. Total angular control means that person getting hit has control over his angle of knockback, I think I've said it like 3 times already but this thread is already completely derailed.


----------



## Steena (Mar 25, 2014)

Felipe_9595 said:


> Yes, the game has (wait for it).... *complex physics ....* it's not a matter if you agree or not, it's a matter of how the metagame of the game works. You dont see new advanced techniques for street fighter third strike/Killer Instinct/Tekken in 2014, 14 years after they release. They have a skillcap.


 
So why doesn't the same player always win in SF2, a game released 25 years ago? Where's this skill cap you're talking about? Who reached it? Can you point it out to me? I'm afraid you don't actually understand what makes fighting games competitive or complex. It's not the physical execution / engine knowledge, that is the very first layer of depth there is to them. A required entry into the competitiveness, a means for an end (to maximize damage/movement).

The meat of fighting games is guessing, predicting, being a step ahead, calculating risks/rewards. Sometimes taking damage is a GOOD IDEA in specific situations. Of course, a Smash fanatic does not see this because the platformy movement kills most of the spacing game so it becomes all about the physics engine. That doesn't mean every fighting game is lacking. It merely means that smash is prioritizing a skillset over another.

Besides, there are still examples of notable players who are able to pull technicalities off that the vast majority of other top tier players cannot. In SFIV, Sakonoko is known worldwide for being the only one actual master of Cammy and Ibuki, despite there being other master tier Cammy and Ibuki players who could easily win the biggest tournaments.

As for why people discover things in smash every year? Up until a few years ago, no pro player was getting paid any reasonable amount of money by  sponsors. Infact, almost nobody had a sponsor. This leads to a bigger number of players being unable to play the game for the entirety of their days, and so things are discovered more slowly. Not to mention that the smash competitive community as a whole has been much smaller in the past, and the lack of minor regional tournaments with a prize pool hurt the scene for 10 years. Also, japan outright ignoring smash is a big contributor to smash being discovered slowly; the japanese are in general the most attached to fighting games' competitiveness and arcades are still a cultural thing in there, the gatherings are big and happen every single night. Smash is only big in america, that is the main factor that makes it progress slowly.

It's not that other fighting games have no mechanical skill cap, it's just that the techniques are found faster because the competitive community is all across the world, bigger, and more enthusiastic. Matter of perspective. Between option selects, input buffering, and specific ambiguous crossups there are dozens of advanced tricks per character, they merely mostly focus on strategy rather than pure finger dexterity.

Oh, and besides, the aforementioned Cammy/Ibuki 1-frame links loops are technically more difficult to pull off to their max extent than anything currently discovered in Smash, so you've got the technical parts covered if you really value them so much.


----------



## Urza (Mar 25, 2014)

If I may play therapist for a moment here...


Foxi4, why are you trying so adamantly to win an argument on a subject you very clearly are not interested in, with people who are much more knowledgeable about it? Is it some sort of superiority complex in which you must engage in shitting on things other people enjoy, and always maintain the illusion that you're the most knowledgeable person on every subject ever?

I know how that can be, I've been that person.

You'll have a lot more time for productive endeavors if you give up that effort. Let people enjoy things that you don't, accept that they might know more than you about those things. Come to the realization that, even if you're right most of the time, that doesn't mean you're right all of the time. Opposing viewpoints should not be a trigger to double-down. They're an opportunity to re-examine your own.


----------



## lampdemon (Mar 25, 2014)

What makes Smash a complex fighting games are its mechanics/physics, what makes other fighting games complex are the "press 20 buttons to do one move"(a bit of an exaggeration) and slightly different mechanics than other games.


----------



## Steena (Mar 25, 2014)

lampdemon said:


> What makes Smash a complex fighting games are its mechanics/physics, what makes other fighting games complex are the "press 20 buttons to do one move"(a bit of an exaggeration) and slightly different mechanics than other games.


There are plenty of characters/games that are extremely easy on the dialing side of things. Yet you'll most likely lose 30 matches in a row if you played against a top player using the same simple character. So I'm inclined to disagree with that.


----------



## lampdemon (Mar 25, 2014)

It's obvious that pros will beat newbies in games where luck is not a factor.


----------



## Chary (Mar 25, 2014)

The arguments here are more complex than the games themselves at this point!


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 25, 2014)

@OP: I'll go with the "easy to learn, hard to master" approach. There are lots of games where this applies, but also games where it simply doesn't...

-games where you level up or gain newer abilities during the game shouldn't be counted. Sure, it looks as if you improved, but this method is actually a bit like cheating. In a good game, all the rules should be layed out at the beginning. This isn't to say you can't get better (checkers both utilises simple and complex, despite your pieces "levelling up" if they reach the other side of the board), but it should be in consideration. There shouldn't be any grind to it.
-there are also games that already start out pretty complex or hard. Most RTS-es have this whole tech tree you'll have to know or find out, shooters have these maps and styles. Open world games often are a toolbox of all sorts of games (though they're called "minigames" nowadays). I could go on.

Man...now I think of it, it'll be hard to name anything other than platformers, board games or puzzle games to fill the "easy to learn, hard to master" criteria. 

Of course, not all games should try to incorporate both. It's perfectly fine to have a game that tutorializes people in the course of several hours. And games that are simple but have no depth to them...hmm...okay, I'll admit to that: if you want to make a simple game, make sure there is a depth to it; something to master or perfect. If not (or if the skill isn't gradually learned through the game) it'll be just a boring game.

There is certainly something to be said about the simplicity & complexity of single game characters, but I'd rather keep that for a different topic. I don't want to sound like the guy who wants to deem his "gameplay is all that matters!!!!" standpoint, but gameplay and story can't be measured by the same standards. and comparing characters, that should be done with other characters*. I mean...you won't think less of chess because the pieces don't have names or deep motivational motives for the moves you're making them do, right?

Now for a recent example...Zuma's revenge. Things really can't start out more simple: you're at the end of a sort of railroad track that circles around you and colored balls head toward you. Your only weapon is shooting colored balls at that track; match three or more of the same color and that part will disappear. In the end, you have to avoid the line of balls to make it all the way to your position. It's really as simple as it sounds (and looks even easier if you see it in action), but that doesn't make it a simple game. Oh, and the plot is virtually non-existent as well. You wash up on some island and some bad guys don't like it. You fight them. It's not going to win prizes in that aspect but I'd rather keep it like this than pitiful attempts to shoehorn in unnecessary drama (you don't make that shit up when playing sports either, right?).
That said...the game is far more complex than it looks at first glance. For one thing, the string of balls that come your way isn't endless. It depends on the score. Which means that striking combo's (which award more points), shooting through self-made openings for combo's behind the front lines and catching the bonusses that appear on the side of the tracks actually matter for other things than cosmetic reasons (the more you have of those, the faster the constant supply of balls stops). Chaining combo's tend to create more one-time bonusses on the track and those are things you need to rely on in the higher levels. So while quick calculations of where to shoot your balls still matter, thinking ahead (while under constantly building pressure) is important as well.




*as it stands, I'm compiling my personal list with favorite villains. It contains both movies, series, games and comic books. there, the PC characters make their appearance DESPITE being on the PC


----------



## Black-Ice (Mar 25, 2014)

Felipe_9595 said:


> You dont see new advanced techniques for street fighter third strike/Killer Instinct/Tekken in 2014, 14 years after they release. They have a skillcap. Said Skillcap has yet to be reached in SSB Melee, it has been 14 years and there are still new advanced techniques being found,


 
.......Whaaaat?

Listen im sorry but you people must have been playing some next SSB melee super korean hyper version coz you're seeing things in this game that no normal person is.
Please stop comparing the latest fighters to Melee. Tekken Tag 2 is better than Super smash melee in every single way. Every
If its taken you 14 years to understand how to play Melee, you're a bad gamer imo.


----------



## lampdemon (Mar 25, 2014)

There's a difference between knowing how to play a game and finding out new strategies on it years after it was released.

I could say Arcana Heart games are the best fighting games because they seem more balanced than others(because of its arcana system), but that wont make it true, its just my opinion.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 25, 2014)

Urza said:


> If I may play therapist for a moment here...
> 
> 
> Foxi4, why are you trying so adamantly to win an argument on a subject you very clearly are not interested in, with people who are much more knowledgeable about it? Is it some sort of superiority complex in which you must engage in shitting on things other people enjoy, and always maintain the illusion that you're the most knowledgeable person on every subject ever?
> ...


By no means, I merely have a feverent dislike of people who try to take something and make it out to be more than it actually is. Smash is a fun game, it has hoards of fans and there are good reasons for it - it's fast-paced, it has a set of likable characters, it's well-executed, well-constructed, in short, it's a very wholesome video game. It was never designed to be complex though - it was designed as a fun, fast-paced multiplayer party fighter, at its core it's a casual game and calling it complex is just something that doesn't quite click in my head.

Again, you can exploit any game out there, any game will have control scheme quirks or some planned or unplanned relations between button mashes that could lead to desired effects in terms of cometitiveness if exploited, you can dissect any game to locate hit boxes or range anomalies - wherever there's variables, there's analysis. This doesn't make Smash any special in terms of complexity, it just means that it has a large number of devotees.

I'm not here to sh*t on anyone's parade and I'm not trying to be _"that guy"_ - I like Smash. Smash is fun, it's a good game. I'll go as far to say that dissecting it like this takes away some of the fun from it, but that's besides the point. No, I'm not a Smash scholar and I don't think I'd ever want to be, I prefer to take the game for what it actually is instead of analyzing the pseudo-intricate relations between moves and gentle tilts of the analog stick that amount to nothing more than exploiting hitbox positions. I'm not arguing that it's a bad game or that the fact it's not complex makes it worse than Tekken, Mortal Kombat or Street Fighter - it's nod bad, it's different.


FAST6191 said:


> Already been done.
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/id/41888021/Five_Things_You_Never_Knew_About_Pac_Man


I'm actually well-aware of in-depth analysis of Pac Man, which is why I used the example here. There's whole books dedicated to _"winning at Pac Man"_, see below:


Spoiler











You'd think that this should be pamphlet-sized - it's _not_, the digital release is 162 pages long, the first being the cover, and those pages are _full_ of diagrams and strategies. For _Pac Mac_, a game about eating pellets while being chased by four A.I.'s - the last thing you'd call _"complex"_.

Any game has a degree of depth, but that doesn't mean that all games are complex - some are more complex than others, which is my entire point.


lampdemon said:


> What makes Smash a complex fighting games are its mechanics/physics, what makes other fighting games complex are the "press 20 buttons to do one move"(a bit of an exaggeration) and slightly different mechanics than other games.


Wow... I couldn't disagree more. If _"other fighting games"_ were based purely on _"press this combination of buttons to win"_, we wouldn't have tournaments, that's just a silly approach. Learning button combinations is one thing, learning how to link them into longer chains, when to use them, what should be the spacing between characters to connect and other such matters is another. On that note, I'm going to agree with Steena here saying that indeed, fighting games simply prioritize different sets of skills, which is why they're different from one another.


----------



## Arras (Mar 25, 2014)

Felipe_9595 said:


> I guess you can say Beatmania is a very simple game no? i mean, you have 7 buttons (8 if you consider the disc) and you have to tap them in a pattern. Really simple "mechanics" no? based on that, this is simple then?


I think you're mixing up complex concepts and games that are hard(/complex) to play. The concept behind beatmania is as simple as it gets, it's just hard as nails. It's the ultimate easy to get/learn - hard to master situation.


----------



## Urza (Mar 25, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm not here to sh*t on anyone's parade


 
Yet the statement is directly preceded and followed by additional paragraphs expressing why only your view is correct, and that anyone who gets something different out of the game is wrong.


----------



## lampdemon (Mar 25, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Wow... I couldn't disagree more. If _"other fighting games"_ were based purely on _"press this combination of buttons to win"_, we wouldn't have tournaments, that's just a silly approach. Learning button combinations is one thing, learning how to link them into longer chains, when to use them, what should be the spacing between characters to connect and other such matters is another. On that note, I'm going to agree with Steena here saying that indeed, fighting games simply prioritize different sets of skills, which is why they're different from one another.


 

The point that I was trying to convey was that, most fighting games over complicate things by adding ridiculous button combinations to do certain moves(think specials/ultimates), we've had enough buttons in the controllers these past few generations to keep things simple, and smash proves that.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Mar 25, 2014)

with things like cookie clicker around and being kinda successful, I'm sure theres room even for the simplest games


----------



## Gahars (Mar 25, 2014)

Urza said:


> Yet the statement is directly preceded and followed by additional paragraphs expressing why only your view is correct, and that anyone who gets something different out of the game is wrong.


 

Of course he thinks that his view is correct - it's his opinion. That's the name of the game.

Arguing his opinion and providing justification doesn't equal shitting on people, though.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 25, 2014)

Urza said:


> Yet the statement is directly preceded and followed by additional paragraphs expressing why only your view is correct, and that anyone who gets something different out of the game is wrong.


See above. I've stated it before:


Foxi4 said:


> You can believe in whatever you want to believe, I'm going to stand by what I said and maintain that Smash is not a terribly complex game, it's a simple fighter which admittedly has physics, but that doesn't make it a complex game... which is _okay_ because unless you've missed my initial post here, I specifically argued that a game doesn't have to be complex to be fun.


Everyone is free to have their own opinion and every opinion can be contested - mine is that Smash isn't a complex game and I don't see any substantial evidence to prove otherwise, only evidence that people analyze the game and its inner workings, which is not a testament of its complexity, which is why I drew the Pac Man example.

That, and the word _"complex"_ is vague in the context of video games anyways. Gameplay mechanics can be considered to be complex by some and simple by others - to me, they're simple and that's about that. By _"not sh*tting on anyone's parade"_ I meant that my mind is not set to prove anyone is stupid for thinking that Smash is complex, rather to present and justify my opinion why it isn't. I contest their opinion and they contest mine, that's how discussions and debates work. This one is particularly heated, but that doesn't mean that I'm out to insult people for their preferences.


lampdemon said:


> The point that I was trying to convey was that, most fighting games over complicate things by adding ridiculous button combinations to do certain moves(think specials/ultimates), we've had enough buttons in the controllers these past few generations to keep things simple, and smash proves that.


That's pretty much the point of complexity - complex things have a tendency to be complicated, that's sort of the definition. Smash Bros. indeed keeps it simple, which is why it's a simple game, both at face value and to pick up and play. That's the point I've been driving at for those three pages and I really don't understand the uproar it's caused. Of course this goes beyond the simple level of combo execution, but the point stands - Smash was designed to be a simple game and it shows, which _doesn't make it a bad game_, to the contrary, I've been saying that it's a _good game_ all along. On the same token I praise Naruto games as good fighting games _(despite the fact that I find the show to be pretty uninspired)_ because of their simplicity - the learning curve is not steep and anyone can pick them up, however combining moves together into seamless combos is a matter of experience and skill which is gained by playing the game, it's a very similar case with Smash.


----------



## Steena (Mar 25, 2014)

lampdemon said:


> The point that I was trying to convey was that, most fighting games over complicate things by adding ridiculous button combinations to do certain moves(think specials/ultimates), we've had enough buttons in the controllers these past few generations to keep things simple, and smash proves that.


You almost make it sound like other fighting games have more buttons for the sake of having more buttons.

See:


Characters that have 20 types of ranges whose plan is to play the "keep out" game are only possible with those many amounts of inputs that allow for all the options you may need, provided you make the good predictions.
Dhalsim is a character that has little to no combos and gets destroyed in melee range by anyone. Nothing like this that is entirely based on ranged would ever be competitively viable in a smash game.

When complexity adds more options and more unique scenarios, while keeping a balance, then complexity is a good thing and only adds to the game.

Also super/ultra moves are hardly ridiculous button combinations lol, you learn how to execute those in 30 seconds. Consistently executing a melee "advanced technique" is much harder than inputting a bare ultra.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 25, 2014)

Steena said:


> _*Snip!*_


Sheer skill, combo execution, aerial versus ground and ranged versus close quarters aside, even the simple inclusion of high, mid and low hitboxes alone makes the average fighting game more complex than Smash in terms of mechanics - as far as I know, Smash only differentiates between _"Hit"_ and _"Not Hit"_ while the actual trajectory of knock-back is calculated depending on the direction from which the impact force comes, but I'm no Smash scientist. And no, I'm not talking about the attack sweet spots, because Smash does have varied ones depending on the attack and separate ones for grabs and throws, I'm talking about the damage areas on the character itself.

*EDIT:* More info on hitboxes in Smash available here. As we can see, there is no distinction between high, mid and low boxes for the attacks or for impact areas - there's only _"Damagable" (yellow)_ and _"Offensive"_ _(red)_ hitboxes for the character and the attack respectively, in addition to guard boxes, grab boxes etc.


----------



## Urza (Mar 25, 2014)

I'll make a more straightforward query to everyone in the thread since I'm interested: what would be two games you consider definitively simple, two games that you consider borderline, and two games you consider overtly complex?


----------



## Steena (Mar 25, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Sheer skill, combo execution, aerial versus ground and ranged versus close quarters aside, even the simple inclusion of high, mid and low hitboxes alone makes the average fighting game more complex than Smash in terms of mechanics - as far as I know, Smash only differentiates between _"Hit"_ and _"Not Hit"_ while the actual trajectory of knock-back is calculated depending on the direction from which the impact force comes, but I'm no Smash scientist. And no, I'm not talking about the attack sweet spots, because Smash does have varied ones depending on the attack and separate ones for grabs and throws, I'm talking about the damage areas on the character itself.
> 
> *EDIT:* More info on hitboxes in Smash available here. As we can see, there is no distinction between high, mid and low boxes for the attacks or for impact areas - there's only _"Damagable" (yellow)_ and _"Offensive"_ _(red)_ hitboxes for the character and the attack respectively, in addition to guard boxes, grab boxes etc.


 
You cannot have a good "high and low" system in smash because in order to execute special attacks you use all 4 directions comboed with the action button. Well I suppose theoretically you could, if you made all the down+A actions be recognized as low-hitting ones, but that would be extremely limited as each character would have a single low move and a single high move, it would be close to pointless in the way smash works.


On the topic of complexity versus simplicity, here is a different example that I love:


This is one of the more unique DOTA heroes. Those familiar with League of Legends should look at the inputs and see how closely it relates with theirs.
Basically, Invoker can invoke 3 different orbs, that inputted in a specific order, create a spell, which in turn gets replaced with a new orb combination and so on. Like Magicka, the game.
Needlessly complex to some, but unique, amazing and incredibly fun to others.

Complex mechanics can coexist with easy ones, provided the balance is there. Different things for people with different preferences is always better than being limited to a system that only includes one kind.
RIOT, the developer behind League of Legends, says that such a hero is detrimental to the player community. Because the casual players would be upset that they wouldn't be able to use it properly. Which is mind boggling to me.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 25, 2014)

Urza said:


> I'll make a more straightforward query to everyone in the thread since I'm interested: what would be two games you consider definitively simple, two games that you consider borderline, and two games you consider overtly complex?


In my honest opinion:

*(Incredibly) Simple:*

Pong, Flappy Bird and other similar casual games with no complex mechanics driving them
*Borderline (?):*

Games that are simple to play, but at the same time are driven by more complex gameplay mechanism which do not require player participation, for example racing games that are not simulations
*Complex:*

Games with a complex gameplay mechanism that requires player participation in order to play them, for example Baldur's Gate, Fallout and most RPG's
Here's my reasoning. Pong and Flappy Bird are both incredibly simple games with a very simple premise and very simple mechanics driving them, they're the epitome of what I would consider _"simple"_, or even minimalist. They best illustrate what I understand as simplicity - there is practically no learning curve because everything required to play them is presented to the player in a straight-forward way and there are no in-depth gameplay mechanics for one to consider. This simplicity can be extended onwards to _"more complex" _games like SHUMPs, the general idea is that if the game has no complex mechanisms that require mastering to actually play the game effectively, they're simple.

I would probably say that a borderline game is a game which is simple to pick up, however the mechanics that drive it may be pretty complex, require a degree of mastery _(or the mythical "skill")_, however they work in the background and do not require active player participation in order to function - they are taught by experience rather than by necessity. Most racing games could be put in this category - you are presented with a simple control scheme for controlling the vehicle, however in the background, there's a physics engine that controls most elements of your gameplay. Impact into a boundry at high speed is going to have more drastic effects than impact at low speed, cutting corners can allow you to get ahead of your opponents despite driving at a lower speed, utilizing drifting may allow you to cut those corners at a higher speed than it would normally be possible etc. The forementioned Smash fits neatly into this category simply because it contains physics, and this inclusion requires the player to strategize gameplay on the basis of the damage levels, the available skill set of the characters used etc.. In conclusion, a borderline game would be one that's very simple to pick up and play, but still designed with a somewhat complex system underneath the hood, a system about which the player is often completely unaware, but nevertheless a system that requires a degree of mastery.

Complex games are games based on a system of variables known to the player that directly impact gameplay in such a way that not knowing them would be detrimental to the player or in extreme cases it would actually stall the game. In the case of Baldur's Gate, this set of rules is directly based on D&D which is insanely complex on-paper and features such wonders like the _"Conga Line of Death"_ as described by Spoony according to which attacks from various directions cause a varied degree of damage on top of the obvious matters such as a skill tree, a stats system and other customizable and non-customizable elements of the mechanics. In some RPG's, it doesn't matter if you're holding a mace, a dagger or a sword - you're just doing X amount of damage and that's that. In D&D, you have to consider the amount of dice a given weapon uses to generate damage which can give you better or worse prospects _(in other words, maximum damage does not always directly translate to maximum DPS)_, the type of weapon _(two-handed, one-handed, double-weapon, dual wield etc.)_, the type of damage it deals_ (blunt, slashing, piercing etc.)_ and the type of your enemy and its defensive capabilities against said weapon. In the case of Fallout, the system used is called SPECIAL and it has seen a revival as of late in games like Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas and even Skyrim, in a modified way. In SPECIAL, the character's talents are represented in percentages which simplifies matters at face value, but the underlying mechanisms are still as complex as D&D, if not more so. In both later D&D and SPECIAL the direction the hits are coming from is not the sole determining factor of damage - you have to consider individual body parts of the enemy as well as the possibility that you might be able to deal a crippling strike... or receive one yourself, which can change the outcome of the battle substantially. Of course such complexity isn't limited to role-playing games - many shooters implement similar mechanics, cue the inevitable headshot reference. In short, by complexity I understand the degree of knowledge required to not just play the game, but to play it effectively. The more the game plays out in your head rather than in the actual game the more complex it is.

*tl;dr *I think I simply draw the lines between the three on the basis of gameplay mechanics. Games which do not feature a complicated gameplay mechanism of any kind and are presented in a simple fashion are simple, games that do feature such a mechanism, however said mechanism is in the background and does not require the player to actively participate in it are somewhere in-between, while games that require the player to utilize said mechanism and knowledge about it is absolutely crucial to gameplay are complex. Of course this is all purely theoretical - there are other matters that have to be considered, such as the actual complexity of the presented mechanism, the intentions of the developers, the way actual gameplay in played out and so on. It's all a very individual matter, I think.


Steena said:


> You cannot have a good "high and low" system in smash because in order to execute special attacks you use all 4 directions comboed with the action button. Well I suppose theoretically you could, if you made all the down+A actions be recognized as low-hitting ones, but that would be extremely limited as each character would have a single low move and a single high move, it would be close to pointless in the way smash works.


I think the biggest problem here would be the actual size of in-game models on the screen. I think the designers forfeit the idea of including the High/Mid/Low distinction in Smash simply because actually seeing what's going on on-screen is often a challenge and it wouldn't necessarily help players gain the edge, rather it would introduce a degree of randomness, if not chaos to the gameplay. knock-back trajectories are not an equivalent substitute in Smash, but they serve the game well and replacing them with something else would probably make Smash less Smashing - a joke to lighten up the atmosphere.


----------



## Arras (Mar 25, 2014)

I'm too lazy to think of the other categories, but complex? Dwarf Fortress


----------



## natkoden (Mar 25, 2014)

Urza said:


> If I may play therapist for a moment here...
> 
> 
> Foxi4, why are you trying so adamantly to win an argument on a subject you very clearly are not interested in, with people who are much more knowledgeable about it? Is it some sort of superiority complex in which you must engage in shitting on things other people enjoy, and always maintain the illusion that you're the most knowledgeable person on every subject ever?
> ...


 

Finally, someone said it. Extremely well put.

That guy ruins the forum experience for all of us, not the other way around.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Mar 25, 2014)

natkoden said:


> Finally, someone said it. Extremely well put.
> 
> That guy ruins the forum experience for all of us, not the other way around.


 


You are aware that the "forum experience" is essentially multiple parties discussing a certain topic, right? Foxi is discussing his own opinion against others or, y'know, having a conversation  Just because someone doesn't agree with an opinion doesn't mean they're "ruining" anything, especially when their opinion is well thought out and includes actual reasoning and facts against the other parties.

tl;dr cry moar.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 25, 2014)

natkoden said:


> Finally, someone said it. Extremely well put.
> 
> That guy ruins the forum experience for all of us, not the other way around.


I'm sorry to hear that you think of me that way, I never specifically set out to _"ruin"_ anyone's forum experience, although I admittedly do have the habit of getting into heated debates. I'll try to tone it down a little if it upsets you, but I suppose discussions are just the way I roll, especially on forums which exist solely for the purpose of discussing things.


----------



## GameWinner (Mar 25, 2014)

TheCruel said:


> Please... the plot of Pokemon Y has shaped the very fabric of my being and has made me a better person overall. I will forever be indebted to what it has taught me.


 
I hope this is a joke.


----------



## Ryukouki (Mar 25, 2014)

GameWinner said:


> I hope this is a joke.


 

It most likely is.


----------



## natkoden (Mar 25, 2014)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> You are aware that the "forum experience" is essentially multiple parties discussing a certain topic, right? Foxi is discussing his own opinion against others or, y'know, having a conversation  Just because someone doesn't agree with an opinion doesn't mean they're "ruining" anything, especially when their opinion is well thought out and includes actual reasoning and facts against the other parties.
> 
> tl;dr cry moar.


 

You are aware that stating your opinion is very different from trying to win every single argument while diminishing other people's opinions? It is very annoying to read a guy that express the same thing on every single one of his posts, that he's always correct and what you think is crap. That "I'm the most knowledgeable guy on earth" gets old extremely fast.

tl;dr you're a suck up


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Mar 25, 2014)

Othello a minute to learn, a lifetime to master!

I used to love that game back on the old systems, I think my Odyssey 2 played a pretty mean game of it. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Othello_(video_game)


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 25, 2014)

natkoden said:


> You are aware that stating your opinion is very different from trying to win every single argument while dimishing other people's opinions? It is very annoying to read a guy that express the same thing on every single one of his posts, that he's always correct and what you think is crap. That "I'm the most knowledgeable guy on earth" gets old extremely fast.
> 
> tl;dr you're a suck up


Let's not make this personal in this thread and do our best not to derail it any further, Ryukouki no doubt worked really hard preparing the discussion topic and I'd hate to be the subject that takes it completely off the rails. If you have a problem with me or with my approach to discussions on the forums, I apologize for my conduct and you're more than welcome to send me a list of your postulates against me over PM - don't worry, they will all be addressed. As a content contributor, it's very important to me to provide you guys with a wholesome forum-going experience and if you think that I'm too feverishly defending my point of view then you are free to complain, but not here. I'm actually pretty bummed out that you'd say that, since it was never my intention to offend anybody, rather to cause a stimulating discussion.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 25, 2014)

We always suspected Guild and Gahars were dupe accounts. Now Foxi4 is the Guild duplicate account?

More on topic. Generally if your opinions can not withstand scrutiny then....


----------



## Felipe_9595 (Mar 26, 2014)

Black-Ice said:


> .......Whaaaat?
> 
> Listen im sorry but you people must have been playing some next SSB melee super korean hyper version coz you're seeing things in this game that no normal person is.
> Please stop comparing the latest fighters to Melee. Tekken Tag 2 is better than Super smash melee in every single way. Every
> If its taken you 14 years to understand how to play Melee, you're a bad gamer imo.


 
Yup, such a superior game, a shame that it isn´t in EVO, or MLG, pretty sad no?

Insulting me doesn't make your game better lol Dick fights dont win arguments ;V


----------



## farmin (Mar 26, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> In my honest opinion:
> 
> *(Incredibly) Simple:*
> 
> ...


 
Nice, I'd even go as far as to add an 'Obtuse' category for games like Dwarf Fortress or Dark Souls where extensive knowledge of the core fundamentals is so important that without it the games become almost unplayable.


----------



## lampdemon (Mar 26, 2014)

I don't like it when games add complexity for the sake of being complex, I'll use a different example this time, like L-Cancelling in Smash Bros Melee(It was unintended in Smash 64 so it doesn't count). L-Cancelling is a way to reduce landing lag after a character does and aerial attack, so you'll be able to react faster, and if you don't do it, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage. Simply having characters auto-L-cancel would have the same effect with pros in tournaments.


----------



## Sakitoshi (Mar 26, 2014)

lampdemon said:


> I don't like it when games add complexity for the sake of being complex, I'll use a different example this time, like L-Cancelling in Smash Bros Melee(It was unintended in Smash 64 so it doesn't count). L-Cancelling is a way to reduce landing lag after a character does and aerial attack, so you'll be able to react faster, and if you don't do it, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage. Simply having characters auto-L-cancel would have the same effect with pros in tournaments.


 
the L-cancelling was eliminated on Brawl and everyone was whining because of that. some characters auto L-cancel, like Pikachu that can do an aerial forward-A and immediately do a ground down-A, and some others don't, like Link that takes ages to get his sword back from a aerial down-A.
I also think that players want games to be complex to add strategies(wall teching, Link's bomb jump), unfair advantage(not everyone knew about the L-cancel. glitched moves like Snake mortar slide and wave dashing) or simply for bragging rights(haha I'm skilled enough to do a reverse Hyrule jump and you don't).
the thing is that also exist some games that unexpectedly end-up being more complex than intended due to glitches and engine quirks, Smash is the perfect example.

also Foxi4 don't be hard with yourself. I don't think you were trying to offend anyone, is just that in a forum you can't add a tone to the words, and if you read thinking the other is being a dick you'll get his message like that. I think he read your post adding that tone even when you didn't intended to sound like that.


----------



## 3bbb7 (Mar 26, 2014)

it really depends how people look at the terms simple and complex.

Simple could mean easy, or it could mean lacking lots of content (not necessarily in a bad way)
Complex could mean challenging as in gameplay difficulty, or it could just mean that it's an easy game, but there is so much content it's just hard to follow

They can coexist, in more ways than one, simple navigation and complex controls, complex storyline and simple controls, etc


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 26, 2014)

FAST6191 said:


> We always suspected Guild and Gahars were dupe accounts. Now Foxi4 is the Guild duplicate account?
> 
> More on topic. Generally if your opinions can not withstand scrutiny then....


 

My reach has no bounds.

Also Melee is a casual fighting game, get used to it.

To be fair Tekken is pretty dumb too.

Mortal Kombat/Soul Calibur master race.


----------



## calmwaters (Mar 27, 2014)

Here's an idea: all games are simple. If they weren't, then we wouldn't play them... at all. I mean, do people really want to have spinach instead of *insert favorite food here*? And then, once you do get it, do you either eat a lot or barely any? In the case of spinach, you try to eat as little as possible. That doesn't mean it's hard to eat; it just tastes nasty. Then on the other hand, you eat as much of your favorite food as possible and maybe throw up or gain 20 pounds. Now this is really hard to eat, but it's just so good you can't stop yourself; and you make it easy to eat it. Bioshock: Infinite comes to mind here; I heard that was a great game and people couldn't put it down.

I like simple games. I'm not into raging because of how hard the game is; I rage about the amount of time spent with it. It's better that I only rage about one thing instead of two.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 27, 2014)

You say that calmwaters but I am going to have to disagree. Though I often joke that something along the lines of an action driven roguelike would see me turn into more of an unwashed recluse than I already am, and somewhat fortunately nobody has managed it yet, it is mainly complexity of systems that I seek there.

When a game then approaches physics as its basis I get more and more interested, if a game changes things such that my monkey brain can not handle it so well (four dimensional movement for example) then similar things happen.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 27, 2014)

calmwaters said:


> Here's an idea: all games are simple. If they weren't, then we wouldn't play them... at all.


 


Spoiler














			
				Sherlock Holmes said:
			
		

> _"It is simplicity itself"_


Innit?


----------



## calmwaters (Mar 27, 2014)

FAST6191 said:


> You say that calmwaters but I am going to have to disagree. Though I often joke that something along the lines of an action driven roguelike would see me turn into more of an unwashed recluse than I already am, and somewhat fortunately nobody has managed it yet, it is mainly complexity of systems that I seek there.
> 
> When a game then approaches physics as its basis I get more and more interested, if a game changes things such that my monkey brain can not handle it so well (four dimensional movement for example) then similar things happen.


 
You could've at least tagged me or quoted the post. Well enough of that. I could say the exact same thing; I'm a bit of a recluse and right now, this game I'm playing is turning me into even more of a recluse. The game is simple; defeat the dragons to unlock an ultimate weapon. Now the complexity comes in when even though I'm getting 2k experience for each creature I defeat, I need 70k to level up: once. But this isn't the experience I get from defeating the dragons; I get that from the little guys. Good thing the game mechanics are simple, otherwise I would've given up a long time ago.

All games are physical: just some are more physical than others. Four dimensional movement? Are there games where the in game characters physically get older the more you play the game? I suppose you would get a game over if the character got old and died from a heart attack. Hmm, I bet that game would peak your interest. I wonder how many years Mario would get older as he tried to save Princess Peach...


Foxi4 said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Blech.  As appealing as this might be, I, uh, am already playing a game like this. But the point is not to be overwhelmed by all this crap; just work on one thing at a time and it'll get done or be at a really high stat. And why is the human development level average? Aren't these people supposed to be pumping out children like you pump gas into your car? It'd be easier to increase your population so more of that arable land could be used.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 27, 2014)

I try not to quote people if it is but a little while after the post in question, I probably should have tagged though.

Four dimensions in this case is not time but free movement in four dimensions similar to how you might go from 2d to 3d, Fez might be a half example.

All games probably have some physics in there, I was saying I tend to prefer ones that would allow me to use everything from http://kinetic.org/Time_Machine_Poster.jpg
People joke that realistic virtual sex would be the end of the human race, I could probably deal with that. A realistic physics simulation, or indeed one I can tweak and watch everything fall apart because of, and I would be (even more) useless to society. Some supercomputer stuff is making slight inroads into this territory.

We may also have a different definition of complex and simple, yours seems to be more grinding than what I would call complex (which is fine if you like that sort of thing).


----------



## calmwaters (Mar 27, 2014)

FAST6191 said:


> I try not to quote people if it is but a little while after the post in question, I probably should have tagged though.
> 
> Four dimensions in this case is not time but free movement in four dimensions similar to how you might go from 2d to 3d, Fez might be a half example.
> 
> ...


 
That poster is amazing. A game with all that (or most of it) would be amazing too. I guess we do have two different definitions for what is complex. On a side note, I have trouble tagging people... but it's not that big of a deal anyway


----------



## Ziko (Mar 28, 2014)

farmin said:


> Nice, I'd even go as far as to add an 'Obtuse' category for games like Dwarf Fortress or Dark Souls where extensive knowledge of the core fundamentals is so important that without it the games become almost unplayable.


 
I know Tetris is a great example of Borderline because even though the controls are always simple, the game is very complex because of T-Spins and whatnot. Also, as the level increases, so does the speed and it can kill ya if you can't compete at those levels. I personally cannot perform well at Lv. 10! But yet, there's guys that can do way more than 10.


----------

