Simplicity Versus Depth

ID:42838
 
May 12 2008, 7:22 am

Poll: Which is better: Simplicity or Depth?

Simplicity 27% (79)
Depth 72% (207)

Login to vote.

The other day I was carpooling on a three hour long road trip. It was about 10 o'clock at night, so I pulled out my laptop and, looking for something that I could do without being able to see the keyboard, I clicked on my unfinished public release of The Gauntlet.

Now, the current release of The Gauntlet has extremely simple controls. You use the arrow keys to move your character around, and bumping into things activates them. The only controls beyond that are speed controls, which aren't really necessary, and the ability to load and save games.

When you're in the dark and you can't see the keyboard, but you can find the arrow keys, that means you can still play the game, because you've got your hands on the controls, kind of like with a console controller - you know where all the buttons are.

The Gauntlet has very simple controls.
The Gauntlet has very simple controls.


Now, in a newer engine that I was developing for the game, I was going for more depth over the simplicity, because it seemed like the first version might be a little too simplistic. In the newer version, you use the arrow keys to walk around, use the center key to target and object followed by an arrow key in the direction you want to use that object. You also must use a specific object by using the up-right and up-left numpad keys to circulate through the inventory. Plus, you can use the 0 key on the number pad to view your status screen.

Of course, one of the first problems I encountered with this on my laptop was that the laptop doesn't have a number pad, which basically crippled the game.

The newer engine, however, also allows things such as dialog with NPCs, and having the player choose an item before using it makes the player think about what they need to do instead of just bumping into things randomly, hoping to activate something.

The new Gauntlet engine has more depth.
The new Gauntlet engine has more depth.


So the question now is, which is better? The simplistic original engine, with easy controls and a shallow learning curve, or the newer engine, with more depth, more complexity, and more complicated controls?
May 12 2008, 7:34 am
In my opinion, it is not one or the other that makes a better game, instead, the balance of both. A simple game that is easy to learn and play, yet offers depth and challenge will always beat an overly simple game, or an overtly complicated one.

I like to think of Zelda, the masterpiece in my opinion. The game's controls and systems are simple, but the puzzles and Enemies find depth within the simple game play.
May 12 2008, 8:45 am
My preference would be for a hybrid where the controls are more than just arrows, but the extras are confined to maybe 2-4 keys at most. A typical handheld game has controls like that.

Funny Zelda should come up in this context, too. I spent part of the weekend playing a homebrew GBA game called Anguna, which is like a mini-Zelda. Very well-designed, looks great, and most relevantly it has a simple, intuitive interface with just arrows and a few buttons.
May 12 2008, 9:07 am
I don't have a control pad either, so I voted simplicity. Though I'd probably vote that anyway, as a simple game can be picked up quickly, and most players that leave a game for a negative reason leave in the first 10 minutes, in my opinion.
May 12 2008, 9:47 am
Ease wrote:
I don't have a control pad either, so I voted simplicity. Though I'd probably vote that anyway, as a simple game can be picked up quickly, and most players that leave a game for a negative reason leave in the first 10 minutes, in my opinion.

I like the parallelism of a person named "Ease" suggesting an option for simplicity. =)


Re: the thread

I personally like things which are elegant in their simplicity, which is why I really like Incursion (the roguelike) -- everything is exposed and is handled with visible numbers instead of arbitrary hidden numbers. The game itself is composed out of many very simple constructs which together produce a very deep gameplay experience. Of course, sometimes Incursion can be dauntingly complex -- which is a shortcoming -- but usually the gameplay is quite simple.
May 12 2008, 12:37 pm
I prefer mouse interfaces when playing PC games in a dark room.
May 12 2008, 1:20 pm
The newer version, just give the user a way to change the key bindings. I play BYOND games (when I can) on a laptop, and I generally have to hold down the function key when I want to move, and release it when I want to type. It's not very fun, but it gets the job done. I'd rather struggle with my laptop to play a good game than have no problem navigating a borring game.

Edit: I should probably point out that I'm only voting for the depth you've described in The Gauntlet verses the simple version. Were this another game, or were you talking about an even more complicated version, I may have voted otherwise.
Aug 23 2008, 11:02 am
Simplicity first and foremost. Depth should be available but mostly optional. People enjoy finishing games. When they don't finish a game, it wasn't a great game. Depth is pretty much synonymous with complexity. Many of the greatest games on the planet are very simple but somehow provide amazing depth through situational strategies.

A perfect game should gauge the players skill and interests and lead them through just enough challenges to give them a few (4-8) hours worth of game time before completing. Completing is key. If your player can't tackle a challenge, modify the challenge to make it slightly easier. Remove one monster near their fail point. Drop a +(n) weapon to help them deal with it. Pop in a Dungeon Master who provides an optional teleportal to some place else. This is all extra work of course and figuring out when and where a player needs help isn't easy either. My point is, help the gamer finish the game even if they have to be carried a part of the way. You could always ask the player every so often. Are you stuck on the current challenge? Would you like help?

As an example, games like Gears of War and BioShock. These games are beautiful. There is nothing but eye candy to look at. While I managed to make it through GOW, I failed to get through the constant circles of BioShock. As soon as I realized I was being run in circles just for the hell of it, I quit. Done. Never looked back. However, I knew I was missing out on some spectacular scenes. I realized that all games need a new feature. It's called, "Play for me". Instead of me dealing with all the crap that I keep failing at, I tell the game to do it for me. I get to sit back and watch all the cool stuff without all the work. Some people would do this and some wouldn't. Some might watch the entire game be played like a movie. Others might do it to see if they missed anything. Anyway, it would be a major value add to just about any game.

With technology and things like youtube, this isn't too far out. I'll be able to watch someone complete an entire 6 hour game like a movie in HD. Fun. Point is, check on your players progress and help them get through the rough patches as much as possible.

Creating simplicity by removing complexity in real time.

Aug 24 2008, 5:36 pm
I agree in some respects with Tsfreaks. The main reason I play games is to finish them. However, I disagree that it should only last an evening. A movie rental lasts two hours and costs $5. A video game costs ten times that, so should last at least ten times as long.

In short, a good game should have around 20 to 30 hours of material to work with, and the best ones have the best of both worlds: dozens upon dozens of hours of gameplay, but with replay value and/or freedom so you aren't forced to play through all of them in a single completion. (The latter reason is why Diablo II fails.)

Mind you, I do mean 20 to 30 hours of actual material. If much of that time is spent going around wandering aimlessly, the game really only has a few hours of genuine material and several hours of busywork.
Aug 24 2008, 8:07 pm
The length of play time that a good game provides is a silly topic to argue about. What about Solitaire and Mine Sweeper? Great games? Depends on your situation. At the moment, I find myself playing those games more than anything else just because I can win in a short period of time. The ideal amount of play time that a game requires is totally dependent on the type of players you're trying to draw.
Aug 25 2008, 3:06 am
Solitaire and Minesweeper don't really count in that regard. There's a sort of threshold for gameplay that needs to be crossed; below that threshold, what you have is a "coffee game". Coffee games focus entirely on a single element of gameplay and are intended to have both an infinite replayability (within reason) and a short play time. They aren't really what I think of when a discussion on simplicity versus depth in games comes up, because although they're at the extreme end of the elegant-in-their-simplicity scale they're not really comparable to most other games.

I think I should gather up a list of all the coffee games I like playing. I'm not particularly fond of either solitaire or minesweeper. =)
Aug 25 2008, 4:50 pm
Alright. I withdraw the generic comment on time because I agree that it's not really applicable in the discussion. I was one tracked on the single player console games which has followed pretty successful pattern over the years.

Jtgibson, what about chess though? I'd say chess is the perfect marriage between simplicity and depth. It's really not all that far from these "coffee" type games. I don't think a line has been crossed so much as a certain depth was reached.

I bet if you looked online you would find some studies of the most popular games in the world and I bet most of them would be well balanced. Actually, what I'm going to go look for is a game which is not balanced at all but was still successful. Why?

I'm gonna go look.





Aug 25 2008, 6:40 pm
I think the same kind of gamer can often be attracted to both quick sessions and long, epic sessions, in the very same game. Players may be in the mood for one or the other at different times.
Oct 26 2008, 11:35 pm
I like the depth, but only if you have a very intuitive control setup. I'd stick with the arrows for movement, and add the Z, X and S keys to cover your other control requirements.

Holding Z lets you use the left and right arrows keys to scroll through your inventory.
Hold X and an arrow key to use the current item in that direction.
S (or perhaps Enter) show your stats.

I've seen lots of games use arrows+X&Z, and it works well even on keyboards that don't have a number pad (like mine). I think the fewer the buttons the better, and the number pad can be a little much sometimes.
Nov 17 2008, 11:42 pm
Thinking back on this, I suppose it would have been better to get rid of an action button altogether and retain the "bumping into stuff activates" controls of the first version. However, I could require that the player have an item selected in order to use that item on something when bumping into it, and then allowing the player to hold space bar (which is a big obvious key that anyone can find in the dark and every keyboard has) along with arrow keys to navigate your inventory. That would reduce the controls from 9 keys to 5. I'm not sure if a status screen is even necessary...