Many games feature complex interactions, mechanics and controls. Often we find ourselves just slightly dissatisfied with an aspect of a game; and want just a few more options here, a little more complexity there. We believe that suddenly this will make the game, which was previously a passable experience, transform in to something better.
This can be contrasted against a few examples where ideas ran rampant, and a game has collapsed under its own weight, whether by becoming convoluted, or being so complex that it turns into a mess of bugs that hardly works.
When games were in their infancy they were simple, by necessity, not design, there was just not the hardware to support some of the complex ideas which must have been floating around the brains of game developers. However as time went by we were given more and more tools to play with, and some raced away from the simple model as fast as possible without thinking of the direction they took.
This has led to developers throwing on feature after useless feature, just because it is new. What is worse, it is then decided that because games X, Y and Z were successful this new game needs all the features that made X Y and Z so successful, and the more time passes, the longer the list of arbitrarily 'necessary' features from other games gets.
Now in 2010 we have the luxury of many new, almost scientific approaches to game design, discovered, nurtured and shared by some brilliant minds. It is easier than ever to distill a game down and examining it as if under a microscope, cut out what is counter productive and create a game of pure fun.
Over the course of this article series I shall explore a few approaches to the complexity of a game, and compare their differences.
This can be contrasted against a few examples where ideas ran rampant, and a game has collapsed under its own weight, whether by becoming convoluted, or being so complex that it turns into a mess of bugs that hardly works.
When games were in their infancy they were simple, by necessity, not design, there was just not the hardware to support some of the complex ideas which must have been floating around the brains of game developers. However as time went by we were given more and more tools to play with, and some raced away from the simple model as fast as possible without thinking of the direction they took.
This has led to developers throwing on feature after useless feature, just because it is new. What is worse, it is then decided that because games X, Y and Z were successful this new game needs all the features that made X Y and Z so successful, and the more time passes, the longer the list of arbitrarily 'necessary' features from other games gets.
Now in 2010 we have the luxury of many new, almost scientific approaches to game design, discovered, nurtured and shared by some brilliant minds. It is easier than ever to distill a game down and examining it as if under a microscope, cut out what is counter productive and create a game of pure fun.
Over the course of this article series I shall explore a few approaches to the complexity of a game, and compare their differences.