less is more for mechanic design, while the more the better for details design

Progression games are games where the designer has determined the path the player will go through. By that definition a clicker game (aka incremental game) is a progression game. Clicker games don't have an "open world" and they don't have "sandbox elements" yet they are very successful.

https://www.techopedia.com/definition/27044/progression-gameplay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incremental_game

 

Why are your books?

Missing the point. It's not about the game, it's about the discussion around it.

I never said anything about these things.

You make nothing but mistakes because you refuse to put ideas into practice to see how they work.

 

I'm trying to understand what y'all stared arguing about. To clarify, are you saying that what the player can do should be clear but what the outcome is of what the player does should be obscure?

 

Our "argument" is more complex than just this thread. There is a very common pattern to the OP and you can see it once you've read through a few of his threads.

He starts a thread, makes a statement in a way that looks like he knows the subject, gets asked how he came to this conclusion, and eventually admits that he hasn't done anything but read books and has no actual experience.

If you wanted to compare his threads to anything you could compare them to the threads made by Arowx in GD. Primarily the AI threads where Arowx starts a discussion about AI that is borderline science fiction and eventually shows that he doesn't actually know anything about AI.

Our responses in these threads are basically recommendations for the OP to get started gaining said experience, but like Arowx he basically ignores them and continues making threads of this nature.

 

Ah pkay. I haven't been reading on the forum for a while so I wouldn't know.

 

The outcome is clear. But the player need to find what he should do. The information given to the player is obscure and sometimes pieces.

 

Sounds like a decent, at best rule for game developers but that is such a broad rule that I don't think that it should be strictly followed. For example, in chess, all of the information is given to you. You know where your own pieces are, you know where your enemy's pieces are, and you know all of the possible ways that they could all move. The game is still fun though. So yes, perhaps that generally is the rule of thumb when it comes to fun games but it definitely shouldn't be treated as law. The most creative games are the ones that break these rules of thumb to make an interesting and new game.

Edit: Actually, now that I think about it, there are so many games that break this rule that are widely considered fun. I don't know if this is even a wise general rule anymore.

 

If the information is very clear to the player, then details should be made complex instead. For instance, crafting A needs a, b, and c. Crafting B needs a,c,d. A can restore some health but increase depression, while B can restore depression while decrease some health. And material a is very rare. Then the player has to choose craft how many A and B for best profit.

 

You're right. I use "should" here for emphasizing.

 

The game has rules. While making game has no rules (nobody says we should follow AAA studios procedures). That's why a lot of different opinions here.

 

I think you mean many games take new mechanics or details and widely considered fun.

 

I don't know the range of your definition for practice. Is collecting info not considered as practice?
I will begin on Unity3D after I complete game design phase.

 

Increasing complexity should be avoided when possible. It is possible to create a minimally complex game where a lot of information is present. For example, chess once again. It is not very complex (complexity is not to be confused with depth). The rules are very simple.

No... I do, in fact, mean that many games that break this rule are widely considered fun. It's not hard to find one.

 

NO. IT IS NOT. WE HAVE ALL TOLD YOU THIS SEVERAL TIMES.

 

Chess and some board games are very different. Yes, they are origins of modern games. But the game evolves.

Let's limit samples on steam games. Popular games and unpopular games, positive review games and negative review games.

 

Then CIA leaves the chat.

 

I'm confused. Why is Chess not seemingly considered a valid example? And what does Steam have to do with good games? I don't get that arbitrary filter but okay. How about this?

 

Chess is a good example that even a simple elegant mechanic can make a great game. When talking about chess, we mainly talk about its mechanic. The chess still needs wooden sculpture as details. In game design simple mechanic is still preferred and has little room to manipulate. While we have a lot of room to manipulate details like crafting or dialogue.

I mean games published on Steam, because they are the main platform for indies.

 

I almost ignore this link.
The game is an example of my thought. Simple mechanic (chess), more details than a chess needs.

 

By "detail" are you referring to the graphics?

 

Mainly decorations such as furniture, house, cup so on.

 

The details are everything presented by graphics.

 

Oh. I had no idea that we were talking about graphics this entire time. I thought that you were talking about something else. That's not what I gathered from this:

But okay. It's late so I'm just going to leave it here for tonight.

 

I'm actually gonna take hong's side on this.

Although many, even most games are focused on being minimally complex, not all games need to be this, and there are some very good games that are good simply because of their insane complexity.

It's really politically incorrect, but I call these sorts of games "autism games" in a kinda light hearted way. Maybe OCD games would be a better description. They appeal to a certain kind of obsessive, detail oriented gamer.

Think of this kind of game as almost a type of free form puzzle, where different pieces are scattered all over, and have not only different shapes but different pros and cons, and its your job to take that sorted mess and piece something good together.

This is a close to an example of that sort of game. A crude example, but an example.

A more interesting example of this type of game is Jagged Alliance 2 1.13 - a user mod for JA2 - that added "load bearing equipment" or LBE for short.

Here's an example of a squad kitted out with equipment. If you pay close attention, you'll notice that different different clothing items like holsters provide different types of slots.


A clearer example. The top right slot it a type of vest that can carry specific types of clips in specific quantities. The leg holsters only provide slots for med kits, etc.



Each piece of clothing (and there are dozens and dozens to choose from) have different weights and slots to carry various stuff.

In this game the total amount of weight a guy is carrying is very important, so choosing the most lightweight stuff is important.

Here's an example of some of the inventory you need to manage and assign out. In 1.13, it's not uncommon to have a few hundred items laying around after a big fight. Similar levels of detail are given to guns, of which there are literally hundreds of types and subtypes. Variants with different chambering for different ammo, etc.



All together, this game probably sounds like a nightmare to most people. Its insane level of complexity and detail is just too much.

But for some people, figuring out the perfect loadout, which pockets are most efficient, which guns they should be using, how much ammo to bring, etc... for some people that's really fun. The combat itself is almost an after thought, as the real meat of the game is in the inventory screens.

This kind of game play depends heavily on the raw complexity of the content to be interesting.

That said, this still needs to be done well. JA1.13 is an example of it being done well, "crafting A needs a, b, and c. Crafting B needs a,c,d. A can restore some health but increase depression, while B can restore depression while decrease some health. And material a is very rare." this is a crude and dull example.

But not all games need to be lean and tight and minimal. Some games can be great because of the ridiculous amount of detail and complexity.

 

It seems to me that this increase in complexity has also created an increase in depth. The holster mechanic is just a good trade-off. Same with the loadout stuff.

Let me correct my prior statement: It is advisable to keep the complexity to depth ratio as low as possible. So sometimes it is optimal to increase complexity if it means a whole lot more depth. Note that I say "advisable" because I'm sure there are some cases that I can't think about right now where this just isn't true.

Also note that by complexity I am referring to game rules and by depth I am referring to the viable options that a player has.

 

I think important thing is, that complexity and depth is subjective term. Llike frosted's example, that game looks like the opposite of fun to me. Too much complexity. But there is a niche for people who like organizing massive, complex messes. It suits them.

Just a matter of knowing what audience is looking for. What makes person tick. You try to push a complex game in a genre where people expect low-effort casualness, its gonna fall flat. You try to sell Ubisofts casual iterations of the Red Storm classics to the original crowd, we complain like a bunch of elitist.

 

Eh, one mans depth is another mans annoyance. Like did JA1.13 really need 47 different types of ammo?

I donno.

Do you really need Cold Loaded Jacketed Hollow point in 4 different callibers: 9x19mm, 5.56x54, 7.62x51mm, and 7.62x25? What about cold loaded subsonic, vs cold loaded glaser? Do you really need to differentiate between 7.62x51mm and 7.62x25mm in a video game?

Do you really need to make it some pockets can fit 9x19mm but can't fit 7.62x25mm?

The game (when fully unleashed) is completely overwhelming for normal, sane people. But..not every game needs to be made for normal, sane people.

There's a difference between a niche game and a bad game.

 

The game complexity depends on how many mechanics you take.

If in your mechanic design, you need different types of ammo for different enemy, then all of them ammo do matter. If not, you will only take 2 or 3 types of ammo.
In your mechanic, if you make the money very important (affect the game result ) and hard to learn, then this mechanic will drive the gamer to save money and be more careful on spending. The mechanic make the gamer feel like a poor guy or a rich boy, then the gamer has very different behaviors.

The complex details not only provide a immersive world, but also test the player's choice ability. The mechanic drive the gamer to the complex details. If you lack that mechanic, then it is considered a bug, the gamer doesn't need go to complex details.

The mechanic should be clear and simple. Then the gamer won't be confused when coming across a lot of choices, the gamer can make quick and right choice when he is familiar with the mechanic.

 

Clicker is not a progression game, thought it has a name incremental. Jackson is not son of Jack. All judges of America's Got Talent are not Americans.

 

What does that mean, exactly?

I realize there is a language barrier to some degree, but this makes no sense to me.

 

Open world as an example.
The complex details can build a background called world. The world has some many things, and the player can easily go into it. The world provide a lot of foods (poisoned or not), a lot of resources (increase fatigue when collecting), and a lot of other things. Then the player need to make choice on what to do, because of his limited knowledge and limited endurance.

 

Progression games are games where you make progress in some form. Clicker games are entirely about progression but at a limited pace that forces you to come back on a regular basis.

 

Whether or not progression game depends on mechanic, not the description of the game play.

 

I think you lack good categorization skills. It's why you are stuck on details and missing the bigger picture. You should work with some experienced people who are good at that, and focus building technical proficiency so you can help the team while learning the bigger design stuff.

 

In short, the details are everything you made, the dirty road, the dead trees, the burned houses, the scared enemies, the inventory, the crafting and so on. The details have no souls because mechanics (also called rules) are souls.

The mechanic let the gamer fight again the enemy or sneak by. The mechanic drive the gamer to do one thing from many things you can provide.

 

ok. whatever

 

Yah like I said, its a good rule of thumb but its nothing set in stone.

 

The is one of the weirdest threads I've ever seen.

 

Very well.

If I use " Less is more for mechanic design, and the more the better for details design" as my guideline,
What will happen?

A. I still don't get into practice.
B. I get into practice, then get a setback.
C. I don't know.
D. I get into practice, then get a success.
E. I get into practice, then get nothing.
F. Whatever.
G. I keep making mistakes.
H. None of them.

 

It isn't just one of those.

It is B, G, B, G, B, G, B, F, G, then maybe a tiny little bit of D, then B, G, B, G.

 

Temporarily.
When I first began to play "the darkest dungeon" or "rimworld", I can't get into it because of difficulty and complexity. Finally, I played several days. Then I found this scenario is normal.

 

Good. I suppose you are prepared.

 

Complexity does not equal difficulty. You could have a complex yet very easy game. Some people will just never play a game regardless of easiness because it is too complicated.

 

Real training is trying, failing, trying more, failing more, trying more. Fall down, stand up, fall down, stand up.

This is just how real training works. Study only prepares you so much, eventually you need to go out, fail, and learn, and fail, and learn.

Every time you see someone build a success, they built many many failures before it.

 

They are not. I never say they are equal.

 

You seemed to imply that complexity only temporarily puts people off because a game will get easier as you play more.

 

I think I will get the same sequence even I don't use it as guideline.

 

You sounds reasonable. I will remove "difficulty".

 

Guys, there is a pattern here. Hong receives input, Hong finds way to disagree. It's not an earnest discussion.

It's a troll. He's doing this every day. Day after day. He's not here to learn or share.

 

It is fine to disagree with everything assuming that you have a good reason to disagree. That being said I don't think that he was a good reason for the most part. I don't think he's trolling though? if he is, he is very good at it. Perhaps we should just stop responding if nothing we say matters.

I want to see how this guy's first project turns out if he ever even gets around to it...