Theory

[icycalm]

I'll offer a few more clarifications.

Take the examples of Go and Chess. People would say that Go may perhaps be a deeper game than Chess, but that it has a much simpler ruleset. Fair enough. It is true that to get started on Go is much easier than to get started on Chess, since the latter has various kinds of pieces, each of which is only allowed to make only certain kinds of movements. In Go, on the other hand, there is only one type of piece to learn, so the starting ruleset is easier to memorize.

Now consider the electronic versions of Go and Chess. The rulesets of the electronic versions -- i.e. the minimum number of rules the player must know in order to play the games -- immediately become zero. When you try to make an illegal move in Electronic Go you get a BEEP! sound, and the same thing happens with Electronic Chess. There is a rule, hardcoded into both these games, stipulating that when the player makes an illegal move they hear a BEEP! sound and nothing happens. So, with this one additional rule, the minimum amount of rules one must learn in order to play Electronic Go and Electronic Chess have been equalized.

What does all this have to do with the actual depth of these two games? Perhaps nothing. Most probably nothing. In fact, we are not even quite sure whether Go is the deeper game, until someone has actually mapped out their possibility spaces by computer modelling. Intuitively, and by the fact that computers can beat Kasparov in Chess but not Go players, we sense that Go must be the deeper game, but from the simple fact that Chess requires at first a bit more memorization we can't deduce anything.

[icycalm]

If we could define a minimum ruleset in a game, it would have to be thus:

The minimum ruleset of a game is that portion of the ruleset which defines the player (i.e. what the player can and what he can't do).

So games with simpler minimum rulesets basically have simpler players. Simpler avatars, so to speak. The avatar's connections with the rest of the game are less complicated, and thus easier to learn. This fact may or may not have anything to do with the overall complexity of the game in question. You must take it on a game-by-game basis.

For example. In M1 Tank Platoon the functioning of the tank is very complicated. This has a direct influence on the overall complexity of the game, since a shootout between two tanks becomes much more complicated than facing the enemy and pressing a button until someone's health bar is depleted.

In Halo, on the other hand, the functioning of the tank is ridiculously simple. There's, like, a single fucking button, and that's it. So fighting other tanks (or other soldiers, vehicles, etc.) is only a function of positioning and firing that single button. Positioning, of course, is much simpler here than in M1 Tank Platoon, since your control over the tank is much more coarse.

Now imagine that we inserted M1 Tank Platoon's controls into the tank in Halo. How would that affect the game?

It would certainly make the game much more complex, overall -- but would this increase in complexity be in the right place?

It wouldn't, because it would make the functioning of the tank much more difficult and cumbersome, compared to the functioning of all the rest of the vehicles, without a corresponding increase in benefits to be derived from it. Players would simply avoid using the tank, and would outmaneuver it with the much easier to use warthogs, banshees, etc, or even on foot.

So the possibility space will have been increased, but the increase will have changed the shape into one which is not so aesthetically pleasing to us.

If, on the other hand, ALL the vehicles in the game became as complicated to use as the tank in M1 Tank Platoon (or, to be more precise, equivalently complicated -- because naturally enough a tank should be more difficult to operate than a jeep), then not only would the resulting game end up much more complex overall than the previous example, but this complexity will have been distributed in a much more aesthetically pleasing manner.

[ganheddo]

What is the difference between "interesting" and "uninteresting" possibilities? Do not use words which you can't define. It just makes everything more difficult.

I should've left out "interesting" like I first wanted to, because it sounds like a pleonasm in this context, just as "meaningful possibilities".

-The sentence "If we say that Go has a simple ruleset, than Chess has a less simple one" is rendered meaningless by the comma and the "than".

A stupid mistake of mine, I mixed up "then" with "than". It's my fault for not making an introductory statement mentioning that this isn't my native language, but that's no excuse for my carelessness and hideous phrasing.

In fact, we are not even quite sure whether Go is the deeper game, until someone has actually mapped out their possibility spaces by computer modelling.

There are some measurements in this regard (yet how telling or valuable they are I do not know):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_complexity

When you try to make an illegal move in Electronic Go you get a BEEP! sound

When you play a real game of Go, isn't the BEEP! made by the other player? But I can see how I'm starting to nitpick again, so I'll just end right here and thank you for your words. It feels really great to clear these things up, almost like getting out of a shower. Your last post was especially helpful, by so clearly explaining the shape analogy.

[icycalm]

There are some measurements in this regard (yet how telling or valuable they are I do not know):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_complexity

There is an entire microscience called Complexity Theory that studies this stuff. It is very boring, but whoever wants to get into it can just buy a bunch of textbooks, I guess. The main thing to understand though, for the purpose of Videogame Studies, or even Game Studies in general, is that complexity, depth and skill are fundamentally related, and that phrases such as "simple but deep" are logically inconsistent and make everything that much harder to understand. Also, that more complex games are in the long run more interesting than simpler ones, because they allow more room for the player to improve, and thus maintain his interest.

When you play a real game of Go, isn't the BEEP! made by the other player?

Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps he missed the error. Perhaps you cheated him*, or perhaps you both failed to spot the error, and the game simply keeps on going! This would have been impossible if a computer was overseeing everything.

With real-life games things are always more difficult. In essence, it is impossible to precisely circumscribe real-life games apart from... the rest of life. And this is indeed part of what makes them so much more complex -- and compelling.




*Note that all real-life games include cheating, whereas all electronic ones do not. One more reason why real-life ones can be more fun!

[icycalm]

Someone read this and tell me if it contains anything I haven't already covered:

http://agoners.wordpress.com/2009/12/01 ... ood-games/

[JoshF]

It's basically your article run through the filter of another one of those Sirlin worshipers who think fighting game design peaked at 1992 and parrying and juggling is what messed up Third Strike and not the kara throw glitch and a couple overpowered Super Arts.

His assertion "execution skill" doesn't lead to more complexity is obviously false. So baseball wouldn't be any less complex if all you had to do to throw a 100mph fastball was set the ball on the mound and blow on it? Foosball and soccer are the same in terms of complexity?

[faceplant]

Interesting that the original article does not have the word "execution" in it even once. What he's really replying to is another article by Seth Killian, posted here:

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/dominatio ... es_part_1/

He is basically arguing that complexity by way of difficult execution only prevents people with physical handicaps from competing. This is, of course, nonsense, as even if a game's execution was dirt simple, players would still be prevented from rising to the top due to other factors. Like memorization, ability to read the opponent, etc. A game with simple execution also limits what the player can do, thus less skill is involved.

[icycalm]

As you add too much execution complexity to a game, instead of adding real depth [lol], you actually end up creating more of an execution barrier at times; meaning that the game just ends up with an increasingly elite and smaller crowd as you up the complexity more and more.

Yeah, besides being a terrible writer, he is also a lowest-common-denominator trailer trash idiot. He has an account here, perhaps I should ban him.

This is, of course, nonsense, as even if a game's execution was dirt simple, players would still be prevented from rising to the top due to other factors.

You don't even need the other factors. Even if the execution is the simplest imaginable, some people would STILL be better at it than others. Only fully turn-based games and movies do not have "execution barriers".

The article is fucking retarded.

[icycalm]

Today we have announced Marvel vs. Capcom 3, a game with maximum depth, minimum complexity

lulz

[icycalm]

An article on figure skating that highlights the importance of complexity over simplicity:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheo ... g-olympics

The new rules reward difficulty above all else: even a stumble on an exceedingly challenging feature can still yield more points than a textbook performance of a more straightforward one. This year’s men’s competition was marred by a near-epidemic of skaters hitting the deck in vain efforts to land quadruple jumps with juicy base scores. Under the IJS, the optimal strategy is to attempt the most demanding routine possible, and then hope not to botch it too badly.

Ms Sotnikova and her coaches understood this logic perfectly. She stacked her programme with seven triple jumps, and added complexity to her footwork and layback spin that each merited an extra base point. In the words of Elvis Stojko, a two-time Olympic silver medallist, “Adelina came loaded.” In contrast, Ms Kim’s free skate was strikingly cautious for a defending champion, with only six triples and a preference for easier jump types. That may have enabled her to focus on her crowd-pleasing presentation, which under the old system made up half the total score. But the IJS sharply limits the reward for such strengths. No amount of grace—and almost no conceivable amount of help from biased judges on GOE marks—could come close to compensating for the advantage of several points Ms Sotnikova enjoyed based on technical difficulty.