Streamlined or Control?

[chemical_art]

Just curious, my brief fling with ES brought with me the question of these two mostly opposing views. Does a game focus on being streamlined so it progresses quickly, and so the AI is better able to compete if it doesn't cheat? Or does a game focus on being complex, which allows greater user control and potentially more options.

I drag two classics of the 4X genre. Master of Orions 1 and 2.

It's a shame that to describe these two philosophies well you get two games from the same universe, but go figure.

MOO 1 uses sliders for making most of the empire decisions, features are not individually picked. In battle, each ship "class" is one piece on the gameboard with their respective strength of their number.

MOO 2 has every individual upgrade be picked manually. In battle, each ship is individually represented.

Each has its strengths and weaknesses. As far as empire decisions goes, MOO 1 is exponentially faster and needs less clicks. In combat, you can have battles be decided in 2 minutes and be able to support 30k ship fighter swarms.
MOO 2 allows much more varied planetary development. Battles have many more avenues to be used.

MOO 1 you sometimes wish you could pick a particular planet upgrade, or you could split up unit classes in battle.
MOO 2 you sometimes wish empire manage could take less clicks, could have huge battles not take so long.


Ah...which is more important? I'm tired and don't know for sure...

[Cyborg]

C: Depends on my mood .

[LaughingThesaurus]

I always like more control and more options. In fact, simpler more streamlined titles are actually much more difficult for me.

[chemical_art]

C: Depends on my mood .

Added. 

[Histidine]

C: Depends on my mood .

This.

When dealing with a game on the "complex" end of the scale, I'd say far more important than simply being complex is making the complexity meaningful and interesting to interact with. Two questions to ask:

1) Does this complexity influence the outcome of things? (more objective)
2) Is this complexity fun to interact with (more subjective; I generally can't stand having to play bean counter in the middle of the game but some people like it)

For a case study, see the previous AI War energy system (with the automated energy hamsters and such) and its eventual replacement.

[chemical_art]

I always like more control and more options. In fact, simpler more streamlined titles are actually much more difficult for me.

How so? I understand what you mean, but do you have specific examples.

I only hinted at it in the examples, but one benefit of streamlining is that the enemy AI is much more efficient (difficult) without cheating with more limited options.  Of course it is a sliding scale (the more efficient the AI via this method, the less player "wigge room" to make decisions) Take Galactic Civilizations 2 for example; I doubt you'll find a more efficient AI (that doesn't cheat) if you crank up the difficulty. Of course, the downside is that in combat the player has no control, and the AI already has pre-set values on the most efficient way to do anything.

So in that regard, it is harder for the player against an AI because the more streamlined, the more AI's natural strengths can be brought to bear.

[chemical_art]

C: Depends on my mood .

This.

When dealing with a game on the "complex" end of the scale, I'd say far more important than simply being complex is making the complexity meaningful and interesting to interact with. Two questions to ask:

1) Does this complexity influence the outcome of things? (more objective)
2) Is this complexity fun to interact with (more subjective; I generally can't stand having to play bean counter in the middle of the game but some people like it)

For a case study, see the previous AI War energy system (with the automated energy hamsters and such) and its eventual replacement.

This is actually really good! Increased complexity comes with "costs" of slowing down a game both directly (increased clicks, which is pretty objective) and indirectly (increased brain math, a subjective cost). It is important that the "payout" for complexity to be worth the cost.

In the end, if the result of X situation you always want Y, then the complexity is just an exercise in work So if there is one thing you always want (either all the time, or for a set criteria) then that seems to be a somewhat superfluous thing unless it is really, really needed for another reason.

[zespri]

There should be balance: I don't like both. More complex are too hard to get into. That hard, that I'd rather not at all. Streamlined lacks precision of control and it annoys greatly. What I'd like to see is that it designed so that on the base level it is really streamlined so it does not hinder your ability to get into the game, but as you learn the game and get more experience you can start using more advanced options. This kind of discovery is cool.

Examples: King of Dragon Pass - don't even think about starting it without reading the manual. You won't feel like you doing anything meaningful at all otherwise.

Knights of Pen and Paper - very streamlined and smooth, but the lack of control (and information) is excruciating.

I want something in between. World of Warcraft (Note: I have not touched the game for many years by now) was executed perfectly in this regard. It was very easy and streamlined to start, but it gave you control when you wanted it. I loved that game a lot until it got old.

By the way: I think this is THE reason why WoW was selling as good as it was.

[LaughingThesaurus]

Well, I have quite a few I think.

1: Compare Kingdom Hearts 1 to Kingdom Hearts 2. I know people that think the first one is actually very easy. The first one does offer you very few options really to kill your enemies, compared to Kingdom Hearts 2. However, I find the first game rather frustrating as a result. I don't quite understand why, but I just die a whole lot more often and I don't really know what to do about it. That might be because I chose to sacrifice defense. Yet, in KH2 you have things like drive abilities, limit breaks, and reaction commands to tap into. These do add a lot more options for dealing with any situation, so there's a lot more I can actually think about if I happen to be underleveled or very low on health or defense or something. Not as if either game's really that hard.
2: Borderlands, kind of? I find the hardest part of the game potentially is before you actually have a shield and your action skill. The only real option you have is shooting stuff, and if you don't do that really well, you're just doomed. The more skills you get, the more options you have. Shame that the entire game's really simple though.
3: Warriors Orochi vs. Dynasty Warriors. Sometimes DW is legitimately a bit tough because you have to place a lot more consideration into simpler things, like positioning, rather than doing cool combos. In Warriors Orochi, the game throws a loooooot more at you, but you gain a very large capacity for actually setting up combos to deal with it.

and I guess in terms of more substantial games... I do really prefer AI War to most other RTSs. Again, it's really just because you have so many options. You think, right, I can't send my fleet in because of the Eye. I'll use my starships. Oh wait, there's an orbital mass driver. I can mass produce fighters and send them in one at a time to lure all the ships to the wormhole, and set off an electric warhead. Then you, um... well, I don't know what you'd do. But, well, I could certainly spend an awful lot of time coming up with a great plan with the large amount of options available, even though the AI cheats. When a game is much simpler, I guess I can kind of cite Starcraft 2, there's a whole lot of focus on positioning, on manipulating your forces and using your abilities to the exact pinpoint fullest potential. You have to actually focus on nailing all of the tiny details in a simpler game, rather than coming up with a clever solution given a large set of tools.
Another good example, I feel, is Mark of the Ninja. If you just focused on your sword and running around stealthily, you'd have a tough time. The game would probably be impossible by a certain point, unless you at least use your darts... but the more tools you get, the more clever you can be, and the game just becomes easier. In fact, the game becomes much easier when you realize you can use running around to make noise as a potent distraction tool. I like having all of these options, because I just seem to utilize them better. The fewer options there are, the more precisely you must use them.

Edit: For the record I feel a tiny bit self-conscious actually for listing off all of these action-y games after everyone else lists off complex 4x strategy and stuff... although not self-conscious enough to really be too concerned about it.

Knights of Pen and Paper, I played a bit, and I actually don't like it at all. It's too simple. It's so simple and it's really easy as well, at least as far as I've experienced. Take quests, fight stuff, take quests, fight stuff, remember to use leader strike and stack all the healing on the paladin, lah lah lah... The fighting stuff wasn't particularly fun either. Around the 500th time I meteored an entire enemy party to death, I just shut off the game and it didn't get a second session. I was often fighting 3+ enemies at a time as well.
A lot of turn based games that are similar are actually already fairly simple. Mash attack during random encounters, use the boss's weakness, and heal when the boss uses a largely random attack from its pool. There are few I can think of that make you actually use the many options you have, the two I can think of being Final Fantasy 9 and 10.

[Shrugging Khan]

I'll risk getting myself lynched here, but I raise you...

Master of Orion 3.

It was streamlined in almost all parts, but only on the surface - under the hood, everything ran on a very high level of complexity. We all know that the game was unfinished and nearly unplayable, especially due to the more than retarded AI and the fact that the whole concept just fell apart due to bad implementation (diplomacy, strategic warfare, etc.), but its approach to this very issue is what makes it, IMO, stand out. You could macro or micro as you wished, but the larger your empire grew the more attractive the macro tools became. Apart from that being quite realistic compared to the total micro-management approaches of most games, it also just felt a lot better; more like being very much in charge of an empire rather than stuck in some kind of clerical position. It also tried (and failed, yeah) to give you options to fine-tune the AI governors with its Development Plans; something that rarely worked out, but still - better than most games that will just give you an opaque AI that does things according to no obvious rhyme or reason.

Well, long story short, a really good game will be both streamlined AND complex. The two are not mutually exclusive.