Support NeoGAF

[Barnimal]

hangin out with the lady tonight and for some reason we started talking about the last games we finished. we finished klonoa 2 together and I finished riddick last year in about a week or 2. we came to the conclusion that games are too damn complicated these days. we're 25 and need games that are simple, have a good story and have great gameplay all rolled into one. Actually we enjoyed katamari as well.

Those games were all packed with the goods yet there are very few games that work with the formula of just being simple and fun. I purchased both RE4 and GTASAx and I think i popped GTA in just to play with all the codes on and RE4(graphically overhyped by the way)is awesome gameplay wise but isnt just something you can just pick up and play for 30 minute spurts and leave satisfied.

Are there some other twitch games out there with a hint of style or are we doomed? will these games see a return next gen?

 

[Andy787]

Fuck no. If they're too complicated, they simply weren't well thought out enough.

They do take too much time, however.

 

[ProgramFighter]

Get a DS. Seems like the perfect fit for what you are looking for. At least it fits that criteria to me. You and the lady would also have some great fun with multiplayer too (Single cart multiplayer for a lot of games is just such a sweet deal.). As far as home consoles are concerned, I do not think they are getting too complicated, but I do see where you are coming from. It seems a lot of time has to be invested into a game these days, at least more so than i recall in the past. While that is great in many ways, I do sometimes miss the days of Mario Bros. on my NES (Yes, I still play it from time to time, ironically currently on my PSP.). As far as specific games on home consoles that fits what you are looking for, I am sure you will have a long list of games from the fine minds at GAF in no time.

 

[Andy787]

Get a DS.

I firmly believe that this action shall lead you to suicide. You must avoid this advice. For the sake of your life.

 

[Mejilan]

Get a DS.

 

[Speevy]

Nah. Games should be deeper if anything. The problem is controls and presentation. I want to have fun learning how to play.

 

[BenT]

I had my largely non-gamer gf trying Beyond Good & Evil on Xbox last week. A few minutes in, referring to the button commands I was teaching her, she said, "see, this is why we (meaning girls) don't like these games." Thing was, these were all basic conventions that I'd learned through playing countless 3D games. It's second nature to me to rotate the camera with the right stick. She didn't even remember it was possible most of the time. There is definitely a large learning curve for anything beyond the simplest 3D games.

On the other hand she took to Katamari pretty well. Borrowed it, even. Casual gamer status: promising.

 

[Barnimal]

eh. DS is blah IMO. we have an SP and a PSP. she loves twisted. we were in gamecrazy one day and she played touched for like 1/2 hour :lol console games are where we have the most fun. its cool just chillin out on the couch and passing the controller back and fourth or playing together. There just havent been many new games that have that oldskool feel brought up to current. everythings a damn racer, shooter, sports game or a WTF game. I'm thinking we love katamari will be needed pretty soon. Next gen would be prefect for the return of simplistic games. lower dev costs, broader audiences, older gamers...not every one wants to kill everything and f this and f that and stick it in your mouth and suck it and suck it. :lol

i stopped playing BG&E for the same reason. the controls and camera were fucking weird. too time consuming. come to think of it resident evil 4s controls turned me off too. katamaris controls were very intuative, klonoa has oldskool play and riddick although an FPS controlled like a dream. Hmmm...maybe it is the controls!

 

[The_Sorrow]

Get a DS.

Agreed. DS is perfect for you IMO. Get Kirby and Meteos and you'll be satisfied.

 

[Tarazet]

Agreed. DS is perfect for you IMO. Get Kirby and Meteos and you'll be satisfied.

IT'S A TRAP!

 

[Zer0]

get a ds or a psp quick gaming on the go

 

[Lazy8s]

Instead of developing deeper and more involving gameplay, game design has sidetracked with superfluous checkbox features and unnecessary complication. Even though this extra content lies beside the point, it is the most expensive part to develop and drives game production costs so high that very few actually turn a profit, and users aren't even compelled to spend the time to see all the content anyway.

To reinvigorate the userbase and make game development economical again, game design needs to return to the arcade principles of big, bold, and straight to the point while adding a new dimension of depth to push gameplay forward again. The key to this next advancement will be physics simulation: describing a world with responsiveness, interaction, and natural behavior.

Structures could be built from individual pieces that obey a physics model to keep the structure standing, turning an ordinary shooter into a tactical environmental demolition affair. Just the opposite: games where players actually do something constructive, like building things together, could be possible from that, too.

 

[Zeo]

IT'S A TRAP!

A trap of quality!

Keke, etc.

But yeah, I agree actually. Games are getting a LITTLE too complicated, overall.

There's something to be said about the number of people, even casual gamers that think GTA is the best game ever made, who think that the older games are the best.

 

[Ash Housewares]

there is something to be said for the games where the object is just to get to the top of the screen

time for some Frogger

 

[Jacobi]

No, but in many genres games are getting too similar...

 

[nextgeneration]

Too complicated for the causal gamer or people who don't generally play games - most definitely yes. A lot of people I know (who don't generally play games) are turned off by the fact that games are just too complicated to play.

If the video game industry is to truly capture that huge segment of people out there that don't play games, the introduction of a greater quanity of simpler games is one of the things that needs to take place in this industry. There is a reason why games like Tetris and Solitaire are played by so many people - they are simple to play, easy to learn, and do not require a significant amount of time to play to enjoy the game.

 

[pjberri]

That might be a problem if all the games available were complicated, but there's plenty of simple, fun games. I don't see what the problem is.

 

[DIrtyWeasel]

come to think of it resident evil 4s controls turned me off too.

Have you ever played the older Resident Evil games? Playing those first will have you appreciating RE4 more.

I don't mind games being more complicated, as long as simple games that anyone can pick up and play are also made. Nintendo will make sure that will happen.

 

[Rahul]

I refer to this as the FFCC vs Mario Kart DD situation.

Explaining the basics of how to play MKDD takes 10 seconds ("press the green button to go forward, move the joystick to steer"). But explaining the basics of FFCC takes 10 minutes ("you can move your character with the joystick, but you have to pick up thos globes to use magic, which you use by scrolling to the selected globe with L or R and then casting with the red button, oh and you can check your item screen and other information by pressing start but that will show on your GBA, and you have to carry the chalice occasionally PLUS stay inside its protective ring; fighting is done with...")

Games should be no more complicated to play (multiplayer) than "press green to go forward and joystick to steer".

 

[Sagitario]

So... Nintendo is kind of right, games are getting to complicated for some people...

 

[Trustus Jones]

Buy a dreamcast arcade conversions gallore which are designed to be nothing but simple and to give you a quick fix.

 

[Amir0x]

Games will always be "too complicated" for someone. It's fine that there's someone that tries to appeal to those straglers.

But games can never, ever be "too complicated" for me as long as they're very much playable, controllable and beatable. If it has smooth controls that lend itself to mastery, it's not going to be a problem for me. Bring on complicated games, and even more complicated concepts... especially in terms of presentation and focus.

 

[Bluecondor]

I think they are too complicated, if you don't particularly care for the genre. For example, I would never play a fantasy RPG, because I am just not interested in the content/stories of this genre. And - it is tough to even try games in this genre because they are so in-depth.

But - I love sports games, and I love that sports games are now so in-depth that you can play the franchise/dynasty modes in Madden, NCAA, etc. for hours upon hours....

 

[dog$]

Buy ... arcade conversions

tada

I can see how some games are getting overly-complicated. We're still far away from having too many options, though; look at Nethack.

 

[dark10x]

They aren't getting too complicated, but that doesn't mean they can't seem that way to individuals.

DS is the best option. It's a system filled with simplistic, mini-game loaded titles.

Oh, and Killer 7 was just released. That's about as simple as you get...heh heh.

 

[Ruzbeh]

Yes, they are getting complicated. Both unnecessarily complicated (see the example I'm going to give you) and fun complicated (like strategy games). So today I was playing Morrowind. I was going to give it another try since last time I tried it I got lost and I didn't know what to do. Now I'm doing pretty well. But what I find so incredibly stupid is this. Certain equipment is, like, so complicated. My iventory is so damn complicated. Can you believe you have to buy/equip gloves seperately? You have gloves for your left hand and for your right. Holy shit. That goes for pauldrons too. Left pauldron, right pauldron. Damn. And by the way, I didn't know what a 'pauldron' was until I saw it on my character when I equipped it. So overly complicated.

Morrowind is a terrible game anyway. Not too bad graphics but very bad performance.

 

[DDayton]

Games are getting too difficult to get into due to overly "complex" control schemes or, more likely, overly vague instructions. Most new big-name games are designed for nutty gamers like us (or 15 year old guys with nothing else to do) -- we're the people who memorized obscure button combinations to send projectiles acrossing the screen in fighting games. We're the guys who have no problem sending 5 divisions across the map while micromanaging another. Games should require you to use 5-10 buttons just to begin the first level, but they do.

Some games thrive on ridiculous amounts of control detail, to the point of scaring away all but the most zealous fans. I've always thought this was the distinction between console games and computer games -- console games allowed "non-gamers" to play them. Now console games are slowing turning into computer games... this is great for the "hard core" gamers who've been playing madly complex games the entire time, but it does't do much for the folks who aren't used to the gaming conventions.

Why do you think "gimmick" games get people's attention? They're generally easier to play than standard games. DDR, Donkey Konga, and the DS's touch screen look less "scary" than a oddly shaped plastic doohickey with buttons and sticks thrusting out at all angles.

 

[pj]

.

When I look at your name and avatar, I think you're bebpo for a second, because of the "B" and the similarly placed white and pink parts of your avatar.. Anyone else do that?

 

[Redbeard]

No.

In fact, there aren't enough obsessively complicated games like Morrowind.

 

[Musashi Wins!]

Games will always be "too complicated" for someone. It's fine that there's someone that tries to appeal to those straglers.

But games can never, ever be "too complicated" for me as long as they're very much playable, controllable and beatable. If it has smooth controls that lend itself to mastery, it's not going to be a problem for me. Bring on complicated games, and even more complicated concepts... especially in terms of presentation and focus.

amen.

 

[StRaNgE]

eh. DS is blah IMO. we have an SP and a PSP. she loves twisted. we were in gamecrazy one day and she played touched for like 1/2 hour :lol console games are where we have the most fun. its cool just chillin out on the couch and passing the controller back and fourth or playing together. There just havent been many new games that have that oldskool feel brought up to current. everythings a damn racer, shooter, sports game or a WTF game. I'm thinking we love katamari will be needed pretty soon. Next gen would be prefect for the return of simplistic games. lower dev costs, broader audiences, older gamers...not every one wants to kill everything and f this and f that and stick it in your mouth and suck it and suck it. :lol

i stopped playing BG&E for the same reason. the controls and camera were fucking weird. too time consuming. come to think of it resident evil 4s controls turned me off too. katamaris controls were very intuative, klonoa has oldskool play and riddick although an FPS controlled like a dream. Hmmm...maybe it is the controls!

everything you stated about games you can just jump in for 30 minutes and be done after that for the day are what i find myself leaning towards more of as well now adays.

just not enough time to play long epics one after another anymore.

most the things you have asked for Nintendo has stated they are planning to give us with the REvolution. the whole next gen is not gunna really be as much about graphic differences between consoles as it will be able game content. guess we'll have to see if they were full of it or not though.

 

[Pimpwerx]

Instead of developing deeper and more involving gameplay, game design has sidetracked with superfluous checkbox features and unnecessary complication. Even though this extra content lies beside the point, it is the most expensive part to develop and drives game production costs so high that very few actually turn a profit, and users aren't even compelled to spend the time to see all the content anyway.

To reinvigorate the userbase and make game development economical again, game design needs to return to the arcade principles of big, bold, and straight to the point while adding a new dimension of depth to push gameplay forward again. The key to this next advancement will be physics simulation: describing a world with responsiveness, interaction, and natural behavior.

Structures could be built from individual pieces that obey a physics model to keep the structure standing, turning an ordinary shooter into a tactical environmental demolition affair. Just the opposite: games where players actually do something constructive, like building things together, could be possible from that, too.

Sorry, but arcade principles, as you say, are what killed the arcade. There's no depth. There's no reason to return but for the wow factor, and that wears off quick. There's a reason games have become more complicated, and it's b/c that's what gamers want. And it's proven with the sales. One look at the sales charts and you see that the best selling games are some of the deepest. Madden is extremely deep now. It is a quantum leap over the original Genny game. Gran Turismo is the deepest racing game on the market by far. FF is not just a deep RPG, but they constantly change the battle system from sequel to sequel. GTA encompasses just about everything in a single game. The control system is amazingly efficient for all that it does, and the game is DEEP.

I think the concept of readily-accessible games also leads to readily-disposable games. Quick in also means quick out. Depth and variety ensures you grab the largest audience (fuck non-gamers, they don't buy games), and offer enough options to everyone that you can please just about everyone. There are plenty of simple, readily-accessible games available on all the current systems. Most of them aren't very good. Very few of them ever achieve any sort of popularity. The DS is a non-gamers haven with trash like Nintendogs and other silly tinker-toy games. But you can't expect to drive the 3rd party melee with that nonsense. The difference between the DS and the PS1/PS2 is that you have all 3rd parties putting their best effort forward on the PS line, and thus to stand out in the crowd, they need to offer something innovative and engrossing. You can't get that with arcadey games or simplistic controls. Not in this day and age. The move to 3D has necessitated an increase in complexity. Complexity increaes exponentially with dimensions IMO. PEACE.

 

[Pimpbaa]

Morrowind is a terrible game anyway. Not too bad graphics but very bad performance.

Incorrect. It is one of the best RPGs this gen.

 

[U.2.K. Tha Greate$t]

hangin out with the lady tonight

:lol Think you should word this better, for people like me, i thought you was talking about " Women of the night"

 

[Ruzbeh]

Incorrect. It is one of the best RPGs this gen.

Are you kidding? Everytime I just walk by a few NPCs, completely ignoring them, they constantly go like "Speak outlander!!!" "OUT WITH IT" "What is it?" etc. It's driving me nuts.

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

Sorry, but arcade principles, as you say, are what killed the arcade. There's no depth. There's no reason to return but for the wow factor, and that wears off quick.

Sorry to butt in, but I couldn't disagree more about the no skill and wow part. Ask any Street / Virtua Fighter fan and they'll tell you about depth. The wow factor? That was going to an arcade and seeing some badass beat Ryu using E. Honda. Not - OMG! BUMP MAPPING AND SELF SHADOWING! Not grossly overproduced cut scenes in between bouts of button mashing in Devil May Cry 19.

Kids today think they're a fucking social maven because Nintendo, Sega, and Microsoft gives them four controller ports on their game box? HA! You're not Hugh Heffner hosting a party at the Playboy mansion you shitheads. The social gaming was taking place in arcades long before your daddy (generally speaking here) was beer goggling in that dockside bar.

What will save arcade game design and concepts is on-line gaming. There's no reason something as simple as Final Fight, the original, not that fucking Crapcom USA bastardization, shouldn't be released with co-op on-line play. No reason! On-line play should be standard in classic collections, and the players who enjoy these experiences can take advantage of it, and those who don't well they can buy Mario 682 and GTA.

I don't agree that games are too complicated. There's a greater variety of software out today for the PS2 than ever before. You can find a screwball genre and stick with it. You don't have to buy Gran Turismo or GTA.

Developers - bring back the social arcade experience by putting your classics and arcade style games on-line for multiple players to partake of.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Mrbob]

Dynasty Warriors 5 is your friend. It has two player split screen co-op too!

 

[Barnimal]

the last res evil i played was res evil for the saturn. i think time is a factor. its funny controls keep being mentioned because i swear this is gonna sound sad but i still have to look at the xbox controller sometimes. :lol the last controller i had memorized was the dreamcast conroller. and they are pretty much the same!

 

[Thraktor]

...to stand out in the crowd, they need to offer something innovative and engrossing. You can't get that with arcadey games or simplistic controls. Not in this day and age.

Games from this gen that are both innovative and engrossing while still retaining the simplicity and intuitiveness that can attract people other than narrow-minded "hardcore" gamers:

Super Monkey Ball
Pikmin
Animal Crossing
DK: Jungle Beat
Zelda: Four Swords Adventures
Luigi's Mansion
Ico
Frequency
Katamari Damacy
Rez
The Sims
WarioWare
Mario & Luigi
Boktai
Kirby Canvas Curse
Pac-Pix
Yoshi Touch & Go
etc.

If you're overlooking these games simply because "there's no depth", then you're sadly mistaken in most counts and missing out on great gaming experiences in all.

Everyone watches movies, everyone listens to music, but everyone still doesn't play games, and the reason for that is that the gaming industry has become so cynical and self-contained that the only "innovation" that most publishers (and indeed buyers) look for nowadays is higher and higher levels of complexity to stagnant genres. I sincerely hope that Nintendo's new console is actually revolutionary in it's attempts to bring "outsiders" into the world of videogames, because the sheer complexity of most games today is scaring an awful lot of people away from embracing videogames, and it could well be those people who can bring fresh new ideas to invigorate the industry once again.

 

[Musashi Wins!]

There should be both. And there will be both. I hate this whole boring subject that Nintendo has injected into the conversation. If it's an attempt to bring in non-gamers, great, the more the merrier. But I am a gamer and I honestly like both types of games. Some games aren't worth the complexity, but many just allow you to do more than you used to be able to do in a game and that's great. And simplicity is sometimes right, and sometimes feels retrograde and frivolous. A lot of those games in that list that are "innovative and simplistic" are fun. And some are fun for about 2 days and should probably be on a cellphone rather than $30-50 on a dedicated gaming platform.

Quality isn't bound up in either simplicity or complexity exclusively, and I don't know how it can be simply shoehorned into one or the other for the sake of some debate.

 

[Senretsu]

Nintendo DS games are about as simple as you can get and still be fun at the same time. pick up kirby and meteos. Great games, fun, easier to get into, hard to master.

also most GBA games are nice for pick up and play. Get Astro Boy (just get it, it's old school but kick ass).

Super Smash Bros. Melee is also easy to get into, but has an incredible depth to it.

and you've already discovered katamari

 

[Drinky Crow]

Fuck simple. As long as the interface is well-designed and the complexity clearly communicated to the player, MAKE 'EM AS DEEP AND CONTENT-HEAVY AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE.

Fuck this puzzler and mini-game bullshit.

 

[El_Victor]

Fuck simple. As long as the interface is well-designed and the complexity clearly communicated to the player, MAKE 'EM AS DEEP AND CONTENT-HEAVY AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE.

Fuck this puzzler and mini-game bullshit.

Amen' .. but I do like Nintendo DS..

 

[Wafflecopter]

Don't get a DS. It's odd how Ninty fans praise the simplicity, yet if most Ninty games were complicated, they would praise that.

 

[JayFro]

If anything the current level of complexity in games is cool with me, I don't want games that are too simple because they feel limited as to what you can do. Why not just have a wide range of games from complex to very simple to appeal to everyone.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Fuck simple. As long as the interface is well-designed and the complexity clearly communicated to the player, MAKE 'EM AS DEEP AND CONTENT-HEAVY AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE.

That's something that deserves to be differentiated. Bringing dictionary definitions to this gaming conversation, complicated as in to make complex or difficult is very different than complicated as in consisting of parts intricately combined.

Don't get a DS. It's odd how Ninty fans praise the simplicity, yet if most Ninty games were complicated, they would praise that.

I'm one-eighth strawman and find this post offensive.

 

[Wafflecopter]

That's something that deserves to be differentiated. Bringing dictionary definitions to this gaming conversation, complicated as in to make complex or difficult is very different than complicated as in consisting of parts intricately combined.


I'm one-eighth strawman and find this post offensive.

:lol This post gets five starfs

 

[bionic77]

Games don't need to become easier or less complicated, developers just need to make the gameplay more focused. I liked open gameplay at first, but it is getting old for me at least. I want games that are super focused (2D excels at this ) instead of just being able to wander aimlessly. This is something I thought games like RE4 and ZOE2 got right. Granted ZOE2 was only like 7 hours long, but I will take those 7 hours over 50 hours of boring gameplay in GTA.

Opinions will obviously vary, as games like GTA seem to be pretty popular.

 

[TheDiave]

There's a difference between a game being complicated, and a game being involved. The games you mention -- GTA:SA and RE4 -- are both involved; They require a time investment to play. They're not particularly complex, per se.

You want to talk about complex games? How about a game like the Splinter Cell series, SOCOM series, or any of the more full-featured RTS' on the PC.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Games don't need to become easier or less complicated, developers just need to make the gameplay more focused. I liked open gameplay at first, but it is getting old for me at least. I want games that are super focused (2D excels at this ) instead of just being able to wander aimlessly. This is something I thought games like RE4 and ZOE2 got right. Granted ZOE2 was only like 7 hours long, but I will take those 7 hours over 50 hours of boring gameplay in GTA.

Opinions will obviously vary, as games like GTA seem to be pretty popular.

I agree with the statement about more focused gameplay. Older games, even the very complex ones, were very bottom-up designs where constant attention and involvement by the player was very important to advance to other areas of the game. More and more games are going for the whole sprawling playground design, where the big idea is about being big and epic...but the moment to moment gameplay and involvement is, in many titles, very thin and more heavily dependent on personal interest in the more purely aesthetic layer of the game, IMO. Anyway, focus, IMO, is more dependent on resistance on the player...not purely about amount of actual space to travel.

I love the sandbox gameplay of GTA and the like, but that's also because I can tend to find myself easily entertained with the wide open possibilities of wreaking havoc in those games....though they could all stand to have a bit more resistance in the opposition they provide from the get-go -- forcing you to just be more involved in playing. I guess that's more of a concession to making the game more broadly appealing and probably one of the main reasons for the series' success....anyway... Theme and options have a lot to do with the open-ended game design, IMO. If you're just not feeling the world given to you, doing things in that place probably won't appeal much either.