Is Simplicity better than complexity

from Stardock Forums
Hey all,

Just thought about this when I was reading about Leto's posting about Tac Combat...

What appears to be the issue here is whether or not GalCiv should be as complex as possible or as simple as possible. Now I think the developers have already commented on what GalCiv should be, remembering that this is their game design and that while commentary is appreciated, it's not necessarily going to be accepted as such. But to re-iterate the whole schmozzle that the whole debate over this is better vs. that is better...

Remember what GalCiv was initially designed as envisioned by the developers. Nowadays a little research on most things you buy would not go astray. It's after researching and waiting for opinions to pass through before I decided not to buy something like C&C:Generals or MOO3. Think about it, these things will take up a portion of your time, so you would want something that you would enjoy to play.

Remember what GalCiv was designed as guys and gals, enjoy it in its context. Do your research and make sure you know what you are buying in to. (If you do it for ANYTHING you spend a lot of time with/at eg: cars, houses, clothes, etc. then why not games? Give your brain some respect!) :)

~SDC~
330 views 5 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
simplicity vs. complexity? hmmm, that's a tough one. I say make the game fun. that's subjective though...

simple rules, complex strategies. give the game a character first, though.

Go/Chess/Tetris/checkers/poker are 'simple' but complex at the same time. still played in GREAT numbers by a whole bunch of people. did those game designers (some of them prolly lived centuries ago) know something we don't know? :notsure: I mean chess alone has tons of books on opening strategy alone! kinda weird.

don't do complexity for the sake of complexity. simple rules, but complex strategies. hmmm, yeah. :notsure: it's a whole science in itself, methinks.

the bottom line for me is, that the game should take me away from reality for a while, make me chuckle, grin, or whatever

Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
Simplicity vs complexity isn't really the issue; there's pointless complexity and oversimplification as negatives on both sides of the coin.

What's needed is elegance: relatively simple rules systems that generate relatively complex results, keeping the ratio of Gameplay:Rules very high. GalCiv appears to do this pretty well.


The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
Well, IMO, tactical combat in most games is hardly what I would call complex.. rather time consuming. If done well, it can be fun.. but it hardly mattered what your strategy was IN battle, to be frank. If you had better missles, weapons, armor.. you won. You typically knew the outcome of battles every single time in almost all 4x games. Certainly this is true with MOO2, MOO3, SEIV and others.

The only TBS game I've played that I felt tactical combat actually mattered (that my actions during combat actually affected the outcome, and ultimately after many battles, the outcome of the game) is Age of Wonders II. Awesome fun game, and I NEVER allow auto combat. You can succeed with sneaky planning.

Anyways.. GalCiv is complex, just in other arenas. It is not overly complex in a pathetic MOO3 sort of way.. it is just full of strategy, logistics, and careful planning. And I like it just how it is. :D

fleabitfox
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
As Gal Civ is right now, it's simple MECHANICS, complex (as far as I can tell.. :p) gameplay. There's a difference.

Space Empires IV is complex as hell and also has complex gameplay.

MOO3 is complex and hell but once you get past all the needless complexities (useless numbers, feedback, etc.) it's actually quite simple (AI takes over for you etc.)

So no, Gal Civ doesn't need to become "complex". It's a different style, as long as the game itself (strategies) are complex then it's ok. Take Starcraft (yes I know alot of TBS players hate RTS), but that is a VERY simple game on the outside, but once you get past that (and money maps) it's actually very complex to play (drops, economy, flanking, scouting etc. etc.)
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
I like complexity, but on the other hand, it needs to be implemented right. As fleabitfox said, AOW2 was astoundish regarding tactical combat (still not beating MOM though ;)) and if it's possible to add this to a game (with an option to turn it out), of course that's fun. I mean you don't have to use it, if you don't want, right? I think MOO2 wasn't too bad, you could tractor beam, etc. it was quite nice handled, MOO3 is (luckily? ;)) unknown to me.

But the question was, if simplicity was BETTER than complexity, and regarding chess, it's tempting to say, yes it is. But one should not forget, chess isn't strategic alone, it's also tactical, you have different abilities which are needed to be used right. I's say the reason why there are so many books about opening strategies, is that the opening is important not only strategically but also from a tactical point of view.

But back to Gal-Civ. If you say it's simplified, then you forget, that there are planets and economics and what not, to be handled as well. If it was only a turn based space war, then it would be, plain and simple, too simple. Especially because there is no stacking bonus. But you have that many OTHER things you need to controll, so I wouldn't say it's simple. It has a simple combat system, because the focus lies not on war.

~SDC~