Complexity/Depth > Accessiblity/Mainstream

To make this first blog short, I'm going to be fairly reductive. All too often I see a game tout "accessibility" as it's core goal while overlooking depth/complexity. The problem is that players can always learn more and improve when a game has depth/complexity. When a game is solely focused on accessibility and pandering to the "mainstream," you lose any real progression in player knowledge/ability.

Now these elements aren't mutually exclusive (think of chess as a good example for both) but the one that is focused on is the one that the game will skew towards. The vast majority of current games pander to the player and are over in 5-10 hours with no replayability aside from achievements (something I will write about in a future blog). There's a place for these games but they've become the norm and, as with almost any long-standing tradition, they've become stale and meaningless.

If there was a plethora of deep and complex games then this would be refreshing but this is not the case. I'm tired of disposable games. Games should hold appeal years to come and not days until return/abandonment.

Developers like to point to simpler games like Call of Duty and tout that people don't want depth. This is akin to a movie director making a pure action movie because Transformers is popular. Great games/movies will rise to the top if you give them the chance and you'll never match the most popular fad.

In summary, every game doesn't have to be Dark Souls to the player but more games need to be Chess. Room for growth while starting off simple. Current game designers only seem to focus on the simple.

To make this first blog short, I'm going to be fairly reductive. All too often I see a game tout "accessibility" as it's core goal while overlooking depth/complexity. The problem is that players can always learn more and improve when a game has depth/complexity. When a game is solely focused on accessibility and pandering to the "mainstream," you lose any real progression in player knowledge/ability.

Now these elements aren't mutually exclusive (think of chess as a good example for both) but the one that is focused on is the one that the game will skew towards. The vast majority of current games pander to the player and are over in 5-10 hours with no replayability aside from achievements (something I will write about in a future blog). There's a place for these games but they've become the norm and, as with almost any long-standing tradition, they've become stale and meaningless.

If there was a plethora of deep and complex games then this would be refreshing but this is not the case. I'm tired of disposable games. Games should hold appeal years to come and not days until return/abandonment.

Developers like to point to simpler games like Call of Duty and tout that people don't want depth. This is akin to a movie director making a pure action movie because Transformers is popular. Great games/movies will rise to the top if you give them the chance and you'll never match the most popular fad.

In summary, every game doesn't have to be Dark Souls to the player but more games need to be Chess. Room for growth while starting off simple. Current game designers only seem to focus on the simple.

You're not gonna get a lot of love here, this is probably one of the nicest friendlest communities on the net but when it comes to games, they love the accessible and shallow titles that disguise themselves with "deep, bro" cutscenes.  
I'm not saying I'm some kind of genius, I'm too stupid to progress in an RTS and I only a year ago started playing RPGs, but I appreciate complexity and depth that I don't understand. I tackle them and if I fail, I stand by and watch others do it in admiration. And I always wish that complexity would remain for those who can endure and enjoy it. But most people here are more than fine with developers throwing away all of their heritage and sophisticated designs for "cool shit" that Jeff would five-star.
 
One thing I can relate to is complex/deep shooters like Battlefield 2 and Crysis (gameplay-wise) and I know how it sucks to have them replaced with Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2 today. Far Cry 3 is also massively disappointing me based on the new footage. 
 
I stand by my opinion that this generation of the consoles was the demise of any deep, complex, slow-paced or thoughtful creativity in the industry.

The market demands games that pander to the lowest common denominator.

Different consumers, different expectations. Some people like their Angry Birds and CoDs, others prefer Europa Universalis and Super Meat Boys. I see nothing wrong with variety, and I think there's enough variety in the market to please both crowds.

@DrDarkStryfe said:

The market demands games that pander to the lowest common denominator.

Which is why when "good" games go against that grain, they do VERY well. The Witcher series is a perfect example of sticking to your PC RPG roots and telling the rest of the market derps to screw off, we'll get around to consoles when we feel like it.

I wouldn't mind some lean in my FPSs again.

I completely agree about this. My friend has been telling me about some of the incredibly intricate and interesting experiences he's been having with Crusader Kings, and I realised that I haven't found a game which attempted to engage me deeply on an intellectual level in a very very long time (and my PC can't run Crusader Kings!).

So... are you saying that something as simple as Halo has very little room for skill improvement?

Well, let's see you do a Legendary playthrough right after your first one.

This isn't to say that you are completely wrong, but sometimes the greatest joy and entertainment can come from the simplest of games. This is why Call of Duty is popular and Crusader Kings is not. Plus, you know, playing with friends is an absolute riot under good circumstances, though Call of Duty has really lost a lot of its appeal to me. I just don't see these sorts of games as "disposable" when they are the ones that I enjoy the most. It's all down to a matter of opinion, here. Maybe I'm just stupid for not enjoying RTS and other more complex genres, but I'd rather be an idiot and having fun than bored out of my Einstein - level intellectual mind.

I could write this a lot better but I want to go blow something up.

EDIT: And stop this "lowest common denominator" bullshit. Many successful games of the past few years have been more complex than Call of Duty, yet still sell very well and get plenty of support and money.

@DrDarkStryfe said:

The market demands games that pander to the lowest common denominator.

Which is why when "good" games go against that grain, they do VERY well. The Witcher series is a perfect example of sticking to your PC RPG roots and telling the rest of the market derps to screw off, we'll get around to consoles when we feel like it.

I just want a game that pulls me in to keep me playing. If it does that by being crazy awesome and not very deep, like Borderlands, which I STILL play and STILL adore, fine. If it does it the way Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect does it by giving me a pretty deep and expansive experience to keep coming back to, awesome. But I will agree that I think SOME genres need to stop. ME2 and ME3 are pretty disappointing for me as someone who wants RPGs to be deep and have tactical gameplay with lots of cool shit to do in and out of combat, not have three buttons mapped to skills and one to shoot and that being about the long and short of it.

@believer258 said:

So... are you saying that something as simple as Halo has very little room for skill improvement?

Well, let's see you do a Legendary playthrough right after your first one.

That's a bit like comparing chess to football. 'You think you're so good at chess, why don't you try beating me at football'.

Beating a game like Halo on Legendary is more physical skill like getting good at a sport and chess is like getting good at turn-based strategy game. You combine the two and you get something like StarCraft and look how popular that is. Maybe I'm onto something.

@benspyda said:

@believer258 said:

So... are you saying that something as simple as Halo has very little room for skill improvement?

Well, let's see you do a Legendary playthrough right after your first one.

That's a bit like comparing chess to football. 'You think you're so good at chess, why don't you try beating me at football'.

Beating a game like Halo on Legendary is more physical skill like getting good at a sport and chess is like getting good at turn-based strategy game. You combine the two and you get something like StarCraft and look how popular that is. Maybe I'm onto something.

We definitely need to find a way to combine chess and football. I don't much like football but throw some chess in there and my interest will skyrocket.

A little more seriously, it seemed like the OP was saying that the skill needed to play Halo cannot be improved upon once one has mastered the controls. That is false. You can master the controls and muster your way through the game on Normal; trying to play on Legendary when you've only just gotten the controls downpat isn't going to happen.

@believer258 said:

@benspyda said:

@believer258 said:

So... are you saying that something as simple as Halo has very little room for skill improvement?

Well, let's see you do a Legendary playthrough right after your first one.

That's a bit like comparing chess to football. 'You think you're so good at chess, why don't you try beating me at football'.

Beating a game like Halo on Legendary is more physical skill like getting good at a sport and chess is like getting good at turn-based strategy game. You combine the two and you get something like StarCraft and look how popular that is. Maybe I'm onto something.

We definitely need to find a way to combine chess and football. I don't much like football but throw some chess in there and my interest will skyrocket.

I see $$$.

You have a point, but I think there are enough games out there with what you are looking for.
 
I don't need a dozen games with years worth of appeal in the first place.
 
It's just not what a majority of the market wants.

@benspyda said:

@believer258 said:

@benspyda said:

@believer258 said:

So... are you saying that something as simple as Halo has very little room for skill improvement?

Well, let's see you do a Legendary playthrough right after your first one.

That's a bit like comparing chess to football. 'You think you're so good at chess, why don't you try beating me at football'.

Beating a game like Halo on Legendary is more physical skill like getting good at a sport and chess is like getting good at turn-based strategy game. You combine the two and you get something like StarCraft and look how popular that is. Maybe I'm onto something.

We definitely need to find a way to combine chess and football. I don't much like football but throw some chess in there and my interest will skyrocket.

A little more seriously, it seemed like the OP was saying that the skill needed to play Halo cannot be improved upon once one has mastered the controls. That is false. Competitive multiplayer proves it to be so.

I see $$$.

I do too. Say, a turn-based football game where one team gets a move, performs it, and then the other one gets to make their own counter-move. I understand that football - that is, American football, I wasn't talking about soccer - as we know it can't be played that way, but a little change in the rules never hurt anyone.

There is nothing more dread inducing than seeing a developer utter the words "We want to make the sequel appeal to wider audience".

Games are being made easier and simpler to bring in people who wouldn't normally play games. In the pursuit for more money the fans they already have are seldom the ones they think about, because they already know the fans will buy it.

Worst part is, it works.

A good game can give you all of that in one package the concepts aren't mutually exclusive. Take for example Twisted Metal that just came out. On the surface that game is drive around with guns bang bang and shoot dudes right? Right. Beneath that there is complexity to how the cars work. If you know actively what you are doing you can out play and out manuver people who are just mindlessly driving and shooting. Every car has its strengths and weaknesses. Knowing how and when to engage can give you a massive edge especially in team modes. Even games like SSX are like this. You can have fun out of the box but knowing how to rack up 65 million points on a single track takes a deeper understanding of the game than most people will get.

@believer258 said:

@benspyda said:

@believer258 said:

@benspyda said:

@believer258 said:

So... are you saying that something as simple as Halo has very little room for skill improvement?

Well, let's see you do a Legendary playthrough right after your first one.

That's a bit like comparing chess to football. 'You think you're so good at chess, why don't you try beating me at football'.

Beating a game like Halo on Legendary is more physical skill like getting good at a sport and chess is like getting good at turn-based strategy game. You combine the two and you get something like StarCraft and look how popular that is. Maybe I'm onto something.

We definitely need to find a way to combine chess and football. I don't much like football but throw some chess in there and my interest will skyrocket.

A little more seriously, it seemed like the OP was saying that the skill needed to play Halo cannot be improved upon once one has mastered the controls. That is false. Competitive multiplayer proves it to be so.

I see $$$.

I do too. Say, a turn-based football game where one team gets a move, performs it, and then the other one gets to make their own counter-move. I understand that football - that is, American football, I wasn't talking about soccer - as we know it can't be played that way, but a little change in the rules never hurt anyone.

isn't that just blood bowl

@believer258 said:

So... are you saying that something as simple as Halo has very little room for skill improvement?

Well, let's see you do a Legendary playthrough right after your first one.

You're confusing depth/complexity with difficulty. By making the game arbitrarily harder, the game hasn't necessarily been made more deep or complex. Since you mentioned, Halo, I'll stick to how most contemporary FPS campaigns work. You increase the difficulty which can do any number of things but usually increases the damage enemies do to you, enemies take more damage, more/harder enemies are present. The usual effect on the player is that while they have to me more careful and cautious, they're still performing the same actions just at a slower rate. When the action turns into picking off one enemy at a time and taking cover more frequently, you didn't add depth just arbitrary tedium. Games like Metro 2033 and Bioshock Infinite's 1999 mode would be better examples for this.

In Metro, the higher difficulties increase enemy damage as well as your own damage. They also restrict your resources (ammo, health kits, gas masks) to force you to play smartly. Playing the game on the lowest and the highest settings are like playing an entirely different game. Ranger Hardcore (the highest difficulty) forces you to be extremely frugal and methodical while making deliberate choices that didn't exist on lower difficulties.

Bioshock's 1999 mode also looks to increase depth/complexity by restricting choice and forcing higher level decision making.

@LordXavierBritish said:

You have a point, but I think there are enough games out there with what you are looking for. I don't need a dozen games with years worth of appeal in the first place. It's just not what a majority of the market wants.

We shouldn't have to justify "enough" games with depth/complexity. If you look at the past five years or so of games, you would be hard-pressed to pinpoint a significant number of games that had depth/complexity AND were relatively successful. Furthermore, if you don't enjoy a particular genre or subgenre, you're narrowing the field down to almost nothing.

Meanwhile, games that used to be mainly focused on depth/complexity are shying away from their roots in order to appeal to more audiences. We're in the situation of getting few new games that push our ability to learn and think while series that we could previously count on abandoning their strengths to cash in on unsuspecting consumers.

Ideally, we would have an equal number of games that were accessible to deep in most genres but this isn't the case and it's going farther south every passing year.

@R3DT1D3 said:

@believer258 said:

So... are you saying that something as simple as Halo has very little room for skill improvement?

Well, let's see you do a Legendary playthrough right after your first one.

You're confusing depth/complexity with difficulty. By making the game arbitrarily harder, the game hasn't necessarily been made more deep or complex. Since you mentioned, Halo, I'll stick to how most contemporary FPS campaigns work. You increase the difficulty which can do any number of things but usually increases the damage enemies do to you, enemies take more damage, more/harder enemies are present. The usual effect on the player is that while they have to me more careful and cautious, they're still performing the same actions just at a slower rate. When the action turns into picking off one enemy at a time and taking cover more frequently, you didn't add depth just arbitrary tedium. Games like Metro 2033 and Bioshock Infinite's 1999 mode would be better examples for this.

In Metro, the higher difficulties increase enemy damage as well as your own damage. They also restrict your resources (ammo, health kits, gas masks) to force you to play smartly. Playing the game on the lowest and the highest settings are like playing an entirely different game. Ranger Hardcore (the highest difficulty) forces you to be extremely frugal and methodical while making deliberate choices that didn't exist on lower difficulties.

Bioshock's 1999 mode also looks to increase depth/complexity by restricting choice and forcing higher level decision making.

When is the last time you played Halo? Certainly it increases damage dealt by the enemy and makes elites, especially gold ones, essentially walking tanks, but it hardly makes you do the same actions, just slower. I play Halo on Normal completely differently than on Legendary. That's why I pointed it out - it's simple to grab hold of but requires a ton of skill and practice to truly master. Trying to beat Bioshock on the hardest difficulty without Vita chambers is of a comparable sort of difficulty.

While we're at it, is the complexity that you want more menu-driven, or do you mean something more along the lines of Bioshock's "what can I do to take these enemies out while losing as little resources as possible"? type of complexity? Both types are complex but the former isn't much fun to most people and the latter doesn't often get recognized as "complex".

@believer258: Last time or last game? I'm generalizing here but there's very few enemies on Legendary difficulty where you actually have to vary your tactics in Halo 1-3. Playing Halo (and most games on normal) doesn't really enter in to the discussion when they let you brute force the game without any mastery or knowledge of game mechanics. "Girlfriend mode" on Gears of War can be played completely differently than the other gamemodes but that doesn't make it better. I'm talking about higher difficulty making you think and adapt rather than just refine a low-level skill.

You're right that Halo is not entirely shallow and that it has some room for mastery but compared to classic FPS, it's still not very complex or deep. While I like the design of regenerating health/shields for multiplayer games, I find it typically makes singleplayer campaigns trivially easy with any amount of cover.

Bioshock was decent in this regard but I still wouldn't call the hardest difficulty that much harder. Once you got certain plasmids upgraded and research bonuses, the world was your oyster.

@R3DT1D3: While I too would like to see more deep and complex games myself, I think it boils down to what the overall market's demand is, and the demand for such games will never be as loud or big enough to rival casual or simplified games. People want instant gratification and they want it with little to no effort while feeling like a badass at the same time.

You mentioned Dark Souls and it really is a good example where complexity and depth far exceed it's accessibility, but something like that could only stand out because it is unique and there isn't anything like it in the market right now. Heck, the GB guys wouldn't even review it, probably out of concern whether they could even finish the game. I would say that it's a miracle that something like Dark Souls could even come out in this day and age.

Maybe that's why more and more people are returning to PC land I guess.

Games don't need complexity for complexity's sake to stay fun. If it drags the game down, lose it. Sometimes less is more.

@R3DT1D3 said:

@believer258: Last time or last game? I'm generalizing here but there's very few enemies on Legendary difficulty where you actually have to vary your tactics in Halo 1-3. Playing Halo (and most games on normal) doesn't really enter in to the discussion when they let you brute force the game without any mastery or knowledge of game mechanics. "Girlfriend mode" on Gears of War can be played completely differently than the other gamemodes but that doesn't make it better. I'm talking about higher difficulty making you think and adapt rather than just refine a low-level skill.

You're right that Halo is not entirely shallow and that it has some room for mastery but compared to classic FPS, it's still not very complex or deep. While I like the design of regenerating health/shields for multiplayer games, I find it typically makes singleplayer campaigns trivially easy with any amount of cover.

Bioshock was decent in this regard but I still wouldn't call the hardest difficulty that much harder. Once you got certain plasmids upgraded and research bonuses, the world was your oyster.

All right. So give me some examples of the types of games you're looking for.

And I guess what I've really wanted to say the whole time is written best here:

@MikkaQ said:

Games don't need complexity for complexity's sake to stay fun. If it drags the game down, lose it. Sometimes less is more.

@Vorbis said:

There is nothing more dread inducing than seeing a developer utter the words "We want to make the sequel appeal to wider audience".

Games are being made easier and simpler to bring in people who wouldn't normally play games. In the pursuit for more money the fans they already have are seldom the ones they think about, because they already know the fans will buy it.

Worst part is, it works.

@AhmadMetallic said:

You're not gonna get a lot of love here, this is probably one of the nicest friendlest communities on the net but when it comes to games, they love the accessible and shallow titles that disguise themselves with "deep, bro" cutscenes. I stand by my opinion that this generation of the consoles was the demise of any deep, complex, slow-paced or thoughtful creativity in the industry.

Quoted for, unfortunately, the truth.

@MordeaniisChaos said:

I just want a game that pulls me in to keep me playing. If it does that by being crazy awesome and not very deep, like Borderlands, which I STILL play and STILL adore, fine. If it does it the way Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect does it by giving me a pretty deep and expansive experience to keep coming back to, awesome. But I will agree that I think SOME genres need to stop. ME2 and ME3 are pretty disappointing for me as someone who wants RPGs to be deep and have tactical gameplay with lots of cool shit to do in and out of combat, not have three buttons mapped to skills and one to shoot and that being about the long and short of it.

The OP's observation is relevant in regard to the deluge of sequels and reboots we're seeing, with iterations looking to grab the mainstream dollar thru accessibility or popular trends. That's pretty much BioWare' m.o. nowadays, same with BethSoft. The new Syndicate is vastly different from its roots' gameplay and is now basically a shooter. That not a complaint, just fact.

Otherwise, the success of Witcher and Dark Souls and Super Meat Boy show there is a market for complex/high difficulty games.

I'm not sure where to respond with this, so I want to see what people think of this situation from the original X-COM, because I think it has a lot to do with this topic, and how accessibility, streamlining, and outright simpler game design get so confused with each other.

Say I want to pick up and throw a flare that has already been thrown on the ground. What I have to do to accomplish this is:

1. Move a unit over the flare on the ground.
2. Open that unit's inventory.
3. By opening that unit's inventory, I can also interact with objects on the ground nearby.
4. Move the flare on the ground section of the inventory into my unit's hand.
5. Throw the flare, now that my unit is holding it.

There are a lot of things that could be improved here. And for what it's worth, here's what I think of how all these terms apply to this situation.

• Complexity: Being able to interact with objects on the ground. When you think about it, a lot of games don't do this. How many times have you tried to manage a game's inventory, only to have that object disappear because you had to drop it?
• Depth: Being able to rethrow a flare. Because in the dark, the ability to rethrow flares can change your tactical approach to combat and your strategy in clearing out an area of alien scum.
• Accessibility: Realizing that a flare can actually be rethrown, and having the game indicate that this action is possible, either through previous instructions or current cues, or both.
• Streamlining: Being able to rethrow a flare by interacting with it directly, instead of going through an inventory.
• Simpler game design: Unlimited flares on cooldowns or just not being able to throw flares.

Thoughts?

@MikkaQ said:

Games don't need complexity for complexity's sake to stay fun. If it drags the game down, lose it. Sometimes less is more.

I fully agree that simplicity can be it's own reward. What I'm arguing is that there is no balance. Check the side bar for new releases from time to time. There's almost nothing that you can sink your teeth into as far as player ability (meaning RPG/MMO grinding doesn't count). There's iPhone games, portable games, flash games, etc coming at all the time that are almost purely simple, small experiences. That's not even considering the <10 hour console games that come out every week. If that's what you want, you're already covered 1000000x more than you could ever want and that's perfectly fine. What I'm arguing is the lack (and sometimes discouragement) in deeper experiences that used to be much more common.

@believer258 said:

@R3DT1D3 said:

@believer258: Last time or last game? I'm generalizing here but there's very few enemies on Legendary difficulty where you actually have to vary your tactics in Halo 1-3. Playing Halo (and most games on normal) doesn't really enter in to the discussion when they let you brute force the game without any mastery or knowledge of game mechanics. "Girlfriend mode" on Gears of War can be played completely differently than the other gamemodes but that doesn't make it better. I'm talking about higher difficulty making you think and adapt rather than just refine a low-level skill.

You're right that Halo is not entirely shallow and that it has some room for mastery but compared to classic FPS, it's still not very complex or deep. While I like the design of regenerating health/shields for multiplayer games, I find it typically makes singleplayer campaigns trivially easy with any amount of cover.

Bioshock was decent in this regard but I still wouldn't call the hardest difficulty that much harder. Once you got certain plasmids upgraded and research bonuses, the world was your oyster.

All right. So give me some examples of the types of games you're looking for.

And I guess what I've really wanted to say the whole time is written best here:

@MikkaQ said:

Games don't need complexity for complexity's sake to stay fun. If it drags the game down, lose it. Sometimes less is more.

Let me preface my examples in saying that I've most heavily played FPS/RTS games so my examples will come from those two genres. My point can be extended to other genres but I don't feel as comfortable or as experienced to comment on them without some time for research and further thought.

Well one example I already mentioned is Metro 2033. At the highest difficulty level, it's all about conservation and precision. If you are imprecise or wasteful at any point, you seriously hurt yourself in the long run. It demands that you are both refining your manipulation of the game and thinking of new ways to solve problems. This is in stark contrast to the "just get better/faster at the controls" of most other games at higher difficulty. Played on normal difficulty and it's just another shooter with a decent story.

Another shooter example is the original Crysis (the alien parts less so). Crysis is deep/complex is a different way than Metro. Crysis gives you a large toolset (the suit) and a large area to operate and experiment in. Again, on normal difficulty you really just need cloak and armor and can get by on decent shooter skills. The place Crysis shines is on higher difficulties where you're using your suit powers to their full potential and planning out every engagement. The end objective is the goal and how you get there and how you use the tools given to you can vary drastically with each playthrough (finished my 5th the other day). Like Metro, if you get in over your head without the right tools, you're as good as dead.

As for RTS, Starcraft: Brood War is the poster child for depth but it's age and interface make it hard to get in for newcomers so I'll use Company of Heroes instead. Company of Heroes is based on a few key principles: map control, unit usage, and purchasing decisions. All of these concepts are explained in the tutorial and campaign with simple examples and ease a new player into what they should be focused on. The depth/complexity in achieving these principles is intuitive (easy to learn once introduced) but also deep/complex (subtlety and nuance in high level play). With a few exceptions, the system is easy to learn and hard to master. Almost everything in the game is learned by doing and thinking rather than grinding out the best build order and using a set strategy.

What ties these game together is that on the surface, your goals are fairly simple but the toolset and freedom you're given and expected to use for those goals is open. Your problem solving and your game mechanics have to be operating in tandem. This is where most games fail to introduce depth/complexity by only requiring either slight refinement mechanical skill to solve the problem or some gimmick.

This is turning dangerously close to what my next blog post topics are going to be about: player skill vs avatar skill and skill ceiling.

@Ubersmake:

This goes back to the balance between "streamlining" and depth. X-com is one of my favorite games and yet I realize that there are some convoluted things (like picking the flare, changing weapon to backpack, throwing flare, changing weapon back) that could be improved. The problem is that most current designers see that and say: "Oh, this is complicated, let's go with the infinite flares method and call it a day." They look at "solving" the problem without considering the positive aspects of the current system. If you throw the flare a good distance, you put yourself at risk retrieving it under the light it brings (presumably in the open) while throwing it short doesn't offer much vision advantage but is safer.

In essence, game designers follow the path of least resistance rather than offering legitimate trade-offs or oppurtunity cost to gameplay. There are definitely problems with overly complex games and systems but the solution needs to take into consideration the positive aspects as well as the negative aspects before jumping to conclusions.

@stryker1121: I agree, I would love to see more games like Dark Souls, ME1, Stalker, etc. But that doesn't mean that simple games aren't worth while, the only problem now is there are a TON of simple games and not a lot of complex games. That being said, just because "used to be one thing now its a shooter" doesn't mean it can't be deep. Syndicate has abilities to use, a variety of weapons, and RPG level up mechanics. For a shooter, that's deep enough. The idea that a game has to be isometric or turn based to be deep seems odd to me. It's like the people who say Fallout 3/ New Vegas are "casual" compared to the originals, or that Skyrim is less deep than Oblivion, the shallowest game in the whole damn world, even though in a lot of ways, like the world your character exist within and even combat are in a lot of ways more complex, and certainly a lot better in a lot of ways as well. My only point is that even simple games can be good. I'm playing Dragon Age Origins on Nightmare right now, and I love it. It's super tactical, super demanding, and that's what I love about it. It could be less complex but just as demanding and rewarding, like playing Metro 2033 on Hardcore Stalker or whatever which is really a pretty simple shooter in terms of mechanics but on that difficulty (and most from what I've heard) you have to conserve ammo a LOT and be very thoughtful before approaching a situation. Course, there were also times when I didn't have enough bullets to progress past a part and had to start the game over because of how the saves worked in that game.

@MordeaniisChaos said:

@stryker1121: I agree, I would love to see more games like Dark Souls, ME1, Stalker, etc. But that doesn't mean that simple games aren't worth while, the only problem now is there are a TON of simple games and not a lot of complex games. That being said, just because "used to be one thing now its a shooter" doesn't mean it can't be deep. Syndicate has abilities to use, a variety of weapons, and RPG level up mechanics. For a shooter, that's deep enough. The idea that a game has to be isometric or turn based to be deep seems odd to me. It's like the people who say Fallout 3/ New Vegas are "casual" compared to the originals, or that Skyrim is less deep than Oblivion, the shallowest game in the whole damn world, even though in a lot of ways, like the world your character exist within and even combat are in a lot of ways more complex, and certainly a lot better in a lot of ways as well. My only point is that even simple games can be good. I'm playing Dragon Age Origins on Nightmare right now, and I love it. It's super tactical, super demanding, and that's what I love about it. It could be less complex but just as demanding and rewarding, like playing Metro 2033 on Hardcore Stalker or whatever which is really a pretty simple shooter in terms of mechanics but on that difficulty (and most from what I've heard) you have to conserve ammo a LOT and be very thoughtful before approaching a situation. Course, there were also times when I didn't have enough bullets to progress past a part and had to start the game over because of how the saves worked in that game.

Just comparing Oblivion to say, Morrowind, and there's a vast difference there in terms of customization and complexity. And Oblivion's one of my favorite games of all time. What's more, people throw around complexity/accessibility all the time w/o defining what those terms mean in terms of a game. People would argue that ME1 is not complex, it just bogs you down w/ a shitty menu system and a bunch of meaningless stats. Higher difficulty, meanwhile, often just equals more hit points for enemies, and I'll admit I don't get on w/ difficulty levels that one-shot kill me. That's just frustrating. I would get my ass handed to me playing DAO on Nightmare, for example.

That said, playing a game like BioShock 2 on veteran difficulty and disabling Vita Chambers makes for a vastly different and extremely fun gameplay experience, forcing me to plan skirmishes, set traps, hack security bots and use certain powers other than just shooting/plasmiding my way thru fights. And then there are times when I want a fairly "simple" game where I can shoot shit and not have to think about deep RPG systems and the like. Playing Vanquish right now and it fits the bill nicely.

I'm just going to pop in here and ask for working hypotheses / definitions of "depth", "complexity", "accessibility" and "mainstream". Because putting "depth" / "complexity" diametrically opposed to "accessibility" / "mainstream" is terribly confusing when the OP starts praising Starcraft's depth and complexity... and its "easy to learn", "intuitive" principles. It's really weird to see someone skew very much in favour of one direction and then start using qualities that come from the other direction.

"I like the colour white because it's so wonderfully black"

It just doesn't make any sense.

Depth does not mean complex. Most complex games are actually extremely simple but obfuscated by unintuitive control and interfaces. Dungeons and Dragons has always been in an incredibly complex game, but can be rendered incredibly shallow by min-maxing. BioShock is a complex game, but it's depth is immediately nullified when Jeff uses the wrench and the lightning bolt for the entire game.

Someone mentioned Angry Birds. Angry Birds is incredibly simple. If you're just trying to beat stages, Angry Birds seems shallow. If you're trying to get 3 stars in every level, you will learn to see the subtleties. It truly becomes a game of planning and skill.

@stryker1121: Well yes, Morrowind and Oblivion were VERY different games. I'm just saying that Skyrim added a lot more depth than it took away by compressing the skills a bit (and not even that much).

Mass Effect was deep because it had so many things you could do. In ME2/3, you have like 3 or 4 powers at your disposal. At most 6 useful ones including squadmates, and not including ammo types because those are basically passive. In ME1, you had a ton of abilities, assuming you didn't play as soldier, and yeah there were a lot of stats to get up but things like the weapon skills were far from meaningless.

As for DA on Nightmare, it really changes the way you have to play. Where as before you might be able to get away with friendly fire, with rushing into fights, on Nightmare you have to play a lot more tactically. You have to control just about every action your characters take, you have to position your party in such a way that AoE from your wizards can be effective without charring your tank, you have to move rogues to the back to get backstabs, you have to manage health and you have to make sure to keep the aggro where it belongs, on the front lines. You have to prioritize targets, taking down the bigger guys and the mages first, use an archer to pin down en enemy ranged combatant so they can't flee to gain the upper hand with your melee fighters. You end up figuring out how to force the enemies to do what you need them to do. Setting up ambushes where you sit all but one ranged character just outside of a door or around a corner so you can force the ranged enemies to keep close inorder to be able to attack your party members, which makes them easier to take out and often switch to weapons they are less effective with, as well as letting your mage include them in AoE such as the cone of cold or what ever and mindblast, which are great for freezing/stunning a group of enemies. The game isn't about brutal damage being done to your party on nightmare, just about you being smart about encounters. A lot of the time, I go into a fight, think I know what I'm doing, and totally fail. Just total wipe, everyone goes down super quick and then I have to reload, but then I clean house, not suffering any casualties and dealing with the enemies handily. It's super satisfying. I'm not normally one for super hard games, but the Bioware games I've always enjoyed on harder difficulties, because you can usually pause them, and their not hard because you aren't good enough at getting headshots but because you have to know how to use all of the numerous tools to your advantage. It's not for everyone, but I find it incredibly engaging (which is really the most important thing to me in a game, I want the combat to keep me working, not just half assing it. That can be fun on occassion, like just relaxing with the Gears 3 campaign, but for a serious session of gaming I just want to be constantly doing and trying hard to succeed. But I don't like games that are unfair or just brutal with as you said, one hit kills.

@Brodehouse said:

Depth does not mean complex. Most complex games are actually extremely simple but obfuscated by unintuitive control and interfaces. Dungeons and Dragons has always been in an incredibly complex game, but can be rendered incredibly shallow by min-maxing. BioShock is a complex game, but it's depth is immediately nullified when Jeff uses the wrench and the lightning bolt for the entire game. Someone mentioned Angry Birds. Angry Birds is incredibly simple. If you're just trying to beat stages, Angry Birds seems shallow. If you're trying to get 3 stars in every level, you will learn to see the subtleties. It truly becomes a game of planning and skill.

Also, this. Depth is a moot point when the path of least resistance is so much easier and more viable than more in-depth paths, ie not worth the hassle. Prime example: The Zerg Rush.

The ideal situation is a game that is instantly accessible and enjoyable but has enough depth to reward the player for getting better (not increasing some statistic). The game should always be demanding a fraction about a players skill so that they're forced to improve without being frustrated.

It's incredibly difficult to make a game like this. Super Meat Boy is a great recent example. Overwrought complexity is just as bad as excessive accessibility. I don't think some of people that want games to be "hard again" understand this and really just miss the type of games they used to play (whether they were even well designed in the first place is an argument in itself).

Depth =/= Complexity...if anything depth is more akin to accessibility than it is to complexity as a game without much depth is not going to be very accessible to most people either as they will not want to continue playing the game. 

also remember, depth isn't always recognized critically, reviewers don't play games long enough to appreciate their depth. Most are "content tourists" who haven't played a game "well" since 1990

@phish09 said:

Depth =/= Complexity...if anything depth is more akin to accessibility than it is to complexity as a game without much depth is not going to be very accessible to most people either as they will not want to continue playing the game.

Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, etc all say hi. Instead of depth most games provide this: http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-skinner-box

@Brodehouse said:

Depth does not mean complex. Most complex games are actually extremely simple but obfuscated by unintuitive control and interfaces. Dungeons and Dragons has always been in an incredibly complex game, but can be rendered incredibly shallow by min-maxing. BioShock is a complex game, but it's depth is immediately nullified when Jeff uses the wrench and the lightning bolt for the entire game. Someone mentioned Angry Birds. Angry Birds is incredibly simple. If you're just trying to beat stages, Angry Birds seems shallow. If you're trying to get 3 stars in every level, you will learn to see the subtleties. It truly becomes a game of planning and skill.

"Most complex games are actually extremely simple but obfuscated by unintuitive control and interfaces," is an extremely hasty generalization. Would you say that statement for Portal? Civilizaton V? Battlefield 3? Super Meat Boy? Those are games just off the top of my head that have complexity but do not fall prey to "unintuitive control and interfaces." I acknowledge that a lot of games going for complexity can fall prey to that problem but saying the majority of complex games are like that is incredibly ignorant historically.

@Gaff said:

@Brodehouse said:

Depth does not mean complex. Most complex games are actually extremely simple but obfuscated by unintuitive control and interfaces. Dungeons and Dragons has always been in an incredibly complex game, but can be rendered incredibly shallow by min-maxing. BioShock is a complex game, but it's depth is immediately nullified when Jeff uses the wrench and the lightning bolt for the entire game. Someone mentioned Angry Birds. Angry Birds is incredibly simple. If you're just trying to beat stages, Angry Birds seems shallow. If you're trying to get 3 stars in every level, you will learn to see the subtleties. It truly becomes a game of planning and skill.

Also, this. Depth is a moot point when the path of least resistance is so much easier and more viable than more in-depth paths, ie not worth the hassle. Prime example: The Zerg Rush.

The zerg rush is not "more viable than more in-depth paths." I see what you're getting at but this is a poor example. It would be like going for the checkmate in 5 moves in chess and then conceding if it doesn't work out. It will only work once versus a sloppy opponent or if you sufficiently duped your opponent.

@Gaff said:

I'm just going to pop in here and ask for working hypotheses / definitions of "depth", "complexity", "accessibility" and "mainstream". Because putting "depth" / "complexity" diametrically opposed to "accessibility" / "mainstream" is terribly confusing when the OP starts praising Starcraft's depth and complexity... and its "easy to learn", "intuitive" principles. It's really weird to see someone skew very much in favour of one direction and then start using qualities that come from the other direction.

"I like the colour white because it's so wonderfully black"

It just doesn't make any sense.

For the record, you misread what I said about Starcraft. The parts you quoted was when I started talking about Company of Heroes. I should have made the transition clearer. I made note that Starcraft: Broodwar isn't a good example of accessible

As for definitions, I'm mostly following these:

Depth: "The range of one's understanding or competence."

Complexity: "Consisting of many different and connected parts."

Accessibility: "easytoapproach,reach,enter,speakwith,oruse."

Mainstream: Up for debate. If you wanted to pin down a definition of how I'm using it, I would say it's the popular convention or most popular social group. Essentially, the common crowd who enjoys video games but does not follow the industry.

I noted that these properties are not mutually exclusive but developers are treating as such. The balance is tipped hugely in favor of accessibility at the cost of depth or complexity. Making a properly balanced game is indeed incredibly difficult but that's not a sufficient reason for most studios to neglect that market entirely.