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.

38 Comments