[Polpolion]

Well, that recently bumped thread of mine gave me another idea.

Do you prefer games that have almost no learning curves, or games with large learning curves, or somewhere in-between?


I'd say that 70 percent of the time I'm in the mood for games anywhere between medium-complex and complex, and the other 30 I prefer simple. You gotta admit, games like Tyrain, Duke Nukem 2 and others can really chew up your time and are just a blast to play. You just jump right in and play. But I most enjoy playing games that require a good amount of thought and skill. Anyone can play simple games well, but the more complex the game, the more you also need to rely on skill. Have you ever seen a large online game of Starshatter, all fighters with the standard flight mode? It's really crazy. I especially like strategy games that involve large areas and cites and things like that. (You wouldn't believe some of the maps I used to make for some of the RTSs. Mostly because I lost them all a while ago.)

The few types of games that I just can't stand are medium to just above simple. This slot is filled with pretty much normal FPSs of today. You can't quite casually play them, as they're the most mainstream type of game, yet you can't really get all that deep into the gameplay because of engine limitation.


You know what? I now feel bad that I shunned Sword of the Stars just because it's combat functioned in 2D. I might give it another try.


Discuss.

[Ashrak]

i like games with a simple learning curve, yet complex to get through levels or whatnot

[lenard27]

I like games that are simple and easy to get into but have way deeper, complex levels. Too bad most games are really simple or have a complex learning curve. If I had to pick one or the other though, I'd usually pick the complex game

[Dark Hunter]

I like games that are simple and easy to get into but have way deeper, complex levels. Too bad most games are really simple or have a complex learning curve. If I had to pick one or the other though, I'd usually pick the complex game

QFT. 

The best games are easy to pick up, but have advanced strategies that are not glitches that you can figure out after a long enough time. I'd say Super Metroid is an excellent example of this. Everyone knows how to jump, fire missiles, and stuff of that sort, but it also had about four hidden moves: the Shinespark (building up speed, storing the kinetic energy, then rocketing off in a direction other than horizontal), the Beam Shield (of limited use, it just looked really cool), the Wall Jump, and the Crystal Flash (a regenerative move that transforms ammo into health).

[phatosealpha]

I like games with simple frontends and complex backends - lots of stats/abilities to manipulate, but nothing that involves ludicrous button press combinations or navigating 15 levels of menus.

[Dark RevenantX]

Urgh.  Complex means it's deep and various.  Like chess.  Complicated, however, means it's just a pain in the ass to figure out.  Like women.

[DiabloRojo]

Urgh.  Complex means it's deep and various.  Like chess.  Complicated, however, means it's just a pain in the ass to figure out.  Like women.

Go for the really stupid ones... they're usually on 'easy' difficulty.
oh man I'm killin me

Complex games FTW.  I usually flatten learning curves as it is, so as long as there's creative thinking involved (rather than micro-management) I'm happy.

[Scuddie]

Simple and complex on a one dimensional scale does not work with games.  There is more of a two dimensional scale of simplicity and complexity, in regards to both element and execution.  Take for example Command & Conquer and C&C 3.  The first was very straightforward, units only acted in a minimalistic scope, and it was very easy to get into.  The storyline (FMVs etc) was simplistic, and covered only what was necessary.  In this regard, the element was simple.  But because of the execution of the element, the gameplay was complex.  It was fast paced, assets were gathered/built slowly and destroyed quickly, the roles for different units was enough to warrant large varieties of battlefield engagements.  You were forced to think your way to victory.  The storyline made you think as well.

Compare that to C&C 3.  The possible combinations of unit configurations was many times that of the original, the interface was much deeper, the graphics much more detailed, and took a bit of time to get a handle on things.  The storyline was filled with many extras, such as hired big-name actors, lighting / color schemes, overemphasized drama, high budget effects, etc.  The execution, however, made for much simpler gameplay than the original.  Slow paced, very few tactics needed, an almost limitless supply of resources.  Basically victory was determined by how quickly and efficiently you could turn out units and upgrade them.  The storyline was also very basic, not much going on in the area of abstract thought.

I, myself, prefer simple element and complex execution for the games I want to get into.  For games that I just want to have a quick bit of fun (Tyrian is an excellent example) I would like simple element and simple execution.  I don't like complex elements without the execution to back it.  Not my style .

[Mobius]

Complex games are better. You can be proud of playing them.

[Nuke]

my 2 favorite kinds of games are flight/space sims, and fpses. so i tend to perfer really complicated games or really simple games, but seldom in between. and i like each for different reasons. like i picked up prey in the bargin bin the other day for like 10 bucks. i was in the mood for an fps and i really hadnt pushed my new machine to the breaking point yet. i dont even think thats possible considering the current lignup of games out there.

fps games are so standard and the key layout is quite common from game to game so its easy to get started. i didnt really adopt the wsad control setup till quake 3. and i played quake 2 using the same key layout i used in descent i tend to play fpses mostly because i like eye candy. they are a good showcase of the latest graphics technology. i rarely find myself replaying them, though i did play with mods on all major id and unreal engines. such games are good after work when youre not really in the mood to do anything complicated.

flight sims on the other han are an entire animal all together. requiring complex controls setups. once you get your ch gear in order and got your track ar as well, you can spend a good 4 hours just setting up the control configurations. i got lomac gold sitting up here and ive played about 2 missions in the 2 months that ive got it. its a fun game but the amount of setup you have to do with it sorta burns you out before you start playing. im still not sure what half the functions on the key card do. it seems i spent less time learning orbital mechanics so i could play orbiter. i can still load up a ww2 sim and know how everything works, or fs9 (waiting for 10 to end up in the bargain bin) and fly from x to y for no aparent reason. flight sims are more a fly one mission then put it away for the day kinda thing for me.

[Topgun]

you know, I never felt that a learning curve was too long on any game I have ever played. descent was a piece of cake to learn (maybe because I started when I was 7?). anyway, I love games with (supposedly) long learning curves.

[Roanoke]

either way, depending on my mood.

though I don't usually have the patience, or just the time, for complex games nowadays. 

[SadisticSid]

Simple games can be fun too, but it's the 'complex' ones that are the classics for me. And nearly all of them (apart from FS2 perhaps) couldn't be played on consoles, because they didn't sacrifice complexity in their UIs or gameplay mechanics to make them more accessible to the console crowd. I'm worried about the growing trend of streamlining (read: dumbing down) games to make them better suited for multiple platforms. It's not like you could effectively port something like Total Annihilation or Baldur's Gate or Master of Orion to an XBox or Wii. There'll always be markets for these types of games, but they're becoming less relevant to publishers when they could invest in a developer that'll give them access to markets 3 or 4 times as big... and that ultimately means less of them.

[Tyrian]

I've always enjoyed more complex games.  One of my favorites was IWar2.  On the surface, it seemed easy to play and fairly basic.  But once you got a little further in the fights became quite tactical.  Also, you had to worry about managing your base's supplies, be careful about where you went to raid convoys, and figure out the best way to deal with enemy vessels.

[Aardwolf]

I think that a game should be easy enough to learn that you can have fun with it, but then it should have little nuances that you can learn to become good compared to others (esp. if it has both single and multi).

[Nuke]

sometimes you feel like a challenge but other times you just want to shoot things and watch them splatter.

[colecampbell666]

SW:EAW FTW!

[Flaser]

I think good games combine simple elements that are easy to grasp and get familiar with into an infinite number of meaningful variations.

Ever played Pirates? UFO (AKA X-Com)? Prince of Persia?

Those are gems that would stand the trial of time for decades IMHO.

Another thing that sets good games apart is meaningful scope: by playing them you gain some insight.
To date the best damn RPG IMHO is Planescape Torment and Fallout 2. One of them brought out the best anyone could ask for in a story - ergo a linear game that simply had so much content in it, that you could play it several times and still find new meaning each time - while the other provided the ultimate freeform environment where there were choices that mattered, but in the end all was still left up to you.

I kinda miss that kind of innovation nowadays, where it's all the gloss and overstated in-your-face "fun" that matters over content.

I liked games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R, Bioshock or Portal that finally brought some innovation back to the industry, but as you see all of these titles were made by developers who managed to one way or another rise above the publishers.

[Bob-san]

I like in-between games. Simple in picking up at start, but highly complex towards the middle of the game. Sort of like Freespace--the first few missions are easy and strait-forward on easy, but once you get skilled, you put the difficulty up to Insane and replay the same mission a hundred times to finally beat it. I've had some sprees where I finish 5 mission in a row on insane, but then get stumped and have to adopt a new stratedgy.

[jr2]

Hmm, how many people here have played Tremulous (Open-source TC, an FPS with some RTS elements integrated)?  If not, give it a try... it's easy to jump in, but you have to use your head, or you'll cost your team the game... if they don't kick you for feeding first.