Gaming Simpler games tend to be more addictive...

[BlueYoshi]

[color=darkred]Over the past couple of weeks I've been really sunk into Pokemon Leaf Green, and I haven't been able to get it out of my system since the first time I stuck it in my SP. Whilst playing the game, I realised that it was only very rarely that I found myself so infatuated with a game that I actually played without incentive, and mainly just for fun. If you take a look at the structure of the game as a whole when compared to other major RPG-esque games, you can't help but notice just how much fun it can be to play, which I think is all down to its simplicity.

It's not just RPGs though. Many other retro games have caught my eye in the very same way as Pokemon did for me, each of different genres and gameplay. Take Mega Man: Dr Wiley's Revenge for example. It's a very simple game, and is very credible in the pick-up-and-play factor, which contributes to how addictive and challenging it can be as opposed to other more modernised side-scrolling platformer shmups like Metal Slug.

I think it's fair to say that games all vary and each and every one has their own charm and sense of style, but it's not always the case that I can laugh and smile about dieing ridiculously in a game because of the sheer difficulty of it (SSBM's double glove battle in the event matches has taken YEARS off my life. YEARS I tell you!). Though, frustration and getting pissed off is one thing, but getting bored almost instantaneously is another. GTA San Andreas, while an awesomely absorbing game, has me at an on-and-off attitude with it where I sometimes feel the urge to intensely play, or just sit back on my butt and think about it. Either way, I get the same impression, and the only thing that actually makes me persevere with the game is the dialogue and the amusement I get out of it.

So what's your deal? Do you feel the same way as I do, or do I just sound like a ranting oldie? Speak, people, speak.[/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

It does seem like a reasonable (and easy) thing to say, that simpler video games are more addictive. But I think that only applies to certain genres--genres where it the piss-poor developers trying to add complexity end up bringing their game down rather than up. You will definitely find that true in some side-scrollers. But as far as RPGs are concerned... you cannot make that generalization because there would be such huge exceptions to the rule that the generalization would be effectively nullified.

One exception (that is a personal thing, but still I think it's legitimate to bring up) is Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind. For myself and many many others, this game is the most addictive RPG out there, and it happens to also be the most complex.

Then there's the entirety of MMORPGs (Everquest a.k.a. Evercrack, etc.), which *may* be played in a somewhat simple manner at times, but are in truth quite complex and infinitely more complex than Pokemon. And dang are they addictive.

In the end it comes down to a bit more things than just simplicity, I'd say. Some games thrive on simplicity (if you added too much more stuff to Gradius games, you might be making a huge mistake), but other design elements can work just as well, the one most deserving mention being, in my opinion, immersiveness.

[MissWem]

[QUOTE=Wingnut Ninja][color=darkred]
So what's your deal? Do you feel the same way as I do, or do I just sound like a ranting oldie? Speak, people, speak.[/color][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]If you really were a "ranting oldie" then you should've mentioned some of the truly older games.. I'm not farmiliar with many of them since I wasn't old enough to play them at the time ^^" I've found that the games these days are continually getting more complicated and pampering on the ol' gamer.. and say playing pokemon, after playing the Ruby or even just the Silver version I had such a difficult time trying to play the original Blue and Yellow versions simply because the rules were simpler making it less flexible therefore there were less loop-holes or short cuts you could take in battles. I think it was the really original and old games which didn't have the capacity to be complicated were really simple and must've been addictive (most of which are beyond my time).

Such games would includes ones like Elevator, I never liked it much however my brother loves the game. You ride elevators up and down a building, you can crush people with the elevator, you shoot funny looking bullets, they shoot funny looking bullets and all you needed to do was get to the bottom.. if I remember right.

The really old and simple games didn't have much of a story line or even endings such examples would be the Star Wars game. Wasn't it just made up polygonal lines where you shot up a certain number of tie fighters then did the trench run to trash the Death Star. After that you did it all over again except with more tie fighters which made it generally more difficult.

I'm really bad with names but there was also another addictive game with similar graphics and the point was to protect your city from missiles that fell from the top of the screen. That's fun to watch but I could never stand sitting there trying to blow up the missiles before they hit the ground and keep an eye on the number of missiles I could fire back : /

Or or..!! That game Submarine and you move your red ship at the top of the screen dumping depth charges to blow up the submarines below =D I liked that one, so simple but I have awful timing.. could never last very long.

I'd have to say my all time favourite simple and old game is Pong. I was good at it, and it was enjoyable and mindless sitting there bouncing the ball back and forth..heh. I could go on :P [/COLOR]

[Brasil]

You know, there's a point here that people usually miss. "Simplicity" doesn't necessarily mean Gradius or SMB1 as compared to, say, Rebel Strike or Whiplash. Hear me out on this.

Generally speaking, when a game's totally addictive, that means it's done incredibly well, and there are virtually no flaws at all in the game design itself. The original SMB1 is addictive as hell, but so is KOTOR. Pacman is addictive as hell, but so is Melee. Now, it's clear which are the more "complex" games here, but they're all simple games in that they're easy to play, and achieve what the designers set out to do. If I'm not explaining this properly, I'll use cinema as a comparison point.

Hell, let's talk Star Trek II: Wrath of Kahn versus The Matrix Trilogy, since I'm going to be talking about Melvillian influences in both, hehe. Both films are Moby Dick, essentially. They incorporate the same themes, characterizations, and conflicts. They're both equally complex in terms of the "Ahab-ness" of their respective "Ahab" characters. But Wrath of Kahn is more addictive because it accomplishes what it sets out to do. Everything "clicks."

The acting is impeccable (Ricardo Montalban...come on, the man is a god, lol), the writing is sharp, and the thematic elements are really breathtaking. The set-up is handled incredibly well, and the ending is a very good and well-constructed wrap-up.

We can all agree that The Matrix Trilogy falters in the delivery. They're good films, but like the Star Wars Prequels, you have to get past a lot of the superficial stuff to get to the heart of the story. They're somewhat unfocused in this regard; they could have been handled better.

I think this is an important point to consider. What if a game's addictive nature is based on a "simplicity" that's really only based on how effective the game is? Meaning, like Wrath of Kahn, everything in a game "clicks," regardless of how much they're packing in there.

Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow is a pretty complex game, but it's addictive, I think, because it knows exactly what it needs to do, and nails it. I think the same can be said for the NES-era games, and likewise, for some newer generation games like KOTOR.

They're addictive because they're simpler, because their execution is impeccable.

I hope that made sense, lol.

[James]

[color=#707875]I think execution is part of it, but it's more than that.

It depends how you define "simple". I don't think we're talking about games with simple concepts or simple stories, etc.

My view of a "simple" game, is a game that allows the player to interact with the character/environment in an intuitive way. For example, I would say that the Zelda games have a "simple" design. Those games obviously have more complexity than, say, Mario...but Zelda is easy to pick up and play. Virtually anyone can grab the controller and manipulate Link with great ease.

I think that quality can make games addictive. If you are fighting with complex controls (or poorly implemented controls), it doesn't matter how good the story is or how cool the concepts are; the game simply won't be fun.

Actually, today I bought Sonic Mega Collection for GameCube. And I have to say, it's one of the best decisions I've ever made. Obviously there is a nostalgia factor there, but it has to be said that the older Sonic games have an addictive quality to them. Consider how simple the controls are -- one button to move, one to jump. Very, very simple. Yet look at how engaging these games are. There are so many varieties on that theme. Sometimes Sonic is running around a twisted vine, sometimes he's hanging on the side of an air ship, or sometimes he's looping-the-loop. The combination of highly balanced level designs as well as an extremely intuitive control system, are what make those games so much fun. The rest is just window dressing.

So, I think that's mostly what it comes down to. To continue Alex's example of The Matrix; I enjoy those movies because of their fundamentally clever story and compelling concepts. The special effects and awesome costumes are simply the window dressing that adds to the flavour of the material.

In the same way, I will probably tend to enjoy games with intuitive controls -- games that are easy to interact with, but not necessarily "easy in difficulty". Does that make sense?

In some ways, this is why I don't like the newer Sonic games as much. Yes, they have much prettier visuals. But their implementation is a lot less defined and an attempt has been made to make them "more complex" -- but greater complexity, particularly where it isn't warranted, hasn't made a better game. It's only made a more tedious and frustrating game.[/color]

[BlueYoshi]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']It does seem like a reasonable (and easy) thing to say, that simpler video games are more addictive. But I think that only applies to certain genres--genres where it the piss-poor developers trying to add complexity end up bringing their game down rather than up. You will definitely find that true in some side-scrollers.[/quote]

[color=darkred]Yeah, I agree that in a lot of cases genres will come into it, and you're absolutely right about the side-scrollers. For example, I'd much prefer it if the True Lies/Total Carnage-esque levels were completely wiped out of the older Contra games; shooting stuff with spread guns while performing a perfectly executed somersault in mid-air just about does it for me.

My opinion is that it doesn't all boil down to genre though, because a lot of other games share the attributes of many other genres alike, combining them all to make something new and fresh. The Bouncer, even though a very poor game, had a beat 'em up themed battle system, but kept Square's staple experience points and stat building, which I think could be pulled off a lot better if another attempt was taken to reconstruct the game bearing in mind that all flaws were taken out of it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I want to see a new Bouncer game, I just think it makes a good argument.

I found FFVII highly addictive, too. I'm not its biggest fan, and there are other RPGs that I'd rather be playing instead of it, but the magic system and very vagueness of the battles really contributed to the addictiveness of it, I think. Equipping materia slots for the sake of only mastering each piece of materia was great fun in my experience, and I continued doing that for weeks after I had completed the initial storyline. However, when the system became too complex, not only did I find it boring, but I just didn't want to play. Drawing, junctioning, and whatnot in FFVIII really put me off it, and is what I'd like to call the complete opposite of what you should look for in an addictive game.[/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Mostly in response to Siren and James,

I see what you are saying when you redefine simple to mean intuitive. That is a reasonable way of looking at it. But you could keep the two terms apart, since there is a different kind of "simple" in game design besides just intuitive gameplay (Space Invaders and Tetris "simple"). I was looking at it that way, as I assumed Wingnut Ninja was. That intuitive design [i]you[/i] guys described would for me fall into the "other factors" I mentioned, which included immersiveness as something that makes a game addictive.

There's many ways to make a game addictive. Of course the intuitive play goes hand-in-hand with a basic game design like Gradius's, so drawing a distinction there as to what makes the game truly addictive is difficult. But I think another factor besides intuitive play that makes truly "simple" games addictive is that there's no brainpower commitment. You could stay up all night long playing those games because your brain can be running at something like .05% efficiency and you'll still do alright. That's what I found appealing about those games, anyhow.

So yeah, of course there's more to what makes a game addictive than simple design, but redefining "simple" to suit the generalization you want to make isn't necessary, since there's different terms for everything. I think Wingnut meant the simple that I was referring to....

[James]

[color=#707875]My comments mostly relate to newer games, rather than older ones. Older games were more "simple" (in terms of concept, execution and everything else).

But in terms of newer games, I think they are definitely becoming too complicated. Simplicity is key, not in terms of concept or gameplay, but in terms of interaction (ie: not barring access to anyone unnecessarily, particularly non game players).[/color]