The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Let's apply this basic rule to videogames. Super Monkey Ball is so good because it's simple. It is 'more' because it has less complexity. Ico is
another example which shows that, in games, less is more. You could simplify a game and tone it down until it is just dots and lines, and we're back to Pong. Pong is arguably the simplest game ever, and it's hardly the best. Ico was very simple, but it was also different in the relationship and small subtle touches it gave you. If it was so simple, why not take out the princess? Take out the inventive graphics? Would it be better for it?
Simplification is good - the trick is to remove superfluous features that clutter up gameplay, without losing the essence of the game. All designers should ask themselves "Can I kill this; does it actively contribute to the game?" when building a game. Tetris is not as simple as Pong, but there is nothing you could remove from the gameplay without killing the game, or making a completely different game (you could argue that the GB version could lose the tunes and some of the graphical effects). What would you/could you remove from Mario 64 without changing the game irretrievably?
A lot of the problem with "me-too" games that follow classics is that they add on complexity simply to differentiate themselves from the original, and this detracts from their quality. To simplify a game down first depends on what type of game you are creating. Some genres boast complexity as their primary selling point, while other go for the quick fix. It all depends on the game. I think that simplicity makes a game easier to get into. And i'm not talking about the graphics because they are more simple for us to understand now. If you can make a simple concept work perfect, I rather have that then a messed up complex concept.
But of cource you have to find a balance. Monkey Ball isn't all simple and neither is Ico. Developers should ask can we make this more simple, easier to understand instead of how to make things more realistic. In terms of interface Deus Ex is beautifully simple though (at least on the PC, haven't played PS2 yet). Interaction with all objects in the game world is handled with the mouse. Other games with a similar remit seem to like to have discrete 'movement' and 'object handling' modes which really break the feeling of immersion.
But apart from that, yeah, more is good. Some games simply need to have a larger number of elements to work with. Paring away the un-necessary parts can lead to great results but it can be overzealously applied. (I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling rather cheated that I spent £40 on Super Monkey Ball.)
Thanks for reading,
SB.
another example which shows that, in games, less is more. You could simplify a game and tone it down until it is just dots and lines, and we're back to Pong. Pong is arguably the simplest game ever, and it's hardly the best. Ico was very simple, but it was also different in the relationship and small subtle touches it gave you. If it was so simple, why not take out the princess? Take out the inventive graphics? Would it be better for it?
Simplification is good - the trick is to remove superfluous features that clutter up gameplay, without losing the essence of the game. All designers should ask themselves "Can I kill this; does it actively contribute to the game?" when building a game. Tetris is not as simple as Pong, but there is nothing you could remove from the gameplay without killing the game, or making a completely different game (you could argue that the GB version could lose the tunes and some of the graphical effects). What would you/could you remove from Mario 64 without changing the game irretrievably?
A lot of the problem with "me-too" games that follow classics is that they add on complexity simply to differentiate themselves from the original, and this detracts from their quality. To simplify a game down first depends on what type of game you are creating. Some genres boast complexity as their primary selling point, while other go for the quick fix. It all depends on the game. I think that simplicity makes a game easier to get into. And i'm not talking about the graphics because they are more simple for us to understand now. If you can make a simple concept work perfect, I rather have that then a messed up complex concept.
But of cource you have to find a balance. Monkey Ball isn't all simple and neither is Ico. Developers should ask can we make this more simple, easier to understand instead of how to make things more realistic. In terms of interface Deus Ex is beautifully simple though (at least on the PC, haven't played PS2 yet). Interaction with all objects in the game world is handled with the mouse. Other games with a similar remit seem to like to have discrete 'movement' and 'object handling' modes which really break the feeling of immersion.
But apart from that, yeah, more is good. Some games simply need to have a larger number of elements to work with. Paring away the un-necessary parts can lead to great results but it can be overzealously applied. (I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling rather cheated that I spent £40 on Super Monkey Ball.)
Thanks for reading,
SB.
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
Let's apply this basic rule to videogames. Super Monkey Ball is so good because it's simple. It is 'more' because it has less complexity. Ico is
another example which shows that, in games, less is more. You could simplify a game and tone it down until it is just dots and lines, and we're back to Pong. Pong is arguably the simplest game ever, and it's hardly the best. Ico was very simple, but it was also different in the relationship and small subtle touches it gave you. If it was so simple, why not take out the princess? Take out the inventive graphics? Would it be better for it?
Simplification is good - the trick is to remove superfluous features that clutter up gameplay, without losing the essence of the game. All designers should ask themselves "Can I kill this; does it actively contribute to the game?" when building a game. Tetris is not as simple as Pong, but there is nothing you could remove from the gameplay without killing the game, or making a completely different game (you could argue that the GB version could lose the tunes and some of the graphical effects). What would you/could you remove from Mario 64 without changing the game irretrievably?
A lot of the problem with "me-too" games that follow classics is that they add on complexity simply to differentiate themselves from the original, and this detracts from their quality. To simplify a game down first depends on what type of game you are creating. Some genres boast complexity as their primary selling point, while other go for the quick fix. It all depends on the game. I think that simplicity makes a game easier to get into. And i'm not talking about the graphics because they are more simple for us to understand now. If you can make a simple concept work perfect, I rather have that then a messed up complex concept.
But of cource you have to find a balance. Monkey Ball isn't all simple and neither is Ico. Developers should ask can we make this more simple, easier to understand instead of how to make things more realistic. In terms of interface Deus Ex is beautifully simple though (at least on the PC, haven't played PS2 yet). Interaction with all objects in the game world is handled with the mouse. Other games with a similar remit seem to like to have discrete 'movement' and 'object handling' modes which really break the feeling of immersion.
But apart from that, yeah, more is good. Some games simply need to have a larger number of elements to work with. Paring away the un-necessary parts can lead to great results but it can be overzealously applied. (I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling rather cheated that I spent £40 on Super Monkey Ball.)
Thanks for reading,
SB.
another example which shows that, in games, less is more. You could simplify a game and tone it down until it is just dots and lines, and we're back to Pong. Pong is arguably the simplest game ever, and it's hardly the best. Ico was very simple, but it was also different in the relationship and small subtle touches it gave you. If it was so simple, why not take out the princess? Take out the inventive graphics? Would it be better for it?
Simplification is good - the trick is to remove superfluous features that clutter up gameplay, without losing the essence of the game. All designers should ask themselves "Can I kill this; does it actively contribute to the game?" when building a game. Tetris is not as simple as Pong, but there is nothing you could remove from the gameplay without killing the game, or making a completely different game (you could argue that the GB version could lose the tunes and some of the graphical effects). What would you/could you remove from Mario 64 without changing the game irretrievably?
A lot of the problem with "me-too" games that follow classics is that they add on complexity simply to differentiate themselves from the original, and this detracts from their quality. To simplify a game down first depends on what type of game you are creating. Some genres boast complexity as their primary selling point, while other go for the quick fix. It all depends on the game. I think that simplicity makes a game easier to get into. And i'm not talking about the graphics because they are more simple for us to understand now. If you can make a simple concept work perfect, I rather have that then a messed up complex concept.
But of cource you have to find a balance. Monkey Ball isn't all simple and neither is Ico. Developers should ask can we make this more simple, easier to understand instead of how to make things more realistic. In terms of interface Deus Ex is beautifully simple though (at least on the PC, haven't played PS2 yet). Interaction with all objects in the game world is handled with the mouse. Other games with a similar remit seem to like to have discrete 'movement' and 'object handling' modes which really break the feeling of immersion.
But apart from that, yeah, more is good. Some games simply need to have a larger number of elements to work with. Paring away the un-necessary parts can lead to great results but it can be overzealously applied. (I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling rather cheated that I spent £40 on Super Monkey Ball.)
Thanks for reading,
SB.