Support NeoGAF

[LavitzSlambert]

Depends on my mood and the genre, but one thing I do like unilaterally across games is simple controls. It's why I love Smash Bros but hate traditional fighting games with combo button sequences and stances. There is still depth in Smash, but I don't have to think about "if I do this sequence of moves, I end up in this stance which can let me do this new context-sensitive action in this particular situation".

 

[ReyBrujo]

I like games that are easy to play but difficult to master with a huge exception: you should be able to beat the game without having to master everything. I absolutely hate when in order to beat a game you need to have the right combinations of skills, equipment and team members because any other combination will make you lose no matter how big your characters are (with only one or two exceptions, mind you). For example, I should be able to beat the final boss in a fighting game with only basic kicks and punches and nothing else.

 

[Gojiira]

I find a lot of 4x games and similar to be a bit too much. I like a challenge, I like their to be depth just not inundated with system after system after system found in menu after menu. Depth in RPG’s is a must, and mechanical depth in Action games, cant have too much depth in those kinds of games.

 

[Zacfoldor]

I like a great deal of depth and complexity. I like the game to prevent my progression if I slack off too.

I like when a game challenges me.

That said lack of complexity alone isn't a deal breaker. Certain genres can benefit from this like platformers.

The perfect example is metroidvanias. A deep complex metroidvania is a lot different game than say, sotn or aria of sorrow. I would argue that Aria is peak metroidvania, so really sometimes it can be apples and oranges....new prince of persia game was really deep and moderately complex and I think that hurt it as much as helped it.

point and click or walking sims can benefit from simplicity and shallowness if the story beats or puzzles themselves are good. Think Ace Attorney. Also 3d Castlevanias were probably more complex and deep than the 2d ones, and we see how that turned out.

 

[Freeman76]

Factorio/Satisfactory

Both perfection

 

[Danjin44]

I just need the gameplay to be satisfying, complex or simple doesn't really matter.

 

[Griffon]

Easy to learn, hard to master.

 

[Mercador]

I really love complex games, like I pass 100h+ on X4 two Christmas ago over a 10 days. But I don't have time anymore so now I try to play games that I can have a good playtime in a 15-20 minutes segment. A D4 dungeon is perfect. Brotato run, perfect. But I wish I had the time to deep dive in games like I used to be. Perhaps when I'm a retiree.

 

[Tams]

 

[Zannegan]

I like depth to the gameplay but (as far as possible) simplicity to the inputs.

One of my favorite things is when simple inputs or simple actions by the character can have far-reaching (but logical) implications. That's why I love physics and destruction engines, meaningfully branching story paths, and game design built around emergent gameplay.

Conversely, some of my least favorite genres require mechanical mastery of inputs to achieve a canned effect. QTEs are just bad game design, IMO. And, while I respect the skill and effort it takes to become even marginally good at them, I'll personally choose just about any other genre over a combo fighter.

 

[raduque]

I like games that don't require you to do a series of small tasks in a short time limit. Such as flip a switch, then move this, push that, and shoot this before the time runs out. I also don't like games that require split-second timing and pixel-perfect aim (looking at you DOOM ETERNAL). I'm getting older and I don't have good fast twitch skills anymore. Indy's combat for example, is perfect. Grab thing, whack Nazi, block punch, repeat.

Game can still be complex without being difficult. For example, Alan Wake is complex with lots of things to do in the Writer's Room and Mind Place, but it's not difficult.

 

[Wildebeest]

I like controls to be simple and intuitive, but for gameplay I like something complicated. I don't like fighting games with all their complex input entries and combos, but I like 4x strategy games that can be played by taking your time and mouse clicking on things.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

Give me 1 button to jump and 1 to shoot, and I’m a happy bunny.

Vidya games started losing appeal to me around the late PS1 - early PS2 era, when they started using all the buttons on the controller just for the basics.
Card games, SRPGs, simulation, PS2-and-later action RPGs are all more complex than I have the time and will to learn.
Oh how I miss the days of arcade sports and racing games, the 2-button platformers, the JRPGs where mobs could be defeated by mashing the physical attack button.

 

[ResilientBanana]

Depends on the game. Survival games should have a lot of depth, as should RPG's similar to Baldar's Gate. But games can be as simple as Mario 64 and still be fun as long as they are a delight to play.

 

[Pejo]

Boring answer but it depends on the game.

If a game has enough good ideas and interesting mechanics at play to make the complexity and learning curve worth it? Sign me up!

If a game wants to simplify in an effort to get the absolute most they can out of few inputs and concepts? Sign me up!

Problem is when a game feels like it's just looking for a way to use every button on a controller for stuff that doesn't matter, or if something is simple and still doesn't feel rewarding.

That said, EVERY single game where I play as a melee sword character should have a sheathing button/animation. Non-negiotiable.

 

[Mhmmm 2077]

I play Dota 2, I hope that answers the question.

 

[Kataploom]

Normally, I prefer simple mechanics with complex turnarounds depending on context like souls games, but sometimes when complexity is great but well managed, I'll love it like in Xenoblade games which are mechanically complex and definitely not too casual friendly.

I don't care about world interactions or specific animations for everything or etc. I'm ok with simple conversation animations like in FFXVI, something that many despised about it, or even missing Ragdolls, I really really don't care about that as long as exploration is bare minimum at least and combat is good enough.

An example of bad complexity imo is Takes of Zestiria, IDK wtf did Bandainamco intended with that game but I liked it a lot and yet it felt the skill tree went unmanageable too many times, limiting my options if I didn't want to move something to avoid something else moving somewhere else.

 

[Shifty1897]

I usually like gameplay complexity, but with games like Astral Chain and Knights in the Nightmare, I realize some games are too complex for their own good.

 

[Corian33]

My brothers, I have played Aurora 4x, a space strategy game that makes Dwarf Fortress look simple. It’s a game where before you can build a space ship you first need to set up factory production lines and tool them to your design specs.

Now, that game was a little too complicated to be much fun. But anything below that I’m happy to play. I enjoy learning systems and figuring out how all the pieces go together.

 

[Mercador]

My brothers, I have played Aurora 4x, a space strategy game that makes Dwarf Fortress look simple. It’s a game where before you can build a space ship you first need to set up factory production lines and tool them to your design specs.

Now, that game was a little too complicated to be much fun. But anything below that I’m happy to play. I enjoy learning systems and figuring out how all the pieces go together.

That sounds like my kind of game! If X4 or Stellaris were easily playable on the Deck, it would be an easy choice for me.

 

[ZehDon]

Great thread.

I like simplicity when pared with more complex presentation. Quake is frankly extremely simple, but is combined with deceptively complex encounter and level design and impeccable atmosphere, keeping you engaged moment to moment without overloading you. You can hit a flow state in Quake that lets you smash through levels while enjoying every minute of it.
I dislike simplicity when its used to divorce player agency from control. Games like The Last Of Us are dead simple so you can't fuck up the animated movie the developers wanted to make. Doesn't take long before my brain turns off and I simply lose interest, regardless of how expensive the cutscenes are.
I like complexity that enables expression. Dark Souls is both simple and complex, where you really only need a small number of buttons for the entire game, however the mechanics attached to your actions are very deep, allowing a huge amount of build variety and thus gameplay style choices.
I dislike complexity for complexity sake. Doom Eternal, a game that on paper I should adore, simply has too many mechanics that don't add anything in terms of play style choices, but punish you for not using them. Tracking four separate cool downs while hot swapping weapons isn't depth, it's busy work.

The perfect mix to me are games like Remnant II and Resident Evil 2 Remake, where it controls well, has solid encounter design, lots of secrets and depth, but whittles away anything that doesn't invoke player choice or agency. It sits right on that sweet spot that keeps me coming back again, and again.

 

[IAmRei]

I dont like too complex game, in which i have to see manual often. 4x, simulation, some pc strategy alike, usually i avoid the games that too demanding for my time. Game with too much mechanic is not appealling to me. But i dont really like too simple mechanic like casual games either.

 

[Ceadeus]

The more complex, the better for me. I need to be challenged.

That's why I love Nioh 2 so much

That's a great choice. There is definitely a big learning curve which can be too much for some. But once you get the hang of things, the game grabs you tight and never let you go. The game is so crisp and polished, there's hardly a better and more addictive action rpg game out there.

 

[Aldric]

I don't think complexity matters that much, the most important thing is depth and you can have a lot of depth with seemingly very simplistic mechanics.

Splatoon is the best example of that for me, very basic core interactions (shoot ink, turn into squid and swim in it) but so many applications and versatility it ends up being a very deep game. On the other hand I've never been a fan of Monster Hunter for ex because despite the very fun core combat gameplay the plethora of menus and systems and subsystems always discouraged me, even with all the efforts to streamline it with the most recent titles.

 

[lh032]

its not about complex.
I just want less or none hand holding.

 

[playbignbox]

I like games that are easy to play but hard to master

 

[Hawk The Slayer]

Usually not too complex unless it's a RTS game like Dawn of War or Starcraft.

 

[Efren is G.O.A.T.]

I like difficult but fair games because the sense of accomplishment is one hell of a drug.

 

[Hrk69]

My brothers, I have played Aurora 4x, a space strategy game that makes Dwarf Fortress look simple.

Flex fail.

Aurora's complexity largely stems from its steep learning curve and detailed mechanics rather than traditional gameplay challenges

And Dwarf Fortress isn’t inherently complex either, it’s a game defined by its immense depth and intricacy

 

[Ainem Enamas]

If you're trying to manage the mother base well and aim for an S-rank in missions with all the required objectives, it gets pretty complex.

I remember that I usually have low ranking, how to increase it?

 

[Dacvak]

Depends on my mood and the genre, but one thing I do like unilaterally across games is simple controls. It's why I love Smash Bros but hate traditional fighting games with combo button sequences and stances. There is still depth in Smash, but I don't have to think about "if I do this sequence of moves, I end up in this stance which can let me do this new context-sensitive action in this particular situation".

What’s kind of funny is that I consider Smash Bros Melee to easily be the most complex fighting game ever, but only at pro-levels of play. It’s cool how that game can be so simple and so complex at the same time.

 

[LavitzSlambert]

What’s kind of funny is that I consider Smash Bros Melee to easily be the most complex fighting game ever, but only at pro-levels of play. It’s cool how that game can be so simple and so complex at the same time.

That's the best part. The actual controls are so deceptively simple and intuitive, but you can do so much with them in combination with the game's other systems. It's all about how you put together those simple controls to evoke complexity while maintaining control of your character in a way that feels natural. I really respect devs that can achieve that kind of design.

 

[jason10mm]

I don't like games that are COMPLICATED, i.e. just really messy with their UI, the action tree you have to engage in to get anything done, or lots of stuff just for the sake of having lots of stuff with little gameplay purpose. Control schemes what require 5 simultaneous button presses, menus that are 4 levels deep. Inventory management that revolves around a tetris like arraignment of items or having to constantly shuffle stuff from one category to another in a long chain that ends up as "widgets to trade for a new item".

I know some autistic types just love spreadsheet games where every little rock and twig can be collected and there are 15 different resource items and whatnot, but that kind of complex, really just a complicated, system is not usually particularly deep in strategy or serving up advantages for clever use, its just adding greebles to the gameplay giving the ILLUSION of complexity but really just adding friction.

 

[tr1p1ex]

When you realize it's all a sham. That it's just busy work. And doesn't really add to the enjoyment. That's when it's too much.