Is Simplicity Overrated?

Posted by Rampant Coyote on September 16, 2014

I have a quote from Antoine de Saint-Exupéry that hangs above my desk. I use it as a reminder – because I constantly need reminding. It says, “Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”

I have a number of favorite quotes generally attributed to Albert Einstein. One of them goes, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

These serve to remind me that a reasonable level of simplicity is a virtue. As I have a tendency to make things more complicated just to hold my own interest (like the guy who invented, “Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock“). This tendency gets me in trouble sometimes. I rail against “kitchen sink design” (the kind of design where you throw in “everything but the kitchen sink” in terms of ideas and features) because it’s something I struggle with personally.

But – while there’s a very huge domain of possible games out there that can be made using very simple mechanics, it should be obvious that there are several orders of magnitude more game possibilities when you combine two or more of those simple mechanics together. But this increases complexity, especially as the number of potential interactions between the systems increase. This is a fascinating challenge of game design in itself – how do you limit or facilitate these interactions in a way that keeps complexity reasonable for your target audience?

Anyway, all this is really an introduction to a fascinating piece by Craig Stern, “Against the Cult of Simplicity.” He makes a ton of arguments (he’s a lawyer by day, so he’s good at this) that while simplicity may be a virtue, it is not the only virtue. It seems that the indie community is perhaps getting pushed too far in that direction. While it may be a good thing to correct some poor tendencies, what we’re really going for is a balance. Simplicity is not the end-goal for many (or even most) games.

It’s something of a companion piece to his earlier article at indieRPGs.com, “Where are all the RPGs at IGF?” This article illustrated another bias against more complex games – simpler games are faster and easier to “get,” which makes them more likely to get a fair shake from harried judges at these shows. If a game even sounds like it’s going to take more than ten minutes to evaluate, many judges won’t bother even looking at it.

Much of the challenge and delight (I like using that word – it isn’t exactly the same thing as “fun,” but it can encapsulate fun, fascination, admiration, and many other factors) of RPGs is in the interaction of these systems. Even in relatively simple RPGs (think 16-bit-style JRPGs), these systems can get really complex, balancing combat, exploration, some skills, leveling, gear, and expendable items (which represent a cost in gold, replenished through combat and exploration). But this is something that can’t be fully introduced to a player in five or ten minutes. You can touch on it, but it’s still a lot for a player to absorb, let alone gain any kind of mastery.

I think I’m in complete agreement with Craig, here. I believe that the quote attributed to Einstein (whether or not he really said it, it’s a good one) should be applied on a per-game basis, not to games in general. Extremely simple games are awesome, and can be both critically and commercially successful (Flappy Bird, anyone?). But that’s not the be-all, end-all goal of game design.

Filed Under: Design - Comments: 8 Comments to Read



top