Does complexity equal fun?

[Ca$hback]

Accuracy requires detail. If you can't give something specific instructions they can only perform obtuse actions. Specifics. Control. Like scanning resolution.
I think some of us see a game that's almost like everything they dreamed of and no other game will ever come close then they start to make concessions to be like other games. One disappointing concession after another. Then people call you stupid for liking it the old way. Then, ten years later they talk about how they liked it the old way and people listen. Now that they've mellowed out it's okay but when you were doing it it was stupid. Go figure.
Fortunately, ED is as hard and complicated as ever. I always felt the game was laughing at my misery and that was part of it's charm. I want to be able to manage my power. Engineering isn't complicated enough, they just renamed crystals for your sword thou must gather. Then they make it difficult to get them as a substitute.
I bought this game as a space life simulator waiting for SC to come out. I bought it because it was available. The complexity was just a bonus for me. I had control. I could do specific things. When I see detail I want more. When I looked back at SC, I decided I'll go there if Elite becomes watered down.
I'm the type that would rather spend 40 minutes planning an attack and 2 minutes carrying it out. That being said, I like to engineer a system that works and leave it to it's own devices, tweaking it occasionally. Constant micromanagement isn't a bore or tedious so much as time consuming.
I think it fits in some places but not in others.

 

[Insomnia]

I would say that more complexity makes a game less fun. In general, I avoid games with complicated inventories and crafting, which just makes it less fun for me.

I'd say it depends on the game, not the player. There are players in World of Warcraft that only do quests and fishing and are not interested in diving in spreadsheets after spreadsheets looking for the optimal theoretical output for your equipment. But there are also players that really want to have something to dive into, crafting essential assets to ensure that the character is optimised for the actual role the character is built for.

There's nothing wrong with wanting simple gameplay. And Elite should definitely offer just that. But for players that want something deeper to dive into, there's not much the game has to offer.

 

[Bobbydylan]

Complexity = Fun when it drives interesting decisions for the player to make. Currently, RNGineers is needlessly complex. There's no downside to modding your ship, and the collection methods are a factor of time an patience rather than problem solving and decision making.

 

[Panticus]

>>Does complexity equal fun.

No. You should meet my wife.

 

[Insomnia]

Totally agree. I don't really play ED for fun. (in fact I don't really play any games for fun) I play them for a sense of accomplishment. This is probably why I hate most mainstream super high rated games. They are too focused on instant gratification for me to feel any sense of accomplishment. Just like short repetitive gameplay gets boring to those after fun, constant rewards and unlocks get "meh" for those looking for the feeling of accomplishment.

What are you accomplishing in Elite?
Just curious.

 

[Thetele]

The game can never be too complex. The problem is how the game present its self to the player and deliver information. And elite does really bad job at it. The engineers isn't explained anywhere in game and most needed information can only be found outside the game. There is a lack of information in game and most UI windows just suck at delivering information. Also information is too hidden behind different menus. All information should be in one place. List of commodities and info about them should be access-able in ship Ui (not market data, but the info text for it). All blueprints etc. Look at civilization or total war games witch both have in game wikis that can be opened easily with one button press, have search function and has pretty much EVERYTHING and all stats/info stuff for everything.

 

[Achilles7]

Yes. Making thigs complex is challenging to understand and fun. Complicated on the other hand is bad. The difference here is that the level of depth increases with complexity while with complicated stuff it doesn't but both make content more difficult to understand.

Example: In NMS you had to recharge your shields manually through the UI. In Elite this happens automatically and you even have some charge times and different kind of shields. So NMS is complicated while Elite is complex.

[haha] ED's very own Dr Samuel Johnson..the 'Crimson Kaim Dictionary' is born! However, I will continue to regard 'complicated' & 'complex' as synonyms in accordance with received wisdom.

My contrafibularities to you anyway, Crimson

 

[Bran Tse Mallory]

It has been my experience that when human beings create systems we make them simple and then add more complexity over time and try to delude ourselves that they are 'features'. The SRV scanner is no exception it seems, given that such devices have been in operation since current times I would of thought the scanners we have in the game would be far more complex and able to do far more such as tell us how far each reading is even if it was an approximation based on actual range/signal strength.

 

[Bzek]

The game can never be too complex. The problem is how the game present its self to the player and deliver information. And elite does really bad job at it. The engineers isn't explained anywhere in game and most needed information can only be found outside the game. There is a lack of information in game and most UI windows just suck at delivering information. Also information is too hidden behind different menus. All information should be in one place. List of commodities and info about them should be access-able in ship Ui (not market data, but the info text for it). All blueprints etc. Look at civilization or total war games witch both have in game wikis that can be opened easily with one button press, have search function and has pretty much EVERYTHING and all stats/info stuff for everything.

Agreed. I think something like what INARA does should be inbuilt in the game. Or EDDB. They're pivotal systems that are practically required unless you want to do manual records of everything, which is super tedious. It would also be congruent with the theme, aside from being immensely practical: it is the future, surely they have databases.

Having to rely so much on third party tools for core functionalities really annoys me sometimes.

 

[Marc_Hicks]

Complexity *can* mean more fun-if it is aimed at increasing player agency. I submit two in-game examples of what I mean.

Engineers: At present, your options with engineer upgrades is to accept what you get, or trash it. However, what if substituting one material/commodity for another-rarer-one resulted in the upgrade results being pushed more in your favour? What if repeatedly taking the same ship to the same engineer, for an upgrade, ensured your upgrade outcomes were improved? What if a player could call in a favour to get a stat like integrity or jitter improved on an upgrade? Or call in a favour to get some materials back from a trashed upgrade? This all represents increased complexity, but with the goal of giving players more control over the engineering process, & rewarding players who make extra effort to seek out hard to get materials and/or roleplay their relationships with the Engineers.

Another one is passenger satisfaction. At the moment they start off being happy, then everything that goes wrong makes them increasingly less satisfied. However, what if there was a larger range of satisfaction, both positive & negative, & player actions could *increase*, as well as decrease, said satisfaction-with payments being adjusted accordingly! Again, its added complexity, but is aimed at giving players more control of the situation, & also greater immersion. So that Content, time sensitive passenger could be made Happy if you get them to their destination system within 10% of the maximum time alloted, & that Happy, danger averse passenger could be made Very Happy if you make the effort to plot a course that keeps you in Medium or High Security systems.....just as a couple of examples.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Missions can be very important regarding the BGS.
So, there is a reason to do them and it can be worked out through trial and error...or go to help forums regarding same.

Reasons to go have a look at things would be a good thing, however they may incorporate that...one mission leads to another or something like that.

I am a bit weird because I went and scanned my local area which helped a lot a good while back because I wanted to know what was around me. I also "kinda" understand how the different states effect certain things regards price and availability.
A lot of players won't do that, even when it's a lot easier now with the Nav Beacons and such.

I just like working things out and if the game was super easy, where I didn't have to think or go look, then a greater amount of how I play the game would be lost and it might just become a meaningless grind...not something I would like to see happen in this game.

I actually thiink that giving players too much information is not good for the game and would stop them trying to understand how it works or just grind the best way to make profits or rank, which are already common topics on these forums.

So yeah, I like complexity or in simple terms, games that make me think or work out how they work.
I do not like to grind.

In my eyes the BGS is meant to be experienced. The experience is very bland. Look at my signature. I know a lot about the BGS, but by playing it all you do is change a name. The systems themselves don't actually change after that either.

I believe we are not meant to play the BGS, but to experience it, for it to give us reasons to do stuff in game, not the other way round, which is what it is like at the moment.

I would love a far more complex BGS, so it gives me more compelling reasons to do missions.

 

[Komemiute]

@OP: Only in the amount of complexity you look for in a game.
I'll explain- I love simulators. I play DCS.

In a realistic "down-to-earth" (eh) flight sim that mimics Real-life airplanes (or vehicles in general) I want complexity because I know what a real plane handles like.
I need (and love) the granularity of control that all those little switches provide.

In a more "abstract" sim-game as Elite I think that a clear idea of what you DON'T want is more important.
When too much complexity is lifted then you must add procedures- therefore the landings that require attention and precision or the SuperCruise travels.

TL;DR: I love this game- nearly perfect complexity level. DCS is much worse.

 

[BigBANGtheory [VR]]

In an Open-world sim players I think naturally want to do things (which is the gameplay and content) their way and are in fact offered that either in the marketing literature or the presentation of the game. The truth is you have to do things the developers way and if you are not onboard with that then you'll have friction with the game.

My friction is the absence of a co-pilot because I want to be doing other things whilst the ship is navigating and under no threat.

Imho most complaints actually stem from quality issues, if player hate the game they wouldn't play it so instead they like the fundamental game but hate individual elements.

Complexity appeals to certain players at different times, you need some complexity to have a sim and depth Elite just exposes it very early on. I think that is ok and in line with previous Elite games I think Frontier should spell it out though in the training and introduction like Don't Panic.

 

[Marc_Hicks]

Oh, I just wanted to put forward another piece of added "complexity" which could grant more fun within the game.....kind of based on an idea given by Crimson Kain earlier in the year.

Currently, gaining access to, & ranking up with, the engineers is fairly simplistic.....if slightly "tedious" (I hold that it doesn't have to be, if you approach the process in the right fashion, but I can see how others might see it that way). However, adding in a little complexity might give players the means to "short-cut" this process. The easiest option is to have ranking up with certain factions, powers or super-powers count towards your rank with certain engineers (this is currently partially the case with some engineers-like Marco Qwent-but only exists in a very limited fashion). Likewise, though, performing certain "gateway" missions (very difficult and/or dangerous) for a Faction-for example-might allow you to jump from Rank 3 to Rank 4 with an Engineer immediately. Calling in a favour with a faction might get you access to that Engineer without having to mine 500t of minerals.

Again, this represents added complexity for the existing mechanics, but I believe these are cases where complexity *can* equal fun!

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I don't think the game is overly complex. It just looks like that because all the mechanics are obscure. Now it could be complex AND obscure - but I would still think obscuring game mechanics is the problem.

 

[Leper Messiah]

Id complexity makes logical sense then it's good, if it makes no logical sense (i.e. complex for complexities sake) then that is crap. I'd like exploring to be more complex and involving but only if it makes sense.

 

[Heavenly-Hammer]

"complex" is the wrong word to use regarding a lot of these mechanics.

"obtuse" is the word you're looking for.

 

[Panticus]

Oh no - ouch!

>>Complexity *can* mean more fun-if it is aimed at increasing player agency.

'Agency!' sometimes I love the quality of English on these boards. 'Tis a pity FD can't string a sentence together themselves.

p.s. note there is a difference between complexity and complicatedness. The former deals with too many things, the latter with something being hard to understand.

 

[Deleted member 38366]

IMHO once you look through the entire mechanics of the entire Game, you'll find out it isn't complex for a Player. Far from it actually, alot of things run off very simple (sometimes downright simplistic, leading to repetitive, unrealistic things) Scripts.
So for all I know, it could use a crapton more of complexity (mostly referred to as depth of gameplay) in many places.

For example, once everything we do in the Galaxy starts having a small effect (outside of feeding inputs into the very basic Pass-Through/Inhibitor/Multiplicator/Divisor BGS logic), things would get alot more interesting and realistic.
A real economy, a real effect of Explorers discovering Objects, a real effect of Miners supporting an Economy, a real effect of Players taking care of Systems or entire Groups of Systems, true trickle-down effects into neighbouring Systems based on a real Sandbox.

Yep, that'd make quite a difference. Things would begin to feel much more alive in the Galaxy.

But for the time being, it doesn't matter (outside of BGS Influence effects and your Credit Balance) if you
- Bounty-Hunt 10k Cr or 1000 Ships worth a Billion Credits
- Explore 1 or 10000 Systems
- Mine 10tons of Bauxite or 100000 tons of finest Painite
- successfully acquire all existing System Permits - or none at all
- Trade 1 ton of Biowaste or 1.000.000 tons of High-Demand items throughout the bubble

To the Galaxy it all doesn't really matter.
Nothing in the Game cares what Earth-likes you have discovered, how dedicated of a Miner you are or how successful you are in Combat. In fact, if it wasn't for the Forums and social media - chances are noone would even know nor notice...

IMHO that leaves alot to be desired in terms of depth and complexity. Because above are essentially basics and those don't even make much of a difference. It has no effect outside the limited BGS.

System wealth won't change, System Authority or System Security won't change, System Population won't change, or a Terraforming Economy for example can't accelerate its process - because there is actually no such process.
At no point will the events of one System tricke down or affect another System, with the sole exception of CGs temporarily depleting Trade supplies in the vicinity. Even then, a few days after such a Trade CG is complete, everything will be like nothing ever happened. Because effectively, nothing really happened.

I do understand though that not everyone is able to look "through the smoke and mirrors" the game uses to create the illusion it was "alive".
Then I reckon it's all fine, would be hard to see all the limitations and repetition in that case.

 

[Red Anders]

As with any variant of 'Does X equal fun?' the answer is 'Yes, to some people'.