There are two kinds of "complexity."

There are two types of “complex”.

R_Nikaido:

• The more complicated it is, the more interesting it is to most people.” tokoroten:
• “It’s interesting because it’s ‘learnable content’ for a person at the limit of his or her perceived complexity.”
• So, complex content is not interesting to everyone, but it is very interesting to those who are at the limit of recognizable complexity. nishio:
• Their opinions are not contradictory.
• There is a discrepancy in the meaning of “complex” as used by the two.
• Casual gamers tend to request more elements, thereby complicating the game.”
  • Why this happens is the same principle as a TV remote control full of buttons.
  • Making a small number of button combinations work is loaded for many people’s cognition = “cognitively complex.”
  • That’s why the “cognitively simple design” that “one function is triggered by pressing one button” is chosen.
  • As a result, TV remotes are full of buttons and the remotes look “complicated”.

from Diary 2023-12-04 old title: Interesting to see something with a recognizable limit of complexity.

tokoroten

R_Nikaido: I’ve been thinking recently about why games are becoming more and more complex and the elements are becoming more and more jumbled, and I used to think that it was because they had to add elements to differentiate themselves from sequels and other works, but actually it’s not just that. It’s not just that, it’s that “the more complicated it is, the more interesting most people find it.”

This is a different perception, “something with a limit of complexity that a person can perceive is interesting to him because it is ‘learnable content’ for him”. So, complex content is not interesting to everyone, but it is very interesting to those who are at the limit of recognizable complexity.

tokoroten Content with low complexity is “too simple to be interesting because there is nothing to learn.” Content that is too complex is “not interesting because it is too complex to learn because you can’t discover regularities.” Content with just the right amount of complexity is “interesting because you can discover regularities and learn from them.”

tokoroten For example, for a 5 year old, a 0x game is “interesting because he can discover the regularity and learn”, but for an adult, it is “too simple to be interesting because he cannot learn”. For adults, it is “too simple to learn, so it’s not interesting”.

tokoroten, a book about flow theory and game design, brain science and game design, is titled “Game Design for ‘Fun’“. I am not sure if this is a good idea or not, but it is a good idea, Poorly designed and translated, this poor book doesn’t do justice to this subject matter that is the subject of the book: …

• Interesting game design

R_Nikaido I’ve been thinking lately about why games are moving in the direction of becoming more and more complex and messy with elements. I thought it was because they are forced to add elements in order to differentiate themselves from sequels and other works, but actually it’s not just that,

“The more complicated it is, the more interesting most people find it.”

R_Nikaido One reason I thought so is Armored Core. This game has a style where there are parameters to die for and it is shown to the player. I honestly have no idea what it means, but that’s why I recognize that it’s a very advanced game, and it makes me excited as a role-player.

R_Nikaido Similarly with the Soul series, it is precisely because of that worldview that makes no sense, that you get the feeling of “being in a great world,” and it is exciting to play. It is because of that worldview that we can get the feeling of “being in a great world”.

I think it is exciting to have “difficult” and “unknown” in a state like this. It’s the same with Eva.

R_Nikaido Another thought I had was that having more elements is a plus for people who want to have casual fun. I always thought it was the other way around. I thought it would be better to simplify the elements for those who want to enjoy it casually.

But I don’t think this is right either.

R_Nikaido When we released NINJA VS VIKING, I saw a lot of feedback from people, and the less familiar they are with the game, the more they say things like “I want a dash. The more people who are not familiar with the game, the more they say that they want more elements like “I want a dash” or “I want special moves” in the game. On the other hand, those who were familiar with the game were thinking about how to attack with the given elements.

R_Nikaido In other words, people who want to have casual fun are not thinking about how to overcome the hurdles in front of them. They are more likely to enjoy the pleasure of touch and encountering new elements. Therefore, the more elements there are, the more casual people can enjoy the game.

R_Nikaido Also, if there are more types of actions a player can do, that just means “more room to try things out” for the casual enjoyer. I think that would be better.

“If I have a hard time fighting with a sword, I’ll try using a bow, and if that doesn’t work either, I’ll try using a dagger. If that doesn’t work, I’ll use a dagger.” > “Oh, it’s easier to fight with a dagger.

R_Nikaido If the game were a game where you could only use swords, you would not be able to escape from it even if you struggled with swords. You have to think carefully about how to fight to your advantage. It’s a tough act, and it requires a lot of thinking.

So I thought a simple game would be like forcing people to play in a bind.

R_Nikaido It Takes Two is a very casual game, the kind of game you would play with your girlfriend or family, but it has quite complicated controls such as “jump in the air,” “evade,” “dash in the air,” “wall stick,” and “wall jump. button,” “dash in the air,” “stick to the wall,” “wall jump,” and so on.

And each of them is not so much as absolutely necessary in terms of the system. But this was “necessary”.

R_Nikaido Suppose you have a situation where you have to jump over a hole. If the game only allows you to jump, you have to do “step over with a good running start and good timing”.

On the other hand, It Takes Two makes you jump over it by “jump → jump in the air → dash in the air”.

R_Nikaido and the description makes It Takes Two sound difficult, but the controls are so good that you don’t have to worry about running or timing when to step off. You don’t have to worry about running or stepping off at all, just press the jump button and dash button at the right time.

R_Nikaido As a result, it’s rather “awfully easy” to jump over holes with It Takes Two. The aerial control is easy to do, so it is easy to fine-tune the direction, and you can return to the original foothold if you think you missed it.

Also, the fun of the operation has been raised because there are operations that can be done in the air.

R_Nikaido So It Takes Two has the advantage of increasing the fun of the controls while decreasing the difficulty by making the jump-related controls more complex, which is better for casual players. It Takes Two has the advantage that you don’t feel bored just jumping over simple holes, which is better for casual players.

R_Nikaido If you think about it, there are very few games nowadays where you can’t do anything until you jump and land. Most games have double jumps, and even Mario has a variety of actions that allow him to change his trajectory in the air.

nishio So why does Nikkaidou’s observation that “casual gamers tend to request more elements” happen? It is the same principle as when a TV remote control is full of buttons. Making a combination work is loaded for many people’s cognition.

---

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/「複雑」に二種類ある using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.