I'm just wondering what game designers and ppl who have an opinion think.



F.ex. a ressource was added (Science) after I played this a ton and after trying it again, I'm not convinced that the added complexity was an improvement.

I expect to get a ton of ppl liking more complexity, could you guys tell me exactly how that helped the game improve?



(Not trying to be a negative nancy. The game is still very good. Just interested in the conversiation/thoughts.)

I think there is a thing as overly complex.

But it really depends on the player and it's current mood how he perceives it.



For example I couldn't be bothered to get into Dwarf-Fortress or Aurora 4x.

I'm also having a hard time with Distant Worlds.

If I feel mentally vigourous, I'm willing to learn complex games too.



But if, for example I want to listen to some lecture while playing something, I of course can only play games that I already know everything about how to play it and as a consequence don't have to concentrate a lot.



Diablo 3 is a very good game for that. It's played monstly intuitively (as long as you don't have to compare items or consider respeccing).

DotE is not so great for that. While I know how the stuff works, I still have to concentrate a lot because there's a lot to consider and make decisions about.

Games that you still want to learn are impossible in that case.

I feel that DotE manages complexity extremely well. At the start of a new game your decisions are very limited and obvious, the decision tree grows as you progress towards the exit, then sort of resets at the start of a new level of the dungeon.



Science is nice addition, almost a necessary one. It opens up a whole new level of depth and strategy with minimal added complexity.

There's varying degrees. I, personally, adore complexity. In the disgaea series of games yo can have a level 9999 character with millions of hp and even level items and abilities individually.



Or in many roguelikes there can be an absurd learning curve and number of commands/stats to track. DotE is relatively mild and seems to handle complexity smoothly, all things considered. The learning is gradual but I would like to specify targets, or, at least, priority for things like turrets.



After a few failures you begin to see what works and you, bit by bit, refine and hone tactics, techniques, and strategies; true to a real strategy and roguelike.



Dwarf fortress is a great example of "complex" with no hand holding. Great fun, but a large time investment.

I don't find Science complex at all. Basically you develop new modules or upgrade old ones. That's it. It's an improvement, because you can develop your own strategy, depending on what research crystals and blueprints you come across. It adds to the depth without making it overly complex.

Distinguish between "complex" and "complicated".



Something is complex if it has many intricately-interacting components.



Something is complicated if it's difficult to understand.



For example, chess isn't terribly complicated. The basic rules can be taught in a few minutes (setup, basic rules of movement, how check and checkmate work), and the special-case movement rules can be taught in a few more minutes. Despite this, the game has enormous strategic depth. Six types of piece on an 8x8 grid have a huge variety of likely interactions, even assuming both players are skilled and playing to win. Chess is not complicated, but it's incredibly complex. It's easy to learn, but it's obscenely difficult to master.



In general, complication for its own sake makes a game interesting at first (some people enjoy learning obscure rules), but it tends to lack lasting appeal (once you've learned the rules and you understand how to abuse them, that appeal is gone). If you want a game to have lasting appeal (or replay value), then it's okay to add complication only if this complication adds complexity.



For example, science adds complication to DotE; it is an additional game mechanic for players to learn. At present, science adds only a little bit of complexity; in one or two playthroughs, a player can get a pretty good idea how much to prioritize science production and how much to prioritize a given module. It's not like your science strategy needs to vary depending on random events in the game (in the special case where you can't find an artifact levels 3-5, you're pretty well ruined anyway). We've been promised a technology tree, though, and hopefully this will make science interact with the rest of the game's mechanics a bit more intricately.

I think DotE is the perfect blend of complex and casual.