Trends in Game Creation: "Keep It Simple"

This article represents the beginning of yet another ongoing series.  The goal here is to look at game design/production trends with an excessively critical eye, in order to slowly peel off the layers of the game industry onion.  Once we've established what a given trend is, we can begin to analyze it and deconstruct the general ideas at play.  Through these articles, I hope to show you some facets of game development that you might have never considered before, and not always in a flattering light.  I decided to start this series with something that I find to be increasingly relevant in modern game creation: the "Keep It Simple" Principle (KISP for those who love acronyms).

"Hey Boston, what exactly is this trend?"

First, I should let you in on a little secret:  game companies exist to make the most money possible.  For some companies, the amount of money to be made is much higher than others.  However, for the purposes of this article, you need only know that developers and publishers are all in it for the profit.  I'm sure some of you are thinking: "But Boston, independent developers only care about making their fans happy, they don't care about money!" If that is indeed what you're thinking, then you couldn't be more incorrect.  The ONLY exceptions to the golden rule of profit are: if the developer has a substantial nest egg (generated from previous games, some other business venture, a trust fund, etc.) and has no need for the potential income from game titles, if the developer thinks that there is no potential loss of income from releasing the title for free (implying that they don't care if people buy it or not), or some variation of those two scenarios.  In any other case, the intent to make money is always there.  Think about all the big indy games over the past few years:  Super Meat Boy, Minecraft, Terraria, etc.  What do they have in common?  They became popular and sold like hot cakes.  They all used the revenue generated from their success to continually make their games better, while still making money hand over fist.  So these developers definitely care about their fans, right?  Of course they do, but so does every other developer in existence (to some extent).  The fans are the ones who purchase their games, and if they are unable to cater to the very people who play their game, then their game is probably not worth anyone's time.  You can argue with me and say that the money is just a bonus and that they're all truly in it to bring joy to the public, but then you'd be getting a little ridiculous.  For the sake of my sanity, all you need to know up to this point is that games are made with the intention of making money.  Plain and simple.

Need I say more?

The reason I brought this up is because the concept is of paramount significance when discussing most trends in the industry (especially this one).  So then, knowing what we know, I want you to pretend that you're a major developer.  You've made dozens of hit titles, and you have become your publisher's leading cash cow.  Your publisher tells you that you have to come up with a new IP, with the intent of making it into a hit franchise.  How do you go about making sure that your game will be successful?  You pick a wide-ranging demographic and appeal to as many people as possible.  Does your game need to be good as well?  Well yes, but only to start with.  At the very least, it needs to be somewhat innovative, but not to the point where it alienates your core audience.  If the first title is good enough to gather a substantial following, you know that you only have to iterate on your first successful title in order to continue the cash flow.  Case in point: Modern Warfare.  Once a franchise is established as a hit, a developer has almost free reign with whatever comes next, as long as they continue to iterate and appeal to their demographic.  This is where the KISP comes in.  

To this day, games are still seen as being undesirable and impenetrable to some.  The higher you go in generations, the more likely it becomes that you'll encounter this sentiment.  As time passes, the older generations are passing as well.  The current generation of developers most likely grew up on games, but not in the same way that the younger generations have.  They grew up in the age of Pong, Pac-man, and Space Invaders.  In other words, they grew up in a time where games were simple.  Whether this has stuck with them as their mantra throughout their careers, whether they derive nostalgia from simplicity, or however else they attempt to justify it - they will sometimes favor their version of simplicity over other alternatives.  Because of this false understanding of the need for simple games, certain figures in the industry have been trending towards dumbing down their franchises.  While this aggravates the younger generations of gamers, it also guarantees that the titles appeal to the broadest demographic possible.  When these games do well, the success is attributed to the game's simplicity, instead of the game's appeal to the lowest common denominator (or fans who were tricked because they enjoyed previous games in a franchise).  Because of this, the franchise will continue to get dumbed down, to the point where it's barely even a game any more.  This, my friends, is problematic.

Case in point (more on this later).

"But Boston, why should we care about this?" 

This trend has the potential to result in some less desirable games.  To illustrate this point, I'm going to reference a few franchises:  Fable, Mass Effect, Ninja Gaiden, and Demons Souls.  On one side, we have Demons Souls and Ninja Gaiden.  Both of these franchises have substantial followings, and both are known for the absurd level of difficulty featured in their games.  Let's look at these two games individually.  Ninja Gaiden has a difficulty curve resembling a vertical line.  However, is the game particularly complicated?  Not really.  When you get to the heart of it, it's just a combat-oriented platformer/adventure title.  None of the abilities or movesets are overly difficult to execute, and the world is not massive enough to constantly get lost in - the game is just simply hard, and all of the titles have sold quite well.  Why am I bringing this up?  People often confuse difficulty with complexity.  Just because something is difficult doesn't mean that it's overly complex, whereas an overly complicated game isn't necessarily difficult to conquer if you can understand the game's systems.  Part of the problem with the KISP trend is that complexity is being associated with difficulty, because older generations of gamers are finding both complex and difficult games to be equally impenetrable - causing them to dump both types of games into the same general category.  Demons Souls is another franchise along similar lines.  At its core, it's a hack-and-slash dungeon crawler with some Japanese influence.  Is it a difficult game?  It certainly is.  It's also more complex than Ninja Gaiden, simply because of the RPG elements featured in the game.  Even so, this series was an international success.  Is overwhelming simplicity a necessary evil that must be tolerated for the sake of success?  The series proves otherwise.  While not overly complicated, Demons Souls offers varying levels of complexity based on how deeply you want to explore the game.  In doing so, it appears to hit the sweet spot with relative simplicity accompanied by a heavy dose of optional complexity.

Even though a good amount of complexity is necessary, anyone who claims
to enjoy the complexity of Steel Battalion is either a liar, a masochist, or both.

On the other side, we have Fable.  This franchise is the primary inspiration for this article.  While never an overly complex franchise, Fable has succeeded in actually dumbing the game down to the point where it almost plays itself for you.  The games have never been particularly difficult, and they have also had some interesting systems.  As the franchise progressed to its second installment, it maintained the charm of the first title, but added some fun (and optional) complexity while still keeping things relatively simple.  Then Fable 3 came along.  I had fun with this game at first, but after the first few hours, I had no desire to keep playing.  I managed to trudge through the storyline and experience the end-game of becoming a king, only to come to the conclusion that nothing in the game really mattered at all -  no matter how much I wanted it to.  If I wanted to press 'A' to win, I would have played an Atari game.  The bosses in Fable 3 were uninteresting, and the world gave me no reason to explore unless I wanted items that didn't actually matter.  Sure, the writing is clever, but even incredible writing can't save a game that's drowning in simplicity.  I might come off as a Fable hater, but I really did try to enjoy my play experience.  I do not detest the franchise as a whole, I only dislike what it represents - extremely basic gameplay.  This series is the very reason that the trend frightens me.  As we have seen, even so-called "complex" games are really not all that confusing, and yet they still remain engaging, compelling, and most importantly, fun.  It's when people grievously misuse the KISP that I begin to get worried, and Fable 3 is the perfect example of a franchise moving in the wrong direction. 

Mass Effect is taking a slightly different road to Simple Town.  In their attempt to appeal to a broader audience (not that they needed to, with the game's success), they also dumbed the game down to some extent.  Bioware turned Mass Effect 2 into more of a shooter and less of an RPG (compared to the original title), while still keeping enough of the RPG elements to prevent the alienation of their fans.  While I am still not a fan of game simplification (especially with RPGs, but that's another story), I feel that Bioware did a solid job of preserving the bits of complexity that were essential to the game's success, while simplifying aspects of the game that they felt were in need of a "trim." This is the proper way to iterate through a franchise, generally speaking.  A developer needs enough pieces of a complex system to give their game the depth necessary to make it compelling.  It's really just a balancing act.

For those who like literal imagery.

What can we conclude from all this?

It is important to keep things simple enough to remain accessible, but not so simple that the game becomes forgettably effortless.  To be clear: I am not saying that simplicity is always a horrible thing.  I can think of plenty of simple games that are still incredibly entertaining, just as I can think of games that have fallen to the wayside by being too convoluted.   The key is to be aware of the portions of the game that need simplification, and those that are fine the way they are.  Games that essentially play themselves are just as awful as games that require a doctorate to understand.  For the most part, developers know where that fine line is.  As the gaming industry continues to evolve, so does the KISP.  Younger generations of game developers will have their own methods of creating intriguing systems.  However, it will always be important to keep the balance of simplicity and complexity in the back of their minds.