Hertston
Posts: 3564
Joined: 8/17/2002 From: Cornwall, UK Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Joe 98 More complex is better – then the truly best players win. I don't agree with that at all. Chess is a far simpler game rules-wise even than the least complex Matrix release, and nobody would claim that the best players don't usually win that. There can be huge potential for variation, creativity and skill within even the simplest rules if the game is well designed. A complex game can hand an advantage (NOT necessarily a decisive one) to the player most familiar with every intricacy of the rules and system, and in the ways they can be exploited. Of course, those players frequently would be the "best" anyway, as to learn a game that well you have to play a lot and gain experience in the process. The only reason I see for complexity at all is to make the game as realistic as possible. If a game is realistic, the best player should be the best "general"; most familiar in (and potentially creative with) historical strategy and tactics within restrictions dictated by equally realistic supply, diplomatic, resource problems, etc. If those things are handled correctly, complexity is justified and may well reward the "best" player - not because he knows the rules but because he knows the real-world factors those rules are attempting to simulate. If complex rules do not achieve that, why bother? A game may well be just as challenging, and considerably more entertaining, without them.
< Message edited by Hertston -- 6/15/2005 9:48:02 PM >
|