Unfortunately Developers do not understand that a successful MMO today has to be both a Themepark and a Sandbox in one.
And it has to include every other system ever attempted in MMO space, read the players to sleep every night, supply hot pockets on demand, cure cancer, repel the in-laws, pay child support, and bring it all in under budget and ahead of time; for no more than the price we paid back in 1997.
Probably still not enough to pass the mmorpg New Game Exam, but at least it's a start.
Don't be silly now.
Nobody is asking for the moon, or a cure for the bloody cancer
And I said something quite simple.
Mixing the instant fun and accessibility of Themeparks and the challenge and Longevity of the Sandbox, will grant better chances for new MMOs to keep players subscribed for more than a couple of months.
At the moment we have Themepark games which keep Millions of people entertained for 2 months or Sandbox games played by 10 people because they are so hard to get into and so tedious to play that the masses won't get into it.
Make Themeparks more challenging or Sandboxes less hardcore, or better mix them together, and you get the ideal MMO
Well the issue is when a game tries to be complex, it invariably ends up with lots of redundant (especially partially redundant) crap.
But when a game seeks depth first and foremost, it accumulates only the bare minimum complexity required to achieve that level of depth. Consequently these games feel like far better game designs.
It is an issue when a developer thinks that tacking on lots of non interlinked, redundant options is what makes a game complex, it is not, it makes a game bad.
A developer looking to create a complex web of simple mechanical systems, however is not a bad thing (for certain genres). You ideally want to allow the users to intuitiively go about the individual tasks that he/she wishes to do, the complexity comes then from how the individual tasks interact. It will invariably also generate dynamism and depth.
Plenty of players (one would imagine) would like to see interlinked economies and pvp etc etc in some games within the mmorpg genre. Where a conflict and the take over of an area could dynamically impact upon the local crafting and trade routes et al. That adds complexity and depth. Few players (one would imagine) simply want to have an extra hotbar row full of redundant shit. It doesn't add complexity and depth, it adds lots of extra crap that isn't needed.
A game looking to be a complex system is no bad thing, a game which is essentially a simple system with lots and lots of extra crap is very much a bad thing.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Maybe it's a mistake always giving the speaker's podium to programmers, when there are actualy game theory people out and about (Martin Gardner had a lot to say about the differences between games and puzzles, for example).
Yep, there are even bigger geeks in the world!
Well give the speaker's podium to any well-known, successful designer and they'll tell you the same thing.
It's a fundamental trait of all design everywhere. From evolution to architecture to scientific theories to programming to game design. Designs which are unnecessarily complex either aren't created, or perform worse than simpler designs which achieve the same performance. Adding complexity makes design less efficient.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Maybe it's a mistake always giving the speaker's podium to programmers, when there are actualy game theory people out and about (Martin Gardner had a lot to say about the differences between games and puzzles, for example).
Yep, there are even bigger geeks in the world!
Well give the speaker's podium to any well-known, successful designer and they'll tell you the same thing.
It's a fundamental trait of all design everywhere. From evolution to architecture to scientific theories to programming to game design. Designs which are unnecessarily complex either aren't created, or perform worse than simpler designs which achieve the same performance. Adding complexity makes design less efficient.
Keyword being "unnecessarily". If complexity adds a form of enjoyment which a less complex system doesn't, it can very well be worth it.
Maybe it's a mistake always giving the speaker's podium to programmers, when there are actualy game theory people out and about (Martin Gardner had a lot to say about the differences between games and puzzles, for example).
Yep, there are even bigger geeks in the world!
Well give the speaker's podium to any well-known, successful designer and they'll tell you the same thing.
It's a fundamental trait of all design everywhere. From evolution to architecture to scientific theories to programming to game design. Designs which are unnecessarily complex either aren't created, or perform worse than simpler designs which achieve the same performance. Adding complexity makes design less efficient.
Keyword being "unnecessarily". If complexity adds a form of enjoyment which a less complex system doesn't, it can very well be worth it.
But not every MMO (or game) has to have the same kind of enjoyment. Good graphics add a form of enjoyment. MInecraft does not have it, but it is not necessarily for its success. The same principle applies.
Mixing the instant fun and accessibility of Themeparks and the challenge and Longevity of the Sandbox, will grant better chances for new MMOs to keep players subscribed for more than a couple of months.
At the moment we have Themepark games which keep Millions of people entertained for 2 months or Sandbox games played by 10 people because they are so hard to get into and so tedious to play that the masses won't get into it.
Make Themeparks more challenging or Sandboxes less hardcore, or better mix them together, and you get the ideal MMO
Why is that even a goal? Just be a good game and keep the players entertained when they are playing it.
I would much rather to have a super fun game/MMO for 2 weeks, then an OK one for months.
Time is not a measurement of enjoyment. I don't know what is the obsession here with longevity.
Keyword being "unnecessarily". If complexity adds a form of enjoyment which a less complex system doesn't, it can very well be worth it.
Right.
And my point is that it's philosophically far superior to pursue game depth as the goal, rather than complexity itself. Games which aim for very high game depth and achieve it in the simplest design possible end up doing the best.
Whereas games which pursue complexity for complexity's sake are generally considered messy, inefficient designs because they weren't focusing enough on what really mattered. They're the games like the one we discussed earlier, where they made 100 skills but only 15 of them were worth using because the designers focused on implementing lots of skills (complexity) instead of only skills that matter (game depth.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Keyword being "unnecessarily". If complexity adds a form of enjoyment which a less complex system doesn't, it can very well be worth it.
Right.
And my point is that it's philosophically far superior to pursue game depth as the goal, rather than complexity itself. Games which aim for very high game depth and achieve it in the simplest design possible end up doing the best.
Whereas games which pursue complexity for complexity's sake are generally considered messy, inefficient designs because they weren't focusing enough on what really mattered. They're the games like the one we discussed earlier, where they made 100 skills but only 15 of them were worth using because the designers focused on implementing lots of skills (complexity) instead of only skills that matter (game depth.)
Though I agree I think it's important to point out that "complexity" has nothign to do with, say, having 100 skills or "not" having 100 skills.
You can have 100 skills and have a deep complex game. You can have 100 skills and have the mess you talk about.
complexity has more to do with how each component relates to every other component and what is unlocked/related as you play the game.
Of course, in the end, it's better to have fewer components that unlock more as they will be more manageable to the player.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Keyword being "unnecessarily". If complexity adds a form of enjoyment which a less complex system doesn't, it can very well be worth it.
Right.
And my point is that it's philosophically far superior to pursue game depth as the goal, rather than complexity itself. Games which aim for very high game depth and achieve it in the simplest design possible end up doing the best.
Whereas games which pursue complexity for complexity's sake are generally considered messy, inefficient designs because they weren't focusing enough on what really mattered. They're the games like the one we discussed earlier, where they made 100 skills but only 15 of them were worth using because the designers focused on implementing lots of skills (complexity) instead of only skills that matter (game depth.)
Though I agree I think it's important to point out that "complexity" has nothign to do with, say, having 100 skills or "not" having 100 skills.
You can have 100 skills and have a deep complex game. You can have 100 skills and have the mess you talk about.
complexity has more to do with how each component relates to every other component and what is unlocked/related as you play the game.
Of course, in the end, it's better to have fewer components that unlock more as they will be more manageable to the player.
EXACTLY.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.
If I had penny for each : "Players want streamlined , acessible content" game theory ... that always results in poor content ridden boredom fest like SWTOR.
Yes. Its that easy. Players run out of things to do when they are not challenged enough.
Unfortunately only "complex" MMO games today are either rhutless PVP oriented (like EVE) or below todays standards (either too old or made by low budget indy developers)
When will developers understand this? Make a game that challenges player. That you have to research online. Ask people for help. Figure out things.
Not just grind on autopilot with straight line road ahead of you...
So far , no game is taking this challenge... Shame
errm.. did you hear of TSW? no? thought so.
anyway, in TSW you got enough people who dont want complecity, who cry at every single time they encounter it.
people want hard challanges? then why did pages like allakhazam, thottbot and so on became so big, pages who tell em every single step of a quest?
just wondering
there are always 2 sides to a story.
yea, sure, personally i want it challanging too, but the main crowd is just lazy i'd say... they want to get their max and then look cool
"believe me, mike.. i calculated the odds of this working against the odds that i was doing something incredibly stupid and i did it anyway!"
Originally posted by Lobotomist Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.If I had penny for each : "Players want streamlined , acessible content" game theory ... that always results in poor content ridden boredom fest like SWTOR.Yes. Its that easy. Players run out of things to do when they are not challenged enough. Unfortunately only "complex" MMO games today are either rhutless PVP oriented (like EVE) or below todays standards (either too old or made by low budget indy developers) When will developers understand this? Make a game that challenges player. That you have to research online. Ask people for help. Figure out things.Not just grind on autopilot with straight line road ahead of you... So far , no game is taking this challenge... Shame
Problem with that theory, if its to complex players automaticlly associate that with "grind" even if its in fact not a grind but a long time investment.
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
Keyword being "unnecessarily". If complexity adds a form of enjoyment which a less complex system doesn't, it can very well be worth it.
Right.
And my point is that it's philosophically far superior to pursue game depth as the goal, rather than complexity itself. Games which aim for very high game depth and achieve it in the simplest design possible end up doing the best.
Whereas games which pursue complexity for complexity's sake are generally considered messy, inefficient designs because they weren't focusing enough on what really mattered. They're the games like the one we discussed earlier, where they made 100 skills but only 15 of them were worth using because the designers focused on implementing lots of skills (complexity) instead of only skills that matter (game depth.)
Though I agree I think it's important to point out that "complexity" has nothign to do with, say, having 100 skills or "not" having 100 skills.
You can have 100 skills and have a deep complex game. You can have 100 skills and have the mess you talk about.
complexity has more to do with how each component relates to every other component and what is unlocked/related as you play the game.
Of course, in the end, it's better to have fewer components that unlock more as they will be more manageable to the player.
In practice it does. It takes effort to create skills and balance them. With more skills it takes more effort. I'd say exponentially even.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I think the problem is that developers today don’t understand that more and more older people play online games. I will properly play online games in the community center for the elderly, if they have a good internet connection.
Originally posted by bunnyhopper The number of outcomes has not increased.
There is no need to. Complexity does not imply multiply outcomes.
Originally posted by bunnyhopper You would either be able to reach different outcomes dependant upon the combinations, or you would have to utilise a combination of the agents to get a set outcome.
Whether you utilize the combinations or not is irrelevant, what counts is the number of agents.
If there are redundant options, it makes the system inefficient or wasting but no less complex, it is just "not good".
Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.
If I had penny for each : "Players want streamlined , acessible content" game theory ... that always results in poor content ridden boredom fest like SWTOR.
Yes. Its that easy. Players run out of things to do when they are not challenged enough.
Unfortunately only "complex" MMO games today are either rhutless PVP oriented (like EVE) or below todays standards (either too old or made by low budget indy developers)
When will developers understand this? Make a game that challenges player. That you have to research online. Ask people for help. Figure out things.
Not just grind on autopilot with straight line road ahead of you...
So far , no game is taking this challenge... Shame
I agree with you, however money talk so:
Why put in the time and effort to build a good old MMORPG in which your only going to get a small player base, which will take multiple years to make a profit, when you could build an easy cheap streamlined themepark MMO for a fraction of the cost and sell millions to all the brain dead sheep.
oh how I wish we could get a real mmo made, but it wont happen. Even if I were in charge of making an MMO, id take the easy route just to make easy money. So if I would sell out, I cant expect some dev not to.
Waiting for:EQ-Next, ArcheAge (not so much anymore) Now Playing: N/A Worst MMO: FFXIV Favorite MMO: FFXI
We just need a graphics update for UO. The game is still going but just needs modern polish to capture the new eneration.
Nah .. we don't need an update to old ideas. I thought people want innovation instead of cloning the past.
Actually the updates UO have done over the years have been far more innovative than the "new" crap developers are coming out with. I agree with Tezcat.
Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.
If I had penny for each : "Players want streamlined , acessible content" game theory ... that always results in poor content ridden boredom fest like SWTOR.
Yes. Its that easy. Players run out of things to do when they are not challenged enough.
Unfortunately only "complex" MMO games today are either rhutless PVP oriented (like EVE) or below todays standards (either too old or made by low budget indy developers)
When will developers understand this? Make a game that challenges player. That you have to research online. Ask people for help. Figure out things.
Not just grind on autopilot with straight line road ahead of you...
So far , no game is taking this challenge... Shame
I agree with you, however money talk so:
Why put in the time and effort to build a good old MMORPG in which your only going to get a small player base, which will take multiple years to make a profit, when you could build an easy cheap streamlined themepark MMO for a fraction of the cost and sell millions to all the brain dead sheep.
oh how I wish we could get a real mmo made, but it wont happen. Even if I were in charge of making an MMO, id take the easy route just to make easy money. So if I would sell out, I cant expect some dev not to.
Underlined red by Lobotomist is what I don't want in my MMORPG, a game should provide enough clue's, hints and like Lobotomist said ask your player base. Everything should be a challenge from within the gameworld and not going online to search for answers.
Though challenge itself is a problem cause what might be a challenge for you or me might be looked at as something not challeging by others. Same with content what you or me would see as content many don't see that, for example SWG (pre-cu) was filled with content even though much was player created, yet the common complain on almost every forum was that SWG (pre-cu) lacked content. geuss people growing up with video games since the early 70/80's are mch more openminded and have more imagination to creat things in a sandbox type of game, where the gamer that just started early 90/00's is used to being led and will complain about games if they lack guidens.
As for your ( toddze) developer comment I agree and said it many times developers will creat games for the masses as that's what pay's their bills.
But....
If I would be a developer my first game would also be for the masses to create a money stream to invest into a game that I truly would love to make.
There is no need to. Complexity does not imply multiply outcomes.
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
You would either be able to reach different outcomes dependant upon the combinations, or you would have to utilise a combination of the agents to get a set outcome.
Whether you utilize the combinations or not is irrelevant, what counts is the number of agents.
If there are redundant options, it makes the system inefficient or wasting but no less complex, it is just "not good".
Actually complexity is derived from either a system in which there are multiple outcomes derived from the agents, or from a system which has interlinking agents in which a combination of the agents is needed to arrive at the outcome. It is not simply derived from having lots of agents.
Again a vast number of agents is only disorganized complexity if the agents interact with one another.
As far as the state space complexity that was mentioned before in reference to games specifically. That is based upon the number of possible outcomes. You will note that the number of outcomes for the light switch analogy is always the same as there is only the one bulb with lots of switches. The switches only act upon the bulb and not on one another, ergo it is a simple system.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
We just need a graphics update for UO. The game is still going but just needs modern polish to capture the new eneration.
Nah .. we don't need an update to old ideas. I thought people want innovation instead of cloning the past.
Actually the updates UO have done over the years have been far more innovative than the "new" crap developers are coming out with. I agree with Tezcat.
That is not the definition of "innovative". You may like them .. but old ideas are old, and not innovative.
There is no need to. Complexity does not imply multiply outcomes.
Originally posted by bunnyhopper
You would either be able to reach different outcomes dependant upon the combinations, or you would have to utilise a combination of the agents to get a set outcome.
Whether you utilize the combinations or not is irrelevant, what counts is the number of agents.
If there are redundant options, it makes the system inefficient or wasting but no less complex, it is just "not good".
Actually complexity is derived from either a system in which there are multiple outcomes derived from the agents, or from a system which has interlinking agents in which a combination of the agents is needed to arrive at the outcome. It is not simply derived from having lots of agents.
Again a vast number of agents is only disorganized complexity if the agents interact with one another.
As far as the state space complexity that was mentioned before in reference to games specifically. That is based upon the number of possible outcomes. You will note that the number of outcomes for the light switch analogy is always the same as there is only the one bulb with lots of switches. The switches only act upon the bulb and not on one another, ergo it is a simple system.
With a continuous state space, the number of states is infinite. There are of course classes of infinity (for example, countable vs incountable). Thus, any system that uses a real number has infinite number of states.
That does NOT make a game interesting. Do you really care if my life is 101.1234 vs 101.1233?
What if complexity is defined as how hard it is to find the optimal solution?
The difficulty of finding the optimal solution is better described with the term "game depth".
"A multiplayer game is deep if it is still strategically interesting to play after expert players have studied and practiced it for years, decades, or centuries." -David Sirlin
Complex games can fail to be deep because despite their complexity the optimal path is easy to find. This occurs in unbalanced games where there are a lot of options but one option clearly performs better.
Deep games can be simple. Chess' rules fit on a single sheet of paper, yet its depth allows it to remaing strategically interesting even for players who've played it for years.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
What if complexity is defined as how hard it is to find the optimal solution?
The difficulty of finding the optimal solution is better described with the term "game depth".
"A multiplayer game is deep if it is still strategically interesting to play after expert players have studied and practiced it for years, decades, or centuries." -David Sirlin
Complex games can fail to be deep because despite their complexity the optimal path is easy to find. This occurs in unbalanced games where there are a lot of options but one option clearly performs better.
Deep games can be simple. Chess' rules fit on a single sheet of paper, yet its depth allows it to remaing strategically interesting even for players who've played it for years.
Since it is a gaming forum, I suppose the term "complexity" has a specific common area of usage which includes "complexity of the game rules". In another field, a problem-solving one, complexity usually refers to "complexity of the problem", which is the one I am more used to. Point being that semantics can sometimes be a real bitch XD.
Comments
Don't be silly now.
Nobody is asking for the moon, or a cure for the bloody cancer
And I said something quite simple.
Mixing the instant fun and accessibility of Themeparks and the challenge and Longevity of the Sandbox, will grant better chances for new MMOs to keep players subscribed for more than a couple of months.
At the moment we have Themepark games which keep Millions of people entertained for 2 months or Sandbox games played by 10 people because they are so hard to get into and so tedious to play that the masses won't get into it.
Make Themeparks more challenging or Sandboxes less hardcore, or better mix them together, and you get the ideal MMO
It is an issue when a developer thinks that tacking on lots of non interlinked, redundant options is what makes a game complex, it is not, it makes a game bad.
A developer looking to create a complex web of simple mechanical systems, however is not a bad thing (for certain genres). You ideally want to allow the users to intuitiively go about the individual tasks that he/she wishes to do, the complexity comes then from how the individual tasks interact. It will invariably also generate dynamism and depth.
Plenty of players (one would imagine) would like to see interlinked economies and pvp etc etc in some games within the mmorpg genre. Where a conflict and the take over of an area could dynamically impact upon the local crafting and trade routes et al. That adds complexity and depth. Few players (one would imagine) simply want to have an extra hotbar row full of redundant shit. It doesn't add complexity and depth, it adds lots of extra crap that isn't needed.
A game looking to be a complex system is no bad thing, a game which is essentially a simple system with lots and lots of extra crap is very much a bad thing.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Well give the speaker's podium to any well-known, successful designer and they'll tell you the same thing.
It's a fundamental trait of all design everywhere. From evolution to architecture to scientific theories to programming to game design. Designs which are unnecessarily complex either aren't created, or perform worse than simpler designs which achieve the same performance. Adding complexity makes design less efficient.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Keyword being "unnecessarily". If complexity adds a form of enjoyment which a less complex system doesn't, it can very well be worth it.
Preach it, brother. Preach.
Joined 2004 - I can't believe I've been a MMORPG.com member for 20 years! Get off my lawn!
But not every MMO (or game) has to have the same kind of enjoyment. Good graphics add a form of enjoyment. MInecraft does not have it, but it is not necessarily for its success. The same principle applies.
Why is that even a goal? Just be a good game and keep the players entertained when they are playing it.
I would much rather to have a super fun game/MMO for 2 weeks, then an OK one for months.
Time is not a measurement of enjoyment. I don't know what is the obsession here with longevity.
Right.
And my point is that it's philosophically far superior to pursue game depth as the goal, rather than complexity itself. Games which aim for very high game depth and achieve it in the simplest design possible end up doing the best.
Whereas games which pursue complexity for complexity's sake are generally considered messy, inefficient designs because they weren't focusing enough on what really mattered. They're the games like the one we discussed earlier, where they made 100 skills but only 15 of them were worth using because the designers focused on implementing lots of skills (complexity) instead of only skills that matter (game depth.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
TSW has layers of complexity in nearly all the systems. This comes from a person who spends hours per day looking at the ability wheel.
Though I agree I think it's important to point out that "complexity" has nothign to do with, say, having 100 skills or "not" having 100 skills.
You can have 100 skills and have a deep complex game. You can have 100 skills and have the mess you talk about.
complexity has more to do with how each component relates to every other component and what is unlocked/related as you play the game.
Of course, in the end, it's better to have fewer components that unlock more as they will be more manageable to the player.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
EXACTLY.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
errm.. did you hear of TSW? no? thought so.
anyway, in TSW you got enough people who dont want complecity, who cry at every single time they encounter it.
people want hard challanges? then why did pages like allakhazam, thottbot and so on became so big, pages who tell em every single step of a quest?
just wondering
there are always 2 sides to a story.
yea, sure, personally i want it challanging too, but the main crowd is just lazy i'd say... they want to get their max and then look cool
"believe me, mike.. i calculated the odds of this working against the odds that i was doing something incredibly stupid and i did it anyway!"
Problem with that theory, if its to complex players automaticlly associate that with "grind" even if its in fact not a grind but a long time investment.
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
In practice it does. It takes effort to create skills and balance them. With more skills it takes more effort. I'd say exponentially even.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
There is no need to. Complexity does not imply multiply outcomes.
Whether you utilize the combinations or not is irrelevant, what counts is the number of agents.
If there are redundant options, it makes the system inefficient or wasting but no less complex, it is just "not good".
I agree with you, however money talk so:
Why put in the time and effort to build a good old MMORPG in which your only going to get a small player base, which will take multiple years to make a profit, when you could build an easy cheap streamlined themepark MMO for a fraction of the cost and sell millions to all the brain dead sheep.
oh how I wish we could get a real mmo made, but it wont happen. Even if I were in charge of making an MMO, id take the easy route just to make easy money. So if I would sell out, I cant expect some dev not to.
Waiting for:EQ-Next, ArcheAge (not so much anymore)
Now Playing: N/A
Worst MMO: FFXIV
Favorite MMO: FFXI
Actually the updates UO have done over the years have been far more innovative than the "new" crap developers are coming out with. I agree with Tezcat.
Underlined red by Lobotomist is what I don't want in my MMORPG, a game should provide enough clue's, hints and like Lobotomist said ask your player base. Everything should be a challenge from within the gameworld and not going online to search for answers.
Though challenge itself is a problem cause what might be a challenge for you or me might be looked at as something not challeging by others. Same with content what you or me would see as content many don't see that, for example SWG (pre-cu) was filled with content even though much was player created, yet the common complain on almost every forum was that SWG (pre-cu) lacked content. geuss people growing up with video games since the early 70/80's are mch more openminded and have more imagination to creat things in a sandbox type of game, where the gamer that just started early 90/00's is used to being led and will complain about games if they lack guidens.
As for your ( toddze) developer comment I agree and said it many times developers will creat games for the masses as that's what pay's their bills.
But....
If I would be a developer my first game would also be for the masses to create a money stream to invest into a game that I truly would love to make.
Actually complexity is derived from either a system in which there are multiple outcomes derived from the agents, or from a system which has interlinking agents in which a combination of the agents is needed to arrive at the outcome. It is not simply derived from having lots of agents.
Again a vast number of agents is only disorganized complexity if the agents interact with one another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity
As far as the state space complexity that was mentioned before in reference to games specifically. That is based upon the number of possible outcomes. You will note that the number of outcomes for the light switch analogy is always the same as there is only the one bulb with lots of switches. The switches only act upon the bulb and not on one another, ergo it is a simple system.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
What if complexity is defined as how hard it is to find the optimal solution?
Example:
Compare farming in case A to case B:
A.
Seeds costs X1 gold to buy.
Fields take X2 space.
Growh time is X3 hours.
When you harvest the crops, you will only receive crops which are sellable to NPCs.
Crops sell to NPC for X4 gold.
B.
Seeds costs Y1 gold to buy.
Fields take Y2 space.
Growh time is Y3 hours.
You can buy a fertilizer that affects growth speed for Y4 gold and output for Y5 gold.
The effect of the fertilizer depends on how many fertilizers were previously used in that field during that harvest cycle.
Formula for the fertilizers is: Effect = Base Effect / sqrt(Number of previously used fertilizers + 1)
When you harvest the crops, you will receive crops and seeds.
Crops can only be sold to other players through a free market.
Comment:
As you notice, finding the optimal solution in B is far more difficult than finding the optimal solution in A.
That is not the definition of "innovative". You may like them .. but old ideas are old, and not innovative.
With a continuous state space, the number of states is infinite. There are of course classes of infinity (for example, countable vs incountable). Thus, any system that uses a real number has infinite number of states.
That does NOT make a game interesting. Do you really care if my life is 101.1234 vs 101.1233?
The difficulty of finding the optimal solution is better described with the term "game depth".
"A multiplayer game is deep if it is still strategically interesting to play after expert players have studied and practiced it for years, decades, or centuries." -David Sirlin
Complex games can fail to be deep because despite their complexity the optimal path is easy to find. This occurs in unbalanced games where there are a lot of options but one option clearly performs better.
Deep games can be simple. Chess' rules fit on a single sheet of paper, yet its depth allows it to remaing strategically interesting even for players who've played it for years.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Since it is a gaming forum, I suppose the term "complexity" has a specific common area of usage which includes "complexity of the game rules". In another field, a problem-solving one, complexity usually refers to "complexity of the problem", which is the one I am more used to. Point being that semantics can sometimes be a real bitch XD.