Why is it, whenever we bring up WoW, we look at it in it's current state as if it was always like that? It wasn't. WoW's degradation did not happen until sometime late in TBC. From 1.1 through I'd say about 2.2, it had earned it's place. The game was damned good. It was fun, complex, challenging and certainly not easy mode. I remember it was around 2.3 where Blizz started making the game easy with sparkly quest objectives, with increase XP gains up to 60. Etc, Etc. WoW 1.1 through WoW 2.2 was also where the game established it's lead in the marked. But after 2.3, WOTLK and beyond, It's been in decline until we see it where it is today. So in this regard. WoW actually furtther supports you claim that EZmode MMOS are not runnaway hits. Since WoW success was not founded on it being so and it's slide down can actually be atributed to EZmode.
I love how many people talk about the decline for ThemePark MMOs as though it occurred in 2004. No. Actually it started in 2008 with WoW 3.1.
Because it is a spawn of satan, thorougly evil and if they don't like it it mustn't have anything good in it.
-> They've demonized WoW, thats why. The game they are against is largely imaginary.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.
Ok, prove it.
The lack of truly big success stories of easy mode, hand holding mmorpgs with cookie cutter themepark formula's should be plenty of evidence I reckon. (WOW arguably falls in that category and kills my statement but then again ... it's also kind of complex. As to really do well in WOW it requires a lot of organization and / or mastery).
But personally I'd go a step further and say that any game that aims to hold a player's attention for a really long time, should be complex. Whether it is single or multiplayer, rts or rpg, etc.
Why is it, whenever we bring up WoW, we look at it in it's current state as if it was always like that? It wasn't. WoW's degradation did not happen until sometime late in TBC. From 1.1 through I'd say about 2.2, it had earned it's place. The game was damned good. It was fun, complex, challenging and certainly not easy mode. I remember it was around 2.3 where Blizz started making the game easy with sparkly quest objectives, with increase XP gains up to 60. Etc, Etc. WoW 1.1 through WoW 2.2 was also where the game established it's lead in the marked. But after 2.3, WOTLK and beyond, It's been in decline until we see it where it is today. So in this regard. WoW actually furtther supports you claim that EZmode MMOS are not runnaway hits. Since WoW success was not founded on it being so and it's slide down can actually be atributed to EZmode.
I love how many people talk about the decline for ThemePark MMOs as though it occurred in 2004. No. Actually it started in 2008 with WoW 3.1.
If I may insert my 2 cents I would say that WoW does not have a monopoly on decline. Most successful mmo's die slowly when developers tweek them into something totally different from the original version that you knew and loved. I have seen this happen so often in mmo's and it is sad. It is astounding to me that this happens over and over and developers don't seem to have a clue. Instead of retaining their player base by making the endgame fun and interesting, (you paid your dues, you maxed your character thru sweat equity, you maxed out crafting and harvesting. Its time to have fun), they keep pumping out expansions rasing the level caps to 100 with the corresponding ubergear drops that in the final analysis are nothing more than the same old same old been there done that. It gets old. It gets especially old when you know that grinding to the new level cap in fighting, crafting and harvesting will only lead to an even higher level cap with corresponding grind. When it gets old, the game is no longer fun and when its no longer fun, we walk. Its that simple. Of course, developers rarely figure this out lol.
Games, to be successful today, need to not simply be complex or easy... they need to have various depths that will cater to a large number of players. They need to be shallow enough that our kids can play with us and have a blast swimming along the surface, but deep enough that Dad can decide to really wrap his brain around the mechanics, sink into the cold, dark depths and really work on a degree of mastery. Or the simple version... easy to learn, difficult to master.
Necroing from page 3 I know, but this post by Volkon is exactly right IMO. We want our games to be multi levelled like a Pixar cartoon gag.
Complexity for the sake of it .. is not fun. Interesting choices, on the other hand, should be encouraged.
Having 100 stats is complex, but if most of them do not matter .. there is no point. In fact, just optimizing a bunch of dry numbers is a lot less fun than choosing skills that does different things.
So the statement "players want complexity" is just vague and not useful at all. Everything is in the details and implementation.
Very good point. 5 interesting choices is far better than 10 complicated choices or 40 irrelevant choices.
Yes, interesting decisions and game depth are the goals, not complexity.
It's like the quote goes: "Everything should be kept as simple as possible, but no simpler."
That's absolutely true of games.
The goal is game depth. In pursuit of that depth games should be kept as simple as possible, but no simpler. Meaning not so simple that the goal isn't met, but as simple as possible otherwise.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Complexity for the sake of it .. is not fun. Interesting choices, on the other hand, should be encouraged.
Having 100 stats is complex, but if most of them do not matter .. there is no point. In fact, just optimizing a bunch of dry numbers is a lot less fun than choosing skills that does different things.
So the statement "players want complexity" is just vague and not useful at all. Everything is in the details and implementation.
Very good point. 5 interesting choices is far better than 10 complicated choices or 40 irrelevant choices.
Yes, interesting decisions and game depth are the goals, not complexity.
It's like the quote goes: "Everything should be kept as simple as possible, but no simpler."
That's absolutely true of games.
The goal is game depth. In pursuit of that depth games should be kept as simple as possible, but no simpler. Meaning not so simple that the goal isn't met, but as simple as possible otherwise.
When you have over 100 skills to choose from, it sounds fun on paper, but if in reality everyone only uses 15 of the skills and its the most effective, then the 85 other skills are unnecessary and a huge waste.
IF the game starts with only 15 skills, but have depth in each skill , then the game becomes complex and fun at the same time.
So basically what i am saying is I agree.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
When you have over 100 skills to choose from, it sounds fun on paper, but if in reality everyone only uses 15 of the skills and its the most effective, then the 85 other skills are unnecessary and a huge waste.
IF the game starts with only 15 skills, but have depth in each skill , then the game becomes complex and fun at the same time.
So basically what i am saying is I agree.
100 skills, 85 of which are useless. Is that complexity or merely lots of fluff? I think it's the latter.
Overly complex systems would require you to have to use all 100 different skills in order to get the same outcome as you could derive from using 15 skills of the developers had coded it better.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
100 skills, 85 of which are useless. Is that complexity or merely lots of fluff? I think it's the latter.
Overly complex systems would require you to have to use all 100 different skills in order to get the same outcome as you could derive from using 15 skills of the developers had coded it better.
Of course it's complexity. It's more stuff.
It's also lots of fluff, but that's sort of the point: games which pursue complexity for complexity's sake end up with a lot of useless fluff and are often shallower than games which focus on making fewer things have a more interesting interplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It's also lots of fluff, but that's sort of the point: games which pursue complexity for complexity's sake end up with a lot of useless fluff and are often shallower than games which focus on making fewer things have a more interesting interplay.
More stuff does not immediately mean more complexity. Sorry but 100 skills, 85 of which never get used is not more complex, it is simply lots of pointless options. That is not complex as they are not used. If you actually had to use the other 85 skills then it would indeed be complex.
If you have a light switch with 100 switches and no matter which one you press the light turns on, it is not a complex light switch. It just has alot of pointless options. If the light switch forced you to press the 100 switches in a specific order in order to turn the light on, then it would be an overly complex system. Given the fact that you could just use one switch instead.
Really, if people think that "more stuff" always equals more complexity, regardless as to whether said "stuff" is ever needed or used, then we have come to a pretty pass.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
If you have a light switch with 100 switches and no matter which one you press the light turns on, it is not a complex light switch.
You're suggesting 100 lightswitches is as simple a setup as 1 lightswitch. That's ridiculous.
I assure you 100 lightswitches hooked up to a light is quite obviously more complex a setup than a single lightswitch.
If all of them do exactly the same job, it is no more complex for the user at all. Complexity comes from many interacting objects, not simply from lots of objects that do exactly the same thing in isolation from each other. You could always just press the same switch.
To turn off the computer press key 1.
To turn off the computer press any key.
For the user the latter is not more complex, and yet he has more options, it is just they all do exactly the same thing and work in isolation of one another. Ergo complexity does not increase for the user.
To turn off the computer press key 1, then key H, then key 7, then key 5. That is a complex system. There is a clear and distinct difference.
No wonder people are unsure about complexity if they don't actually know what it means in the first place.
"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
QFT mate.
Unfortunately Developers do not understand that a successful MMO today has to be both a Themepark and a Sandbox in one.
Themepark = Fun and Accessibility (To avoid being bored by some "too realistic" tedious Sandbox activities)
Sandbox = Challenge and Longevity (For long subscription terms)
How come no Developer understood you need both the fun and the challenge (longevity) to convince player to stay subscribed for a long time, is beyond me.
If all of them do exactly the same job, it is no more complex for the user at all. Complexity comes from many interacting objects, not simply from lots of objects that do exactly the same thing in isolation from each other. You could always just press the same switch.
Take someone into a room with 100 light switches. Ask them "does this room seem complex to you?" They're going to say yes (or laugh, because given the context you've obviously made a joke.)
One thing they're not going to do is claim the room is simple.
Never has a game about pressing one button been so satisfying!!
Well, not since Joust, anyway.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
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.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
MMO players want complexity. We want to something that could take a second, take an hour. Chop down a tree for an hour to get some wood, then spend another hour turning it into planks, then another hour making useful items out of those planks.
The only problem is that most people playing "MMO"s today aren't MMO players. They want instant gratification, point-n-click ease, and the entire game to be over in 30 or so minutes like thier RTS, MOBA, FPS, etc games they're used to.
Edit: A real MMO would never make it in today's market, and that's why developers will never make one. As much as they want to, thier superiors only care about the bottom line, money. They want a game that is attractive to a wide audience, and the real MMO market is actually quite small. Unfortunately, you can't please everyone, and the more you try to please everyone, the more you please noone.
If all of them do exactly the same job, it is no more complex for the user at all. Complexity comes from many interacting objects, not simply from lots of objects that do exactly the same thing in isolation from each other. You could always just press the same switch.
Take someone into a room with 100 light switches. Ask them "does this room seem complex to you?" They're going to say yes (or laugh, because given the context you've obviously made a joke.)
One thing they're not going to do is claim the room is simple.
You could show someone a keyboard with 100 keys and they would think it complex, once you tell them every key does exactly the same thing they would realise it is not complex, just that it has redundant options. It is a simple system with redundant features, not a complex system. If you actually had to use a combination of those 100 switches to turn on a light, then it would be complex.
So turning off a computer by pressing any key, is more complex for the user than pressing key 1? Yep I'm sure when people get the "press any key to continue" message they sit back and look at all the options on their keyboard and thing "fuck me thats complex".
A complex system is a linkage of dependant variables which either all need to be utilised to get to one outcome state, or can provide different outcome states. You will note redundant featues (like the 99 other light switches, like press any key, like 85 redundant skills) do not fall into this remit.
Chess is complex beause each move can lead to different outcomes and each move links to the next move. If you had a chess board with over 9000 pieces on it but whatever you did with any peice immediately you won the game, then it would not be a complex system. It is a simple system with lots of pointless peices, nothing more.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Originally posted by bunnyhopperIt is a simple system with redundant features, not a complex system.
Simple systems won't generate redundancy. You are mixing mechanics and system complexity.
Simple switch with on/off values is simple in mechanics but get 30 of them and you get a complex system with many redundant options, still same simple mechanics tho.
Even if we pretended it wasn't, it's perceived complexity, which is what matters (and should be avoided) in games.
I agree that perceived complexity can be important certainly and having lots of redundant crap would not be a positive.
As far as state-space complexity, having numerous keys that do exactly the same thing, and do not interact with one another surely means that the state-space complexity for the system remains the same, either on or off. The number of outcomes, regardless of what you do with the switches is always the same. Regardless of which switch you press, the outcome is on or off.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
It is a simple system with redundant features, not a complex system.
Simple systems won't generate redundancy. You are mixing mechanics and system complexity.
Simple switch with on/off values is simple in mechanics but get 30 of them and you get a complex system with many redundant options, still same simple mechanics tho.
The number of outcomes has not increased. The number of variables needed to reach that outcome have not increased. One switch, light on or off. Maybe you are confusing it with disorganized complexity? It doesn't fall under that remit though.
A complex system is one where numerous interlinking agents work in dynamic combinations. 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.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I agree that perceived complexity can be important certainly and having lots of redundant crap would not be a positive.
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.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Consequently these games feel like far better game designs.
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!
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I don't know about everyone but I do want more complexity but it is probably more depth than complexity. More options to choose from in any senario, granted they all have a useful result, is good but even better is to have your decition of your choices be influenced on many variables(of which are new or not often used in other games). This could include gameplay depth with the environment (time of day, season, other current game world events, mob interaction with objects or other mobs in the world), AI behavior, or what other players can do that maybe you can't do.
when will devs understand / see this....never! they see $$ signs could care less about anything else ..its why you see more n more mmorpgs soo sadly done and easy..some / most of the mmo's that had been released could easyly been put on a console with the "not so beefy grafix" and the easy mode they plop into their crap pile of a game ....+ alot of companys are still trying to bank on the WoW factor trying to strike it rich...they wont change their ways untill the sheep stop buying pretty boxes filled with the "new flavor of the month" and "dissapointment"
Comments
Because it is a spawn of satan, thorougly evil and if they don't like it it mustn't have anything good in it.
-> They've demonized WoW, thats why. The game they are against is largely imaginary.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
If I may insert my 2 cents I would say that WoW does not have a monopoly on decline. Most successful mmo's die slowly when developers tweek them into something totally different from the original version that you knew and loved. I have seen this happen so often in mmo's and it is sad. It is astounding to me that this happens over and over and developers don't seem to have a clue. Instead of retaining their player base by making the endgame fun and interesting, (you paid your dues, you maxed your character thru sweat equity, you maxed out crafting and harvesting. Its time to have fun), they keep pumping out expansions rasing the level caps to 100 with the corresponding ubergear drops that in the final analysis are nothing more than the same old same old been there done that. It gets old. It gets especially old when you know that grinding to the new level cap in fighting, crafting and harvesting will only lead to an even higher level cap with corresponding grind. When it gets old, the game is no longer fun and when its no longer fun, we walk. Its that simple. Of course, developers rarely figure this out lol.
Necroing from page 3 I know, but this post by Volkon is exactly right IMO. We want our games to be multi levelled like a Pixar cartoon gag.Yes, interesting decisions and game depth are the goals, not complexity.
It's like the quote goes: "Everything should be kept as simple as possible, but no simpler."
That's absolutely true of games.
The goal is game depth. In pursuit of that depth games should be kept as simple as possible, but no simpler. Meaning not so simple that the goal isn't met, but as simple as possible otherwise.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
When you have over 100 skills to choose from, it sounds fun on paper, but if in reality everyone only uses 15 of the skills and its the most effective, then the 85 other skills are unnecessary and a huge waste.
IF the game starts with only 15 skills, but have depth in each skill , then the game becomes complex and fun at the same time.
So basically what i am saying is I agree.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
100 skills, 85 of which are useless. Is that complexity or merely lots of fluff? I think it's the latter.
Overly complex systems would require you to have to use all 100 different skills in order to get the same outcome as you could derive from using 15 skills of the developers had coded it better.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Of course it's complexity. It's more stuff.
It's also lots of fluff, but that's sort of the point: games which pursue complexity for complexity's sake end up with a lot of useless fluff and are often shallower than games which focus on making fewer things have a more interesting interplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The ONE Button game! Hand Dryers Online the MMORPG!!
Never has a game about pressing one button been so satisfying!!
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/More stuff does not immediately mean more complexity. Sorry but 100 skills, 85 of which never get used is not more complex, it is simply lots of pointless options. That is not complex as they are not used. If you actually had to use the other 85 skills then it would indeed be complex.
If you have a light switch with 100 switches and no matter which one you press the light turns on, it is not a complex light switch. It just has alot of pointless options. If the light switch forced you to press the 100 switches in a specific order in order to turn the light on, then it would be an overly complex system. Given the fact that you could just use one switch instead.
Really, if people think that "more stuff" always equals more complexity, regardless as to whether said "stuff" is ever needed or used, then we have come to a pretty pass.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
You're suggesting 100 lightswitches is as simple a setup as 1 lightswitch. That's ridiculous.
I assure you 100 lightswitches hooked up to a light is quite obviously more complex a setup than a single lightswitch.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If all of them do exactly the same job, it is no more complex for the user at all. Complexity comes from many interacting objects, not simply from lots of objects that do exactly the same thing in isolation from each other. You could always just press the same switch.
To turn off the computer press key 1.
To turn off the computer press any key.
For the user the latter is not more complex, and yet he has more options, it is just they all do exactly the same thing and work in isolation of one another. Ergo complexity does not increase for the user.
To turn off the computer press key 1, then key H, then key 7, then key 5. That is a complex system. There is a clear and distinct difference.
No wonder people are unsure about complexity if they don't actually know what it means in the first place.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
QFT mate.
Unfortunately Developers do not understand that a successful MMO today has to be both a Themepark and a Sandbox in one.
Themepark = Fun and Accessibility (To avoid being bored by some "too realistic" tedious Sandbox activities)
Sandbox = Challenge and Longevity (For long subscription terms)
How come no Developer understood you need both the fun and the challenge (longevity) to convince player to stay subscribed for a long time, is beyond me.
It looks so painly obvious to me.
Take someone into a room with 100 light switches. Ask them "does this room seem complex to you?" They're going to say yes (or laugh, because given the context you've obviously made a joke.)
One thing they're not going to do is claim the room is simple.
(Also in case you're actually serious, please educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_complexity)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well, not since Joust, anyway.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
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.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
MMO players want complexity. We want to something that could take a second, take an hour. Chop down a tree for an hour to get some wood, then spend another hour turning it into planks, then another hour making useful items out of those planks.
The only problem is that most people playing "MMO"s today aren't MMO players. They want instant gratification, point-n-click ease, and the entire game to be over in 30 or so minutes like thier RTS, MOBA, FPS, etc games they're used to.
Edit: A real MMO would never make it in today's market, and that's why developers will never make one. As much as they want to, thier superiors only care about the bottom line, money. They want a game that is attractive to a wide audience, and the real MMO market is actually quite small. Unfortunately, you can't please everyone, and the more you try to please everyone, the more you please noone.
You could show someone a keyboard with 100 keys and they would think it complex, once you tell them every key does exactly the same thing they would realise it is not complex, just that it has redundant options. It is a simple system with redundant features, not a complex system. If you actually had to use a combination of those 100 switches to turn on a light, then it would be complex.
So turning off a computer by pressing any key, is more complex for the user than pressing key 1? Yep I'm sure when people get the "press any key to continue" message they sit back and look at all the options on their keyboard and thing "fuck me thats complex".
A complex system is a linkage of dependant variables which either all need to be utilised to get to one outcome state, or can provide different outcome states. You will note redundant featues (like the 99 other light switches, like press any key, like 85 redundant skills) do not fall into this remit.
Chess is complex beause each move can lead to different outcomes and each move links to the next move. If you had a chess board with over 9000 pieces on it but whatever you did with any peice immediately you won the game, then it would not be a complex system. It is a simple system with lots of pointless peices, nothing more.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Simple systems won't generate redundancy. You are mixing mechanics and system complexity.
Simple switch with on/off values is simple in mechanics but get 30 of them and you get a complex system with many redundant options, still same simple mechanics tho.
It's state-space complexity.
Even if we pretended it wasn't, it's perceived complexity, which is what matters (and should be avoided) in games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I agree that perceived complexity can be important certainly and having lots of redundant crap would not be a positive.
As far as state-space complexity, having numerous keys that do exactly the same thing, and do not interact with one another surely means that the state-space complexity for the system remains the same, either on or off. The number of outcomes, regardless of what you do with the switches is always the same. Regardless of which switch you press, the outcome is on or off.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
The number of outcomes has not increased. The number of variables needed to reach that outcome have not increased. One switch, light on or off. Maybe you are confusing it with disorganized complexity? It doesn't fall under that remit though.
A complex system is one where numerous interlinking agents work in dynamic combinations. 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.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
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.
"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!
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I don't know about everyone but I do want more complexity but it is probably more depth than complexity. More options to choose from in any senario, granted they all have a useful result, is good but even better is to have your decition of your choices be influenced on many variables(of which are new or not often used in other games). This could include gameplay depth with the environment (time of day, season, other current game world events, mob interaction with objects or other mobs in the world), AI behavior, or what other players can do that maybe you can't do.
Bump