Simplicity vs Depth

ShockNC · 2011-12-30, 05:04 AM

well, here it is 3 in the morning so i might as well start this off.

the main idea of this topic is understanding which way Planetside 2 is going to be in terms of Depth vs Simplicity.

Now, the more astute of you have caught on to what i am about to say but I'll elaborate about what i mean by Depth vs Simplicity.

in game development terms, Depth is the amount of content a game has while Simplicity is how easy it is. for example, an game like EVE has a lot of content (and therefore Depth) to it and a game such as Angry Birds has a lot of simplicity towards it. both are fun games in their own right but in game designing terms, you have to have to sacrifice one to have the other.

now with that out of the way, I'm starting to be a bit concerned on how much the PS2 devs are sacrificing Depth to Simplicity. for examples of this, i'll state the following:

1. we no longer have the AMS, instead we have spawning in Squads and Gals. on the squad level, it's a good thing. However, it does take away the supply chain needed to keep boots on the ground. this is Favoring Simplicity.

2. we no longer have ANTs. as many of us know, the ability to out-siege other empires and simply starve them out of their base is sometimes the only way to get rid of them (short of cutting off the gen). The Devs have stated that they want objective based game but until we know the details, i have to label this Favoring Simplicity.

3. we no longer have access of "build our own skills". instead we are being forced into Battlefield/Call of Duty class style with some ability to pick our own skills. definitely Favoring Simplicity.

4. New resource method, this Favors Depth as resources fuels the zerg.

5. being unable to use other empire's weaponry (and thus being able to hack into them), Favoring Simplicity.

now looking at this list so far, it would be safe to say that SOE is playing angling for the CoD/Battlefield market and is modeling after it (which is expected since those games tend to favor simplicity). the problem that i am seeing however, is the lack of new depth to PS2. Sure, we get Forgelight, the resource method, the Objective capture (assuming it's more complex than the capture method we already have. otherwise, im eating my words here), and outfit bases (depending on what SOE does with them, should add more depth), but looking at how much abilities we lose in the transition, it doesn't make much sense to me.

simplicity is great for introducing gamers to a game but depth of the game is what keeps them hooked. i just hope PS2 has enough of it to have a sustainable player base.

Ailos · 2011-12-30, 05:19 AM

The whole idea of customization brings in an enormous amount of depth possibility with it. The thing about PS versus things like BF or MW is that strategy was always important. There was always more than one way to capture a base or objective in PS, and the number of options will only grow with our ability to customize our equipment. BF and MW are very instanced and very repeptive games, on the other hand. Mastering the map once means matering it for all rounds thereafter. The only amount of depth in those games is your choice of infantry weapon at the start, but even that is can be pretty limited.

In PS2, the way I'm reading it, your class simply restricts you from using certain weapons and equipment, so that no jump trooper can be a sniper. However, you're free to change your class at any time, and you will have tons of options to customize your equipment within each class, like a sandbox. That ability to customize creates the depth you're looking for by allowing you to come up with your own strategies, rather than being stuck to what the developers had envisioned when creating the game.

CuddlyChud · 2011-12-30, 05:21 AM

Until the beta roles out, its impossibles to say. I'm sure the game will be a little simpler. PS1 had a pretty decent learning curve that i'm sure turned off quite a few people. And I think that's fine, a lot of the complexity was ignored by most people anyway.

I would say base design is adding depth, since bases have multiple objectives that have to be taken (i'm assuming in conjunction) rather than just the cc/gen/tubes.
Since the gal is replacing the AMS, i'm not sure its really reducing the logistics side. You just have to spend less time AMS hunting and more time Gal hunting.
A little sad to see the ANT go, but mainly it was used to fuel up bases after a big fight. The only bases I remember siege-ing were interlinks.
I'm not going to touch the classes vs certs since I think that's up to each one's own opinion.

Overall i'm not worried. I think while they are making it a little simpler, its in all the right places. As great as Planetside 1 was, it was a bit of a fat, bloated mess at times. I'm glad they're streamlining some of the more boring and time consuming aspects of it. I didn't play Planetside for years because I loved driving ANTs around and defending 15 minute hacks. I played Planetside because I loved the combined arms and massive battles with a touch of continental strategy.

Hamma · 2011-12-30, 06:24 AM

1.) I am skeptical on this one also and I thought this was a great piece of PlanetSide 1. Also remember you can span on squad leaders with appropriate skills.

2.) I always thought the ANT mechanic was cool as well. But with the entire resource system now there could easily be another mechanic to replace it - I'd say it will still have depth but we don't know.

3.) I would argue that the class/skill system in this game is in fact depth and not simplicity. The skill system is similar to EVE and you can likely customize your character in any way you want to. Sure you can only play one "class" at a time but the customization options both in terms of visual and skill based customization options will be huge. In that way I'd argue the skills system in PS2 will likely have even more depth than PS1.

4.) Agreed

5.) Jury is out on this one for me I am not sure how I feel on it yet.

SOE needs to strike a balance between casual folks who will just be looking for a COD/BF experience (it has to be fun for them also to pay the bills) and PlanetSide players who are looking for a much deeper game.

It's a tightrope we have yet to see how SOE can walk on

cellinaire · 2011-12-30, 06:49 AM

Several good points to ponder about there =)

and while I agree with OP on the AMS issue, I guess it won't be that much of a problem. However, yeah I'll be going to miss it anyway.
But all in all, I'd rather wait 'till BETA to say something about it

Trolltaxi · 2011-12-30, 08:12 AM

PS was something easy to learn (well, you had to _learn_ it a bit, the generic shooter-experience wasn't enough), but hard to master. Every aspect was quite simple, but there was depth in it.

I presume it will be pretty much the same. It will be closer to generic shooters, so you won't have to "learn" that much, but the skill-trees, the resource system, the hexa system, the mission system will all add depth to the game. It will be easier to shoot at things, but it will be harder to come up with a continent-winning battleplan.

Tikuto · 2011-12-30, 08:37 AM

thread: Simplified PlanetSide

just thought i'd spam it.

Shogun · 2011-12-30, 12:49 PM

let´s hope our devs don´t simplify ps2 too much!

soe already simplified starwars galaxies to death, so there is some danger...
and the class system replacing our beloved freeform inventory was an alarming sign.
i just hope they leave in as much depth as possible for those who like it.

if they reduce ps2 to team fortress 2 with more players, i will be very disappointed.
but there are still a lot of possibilitys for depth from what we have heard so far.

the good thing is, that casual players will get their simple "shoot everybody and follow simple mission objectices" game, and that veterans and those who like tactical stuff can still have their depth.

EASyEightyEight · 2011-12-30, 02:18 PM

The problem with a lot of PS1's "depth" was that most people simplified it anyway. Oh yeah, we can customize our load outs... most everyone always had a med app and glue tool in their handgun slots, and then they chose between a bazooka, CQC weapon, assault rifle, and/or sniper rifle for the 2 large slots on their rexo armor + maybe a third in their pack, eating up valuable space (often a decimator.)

Those were the defacto load outs nearly every foot mobile had. Inb4the1-in-100 person that says they rarely carry a med app/glue tool with them.

A tank was a tank. A buggy was a buggy. My Cycler was always a Cycler. It might have been "depth" but it was a very simplified depth. One made obvious choices based on where we planned to be fighting: outside, bring AV and something with all range or long range infantry killing capacity. Indoors? Grab HA/SA/Sweeper. We were playing with ammo boxes for the most part, and fitting in a decimator and/or a REK on the grid somewhere. So very many did not consider the latter...

Classes enhance the customizability on a micro level, as opposed to allowing us to choose weapons load outs on the macro level. Now, while a medic may be restricted to assault rifles (carbines in fact,) sweeper shotguns, and handguns if one wants any efficient healing ability at all, one can modify those weapons to perform nearly the way they want them too. Sights/scopes, muzzle flash, magazine size, firing rates, power, stability, accuracy. Everyone will have the control of trading off attributes to gain in other areas on the weapon to make it our own personal weapon.

This level of customization spreads over into the vehicles. No longer am I pulling just a Prowler as I was in PS1 and determining what ammo went into it's trunk (lol, "depth.") I'm pulling a Prowler with 3 cannons and a spiked grill for spearing my enemies, including other tanks! The other guy slapped on one really big cannon and installed a blast shield for enhanced forward defense.

*Enhancements completely made up.

Further, classes have allowed SOE to unlock all "certs" for the player early on. No one needs to level to afford certs to drive a tank, they always can. They might not have nearly as effective or modifiable a tank as someone who has focused training and certs on their tank, but one can always roll a tank. Someone will argue the depth of PS1's cert system was that when we had few points, people had to specialize. I'd just retort rolling an alt semi fixes that, but it's a hassle to get back into the field. SOE's removing the necessity of needing alts.

I think Planetside is only getting deeper. The class system is, as they have justified, their way of preventing potentially OP combos while introducing some real power and customization behind the roles of a trooper and even vehicles.

There's been little mention of the Sunderer's definitive role in PS2. They said there was no AMS. They never said there was no deployable form of ground spawning near the front line. Of course... we do have mobile towers this time around.

I for one, don't mind losing the hassle of dicking around with my 3x3 ammo boxes and 4x4 ammo boxes, while trying to fit in an odd medkit and REK. I have fun modifying my killing implement into something I enjoy using. Organizing my inventory to fit in just one more box of ammo, not so much.

I doubt the modern day shooter player will be disappointed they're missing out on the old system either.

acosmo · 2011-12-31, 01:45 AM

Originally Posted by EASyEightyEight

dflkjasflkdsjanvueranvure

sup brewko

Marth Koopa · 2011-12-31, 02:15 AM

I giggled at EVE being used as an example of depth.

Game has no depth, it's actually quite shallow. The pseudo-intellectuals that play that game seriously overrate its complexity, which is nonexistent. Stack guns and armor/shield modules with the necessary electronic warfare.... turn them on, you win.

A game that is ACTUALLY super deep and complicated is Fire Emblem: Thracia 776. I couldn't even fit a good description of the basics in a paragraph and I'm not about to write out half a dozen paragraphs to describe what makes it so deep, intricate, and complicated.

CuddlyChud · 2011-12-31, 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by Marth Koopa

I giggled at EVE being used as an example of depth.

Game has no depth, it's actually quite shallow. The pseudo-intellectuals that play that game seriously overrate its complexity, which is nonexistent. Stack guns and armor/shield modules with the necessary electronic warfare.... turn them on, you win.

A game that is ACTUALLY super deep and complicated is Fire Emblem: Thracia 776. I couldn't even fit a good description of the basics in a paragraph and I'm not about to write out half a dozen paragraphs to describe what makes it so deep, intricate, and complicated.

Way to flex your pseudo-intellectual muscle by referencing a game that was never released in English :\

I agree with EASyEightyEight. The free-form inventory system wasn't really all that complex. Having looted a lot of backpacks, most loadouts were very similar. For the most part it was simply for customizing your ammo to explosives ratio, and maybe fitting in a REK or CUD. It was really no more complex than customizing your weapon attachments in a game like BF3, and deciding whether to bring mines or a repair tool.

CutterJohn · 2011-12-31, 03:31 AM

Originally Posted by ShockNC

1. we no longer have the AMS, instead we have spawning in Squads and Gals. on the squad level, it's a good thing. However, it does take away the supply chain needed to keep boots on the ground. this is Favoring Simplicity.

Pretty sure the sunderer is going to pull double duty as the ground spawn as well as ground transport. A logical assumption imo, given what we know of the galaxy, and that ground transports will be even less useful with the mechanics of ps2. If this is so, thats fine. Consolidation of duties won't hurt anything.

2. we no longer have ANTs. as many of us know, the ability to out-siege other empires and simply starve them out of their base is sometimes the only way to get rid of them (short of cutting off the gen). The Devs have stated that they want objective based game but until we know the details, i have to label this Favoring Simplicity.

And good riddance. Emergency ANT runs were nifty, but they were also 5% of ANT gameplay. The tedium of silo maintenance is well rid of. While I'm confident that they'll have a stalemate ending mechanic, it won't really be all that necessary, since, without the lattice, you don't need that base anymore. You can take a different one, one the enemy is not holding so stubbornly.

3. we no longer have access of "build our own skills". instead we are being forced into Battlefield/Call of Duty class style with some ability to pick our own skills. definitely Favoring Simplicity.

'Forced' is a rather judgemental word, I'd say. Both styles have benefits and drawbacks, and, as higby said, classes allows them to enable powerful abilities without having overpowered combinations. But even if you are correct, you are forgetting that vehicles are far more customizable, which pretty much makes this a wash.

4. New resource method, this Favors Depth as resources fuels the zerg.

Agreed.

5. being unable to use other empire's weaponry (and thus being able to hack into them), Favoring Simplicity.

Totally agreed.

My thoughts in yellow.

Marth Koopa · 2011-12-31, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by CuddlyChud

Way to flex your pseudo-intellectual muscle by referencing a game that was never released in English :

What relevancy does the language of a game have on complexity and depth?

CuddlyChud · 2011-12-31, 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by Marth Koopa

What relevancy does the language of a game have on complexity and depth?

I just meant that this is an English language forum and so presumably most of the people here would not have played a foreign language game, especially a Japanese one. If you were really trying to prove a point, you would reference a game more of us are familiar with or explain why that game was so complex.