40 ms·

Alternative title: Building single screen casual games.

pvg 8y ago
Neither Into The Breach nor Hearthstone are 'casual games'. Getting them to be work almost entirely on a single screen is a UI design achievement.
- baud147258 8y ago
  I don't know about heartstone. But for itb, there's not a lot of information to show at the same time and few system that interact with each other. I think the game design was constrained by the goal of having the simplest possible UI. So, even if ITB is not a 'casual game', it's not very complex and each game is short.
  - pvg 8y ago
    In its core mechanics, it's not that much simpler than, say, a recent Fire Emblem. You can google your way to interviews with the authors where they talk about the amount of time and fiddling it took them to get the UI to where it is. The design evolution of FTL's UI over the years is another good case study. This doesn't just happen by making the game 'simple'.
MaikuMori 8y ago
This. The continuous push to make everything easy (as in gameplay and also learning) is annoying. Not all games have to be simple. I believe games have huge potential for teaching problem solving and systematic thinking, but by dumbing them down were partially eliminating this. The ultimate example are mobile games. They optimized for profit by dumbing them down and adding addictive, simple gameplay loops. They also incredibly boring in longer term, but it doesn't matter because they've probably extracted enough money from you at that point. This goes beyond gaming and applies to our industry in general. I strongly believe that having more complex, but powerful software is better for the society at large. Encouraging people to not give up when they encounter simple problems and promoting systematic thinking is important. But it's not as profitable and you lose users.
- mysterydip 8y ago
  The problem is not only have the people made their money, but the population has moved on to the next shiny dumbed-down thing. So while I agree with you, I don't know how to change it when everyone involved seems to have an incentive to keep things as-is.
  - MaikuMori 8y ago
    The system is feeding it self. The simpler it is the more people are reached and the less ordinary person is willing to learn and overcome problems. Slowly everything that is slightly complex becomes too much of a hassle or gets negativity. There is a middle ground somewhere. I suppose the gaming topic made be rant, because it seems like a lot games being made now lack substance. But there are so many more games being made and so many more players compared to 10 years ago that I'm probably biased. I still think simplicity vs function is a tough problem with short term and long term pros and cons.
- wodenokoto 8y ago
  No, this has nothing to do with simplifying games. Complex games can be intuitive and build up complexity as the player learns. Take something like Civilisation. You don't need hours of tutorial to play the game. As the game progresses, it becomes more and more complex, but you start with 2 units, no enemies and no technology. After you build a city, technology is introduced. As you start exploring, enemies are introduced. If civilisation threw new players into a typical midge scenario, players would need to read manuals and use tutorials and spend quite some time getting an overview of the current state. Even complex games can start with the player playing a game.
  - MaikuMori 8y ago
    It was slightly off topic rant indeed.
  - notahacker 8y ago
    cf Paradox's Crusader Kings etc., where you can start off with a tiny county with an army your larger neighbour can effortlessly stackwipe to avoid the issues of managing subordinates if you want, but if you don't read the manual to find out what all the options mean, you'll struggle to get beyond the tutorial never mind understand why people find it addictive (or buy any DLC...) And weirdly the mystery UX forcing you to pore through the manual and how to guides might actually be a good thing since even if you start out big enough to conquer and learn how to raise an army you're going to find it very frustrating when you lose it all and more happy because you didn't research the implications of gavelkind inheritance

pvg 8y ago

Neither Into The Breach nor Hearthstone are 'casual games'. Getting them to be work almost entirely on a single screen is a UI design achievement.

baud147258 8y ago
I don't know about heartstone. But for itb, there's not a lot of information to show at the same time and few system that interact with each other. I think the game design was constrained by the goal of having the simplest possible UI. So, even if ITB is not a 'casual game', it's not very complex and each game is short.
- pvg 8y ago
  In its core mechanics, it's not that much simpler than, say, a recent Fire Emblem. You can google your way to interviews with the authors where they talk about the amount of time and fiddling it took them to get the UI to where it is. The design evolution of FTL's UI over the years is another good case study. This doesn't just happen by making the game 'simple'.

MaikuMori 8y ago

This. The continuous push to make everything easy (as in gameplay and also learning) is annoying. Not all games have to be simple. I believe games have huge potential for teaching problem solving and systematic thinking, but by dumbing them down were partially eliminating this. The ultimate example are mobile games. They optimized for profit by dumbing them down and adding addictive, simple gameplay loops. They also incredibly boring in longer term, but it doesn't matter because they've probably extracted enough money from you at that point. This goes beyond gaming and applies to our industry in general. I strongly believe that having more complex, but powerful software is better for the society at large. Encouraging people to not give up when they encounter simple problems and promoting systematic thinking is important. But it's not as profitable and you lose users.

mysterydip 8y ago
The problem is not only have the people made their money, but the population has moved on to the next shiny dumbed-down thing. So while I agree with you, I don't know how to change it when everyone involved seems to have an incentive to keep things as-is.
- MaikuMori 8y ago
  The system is feeding it self. The simpler it is the more people are reached and the less ordinary person is willing to learn and overcome problems. Slowly everything that is slightly complex becomes too much of a hassle or gets negativity. There is a middle ground somewhere. I suppose the gaming topic made be rant, because it seems like a lot games being made now lack substance. But there are so many more games being made and so many more players compared to 10 years ago that I'm probably biased. I still think simplicity vs function is a tough problem with short term and long term pros and cons.
wodenokoto 8y ago
No, this has nothing to do with simplifying games. Complex games can be intuitive and build up complexity as the player learns. Take something like Civilisation. You don't need hours of tutorial to play the game. As the game progresses, it becomes more and more complex, but you start with 2 units, no enemies and no technology. After you build a city, technology is introduced. As you start exploring, enemies are introduced. If civilisation threw new players into a typical midge scenario, players would need to read manuals and use tutorials and spend quite some time getting an overview of the current state. Even complex games can start with the player playing a game.
- MaikuMori 8y ago
  It was slightly off topic rant indeed.
- notahacker 8y ago
  cf Paradox's Crusader Kings etc., where you can start off with a tiny county with an army your larger neighbour can effortlessly stackwipe to avoid the issues of managing subordinates if you want, but if you don't read the manual to find out what all the options mean, you'll struggle to get beyond the tutorial never mind understand why people find it addictive (or buy any DLC...) And weirdly the mystery UX forcing you to pore through the manual and how to guides might actually be a good thing since even if you start out big enough to conquer and learn how to raise an army you're going to find it very frustrating when you lose it all and more happy because you didn't research the implications of gavelkind inheritance