Bear with me, /v/. There is something I've been thinking about with video games a lot as I try to find the perfect games to enjoy.
You see, I like deep, intellectually-stimulating games, but I don't like micromanagement. I think a lot of the games labeled as "intellectually-stimulating" often have lots of micromanaging. For instance, Dwarf Fortress is indeed very interesting, but you also have to micromanage shit a lot.
Essentially, the kinds of video games I'm looking for would fall in the upper-left of this chart (as you see, I can't think of many to fit in, hence this thread). "deceptively simple" and "easy-to-learn-difficult-to-master" might describe what I'm looking for as well.
As for the chart, don't look into the exact positioning too much (not trying to bait people). Feel free to adjust and add games, if you want.
>>340678687
>rougelikes
>deep
>Not trying to bait people
k
>>340678873
Is this post bait? I mean roguelikes of the ADOM, Nethack, Angband variety - and not of the Nuclear Throne variety.
Well, if that's what you want, why not just play Go? Its position at the extreme top left corner is well-deserved.
>>340679290
I would like to, but I'm also interested in video games. We could fill the chart with board games, if we wanted, but that would be off-topic. I only put Chess and Go there to provide a reference point for what the top-left might look like.
Where does Super Mario 64 fit in?
>>340678687
> Maximalist design
Yeah, fuck Predacons.
>>340680607
below advance wars, just under the line
>>340680857
lol
>Fire Emblem more maximalist than fucking roguelikes
What?
>>340681426
yeah, FE should probably go to the left of the axis
more maximalist than Advance Wars, but less so than roguelikes
>>340680857
underrated post
If you're trolling, well done. If you're genuinely trying to have a discussion about this it's probably not going to happen as you intended.
Two games I can think of that might be in the upper-left (maybe not to the y-position of Chess or Go, but still):
Mini Metro
ĐiệnWorlds
Sil (a roguelike, but not like most)
>>340681873
meant *three games
>>340681652
Why not?
>>340681002
>not in a parallel chart
Where would Disgaea go?
Pokemon would definitely be in the top left, especially competitive
>>340683820
Somewhere around Fire Emblem? How does it compare to Fire Emblem?
>>340684723
>pokemon
>minimalist
Kind of the point of the series is the opposite, don't you think?
>>340684767
Like ff tactics but there's no max level and characters can reincarnate into other classes for more skills and stats.
>>340684965
How tactical are the battles, though?
Based on your description, it sounds more "maximalist" than FE.
>>340684893
I'd agree with you if the actual battle part of the game had more than 4 moves.
>>340684893
There's really no micromanagement though. Once you get a team set up, you can just focus on the battles.
>>340683820
Top middle I'd say. You don't have to micromanage if you don't want to, and you'll mostly be fine except for some post game fights. If you do want to micromanage, holy shit, have fun in the item world, see you in 3 years
>>340685058
>
Definitively below advanced wars and fire emblem.
You can just disintegrate shit with an overpowered character.
Shin megami tensei might be more your taste.
not quite sure what you mean but if you want an enjoyable, minimalistic game you should check out ICO
>>340685090
>>340685176
Okay, as soon as you enter the battle, it is a fairly minimalist game - but the process leading up to the battles is far from minimalist.
>>340684893
Pokemon has a pretty small subset of viable monsters dictated by the metagame, it is pretty simplistic in all honesty.
>>340686796
I see
Don't know why but the first thing that came to mind when reading minimalist game design was Shadow of the Colossus and Team ICO in general I guess.
>>340686606
That depends on what you're looking for. The game is set up to be easy enough so that you can go through the entire thing with little thought and not much grinding. If you wanna min-max that shit or try to get competitive with it, yeah its got some complexity but its not required like it would be in other genres.
>>340678873
Roguelikes
As in games like the original rogue
Not roguelites
AKA oh em gee permadeath
>>340678873
For example, Nethack
>polymorph into a rust monster
>drop into a pit with poisoned iron spikes
>eat the spikes, turning the spiked pit into a regular one
>the poison on them would poison you, but rust monsters are immune
Or
>get swallowed by a purple worm
>offend a god
>god blasts you with lightning
>the worm who swallowed you takes the hit
How is that not deep as fuck?
>>340678687
>minimalism is actually hiding all the complex stuff while keeping a front simplicity
gee who would of thought
godfuckingdamn it I hate web 2.0
>>340687994
Oh, they'd definitely be on the left of that chart. They'd perhaps be fairly in the middle on the y-axis, though. At least with SotC, there are definitely some interesting puzzles (and the spacial reasoning you have to deal with when finding the colossi themselves).
>>340688276
what
>>340688276
>would of
you should make a numbered grid so its easier to read.
>>340688751
what do you mean? Assign numbers to each game to quantify its "depth" and "minimalist design"?
Play fighting games you fucking scrub, they're deep with the only micromanagement going on is your super meter
>>340689467
Distant Worlds is so good, but definitely not minimalist.
I guess it could be considered thus if you constrain yourself to automate most things, and really focus on managing just a few things on your own.
>>340689817
Oh, I actually think some fighting games would fit well in the upper-left. Which ones, though?
>>340690078
Well the "standard" would be street fighter, you learn the mechanical, ou learn some of the meta, and every match can be as deep as you want it to be.
>>340678687
> chess
> intellctual
![Gone_Home[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/Vr2VPX7.jpg "Gone_Home[1].png")
>>340678687
>I like deep, intellectually-stimulating games, but I don't like micromanagement.
There's a game free on PS4 that's perfect for you.
I used to play the shit out of Dreamquest.
If you have an iOS device you owe it to yourself to play it. It's a roguelike deckbuilding game. Art is shit but it's really deep and really entertaining.
>>340690591
I believe that would fit best in the lower-right, somewhere near "indie walking sims."
You failed to see the nuance of choosing two-dimensions for this stuff, instead of just one.
>>340678687
>defcon
I havent played that in years. Its simple yet is a true strategy game
>>340690917
meant *lower left
>>340682253
/v/ is terrible at discussion. Too many newfags and assorted idiots who just spit memes and accuse people of being cucks and shills.
>>340690965
I played it about two years ago. It was fairly dead then, but I could get into 1v1 matches - or, very occasionally, larger matches.
I wonder what it's like now.
>>340691141
Well, there are always a few threads that are diamonds in the rough.
>>340691435
I guess. "The rough" is usually rock, though, not radioactive turds.
>>340690496
/thread
>>340686796
>>340685090
>>340685176
You people are all retarded.
Advance Wars only uses battles and has cutscenes in between battles and is still not considered that minimalistic. Pokemon is considerably more fleshed out than AW and absolutely should be on the 'maximalist' side of the spectrum.
It doesn't matter if there are only a small number of tournament viable teams, the possibility of using all 700+ monsters exists, as does elements of movesets, natures, IVs/EVs, etc... Gamefreak wants the player to have an astronomical amount of different options both in and outside of battles. That's the exact opposite of a minimalist design.
Where would fighting games fit on this chart?
>>340692268
Near the top right if they're good, bottom right if they're shittily balanced.
>>340688273
>that first example
At risk of sounding like someone with no idea how easy or hard it is to implement various different features in video games, which I guess I am, I think it's kind of sad that something like that is considered a deep or complex example of a game's mechanics interacting with one another.
That said, to be fair it's actually not a very complex situation and I think most games could handle something similar fairly easily.
They could probably handle "turning into a monster with immunity to poison means poison doesn't hurt you", the only part most games wouldn't implement is the ability to destroy objects like spikes.
>>340692350
I'd argue that fighting games would be more on the minimalist side. Sure, they can often have lots of characters, but most often, they boil down to the same basic types of mechanics (all played out in very simple spaces).
>>340689937
Oh sorry, I didn't check that we were to post minimalist games. I just saw DW there. Sorry.
I think mechanically speaking Catherine would fit on the left side, less minimalist than Tetris but closer to the top in terms of being deep. The only controls are really push/pull blocks in a 3D space and climb a tower.
>>340692694
Hey, no problem. It's a wonderful game, and like I said, the automation might put it on the more minimalist side.
>>340692492
>I think it's kind of sad that something like that is considered a deep or complex example of a game's mechanics interacting with one another.
Nigger, having to implement all those tiny edge cases would exhaust 99% of devs who dev for money rather than fun.
Most games that even have a hunger mechanic just give you a "ration" item or possibly a bunch of variants.
fucking hiroshimoot
>>340693585
yeah, shit was down for awhile
>>340692958
what are the puzzles like? are they really puzzles? I have never played Catherine.
please don't die
>>340694974
Bump
>>340691832
I agree with this. Just because a game's meta forces very narrow setups doesn't mean it's minimalist. Meta can change, anyway.
>chess
>deeper than Advance Wars
is this a joke?
>>340680857
I'll fokkin rek ya, ya cheeky cunt, predacons a best
