The C-E staff give their views on gaming's most important issues.

A lot of the staff were away for Easter, so we delayed this Roundtable for a bit. With a huge emphasis on cinematics, complex plot, deep characterisation, Hollywood scores and themes and messages, most games today are a world way from the Pac-Mans and Donkey Kongs of old. You can fight hundreds of people from around the world, download game extensions and bitch to your opponents. The days of simplicity are seemingly well gone.

Do you miss the days of simple gaming?

Bas B:

No. In general, growing complexity has provided some interesting gaming experiences which I wouldn't want to have missed - though that doesn't erase the fact that some games have become annoying because of overly complicated control schemes, long-winded cutscenes and dull plots.

Fortunately, simple games are still being made. Monkey Ball, EyeToy, rhythm games like Donkey Konga and Dance Dance Revolution, Metal Slug and Wario Ware are games that everyone can pick up and play. So, why long for the days of simple gaming when you can have both simple and complex games today?

Dan:

Well the times, they are changing! I thought I did but I don't! Sounds stupid but when you play a game like MGS with all the cutscenes, elaborate plots, cinematic qualities it blows you away. Then going back and play something like Sonic 1. It does seem very dull. Even Game Boy Advance games are getting for involved. So get with the time there no such thing as a 'simple' games any more. There are easy ones but thats another Roundtable!

Sven:

I was playing Tron 2.0 as well as Rebel Strike and they have a peak back at the old games. Rebel Strike has the first arcade Star Wars game on it, and as I was playing I thought how exciting this was when I was a kid, but I sure am glad for what it is now. I like a level of AI that changes to how you are playing, or a scene that takes you away from where you are and places you somewhere else. We play games to be amused, and the old simple games only hold my attention for a few minutes.

Harvest Moon - simple but elegant

Pesten:

Ach yah..

I still look back at the days when I was hooked on LOLO 2.. (I never completed that game..hmm..) But times have changed - now everyone cries out for more and more "innovative" games. And elaborate plots. The cut-scenes HAVE to look like real movies and the control system have to make you able to do ANYTHING. We all crave 'freedom'. Well. I am one of those who doesn't like any games in the style MGS or Splinter Cell or Rainbow Six- you know what I mean. These so called "realistic" actiongames.

Personally I have chosen to give up on this type of games (and trust me I DID try). "Why?" you might ask. Well, because I just can't be bothered to play a game with such a complicated storyline wich makes me in the end walking around killing bad guys without even knowing why I'm at the given place or what the heck I'm doing anymore..

Splinter Cell was perhaps the most annoying game of this type. After completing it two times (normal and hard), I still haven't got an idea of what the story was all about.. Same with MGS. I like a game simple (not easy). Like Zelda - go rescue the princess and save the world. An easy plot not easily forgotten.. I need games which have some kind of goal. I never feel there is anything I'm working for in MGS or any of those games... If you get my meaning..

Jayseven:

This is kinda one of those "grass is always greener on the other side" type things. After being used to todays types of 'complex' games going back and playing games that are pretty much before my generation; NES games, for instance, and I find the games are lacking in many ways. Sure these 'simple games' can be fairly addictive and simple in terms of gameplay, but they usually don't contain nearly vital core mechanics which I'm used to, like being able to move diagonally or being able to save.. I'm not the kind of guy who likes to put 7 hours into a game, die and have to do it again.

But, of course, without simple games we would not have what we have today. Today's games are games which have built on and expanded on yesteryear's game concepts; if games started out at todays level then the overall quality would be a lot lower.

Simple games can be fun to play in today's world. Games like Tetris and other puzzle games are simple yet timeless and can grip you just as much today as it could when it first came out.

[I've forgotten my point now...]

Half of MGS is bloody FMV

Joby:

If I look back over the games I've most enjoyed the ones that appear in the list of greatness are the ones that have been most simple. Even last week I found myself playing Marble Madness and UniRally - enjoying them far more than most of the GameCube games I own. Simplicity can be used and abused to the point where a game can be boring.

Yet if used correctly - like for example in Prince of Persia - then the game shines above all the rest. Now do excuse me while I go and beat the Red Marble in Marble Madness...

Iun:

Simple gaming is both underrated and overrated at the same time.

Hardcore gamers have a tendency to lament the loss of the simple games of the green dot monkey versus the red square hunters -casual gamers look incredulous and wonder what all the fuss was about.

The truth be told, some of the older simpler games were pants. You take a long hard look at a game like Gauntlet and then tell me you wouldn't rather play a far more graphically competent game with multiple options for your multiplayer fun. Some advances in videogame technology have been necessary, Mario needed to go into 3D to make the leap from SNES to N64, another 2D adventure -while no doubt it would have been lauded, would not have been the subject of anywhere near as much hype.

Furthermore, 3D graphics and simulated real-world environments have led to advances in story. Ten years ago, the story was told via a series of stills with subtitles. Nowadays, entire plots are revealed via non-controllable cutscenes, which some might argue, decreases the interactivity and involvement.

Personally, I think the advances have been good for the industry as a whole. I enjoy my games far more now as I feel like I can really get involved in the story in ways I never could before. However, games like Puyo-puyo pop and Super Bust-a-Move work best with simple premises and simple graphics. Even the recently released Harvest Moon games are no better for their graphical upgrades, because the basic play mechanic is so solid throughout the generations of games.

A 'new simplicity'?

Conor:

Have we really lost simple games? Granted, you don't see games like Pac-Man being released anymore, but who would honestly want that? I would argue that old-school simplicity is still evident in the numerous puzzles games that look out of place on today's consoles, for example the aforementioned Puyo-Puyo Fever. But there is now what I call 'new-school' simplicity. Games that exemplify this are ones which are ultimately based on modern gaming ideals, but achieve a simplicity within this context. Examples include Pikmin, Animal Crossing and Super Monkey Ball. Some, like Pikmin and Pikmin 2, couldn't be done on old hardware, with many characters on screen and lovely environments. Others, like Animal Crossing, show modern ideas, point in case being the notion of communication and community forming the nucleas of the game. So simplicity is still around, it just happens to be sporting a new look.

Secondly, what some call complexity in modern games in just advancement. It is unacceptable to straitjacket this medium by only accepting simplicity in games. Advancement breeds new gaming experiences and possibilities, which are essential for growth. There's no reason why games shouldn't experiment with new technologies and new ways of doing things. Some dislike the attempts made by, say, Metal Gear Solid, to marry gaming with films. Whether or not you like it isn't the point, the fact is it should be at least tried. Everything should.

Is simplicity dead? And do you miss it?