Did HALO kill Spartan Games?

[Ruckdog]

For the game mechanics, I think that it comes down to the old, old, argument:  Does complexity = good?

In Engineering and Gaming, when has anyone ever made that arguement? 

Uhh...seems to me this was the central thesis of the argument being made in the quote you started this thread with  . I have definitely seen other gamers argue in other places around the internet that simplicity is bad and complexity is good. For example, I once saw someone describe FSA as "Baby's first starship explosions." One could also probably find any number of examples in the engineering world where things wound up more complex than they needed to be; German tanks in WWII come to mind as one example.

Focusing on gaming, I think most gamers take it as an article of faith that tactical depth is a good thing. Unfortunately, I think the big mistake some gamers make is that they equate depth with complexity. However, the truth is that there is not necessarily a link between the two. A game can have very simple rules and mechanics but have great tactical depth (chess), just as it can have very complex rules but fairly limited depth (40k felt like that to me). It's clear from your posts that you have not fallen into that trap, but I think we have to recognize that some have .

[Dakkar]

I have definitely seen other gamers argue in other places around the internet that simplicity is bad and complexity is good.

For those people, my go-to curse is that they have to play FASA's old INTERCEPTOR game, flow charts and all. ;-)

I once saw someone describe FSA as "Baby's first starship explosions."

If they think FSA is too simple, I wonder what they usually play. 20 volume SFB? Saganami Tac Sim? The original Babylon 5 Wars?

[Charbe86]

Is Halo ever likely to take spartans attention away from its own IPs ever again? Surely with only two factions it's potential to expand is more limited, and with a cut of all profits going to another company ĺess desirable than FSA or DW. 

On the question of complexity in games, I think it depends, not just on the player, but also on where the complexity lies.  I didn't like the combat complexity of the old WH:FB, but I love the complex strategic and logistics rules of battletech. 

[Ryjak]

It took me a while but here are some studies on what constitutes "fun":

http://www.xeodesign.com/whyweplaygames/xeodesign_whyweplaygames.pdf

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6474/personality_and_play_styles_a_.php?print=1

http://hci.usask.ca/uploads/181-bateman-nacke-neurobiology.pdf

https://hcigames.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BrainHex-A-Neurobiological-Gamer-Typology-Survey.pdf

And here's the BrainHex Survey:  http://survey.ihobo.com/BrainHex/  If you didn't read the above research paper, I suggest you take this survey anyway, as it will help you learn what kind of "fun" you prefer, and perhaps more importantly, what kind of fun is NOT fun for you.  Also, this is based on what little we know about how the human brain works.

For example, I actually have an aversion to the "fight or flight" response, which is why I do NOT enjoy Horror Movies, which are designed to trigger this response constantly (particularly with jump scares).  The reason is I want to fight, but can't, and that frustrates me.  So I actually don't want to engage this neural pathway (which is mostly in the "lizard" brain").

[Ruckdog]

I split this topic based on how the discussion had moved away from the original topic. If we like, we can continue this one, but lets make sure we keep it classy!