dystopia said:
|
A game being complicated doesn't mean it has depth.
For instance, Civ 5 has a pretty simple control scheme and could easily be put to controllers.
I think a great example of complexity and depth is actually Dungeons and Dragons. I don't know anything about the first edition, but I've heard horror story after horror about how difficult second edition was (or AD&D I guess?). I've had people explain it to me and it just sound painful.
And then 3rd and 3.5 came along in 2000 with the d20 system that revolutionized the system and simplified it in a strange way. The game was still complex but they made it far less confusing and kept all the depth. It was a pretty big transition.
And then 4th edition came out two years ago which streamlined the game like crazy but added a crap load of depth. In 3rd edition if you played a caster you would have a grand old time, but if you played something like a fighter, you just basic attack, basic attach, basic attack, basic attack and keep all the complexity of the game. With 4th edition, they made even a level 1 fighter a lot of, made the game incredibly easy, and added depth to every class. They even standardized role playing with skill challenges.
I know I'm on an extreme tangent here, but a turn based strategy game isn't hard on consoles, it just isn't popular so nobody has felt like making it consoles yet (or nobody with money). With Civ V, that would be an incredibly easy port from mouse keyboard to controller. The mouse would likely be better, but it still wouldn't be bad by any means. And then you have things like the Heroes of Might and Magic series that would be just as good with a controller.
So! In short, complexity doesn't equal depth. In the case of D&D, the least complex of all the editions actually has the most depth to it.
