Borkachev on 26 February 2008
Absolutely, I think it's important we state this too. I agree with it.
My point wasn't to suggest that every game in the world should have precisely one input for control, as Go does. Instead, it was to say (again) that more inputs does not equate to greater depth or intellectual value.
I think for this purpose, Starcraft is the best example. It isn't incredibly simple, as you pointed out. It's just not as complex as many modern RTS (Starcraft is over a decade old), but it's still deeper than almost any of them.
Put simply, this suggests that the number of inputs isn't inversely preportional to the game's depth (that is, games don't actually get simpler and/or "dumber" the more inputs it requires) but rather, that the number of inputs is almost entirely irrelevant to a game's depth. You can make a profoundly deep game with 1 button, with 2, with 3, with 100.
My point wasn't to suggest that every game in the world should have precisely one input for control, as Go does. Instead, it was to say (again) that more inputs does not equate to greater depth or intellectual value.
I think for this purpose, Starcraft is the best example. It isn't incredibly simple, as you pointed out. It's just not as complex as many modern RTS (Starcraft is over a decade old), but it's still deeper than almost any of them.
Put simply, this suggests that the number of inputs isn't inversely preportional to the game's depth (that is, games don't actually get simpler and/or "dumber" the more inputs it requires) but rather, that the number of inputs is almost entirely irrelevant to a game's depth. You can make a profoundly deep game with 1 button, with 2, with 3, with 100.
Alright, I think we can agree then.
Where I have a problem is with the extension of Harrison/Molyneux's argument that says game consoles in the future need to go the Wii route and appeal to casual gamers with simplified control schemes. There are benefits there for some types of games, but it would cost us functionality in others.
