The issue of game complexity

Bladestrom

I was reading some forum posts recently and have frequently came across the topic of complexity in various forms, and I was wondering if anyone else has pondered over what types of player craves what complexity, and wether this is in fact mixed up with the whole debate of recreational v goal-driven players etc.  To try and understand this issue I started to categorise the different types of player state and came up with the following list, what do you think? - its a bit of ramble i know

Definition : for the sake of this discussion I view themepark as smart UI driven games that hide complexity, and sandboxes that expose complexity (eve as an example of the latter)  It is safe to say that from the early 80's games become more complex as they improved until a plateau was reached, where deliberate complexity started to become a design consideration.

-1 The player that has played for decades.  The player loves complexity, and as a result over time has gradually become accustomed to more and more complexity, and craves more.  Understanding complexity is a reward in itself.  These types of players do not like games to be simplified, and could categorise such changes as 'dumbing down'.  I would argue you could classify these players also as players who are more likely to appreciate and gravitate towards sandboxes, but maybe what they crave is not a sandbox, but complexity, socially, economically and mechanically.

-2. The player who has played for decades, and has lost the will to learn more complexity or tired of gaming in general.  They have a big issue as new themepark games are unlikely to be complex enough to satisfy their needs, but equally complex games no longer appeal.  

-3. New players who are open to and enjoy complexity - the next generation of the above players.  Issue, with more and more themepark games and less games out there that embrace complexity it is getting harder to expose these players to what they enjoy, but some will evolve. 

-4. Now this is the interesting one.   New players that have been brought up on new smart ui/games that attempt to hide complexity.  As a result these players never learn to appreciate the rewards of mastering complexity for its own sake.  It is natural for these players to demand more and more sophisticated games, but that sophistication is a double edged sword, as sophistication within this context means hiding more complexity.  Is this why themeparks are backing themeselves into a gaming dead end?

edit replaced casual v hardcore with recreational v goal-driven

GroovyFlower

These days complexity is not realy an issue anymore most games have many sites where you can get almost all info and walkthroughs.

The real complexity and hardcore come in place when the player himself start playing a game with zero information and try find all out by himself, thats what i do when i start a game.

I never read up on walkthroughts hints clues maps or all the info you have these days i totally find out everything ingame.

I think thats hardcore and very rare not many play like this these days maybe 1% or less.

Im a  experience player played games sinds early 90s but i was always like this i even left clans where i find out they only played by visiting sites to find clues and walkthroughs or maps to use ingame.

I play indeed mainly sandbox in past 12 years.

Disdena

I'm having trouble figuring out how exactly what you mean by complexity. The fact that you think that themepark games hide complexity behind the UI is confusing. Can you give an example?

Loktofeit

There is no direct correlation between complexity and whether mechanics are sandbox or themepark in nature.

 

I agree with Disdena; I need a bit of clarification in what you are trying to present here. Examples would rock.

Bladestrom

Originally posted by Groovydutch

These days complexity is not realy an issue anymore most games have many sites where you can get almost all info and walkthroughs.

The real complexity and hardcore come in place when the player himself start playing a game with zero information and try find all out by himself, thats what i do when i start a game.

I never read up on walkthroughts hints clues maps or all the info you have these days i totally find out everything ingame.

Im a  experience player played games sinds early 90s but i was always like this i even left clans where i find out they only played by visiting sites to find clues and walkthroughs or maps to use ingame.

I play indeed mainly sandbox in past 12 years.

 Older mmorgs and some sandboxes have a lot of complexity that require players to work out their own path, and to use the game mechanics in the way that suits them. There is deliberately no right or wrong way, you learn by recognising and evolving your own patterns of play, much like how you learn in real life (one of the hard to define characteristics of a true sandbox I would say)  Modern 'complexity' is more about sequence recognition, the game gives you a strong direction and set of goals, and as there is 1 main path, it becomes a race to find the single optimal path, which  is very definable and therefore can be scripted and learned, aka 'boss guides' etc.  The latter is very unsatisfying for the former type of player I referred to above.

Bladestrom

Originally posted by Loktofeit

There is no direct correlation between complexity and whether mechanics are sandbox or themepark in nature.

 

I agree with Disdena; I need a bit of clarification in what you are trying to present here. Examples would rock.

 

 When you read a lot of discussions about sandboxes etc, the discussion often (and nearly allways) talk about the diversity of the features, freedom to do what you will, etc.  It could be argued that what a lot of people are referring to is actually complexity, they want a game that offers such diverisity and freedom that the synergistic effect is that the game becomes a sandbox - a simulation of a world if that makes sense.  We as humans expect freedom which can be translated to complexity of choices.  Newer games attempt to simplify and streamline which is the issue (to me at least)  our brains need constant stimulation, and gradual simplification is the opposite to this. 

If you have spent a long time playing games you get gradually used to more and more complexity.  New players have less opportunity to travel this lerarning curve as modern games replace complexity with sophisticated management of mechanics under the bonnet,

i  am proposing that part of the issue is that modern development teams are feeding short term needs by hiding complexity with sophisticated game engines/user interfaces, but long term, it is complexity that we actually need to keep evolving to keep our interest long term.  I think thats what Im arguing anyway, I did say this was a ramble (quiet night in hehe)

You could compare to how children evolve with play, they start simple but crave more and more complexity, why should that stop when our brains are at our most active?

edit an example of hiding complexity behind the UI could be 'dps' figures.  Recent changes mean that UI's readily calculate everything for you, there is no finding out what the best combination of gear is for you, you simple plug it in and the game translates and presents this information in easy to digest and often simplified formats.  

Another example is simplification of talent trees, if you compare Eve to say WOW, you can see that the permutations in eve are thousands of times more complex, but this is not a factor because the game doesnt try to hide this complexity, and players are free to choose any path with any timescaple they like - and it works.  Wow however has the approach that the talent trees should be instantly understandable almost instantly, and is simplified accordingly.

Mendel

Originally posted by Bladestrom

I was reading some forum posts recently and have frequently came across the topic of complexity in various forms, and I was wondering if anyone else has pondered over what types of player craves what complexity, and wether this is in fact mixed up with the whole debate of casual v hardcore etc.  To try and understand this issue I started to categorise the different types of player state and came up with the following list, what do you think? - its a bit of ramble i know

Definition : for the sake of this discussion I view themepark as smart UI driven games that hide complexity, and sandboxes that expose complexity (eve as an example of the latter)  It is safe to say that from the early 80's games become more complex as they improved until a plateau was reached, where deliberate complexity started to become a design consideration.

 

-1 The player that has played for decades.  The player loves complexity, and as a result over time has gradually become accustomed to more and more complexity, and craves more.  Understanding complexity is a reward in itself.  These types of players do not like games to be simplified, and could categorise such changes as 'dumbing down'.  I would argue you could classify these players also as players who are more likely to appreciate and gravitate towards sandboxes, but maybe what they crave is not a sandbox, but complexity, socially, economically and mechanically.

-2. The player who has played for decades, and has lost the will to learn more complexity or tired of gaming in general.  They have a big issue as new themepark games are unlikely to be complex enough to satisfy their needs, but equally complex games no longer appeal.  

-3. New players who are open to and enjoy complexity - the next generation of the above players.  Issue, with more and more themepark games and less games out there that embrace complexity it is getting harder to expose these players to what they enjoy, but some will evolve. 

-4. Now this is the interesting one.   New players that have been brought up on new smart ui/games that attempt to hide complexity.  As a result these players never learn to appreciate the rewards of mastering complexity for its own sake (lets call them casuals - but not as a derogatory term). It is natural for these players to demand more and more sophisticated games, but that sophistication is a double edged sword, as sophistication within this context means hiding more complexity.  Is this why themeparks are backing themeselves into a gaming dead end?

I like your basic premise here, but would hesitate to incorporate 'casual' and 'hardcore' into the definitions of 'complex' and 'simple'.  Myself, I love systems -- studying them, experimenting with them, taking them apart, etc.  (Yes, I am/was an old school computer Systems Analyst).  But I don't have unlimited playing time, and would fall into most everyone's 'casual' category.

I'd suggest substituting a different behavior model -- goal-driven vs recreational -- instaed of 'casual' vs 'hardcore' to distinguish the various play-styles.   (A Goal-driven player would rarely ever stop to hear a player giving a concert when they've got a competed quest to turn in).

But the categories of complexity are very interesting.  What do you plan to do with this observation?

Loke666

Complexity is not the same thing as easy, lets get that clear.

Guildwars is one of the least complicated games out there with just 8 skills at the same time and a very simple UI. Still it is harder than many games where you have loads of skills.

I am not sure that a more complexed UI helps to make a game more fun.

I like other complexed things. If a game have levels then I want to select the abilities and bonuses I get when I level up. I like to pick my own skills from a list and things like that.

I also want a combat system that is really complexed but with a good UI in front of it making it easy to learn but hard to master, kinda like Chess or Magic the gathering.

Many people seems to think that a bad UI makes a game better or to have dozens of close to identical skills but I think that just is lazy.

Bladestrom

goal-driven vs recreational sounds good, ill modify.  RE a study, this is only for some fun discussion, I would love to do some analysis on this but no time, and im sure there is loads of game theory out there that covers this

Bladestrom

Originally posted by Loke666

Complexity is not the same thing as easy, lets get that clear.

Guildwars is one of the least complicated games out there with just 8 skills at the same time and a very simple UI. Still it is harder than many games where you have loads of skills.

I am not sure that a more complexed UI helps to make a game more fun.

I like other complexed things. If a game have levels then I want to select the abilities and bonuses I get when I level up. I like to pick my own skills from a list and things like that.

I also want a combat system that is really complexed but with a good UI in front of it making it easy to learn but hard to master, kinda like Chess or Magic the gathering.

Many people seems to think that a bad UI makes a game better or to have dozens of close to identical skills but I think that just is lazy.

 Magic the gathering is a great example where the game has a huge amount of tactical and strategic complexity, and it is this that makes the game.  The newer version that just came out actually simplified the game rules to make it easier for newcommers, which many think is a mistake, great example   Newer players come in and learn the newer version, get up to speed and get bored far quicker, but are they likely to then migrate to the older version - maybe, probably not.  Wheras if the newer player bought the older game and took time to understand the complexity ultimately they would get a much more lasting and in depth experience.  Whats worse is the developers argue that the new game had greater take up, so the cycle of simplification potentially continues, where actually if they could somehow market the complex older version better then they could create an even greater game with more complexity aka game depth.

 

Mendel

I also think that, in terms of games, a lot of the simplicity vs complexity will boil down to player interactions.  If a task can be completed with a few buttons (i.e. an Auction House), it is simple.  If the same task requires a lot of player interaction (selling at the tunnel in East Commonlands in EQ), then that task is more complex.  The simple tasks favor the fire-and-forget mentality, while the complex require many more interactions and time.

See if that idea meshes with your idea.

Disdena

Originally posted by Bladestrom

 

If you have spent a long time playing games you get gradually used to more and more complexity.  New players have less opportunity to travel this lerarning curve as modern games replace complexity with sophisticated management of mechanics under the bonnet,

i  am proposing that part of the issue is that modern development teams are feeding short term needs by hiding complexity with sophisticated game engines/user interfaces

Again, you're pushing this idea that the modern interface hides complexity. If anything, I would tend to say that the opposite is true. In order to play a game, you need to do three things: get information, make a decision, execute your action.

Say you're a healer in a Nagafen raid back in EQ1. You can't see everyone's health bar; you have to click each person in the crowd, or cycle through targets with tab, or watch for people to call out their health. You can't have all your spells, consumables, and macros on the same hotbar (which only fits 6), so you have to cycle through the hotbars to find the thing you want to use. You can't see how much mana your party members have. You can't easily tell which player is being attacked. You can't easily tell what other players are casting. You can't even see how much health Nagafen has unless you take a moment to target him. And the only way anyone communicates with anyone else is by reading and typing. It feels hectic, but all of the challenge comes from step 1 and step 3. Get information, and Execute your action. That's where all the difficulty lies. The actual decision making that you have to do is relatively very minor.

Now say you're a healer in WoW. You can see everyone's health bar, mana bar, and aggro meter at a glance. Every action you could possibly want to take is a single click or button press away. You can easily see what each ally and enemy is doing and who they are doing it to, possibly before they actually do it. The human and the computer are One. Getting the information is trivial, executing your action is trivial. All of the challenge is in making your decision, and you have far more options at your disposal than you would have had in EQ1. I would have to call this the more complex game, by far.

It's similar to what a lot of people have said about Kinect and the Wii. They'll never appeal to gamers who are into complex games, because the challenge is just in executing your action. You have to make an effort to get the game to recognize your intention, which some would say is the wrong kind of difficulty. It's preferable to be able to execute a hundred commands per minute with a keyb/mouse or a gamepad, rather than making hand motions and arm motions. In that way, sticking to the gamepad allows all of the complexity to shine through as the only challenge is decision making.

Bladestrom

I would say that is a form of social complexity as it were.  Some modern games try to streamline the auctioning process, make it easy and quick.  Again Ill use the Eve example, it has contracts, buying,selling,auctions, allowable scamming and more - so much more interesting, and arguable so because of the richness of options and the responsability placed on the user to decide how to use it and to be accountable for consequences? 

Loke666

Originally posted by Bladestrom

 Magic the gathering is a great example where the game has a huge amount of tactical and strategic complexity, and it is this that makes the game.  The newer version that just came out actually simplified the game rules to make it easier for newcommers, which many think is a mistake, great example   Newer players come in and learn the newer version, get up to speed and get bored far quicker, but are they likely to then migrate to the older version - maybe, probably not.  Wheras if the newer player bought the older game and took time to understand the complexity ultimately they would get a much more lasting and in depth experience.  Whats worse is the developers argue that the new game had greater take up, so the cycle of simplification potentially continues, where actually if they could somehow market the complex older version better then they could create an even greater game with more complexity aka game depth.

Well, yes and no. The old rules were not too complicated originally but they added too much new stuff with the expansions that made the rules rather hard to keep in the head in some cases.

Then they decided to remove some of the harder skills (like banding) and simplify a few other things while they were at it, like making interupts instants and adding the stack to easier see which spell that comes first.

But magic is an excellent example of how a good game should be designed to be fun for both casual and hardcore players.

I really think you can please both, even if it is pretty hard.

I played a bit of magic 94-96 (or was it 93-96, Dunno but I started 2 months before Legends released) and started again last year because a friend opened up a small game shop. I am not sure that I think the game is so much easier now, there are a lot of new abilities to learn that actually adds some complexity.

Anyways, if you look on the best games in the world like Chess or poker are the rules really easy to learn but hard to master and that is the key to making a MMO right as well.

A Good MMO can be both complexed and easy to learn just like them.

Bladestrom

Originally posted by Disdena

Originally posted by Bladestrom

 

If you have spent a long time playing games you get gradually used to more and more complexity.  New players have less opportunity to travel this lerarning curve as modern games replace complexity with sophisticated management of mechanics under the bonnet,

i  am proposing that part of the issue is that modern development teams are feeding short term needs by hiding complexity with sophisticated game engines/user interfaces

Again, you're pushing this idea that the modern interface hides complexity. If anything, I would tend to say that the opposite is true. In order to play a game, you need to do three things: get information, make a decision, execute your action.

Now say you're a healer in WoW. You can see everyone's health bar, mana bar, and aggro meter at a glance. Every action you could possibly want to take is a single click or button press away. You can easily see what each ally and enemy is doing and who they are doing it to, possibly before they actually do it. The human and the computer are One. Getting the information is trivial, executing your action is trivial. All of the challenge is in making your decision, and you have far more options at your disposal than you would have had in EQ1. I would have to call this the more complex game, by far.

 I think this is one area where you are right and wrong, , all these user interfaces (and mods) are calculating between the scenes to give visual and sound based signals that you react to, the user interfaces try to do as much for you as possible so you, e.g predicting heals required, providing visual countdowns and timers to prompt you to take an action .  It covers both sides of the discussion but I agree this is one are in wow where the richness has remained, but you wil lalso agree im sure that blizzard are trying constantly to simplify this or to make it less strategic and more about reactions (or at least they have done until recently).  Outwith raiding you can see that blizzard have employed a simplification stragegy over the years.   I could say you are arguing that this complexity is good, wouldnt you hate if it was dumbed down much much further?

Bladestrom

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by Bladestrom

 Magic the gathering is a great example where the game has a huge amount of tactical and strategic complexity, and it is this that makes the game.  The newer version that just came out actually simplified the game rules to make it easier for newcommers, which many think is a mistake, great example   Newer players come in and learn the newer version, get up to speed and get bored far quicker, but are they likely to then migrate to the older version - maybe, probably not.  Wheras if the newer player bought the older game and took time to understand the complexity ultimately they would get a much more lasting and in depth experience.  Whats worse is the developers argue that the new game had greater take up, so the cycle of simplification potentially continues, where actually if they could somehow market the complex older version better then they could create an even greater game with more complexity aka game depth.

A Good MMO can be both complexed and easy to learn just like them.

 Ye thats what im getting at, it is ok for magic the gathereing to be very complex, when you first play you understand the basic rules, you have fun, and you have fun knowing you do not understand much of the tactical and strategic complexity - and it doesnt detract one iota from the gaming experience, you enjoy learning new tricks and strategies etc.  Simplifying the rules to make the game more approachable but it can weaken the game as the game is the ruleset.

edit oh ps i was referring to the pc magic the gathering games.

Loke666

Originally posted by Bladestrom.

 Ye thats what im getting at, it is ok for magic the gathereing to be very complex, when you first play you understand the basic rules, you have fun, and you have fun knowing you do not understand much of the tactical and strategic complexity - and it doesnt detract one iota from the gaming experience, you enjoy learning new tricks and strategies etc.  Simplifying the rules to make the game more approachable can weaken the game as the game is the ruleset.

Yeah, I think we are in agreement then.

Too bad so few MMOs are made like that, I think many of them do the opposite. They try to make the game looks more complexed than it actually is by adding zillions of similar skills, a bad UI and a lot of things that sounds complicated but adds nothing to the game.

It seems hard to understand for some that pressing 20 fastkeys in a certain order all the time is not really complicated at all... 

Pressing 8 or 10 keys just the right time is a lot more complicated even if it looks easier.

MumboJumbo

Just a very quick thought:

Scenario 1. You have an mmorpg with a high level toon with full stats and it is pitted against another toon of even higher stats bought from another player and toon B defeats toon A in "mortal" combat.

Scenario 2. You have an mmorpg with an avatar of low playing time and even stats vs another avatar of higher playing time and evens stats and the avavar B wins in some contest or other.

Out of the 2 which will lead to the conclusion of which game requires more complexity(skill/learning/experience) to achieve a positive result compared to another player?

I think this is potentially a useful measure in some ways of complexity of a game. Brute attributes vs skill acquisition?

Bladestrom

Originally posted by MumboJumbo

Just a very quick thought:

Scenario 1. You have an mmorpg with a high level toon with full stats and it is pitted against another toon of even higher stats bought from another player and toon B defeats toon A in "mortal" combat.

Scenario 2. You have an mmorpg with an avatar of low playing time and even stats vs another avatar of higher playing time and evens stats and the avavar B wins in some contest or other.

Out of the 2 which will lead to the conclusion of which game requires more complexity(skill/learning/experience) to achieve a positive result compared to another player?

I think this is potentially a useful measure in some ways of complexity of a game. Brute attributes vs skill acquisition?

 the answer is clearly 42.

This discussion is more about the journey who do you think had a more satisfying one?

Larsa

Originally posted by Bladestrom

... To try and understand this issue I started to categorise the different types of player state and came up with the following list, what do you think? - its a bit of ramble i know

...

Awfully sorry, but in my opinion you have missed the mark here. I do not believe complexity (and the desire for a complex game) has much to do with old or new players - thus whether they played for long years or not.

Sure, there are people that love complexity (I'm one of them) but there's also a lot of other people that don't. It's just how the people are wired, I know young people that love a complex game (with all the mechanics you might want) and I know older gamers that just want to sit down on their couch with a console and hack&slash or shoot away.

The real problem is that the gaming industry as a whole hasn't yet learned to diversify their products. Well, the code monkeys, writers and artists would like to do something different for sure but the designers and marketeers won't let them. The whole industry is shooting for the same target audience. That's why, generally speaking, less complex games are made these days.

To use an example from another industry: the whole gaming industry nowadays is all Toshiba, Volkswagen or Nissan - there's no manufacturer like Porsche, BMW, Mercedes or the like in the gaming industry.

 

Edited: Funny blackout from me, I wrote Toshiba, should have been Toyota.

Bladestrom

I was more thinking along the lines that older players have had opportunity to access more games like you refer to and that in recent years the choice has narrowed somewhat due to corporate demands for profit and that newer players have less choice and have suffered as a result - because some (but not all ofc) of these new players would relish more complex games. Developers do need to shoot for different markets, I wish they would and that all players new and old now would have greater choice

edit, you are right though, I am looking at it from the perspective of players who like/have liked/would like/or would like but dont know that they would like! more complexity.

Loktofeit

Originally posted by Bladestrom

Originally posted by MumboJumbo

Just a very quick thought:

Scenario 1. You have an mmorpg with a high level toon with full stats and it is pitted against another toon of even higher stats bought from another player and toon B defeats toon A in "mortal" combat.

Scenario 2. You have an mmorpg with an avatar of low playing time and even stats vs another avatar of higher playing time and evens stats and the avavar B wins in some contest or other.

Out of the 2 which will lead to the conclusion of which game requires more complexity(skill/learning/experience) to achieve a positive result compared to another player?

I think this is potentially a useful measure in some ways of complexity of a game. Brute attributes vs skill acquisition?

 the answer is clearly 42.

This discussion is more about the journey who do you think had a more satisfying one?

If it was a well-made journey then the person that was looking to experience a journey. Otherwise, neither.

Revivial

I like Avatar complexity. Complexity in classes, skills, talents.  Lots of them, with lots of choices, and lots of ways to stand out from others based on those decisions.

 

I don't like World Complexity.  I like the Worlds to be massive, but simple and make sense.   I don't like when towns, outposts etc seem to be everywhere. I like when they make sense.

 

Disdena

Originally posted by Bladestrom

Originally posted by Disdena

Again, you're pushing this idea that the modern interface hides complexity. If anything, I would tend to say that the opposite is true. In order to play a game, you need to do three things: get information, make a decision, execute your action.

Now say you're a healer in WoW. You can see everyone's health bar, mana bar, and aggro meter at a glance. Every action you could possibly want to take is a single click or button press away. You can easily see what each ally and enemy is doing and who they are doing it to, possibly before they actually do it. The human and the computer are One. Getting the information is trivial, executing your action is trivial. All of the challenge is in making your decision, and you have far more options at your disposal than you would have had in EQ1. I would have to call this the more complex game, by far.

 I think this is one area where you are right and wrong, , all these user interfaces (and mods) are calculating between the scenes to give visual and sound based signals that you react to, the user interfaces try to do as much for you as possible so you, e.g predicting heals required, providing visual countdowns and timers to prompt you to take an action .  It covers both sides of the discussion but I agree this is one are in wow where the richness has remained, but you wil lalso agree im sure that blizzard are trying constantly to simplify this or to make it less strategic and more about reactions (or at least they have done until recently).  Outwith raiding you can see that blizzard have employed a simplification stragegy over the years.   I could say you are arguing that this complexity is good, wouldnt you hate if it was dumbed down much much further?

I agree with that part about mods. When the UI completely walks you through every step of the fight—removing the Make a decision step—that takes away a huge chunk of complexity and you really are just down to the most basic kind of game: Watch and React. Absolutely true. (And I would never play a game with such intrusive mods for that reason.)

But this is a strange case where even the WoW-cloniest WoW clones aren't cloning WoW. I'm not aware of any other modern MMOs in which you can install an add-on that makes every decision for you and reduces the game down to whack-a-mole, rather than just giving you access to some more information. So you can't fairly accuse modern MMOs in general of this lack of complexity when WoW is really the only offender.

azmundai

What I don't understand is why the two cant coexist .. all you have to do is have separate rewards. The reason it doesn't work now is because you get relatively the same reward for the easy mode version as you do for the normal version.

Why they couldn't continually release 5 mans and 10 mans along side raids is beyond me. They just have to set it up so that the 5 man loot is worthless for raids, and the 10 man loot is about the same as the previous tier. These days it's all upgrades and it ends up being too much content for all but a few truly hardcore. And more power to them, but it fractures the rest of the players.

Bladestrom

Originally posted by Disdena

Originally posted by Bladestrom

Originally posted by Disdena

Again, you're pushing this idea that the modern interface hides complexity. If anything, I would tend to say that the opposite is true. In order to play a game, you need to do three things: get information, make a decision, execute your action.

Now say you're a healer in WoW. You can see everyone's health bar, mana bar, and aggro meter at a glance. Every action you could possibly want to take is a single click or button press away. You can easily see what each ally and enemy is doing and who they are doing it to, possibly before they actually do it. The human and the computer are One. Getting the information is trivial, executing your action is trivial. All of the challenge is in making your decision, and you have far more options at your disposal than you would have had in EQ1. I would have to call this the more complex game, by far.

 I think this is one area where you are right and wrong, , all these user interfaces (and mods) are calculating between the scenes to give visual and sound based signals that you react to, the user interfaces try to do as much for you as possible so you, e.g predicting heals required, providing visual countdowns and timers to prompt you to take an action .  It covers both sides of the discussion but I agree this is one are in wow where the richness has remained, but you wil lalso agree im sure that blizzard are trying constantly to simplify this or to make it less strategic and more about reactions (or at least they have done until recently).  Outwith raiding you can see that blizzard have employed a simplification stragegy over the years.   I could say you are arguing that this complexity is good, wouldnt you hate if it was dumbed down much much further?

I agree with that part about mods. When the UI completely walks you through every step of the fight—removing the Make a decision step—that takes away a huge chunk of complexity and you really are just down to the most basic kind of game: Watch and React. Absolutely true. (And I would never play a game with such intrusive mods for that reason.)

But this is a strange case where even the WoW-cloniest WoW clones aren't cloning WoW. I'm not aware of any other modern MMOs in which you can install an add-on that makes every decision for you and reduces the game down to whack-a-mole, rather than just giving you access to some more information. So you can't fairly accuse modern MMOs in general of this lack of complexity when WoW is really the only offender.

 I suspect modern mmorgs dont offer such rich programming API's because the testing cost of ensuring the API is robust and secure is very expensive in comparison to other features that are in demand for inital releases.