Game design is simple

Reaction to the Article & Title

• Many readers liked the piece as a dense “map of the terrain” of game design, noting that every paragraph could be expanded into a book.
• Others focused on the title, arguing that nothing about the content is actually simple; the title is widely interpreted as ironic or tongue‑in‑cheek.
• Some criticize the presentation as feeling like a slide deck turned into a blog post; others say the images are just pointers to deeper talks.

“Simple” vs “Complex” vs “Elegant”

• Long subthread debates what “simple” means: indivisible/atomic vs “simple to use” vs “simple compared to alternatives.”
• Several point out: simple ≠ easy, obvious, intuitive, or easy to understand; elegant implies simple, but not vice versa.
• Examples like Game of Life, double pendulum, and everyday tasks (pouring cereal) are used to show things can be simultaneously simple in rules yet complex in outcome.

Fun, Prediction, Repetition, and Dopamine

• Core claim discussed: fun is about making progress in prediction and mastery; games are built from repeated challenges/loops.
• Some misread this as endorsing grind-based design; others counter that the article explicitly critiques shallow grind and emphasizes meaningful learning.
• Dopamine references draw pushback as pseudo‑scientific jargon; the author replies that it’s shorthand for a broader predictive‑processing literature, not a design knob to “optimize.”

Uncertainty, Depth, and Bloat

• The idea that more uncertainty/ambiguity increases depth is broadly accepted, but commenters stress:
  • 100% randomness is not fun; players must retain some predictive leverage.
  • “More mechanics” can make sequels worse if systems feel bolted on (crafting, skill trees) rather than paying for their complexity.
• Distinctions are drawn between randomness, ambiguity (opponent intentions, environment), and learnable structure.

Narrative, Cutscenes, and Agency

• Heated debate over cutscenes and QTEs:
  • One camp sees modern AAA as “interactive movies” that disrespect time with long, unskippable sequences and fake interactivity.
  • Others argue cutscenes are valid tools for pacing, feedback, exposition, and emotional payoff, if used sparingly and skippably.
  • Some frame games along a spectrum from pure “play” (systems-first) to “interactive DVD menus” (story-first); both can be good if expectations are clear.

MMOs, Economies, and Grind

• Several reminisce about a particular sandbox MMO with deep player‑driven economies, crafting, and emergent cities, contrasting it with later theme‑park designs and WoW‑style cloning.
• Discussion touches on why MMOs drift toward grind and gambling:
  • High operating costs pushing studios toward retention/monetization loops.
  • Social funnels that force ever‑larger, more tedious “endgame” tasks with marginal rewards.
• The article’s warning that genres can die when they stop presenting new problems is connected to the “death of MMOs” narrative.

Juice, Game Feel, and Spectacle vs Substance

• Readers latch onto “crazy juicy” feedback as a key concept: going beyond minimal UX to make actions feel great.
• Popular talks and demos on “juice” and game feel are referenced; some credit juice for why otherwise simple games are compelling.
• Others complain modern big games overdo spectacle with non‑interactive particles and scripted sequences, preferring fewer but more physically interactive elements.

Design Literature, Styles, and Tools

• Thread lists multiple “game design bibles” and concludes there is no single definitive book; different authors fit different designer temperaments (systematic vs improvisational).
• Emphasis that design style is personal; frameworks like this essay are seen as lenses, not laws.
• A tangent explores the idea of DSLs for gameplay logic; existing efforts (blueprints, puzzle‑oriented languages, “game grammar” graph formalisms) are mentioned as partial answers.