[vgel]

I think a lot of it is what types of games or genres you're interested in. Certain games / genres of games work better as small games than others.

Like I've worked on a lot of small games (https://vgel.itch.io), some better, some worse, but I've never tried, e.g., an FPSRPG or a Dwarf Fortress-esque simRTS. The process of "stripping down" those genres to be feasible as a small game fundamentally transforms them into something else. When you rip the complex skill tree out of an FPSRPG to simplify it, it becomes a different kind of game! And some people just don't like that—they only want the complex game. They didn't like early Minecraft, they only like Minecraft now, after 10+ years of development gave tons of interlocking features and mechanics. And that's... what it is. It makes me a little sad, but I don't think those people will be very happy as solo indie devs (unless they have the superhuman willpower to push through years of development on a single game without enjoying the early stages or the tight feedback loop of improvement you get by releasing smaller games).

I've tried to sell this vision to people before, maybe not as eloquently as OP, showed them Itch.io and some of my favorite games on there, and... they just didn't care. It didn't interest them at all. Other people got the appeal immediately. It just seems to come down to personal taste.

[_c3ag]

> They didn't like early Minecraft, they only like Minecraft now, after 10+ years of development gave tons of interlocking features and mechanics.

i think you are dead wrong. there is a lot of people just using the core of the game (previous the first alpha) to build stuff and that is just fine for them. past alpha (the survival mode) up to today i do not think it changed dramatically beyond some mobs and new stuff to find… the gameplay is still the same: collect -> craft [while surviving]

[vgel]

Some people, yeah. But a lot of people only enjoy the game because of complex systems that were added later: redstone, slimeblock machines, building complex farms, gear progression via material and enchantment upgrades, exploring an infinite world, etc. You can go on Youtube and see people who only play those parts of the game. I think it's fair to say that they wouldn't have enjoyed, say, Indev, before those features were added. And Indev, before the infinite world, was already the culmination of 6 months of work on the game! That's pushing the definition of "small game" already, and a lot of people would still treat it as "a cool toy, but not a full game" (I played it back then and remember people talking about it as such).

[_c3ag]

redstones were introduced at the alpha version of the game. complex enough to people build small computers with it back in the days. as mob and food farms, with lots of ways to automate it with water buckets etc. enchantments are just grind. the 2 main weapons of the game, a sword and a bow were introduced at alpha stage too… and the infinite world is also an alpha thing.

sure nowadays you can build a lot of complex stuff. but i do not think Minecraft went through a metanoia. i remember tweaking with more complex systems of villagers with mods back in the alpha/beta days than when they were officially released…

maybe now Minecraft is ‘more popular’ as every kid that has access to a computer with internet probably will hear about it and play. but maybe this popularity is more about ‘we do not have much child friendly games’ than any other phenomena. + the masterpiece of gameplay which it has! after you learn how to open the inventory, hold the L.mouse to collect resources and R.mouse to place blocks… life just gets brighter *-*

[aio2]

We often revolve around the result, not the process of getting to the result. That's why many don't care.

[jayd16]

You can't just toil away blindly until suddenly a complex game pops out. You need to start with the small game and add layers.

[dgb23]

I appreciate your advice, but from a general viewpoint, just adding layers doesn't necessarily lead to interesting complexity.

StarCraft Broodwar is an interestingly complex strategy game, not because it has a lot of layers, or even lots of things at all, but because it has a simple system of orthogonal, powerful features. It had less features and units than many of its competitors (RTS was a big genre at the time), but it found ingenuity in simplicity, minimalism. Every piece of the puzzle was to some degree relevant throughout the history of the game.

I think you are right in a general sense, but "layers" can be a misleading term here. You rather want to increase complexity and beauty by enabling manners of composition.

Another game that illustrates this is The Witness, which is probably one of the most praised puzzle games and again, is beautifully simple. In terms of layers it has pretty much exactly three: The panel puzzles, the environmental puzzles and then the visual secrets that you only see by looking at things in a certain way. But in terms of actual game mechanics there are very few things. The complexity then emerges by mere combination.

[vgel]

Yeah, exactly, but to enjoy the small game at that point, I think you need to have an appreciation for small games. I guess it's possible to enjoy a small game as only the core of an imagined larger game, but... it's not how I think about game development, at least.