Ok! I have some thoughts! They give a few key points:
"• have a small set of rules,
• contain only few micro-mechanics and possibly only one (macro) core mechanic,
• may have tightly coupled elements and/or (sub)systems,
• have simple, easy to use controls that blend with the underlying systems,
• are systemically and visually abstract,
• have a low perceived complexity but (possibly) deep systemic complexity."
Now to me, it sounds like mumbo-jumbo. I HATE minimalism. I am a maximalist at heart. So to have to tone everything down to basics is hard for me! However, I think I could manage with visual complexity. I'm more focused on visuals, not mechanics. So Let me bring up another point.
"A minimalist game is visually abstract, meaning that its visual representation is non-photorealistic (at most) [27] or otherwise stylized, with various degrees of independence from visual references in the world [1]."
NO REFERENCES?! That's like all I do! Even my first game was a reference to Adventure Time (*sobs loudly*)! Real talk, I am ONLY discussing visuals. Yeah, they talk about constructing the game and sticking to simple mechanics, but visuals, to me, are most important. You can EASILY take a very simple game and turn it into something complex with visuals. They even mention that in the paper. I don't have too much to say. I just found it interesting how restrictive some developments have to be.
Comments