by jens_hoppe
BennyD wrote:
Except that this whole thread of discussion is about this "easily dismissed" point.
I know, sorry for not being clear about it. My point was (on the one hand) that for real games, "complexity which changes absolutely nothing about a game" is a mythical beast.
But if we want to stay with it for argument's sake, it has certainly been my impression that for some players, complexity can be seen as a positive by itself: Not because it adds strategic depth, or better realism or any other generally agreed upon quality in a game, but seemingly simply because some players derive satisfaction from mastering the more complex piece of machinery that a complex game is.
So, while I personally might agree that less complexity is generally all-other-things-being-about-equal preferable, not everyone seems to feel this way, and who am I to tell them their preferences are wrong?