If a game is to rely on people playing it everyday with unlimited replayability, shouldn't the basics of the game be as simple as possible? It seems that some people in the online gaming community think otherwise. Since they are already used to the rules they feel that it should be in their hands to decide what is best for all the other future players of the game. True, they have a better perspective of what works and what does not work, but they also have a horrible bias. They have been playing these games for years now. They know the ins and outs of a game before it even arrives on their computer. They start high on the learning curve and it's easy for them to play. It's easy for them because the basics rules of all FPS never change: Kill the other guy or team as it were.

The problem lies in the fact that even this basic rule is oversimplified. There are many ways to "kill the other guy", and most people that play the game don't know all the ways. The beginners don't understand this, whereas the "hardcores" have known this fact since the days of Doom. For these veteran players the only way, in their eyes, to make the game better is to add more features or rules. That means adding complexity.

In an effort to make it easier for the new guy - the one who doesn't really know what he is getting into when his buddy sits him down in front of his computer and says, "Kill everything that moves" - the rules of the game should be as simple as possible. Game designers should follow this rule of thumb as closely as possible in order to maximize their user base and sales. Simple is better.

Certain parts of the game can't easily be unpurified - movement for example. You can't really overcomplicate that. Move left, right, forward, and back, look with an analog device, jump, and crouch. It's very basic stuff, but it is still possible to complicate things. Add a grapple for instance, or dodging. You've now added an unnecessary dimension to something that was perfect in its simplicity. What good do they do? Sure, they are interesting, and can sometimes be fun or even useful. But what they add to the game doesn't make up for the impact on the learning curve.

The degrees of movement listed above defines how a purist's movement scheme would be. These are the minimum for a first person shooter today, and the maximum necessary to offer good gameplay.

The physics model of the game isn't easy to botch up either. It's got to be realistic. We live in a world that can be marginally simulated, and so we expect that our world will be represented in the game. To embellish on the physics of the game world boggles the mind - quite literally. Seeing people move around in mid-air is like watching a magic trick gone wrong. It's not what anyone expects, and sometimes it can be downright frightening. So, in order to be intuitive and easy to learn, the physics of the game must be as close to real as possible. Surely this doesn't mean we have to have another Trespasser. Trespasser has an all too real physics engine. So real, in fact, that, for a game, it was overkill. A happy medium has to be found. It's mostly up to the developers, but they don't have a large margin to work with. The physics has to be real enough to be believable and simple enough to be intuitive.

Other parts of the game are easily muddled. Weapons are a tough decision for any development group. Low in number, straightforward, balanced (i.e. they have good situational pluses and minuses) weapons are best. The details of which can vary depending on the creativity of the developers. However, they shouldn't be unintuitive. It should be easy to grasp each weapon's use and effectiveness. New users should not only understand it just by seeing it in use, but in every representation of it - from the model to the documentation in the manual down to the name of the weapon. Secondary weapon effects (as neat as they can be) are a way in which weapons are overcomplicated. It's just one more thing to learn to use.

Balancing the types and amounts of weapons go hand in hand. A relatively low weapon count makes it easier to balance weapons. The situations necessary for each weapon should be obvious. The lower the weapon count, the less choices a player needs to make, and the easier it is to define the situations in which a weapon is useful

Gameplay types have to be the easiest way to overcomplicate the game, and yet they are tempting to use. It's easy for a developer to cater to multiple groups of players with gameplay types. Out of the box (OOTB), One versus One, and Free For All gameplay are about as simple as you can get. Teamplay is an easy simple add on as well if you make sure that it's easy to distinguish and communicate to teammates. Where it gets tough is when you add other elements, such as a flag.

Ok, so everyone knows what Capture The Flag (CTF) is, and we've all played it sometime in our lives outside of computer games. That makes it as easy to learn as just regular teamplay. Of course as soon as you try to add more gametypes OOTB you start to diversify to the point that you no longer have a cohesive game. In an effort to keep things simple, gametypes have to be cut down to the bare minimum OOTB.

Teamplay games, for instance, start off with the complications of teamplay. The player expects that. In this case, teamplay is actually the default gameplay type. Adding One versus One or Free For All is common as well, and easy to use. Again, as soon as you try to add more gametypes OOTB, you start to dilute the game. If a developer thinks it absolutely necessary for people to play this great idea for a gametype, then it might be best to leave it for a patch or develop it as another game.

The minute you add extra rules to an otherwise straightforward game of "Kill the Other Guy", you add unwanted complexity. This type of complexity is not a good way to win people over to the game. The higher the learning curve, the less people are willing to play or purchase the game. It makes sense to keep the game as simple as possible in an effort to maximize sales and user base. People want everything to be easy to use, which means easy to play games. Developers, that means thinking simple.