Overdesign

No, I think there are good and bad control/gameplay design. This changes for many people though so it's hard to tell what's good from bad, generally there is a concensus (not only on /vr/ but in general)

I think it's hard to imagine "overdesigned" gameplay, gameplay is either good or bad, it works or it doesn't. I think what could be called overdesigned are stuff like level design, or art direction, maybe.
I haven't watched game sack so I don't know in what kind of term do they use it, but if they throw it out a lot, it might be jus ta buzzword like overrated.

You could argue that any simulation game is over designed. They sacrifice actual fun that comes from the experience of flying a plane for example for the sake of simulating technical difficulties that exist in real life.

>>3291137
>>3291137
I think the main example was Silhouette Mirage (pic in OP). Just in case it requires explanation, this is Treasure doing their Treasure thing, so it's based in an extremely specific core mechanic: part of it is that there's basically two types of enemies, each only vulnerable to one of two attributes, and you switch the attribute of your attacks by making your character face either left or right in the screen. It gets pretty crazy.

As many other reviewers, the GS guys know their gaming history (and in their case, have higher knowledge than most of the tech-side of things), but gameplay analysis is not really their thing, and this level of high concept is just nonsense to them. Hence: overdesign; too specific and disruptive gameplay rules.

it's a nonsense term, you cannot over or under design something, you can only design something well or design it poorly

if you wanted to say that something was designed in such a way that it has too much complexity or artifice, you would say it is "overwrought", and I would question the intelligence of anyone who calls something "over-designed" when a completely serviceable term exists to express what those words are trying to and not meaning

>>3291190
No need to be so pedantic, the term "overengineered" is well worn.

Products that are overengineered aren't poorly designed BROADLY, they are poorly designed FOR PURPOSE. So your dichotomy doesn't quite pass the mustard.

>>3291130
There's a similar term in japanese known as surume which is used to refer to games with overly complex mechanics that take time to get used to, but for those who manage to it becomes a very fun game. Of course, not everyone does so you can either argue the problem is with people being lazy or the devs doing poor design. Simplicity/complexity is definitively involved in good/bad game design though imo, unlike how the other replies imply. It's not necessarily a direct correlation.

File: Civilizationboxart.jpg (16KB, 262x294px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 262x294px

>>3291130
"Overdesigned" is very much like "overrated." It's entirely personal and doesn't really mean anything to someone else.

Silhouette Mirage could seem overdesigned to someone fairly new to 2D platform action games. But bear in mind it came out near the end of that genre's huge popularity after many many other games. The people SM was made for were already a little burnt out on more "normal" action platformers. So to them the added complexity wasn't "overdesign", it was just enough. Though with SM specifically there's also the issue of how it was ported and Working Designs breaking the game balance, but that's another issue. Also it's entirely possible that part of Symphony of the Night's popularity was also due to this phenomenon.

Likewise, someone unfamiliar with the strategy games could look at Civilization 2 or 3 and think they looked "overdesigned" while someone who is into the genre and used to playing Europa Universealis would see the same games as bare bones.

You could look at most genres that way really. Street Fighter V or Tekken 6 would look "overdesigned." Same with modern FPS games, sports games, roguelikes etc etc. The big games being made are for people who have been following along with the genre progression for a while. Most of them would seem "overdesigned" to someone unfamiliar.

So yes, like things being overrated, it exists as an aspect of your opinion on certain games. But other than that doesn't really mean much.

>>3291193
>Products that are overengineered aren't poorly designed BROADLY, they are poorly designed FOR PURPOSE.
The more I read this the more stupid it sounds. You're just distorting the context to suit your argument, splitting hairs to try and prove a point. If it's "designed well" up to a certain point and then meaningless contrivances are added which negatively impact the original utility of the object, then it becomes "poorly designed". Your word there blames the quantity of design, (which is such an asinine thought I can barely believe it,) when actually it's still the quality of design which is at fault here. It does not matter how much or how little something is designed or engineered, it's still either done well or done poorly.

Leave it to a fucking engineer to be shit at languages though.

>>3291284
spot on.

Some games are simple to learn and difficult to master, and fun for begin knees and experts alike

Some are not

>>3291339
Pretty much this. There are just many types of games for many types of gamers.

Is this the new "gamefeel?"

I think there's a strong argument that art assets are capable of being "overdesigned," but using it to describe game mechanics seems like a bad and vague idea.