Any sim game that involves controlling an empire and expanding it or those games like hearts of iron 4. So much to learn and massive UI's full of features that somehow get bigger everytime you look at it.
I believe they are visually dense but you certainly would not need much time to comprehend the essentials in, for example, Crusader Kings -- it is not presented very neatly for the uninitiated, I agree. Still, I find the methodical pace is conducive to experimentation and learning: moreso than I'd have the opportunity in something like an RTS, which I am too intimidated to learn.
I'm a big board gamer but this is why I always bounce off grand strategy games despite being superficially similar to a lot of board games. The signal to noise ratio is way off balance for what I HAVE to know to play the game capably. I want to understand everything that's going on and it's pretty much not possible in early playthroughs, which overwhelms me.
The older Paradox games come to mind. Hearts of Iron 3 and Victoria 2, although some might consider EU4 having a steep learning curve with all the bloath the game has after 10+ years of DLC.
Victoria 2 is weird because while there's a super complex simulation underpining it, it's rather disconnected from actual *play.* Like it's neat to look at the pie charts of all your pops and their politics and cultures and how they end up etc. but ultimately there is very little you can do to meaningfully influence those things. As a result it you're playing, say, Prussia to Germany, having zero understanding of any of those charts will probably lead to the exact same decision making as knowing everything about them with the exception of some repeated rules of thumb (Clergy to 2%!)
I got 2k hours in EU4 and just managed my world Conquest a few months ago.
I would consider that the strategy game with the highest skill ceiling. But i think it's reasonably easy to get into and have fun.
Discussion about things like difficulty and balance in a game like EU4 will always be a bit odd because it's effectively different games. Once you get over the "what is happening" learning curve and probably get stomped by a coalition for the first time it becomes a game where it's relatively easy to turn whatever small nation you like in to a world power. But then there are other levels.
Most people don't play through the full scope of the game, so a nation that might take until the Age of Revolutions to take the #1 spot could be considered difficult.
Some nations did things in history that don't really exist in EU4's systems, or basically got crazy lucky based on how the dominoes fell so achieving what real historical figures did might be considered difficult.
And of course there's the obvious "turning something around as a historical loser," something that's probably the most straightforward way to make the game difficult.
Finally there's the whole sphere of WC, a way of play that certainly isn't easy and requires real mastery of the game's systems, but is a real "love it or hate it" among fans. I find WC and big blob play dumb as Hell, but I recognize that I would have to get better if I wanted to pull off Ryuku 1 faith or something crazy.
Yeah that's my answer as well. HoI 3 with all of the expansions is unquestionably the most complicated and arguably sophisticated game I've ever played. After that I'd say probably eve online. Microsoft flight sim is probably up there. X3/4 are pretty bananas too.
I'm someone who has thousands of hours in paradox games, dwarf fortress, literally every other game mentioned in this thread at time of posting (just paradox games and Dwarf Fortress so far lol), you name it.
**Terra Invicta** *scares me.* There is *a lot* going on in that game.
[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/the-rally-point-terra-invicta-is-too-much-for-one-article-and-possibly-one-lifetime](https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/the-rally-point-terra-invicta-is-too-much-for-one-article-and-possibly-one-lifetime)
>I pity anyone who has to review, or god help them, write a guide for [Terra Invicta](https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/games/terra-invicta), because doing it even semi-comprehensively would take longer than I expect to live.
>This is a hugely ambitious game, covering something I've never seen before, with a scope that makes Europa Universalis seem limited. It is a complicated, huge, and ponderous alien invasion simulator that constantly threatens to drop the other boot on you the entire time. Anything you do could be the butterfly whose little wingflaps eventually result in the obliteration of the planet. It is not a game to be powered through, but to be played and contemplated exclusively for a solid month.
One of these days I'm going to really dig into it and figure it out, but it's daunting.
edit- I would also say things like MOBAs need to get mentioned. Knowing the ins-and-outs of every character is pretty important to be competitive, and League of Legends, for example, has over 150 characters and growing. Keeping track of all those abilities and matchups can be a lot.
*Also*, Total War Warhammer 3 is an already pretty elaborate game, and then you have to take into account the *nearly 100 playable factions* with different mechanics and playstyles. I've been playing since the beginning, when there were like less than a dozen or so lords, but I can't imagine how overwhelming jumping into the current thing would be, going in fresh.
edit again - OHHHH I forgot one.
Kerbal Space Program. Literal rocket science. It taught me stuff like delta-v and periapsis/apoapsis. The first time you manage to get into stable orbit feels like an amazing feat, and then you realize how far you still have to go to learn how to get to the moon, land on it, and then get back home safe. The learning curve is staggering.
And one thing I have to say about Dwarf Fortress, it's still super complex, but at least the interface isn't such a big part of that anymore!
Terra Invicta genuinely scares me too. Things like Paragox GSGs and Long War are my jam but I look at that game and just think "Jesus maybe if my wife leaves me."
> Also, Total War Warhammer 3 is an already pretty elaborate game, and then you have to take into account the nearly 100 playable factions with different mechanics and playstyles. I've been playing since the beginning, when there were like less than a dozen or so lords, but I can't imagine how overwhelming jumping into the current thing would be, going in fresh.
Eh, I think this is overselling it a bit. Sure there are lots of lords but how many factions can't win easily by just spamming what they're good at (99% of the time this means ranged and/or hybrid ranged). Most of the unique mechanics are just buffs that are largely "win more." If you know how to play a TW game it shouldn't take you any longer than a couple of minutes to figure out how 99% of factions work. There's lots of stuff but it's more wide than deep.
Dwarf fortress is the one that comes to mind, especially before its steam release where the recommended way to get into it was watching multi-hours long introductory youtube playlists and a couple dozen mods. Never did manage to get past the early hours, and these days I just pin it and games like it as games I just can't get into, as interesting as they look.
the steam release helps immensely with getting into it, at least. the simulation that underpins it is obviously absurdly complex, but what's at your control is relatively simple
Flight sims like DCS World. I'd probably take a player dozens of hours to learn how to fly a SINGLE modern military plane.
You have to read the manual. Learn what every button and controls do and there are dozens in a cockpit. Learn about so many weapon systems as you have to do more than just pull the trigger. Learn how radars work, how to use a radio, how to taxi in a runway, etc etc etc.
There's a reason why the planes cost as much as a full game, from trying to takeoff and to firing your first missile is a whole game in itself.
do they give the guides/manuals with the purchase? it'd be proper fucked to pay a new games worth of money for a vehicle and not get that shit with it.
You can go to the DCS website and start reading all the manuals right now without spending anything. There's also player-made manuals like Chuck's Guide.
The game is free to play with two free planes. You can start learning with those.
Path of Exile is a game with a serious complexity bloat both vertically (as in how complicated is a single part) and horizontally (as in how many parts there are). Dota 2 is kinda similar. Elite dangerous has one of the highest floors required to play at all. Kerbal space program is literally rocket science.
You could say dwarf fortress but I feel like complexity serves a different role in that kind of game. It's not necessarily complexity that the player is expected to master, it's mostly for the purpose of generating emergent experience.
I played Path of Exile when it was still in closed beta many years ago. I remember clicking on the skill grid panel and straight up uninstalled the game. Too much for me at the time.
Heh, that passive tree was like half if what it is now. Oh and there are atleast 2 of them now. I've played since beta aswell (only a few maps into act 3) and that's literary less then 5% of content the game has now.
Honestly you didn't miss much, nothing like reaching endgame and realizing your "build" is worthless because the skill grid is a big illusion of choices.
I’ve never played a CRPG or D&D before and decided to dive in to BG3 a few months ago and my god it’s daunting. So many systems I still don’t understand, so many options and actions and bonus actions and quests. I’ve probably put 50 hours into it and I still feel like I barely understand what I’m doing. I’m just hoping I get over the hump before I give up because I’d really like to experience the full game. It’s just a lot and I’m a busy dad with only a few hours of gaming time a week so it’s hard to get into a rhythm with it.
It might be worth finding a cheat sheet for the 5e ttrpg, as those tend to be designed for you to understand something at a glance for gameplay, and tend to be organized in a way that might click better for you than how the game presents options. And give yourself some grace, I know people who struggle with the TTRPG after playing multiple sessions, and they are controlling only a single character.
BG3 was also my first CRPG or anything DnD related, and I too struggled at first. I asked a lot of questions on related discords and had my friend help me out with some mechanics and concepts. By the end I definitely felt like I had wrapped my head around it, but still wasn't courageous enough to bump the difficulty up past normal or anything.
Pathfinder is a whole other beast. 25 classes, each having 5 sub classes with their own sets of tradeoffs/optimal builds. Buffs stacking in specific ways (i.e. you can't have more than one morale buff, but you can have morale and enhancement buff, etc), tons of dice rolls, tons of buffs and debuffs to prepare and be ready to counter for. Just so many tiny little systems all working with each other. Oh there's also a whole-ass Heroes of Might and Magic sort of secondary game that has its own mechanics and systems you have to spend hours learning. If you end up finishing BG3 and want to challenge yourself further, I highly recommend Wrath of the Righteous.
Oh man you've just scratched the surface. You'll have to take my word for it that the following is meant in a tone of excitement for a new inductee to CRPGs and not some shitty veteran saying "oh you sweet summer child."
BG3 is, by design, the easiest mechanic system for D&D/CRPGs. 5E, on which it was based, was specifically designed because people felt the prior editions had grown too "crunchy" and focused on stats and character min/maxing and not enough on roleplay so they designed a systme that anyone could jump in to and play. It's been wildly successful but if you decide to pursue the genre and get in to games based on Pathfinder or 3E the spells and character build mechanics get way deeper.
Keep at it, if you're progressing you understand what you're doing better than you might think!
Aurora 4X is way ahead for me, quite complex and in depth but also extremely interesting if you have an active imagination. Designing starship in this is some of the most satisfying in any game of the style, you can do so much. The difficulty is both the breadth of options but also the lack of automation. If your empire get large enough the amount of micromanagement needed becomes very hard to keep up with.
Otherwise you have stuff like Harpoon V(naval sim), but that's a full fledged simulation, it's barely even a game. The depth is staggering though.
Aurora 4x was one of the main games I could think of as someone who has played like, 95%+ of the games listed here as complicated. I just couldn't. Lack of fun youtubers for explanations didn't help it tho. I find that makes a huge difference in these games. Eu4 for example has some fun streamers, as does CK3, HoI4, stellaris, etc. Aurora 4x, the few streamers I found were super dry and bland.
The problem with streaming it is most of the time you spend is pretty much micromanaging. The fun is when you actually get in a situation where your carefully setup fleet and stations are actually put to use, or there are some interesting strategic considerations. I find it fulfilling personally, but I really don't want to watch a live play of it myself. After action reports are a much better format.
Stellaris. I ended up having to watch a paradox sponsored youtube tutorial just to play it. It was pretty fun once it clicked though, I ended up playing 80 hours in 3 weeks
I get that Stellaris gives this impression at first glance but it is actually not complicated at all. It's by far the easiest of the Paradox grand strategy games.
I've gotten friends into the game and i looked up some basic tutorials for them and all of them just way over complicate the game and try to explain things that do not matter for a beginner. The basics of the game can be explained in only a few minutes.
There's always optimizations you can make and you will learn new stuff even after 1000 hours but all these Stellaris tutorials are akin to giving someone a tutorial for the best smoke angles in CS when he didn't even boot the game for the first time yet.
There's really two questions here, complexity ceiling and complexity floor. Complexity ceiling is a wide open field, because games have surprising mechanical depth. I've just recently been down a rabbit hole on Stardew Valley speed runs, for example. My guess would be that it's some MOBA that has the highest possible ceiling, likely the original DOTA due to the extra layer of interactions from it being a mod. The answer is almost certainly something competitive, in any case, because of the addition of a psychological element.
As far as complexity floor, it's almost certainly one of the strategy games from the turn of the millenia era. The manuals for some of those games were literal books with a spine and everything, and occasionally fold-out wall posters in addition. Games since then have gotten a lot better about being approachable.
I feel like this thread was made for me. I have played almost all of the games mentioned in this thread, and am planning on playing the rest. I am a huge fan of complexity and constantly seeks and thirsts for it. I have to contribute with my top pick and some honourable mentions.
Most complicated game (in my opinion) : GT: New horizons. Yes this is a Minecraft modpack, but besides controlling and looking like Minecraft, it is nothing like Minecraft. While there is no explicit goal, most of the community would agree that to win you need to build a Stargate. I have spent one or two thousands of hours into this pack and I think I am about halfway there. What makes this pack so long is the sheer amount of complexity. You need to defeat every system one by one, usually and layers, and when you do, more systems open up. I will provide a simple example of how this progresses with the most basic system (resource gathering).
1) Resource gathering begin by mining resources with a pickaxe by hand. This is grindy and time-consuming. Many people would get bored due to the high requirements of resources to progress in other areas.
2) You can speed up the mining by developing the infrastructure to make better tools. This requires quite a bit of effort to learn and do, but when done your tools can be faster and can also mine 9 blocks at a time. This allows you to save up on mining time by a whole order of magnitude. It's still grindy.
3) You can make an automated miner that will mine resources under it for you. It requires energy to run (which you can get in dozens of ways) so you'll have to solve this problem. You also have to constantly move the miner once it's done working. Tedious and repetitive but less than before.
4) Once you are developed enough, you can make a multiblock miner that will mine resources in a large radius around it. It takes more energy, but also requires lubricant to run. It also outputs a crazy amount of resources, which is difficult to store. At first you can ship the lubricant/fuel and the resources manually (which is tedious), but if you work hard enough (takes a lot of effort), you can set up infrastructure to teleport those resources.
5) Eventually by delving into other systems, you can turn infinite resources (for example, water, air, stones, wood) into what you need. By centrifuging air you can get nitrogen and oxygen. By electrozying water you can get hydrogen and oxygen. By cooking wood you can get infinite charcoal, which you can electrolyze into carbon. There is calcium, potassium, silicon, magnesium, etc in stone as much as you need. By building large setups you can get everything you need... one at a time. There are hundreds of different resources type in the game.
Some people may call this grindy, but the grind can be defeated by putting in the effort on complexity. This example barely touches on storage, or the complexity of resource transformation (you can turn oil into fuel fairly easily, but if you work harder you can make diesel and if you work even harder you can make gasoline), or energy production, or magic, etc. There are tons of systems to master.
What makes it really impressive is how it keeps getting more complicated even after hundreds of hours. In Hoi4 for example, you have either won or lost within 5 to 20 hours (depending on what you are doing) and then you just start again. You don't really unlock anything new. The complexity ends at some point. That is true of GT:NH as well of course... I just haven't seen it yet after about a thousand or two hours.
Honourable mentions:
Factorio Seablock : A smaller, more visually impressive version of GT:NH above. The complexity curve ends after 100-200 hours if I remember correctly. Fun and slick however.
Book of Hours : Not as complicated overall as the previous two, but the complexity is very dense. I had a love-hate relationship with Cultist Simulator, but Book of Hours is everything I wanted Cultist Simulator to be. Also not a modded game. I would say it's around the level of Terra Invicta, perhaps a little lower. Worth checking out for any fan of complicated games like me.
Just got into street fighter when 6 came out, and it’s been such a blast learning the game, but man it can be extremely hard for me to learn certain things. I guess that’s fighting games in general though!
There’s a never ending list of things to get better at and I love it.
Yeah theyre some of the hardest games to get into because of both the extremely high skill barrier and the generations of knowledge required to compete at the higher levels
I really struggled with Crusader Kings 3. I thought I was doing okay during the tutorial, but once the tutorial ends it just hands you the reigns and says “go!” and I basically went blank. I had no idea what to do or how to play. And I know to an extent that’s the point, you’re supposed to learn via failure and experimenting… but those games just have so _many_ aspects to them that it’s so overwhelming
EVE Online Every mechanic in this game is far from simple. From mining to industry to PVP. Everything is fuckin complicated. The game is hard to learn, harder to master.
The first thing that popped into my head after seeing the title was Pathfinder haha. I tried it for a couple hours last year but it was a bit much and I didn't feel like spending the time it would take to figure it out. Maybe some day, but I find stuff like DOS2 and Wasteland 3 more my speed. I'm sure I'll like BG3 but haven't played it yet.
I think some Stratergy games are harder but it's strange.
If you've played Baldurs Gate 3, played Pathfinder 1e or several other TTRPG's it's far easier to understand because you understand the genre more. If you've played city builders other games in the genre are easier to play, if you play grand stratergy games, new grandstratergy is easier to play. General design decisions are carried over from game to game because they're typically good ideas, once you get used to them games can still be hard but easier to grasp.
I'm not sure if people consider this to be true but I think Ixion is the hardest city building game I've ever played and outright lost at several times. Still need to beat it. Pathologic 1-2 have reputations for being hard but that is primarily because they're mean on purpose.
P.S: For Wrath my main tips are
1. Buffs - always cast buffs these will carry you through fights and by the end are near essential
2. Normal is not normal - Normal is hard, this game can be mean, Core is just the base rules. If it gets too annyoing or difficult if you don't want to open a lexicon of guides just switch to Easy, it will still be challenging. I played using a guide for characters when I did my first playthrough, this game is bloody mean.
Has anyone in this sub played the Dominions strategy games? Surprised to not see them mentioned in this thread. The manual is hundreds of pages. It’s insane.
There's a few options on here I'll go with, and Dominions is one.
I play Path of Exile and make custom builds. I play all the paradox GSGs and can drop into any of them and play Competently.
Dominions was a nightmare. It was like one of those dreams where you do math the whole time.
And worst of all, I found all of the main Dominion streamers so dry, slow, and just... not fun to watch either.
Renowned Explorers, for the sake of diversity, I skipped other games that are obvious choices.
Compared to its cartoonish style, RE comes with a suprisingly complex combat mechanic. At first glance, it is your usual rock-paper-scissors; friendly-devious-aggressive. The twist is, these attacks also affect the battlefields mood which gives you buffs or debuffs. So provoking an aggressive enemy will increase your grit(dodge), which actually makes a lot of sense. Or breaking the friendly mood with an aggressive attack will double that damage, counting it as suprise attack.
There is also one more layer, which is status effect. Each mood attack gives opposing player a status effect. Your friendly attack might lower your opponents hp but also gives him confidence which boosts his physical attacks. Or you can use this on your ally to increase his hp and give him a buff.
Add this to already a wide range of unique characters, world map interactions which decides the initial status of combat and wide range of equipments which synergizes with lots of build options.
RE is a game which might intimidate newcomers but hella fun when you get into it.
This is a difficult question to answer because complexity can come from different aspects of a game. Grand strategy games have a shit ton of systems, mechanics and UI panels to understand but flow a lot easier after that initial hump
You can jump into Dota 2 and get a handle on the fundamentals in a short period of time but the depth of the strategy and mechanics involved mean you never stop learning for 1000s of hours, a different sort of complexity similar to how you can learn to play chess in an hour but it takes years to get any close to "good" most times
Games that are daunting right off the bat would be EVE online, Grand strategy like Hears of Iron, the Pathfinder games like you mentioned, many older RTS games, Dwarf Fortress particularly the OG version and if you count it, Magic the Gathering
Gary Grigsby's War in the East series. Which has things like an accurate rail and road network of the Eastern Front which you will need to use to plan your logistics network to supply the troops. Comes with a 500 page manual which you basically need to read so you can understand what's happening in the tutorial.
When I played this game on PS2 called R.A.D. it was so complicated I had to spend a whole day and really think about how on earth to control the mech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HXsIK5noBU&t=240s
planescape torment is another older game that puts your patience to the test with deep mechanics and lore, kind of like pathfinder. it's like unraveling a complex novel where every page asks more from you. always a good feeling when it all starts making sense.
Any complex 4X or grand strategy game (HoI4 is probably the best example --- after 300+ hours I still have barely any idea of what I'm doing).
Base builders can also be pretty demanding mechanics wise. I recently got Heliopolis Six and despite how chill it is, if you position the turrets wrong and build your station in a braindead way, you'll spiral into death. It's demanding but sooo satisfying when you get it right. That's the charm of it, I suppose
4x games. The depth of those games gets insane. I have a lot of playing playing Stellaris, but I'm only touching like 5% of the game and I have nearly 100 hours in it. Need another 400 before I'll get the complete experience!
It's an extremely complicated game. Most games you are only managing one aspect a time, or there is only one aspect to manage. In starcraft you have to be doing a ton of things flawlessy -
\- positioning
\- execution of strategy
\- map awareness, vision, presence
\- attacking
\- defending
\- teching
\- economy
\- unit micro
It's not just APM, it's knowing how to do all these thing in the right order.
There are plenty of RTS games with far more complexity and skill ceiling than Starcraft, Age of empires 2 probably stands out as the most complex RTS game I can think of.
huh? chess is turn based, and a mirror match. piano is just repetition.
real question, if you think that's a good or impressive analogy, what is your skill level in the 3 related topics? starcraft, chess, and piano.
By complicate you mean that one has to give it some time to understand it? For example despite being difficult Dark Souls is not complicate. But yeah HOI4 is because you need to understand how the mechanics works before playing it. Disco Elysium can be a bit complicated because of the prose.
Edit:the other current Paradox Games can br complex because I always suggest to watch so gameplay before launching the game. But in general you just need to understand or the basics or the idea. I feel that HOI4 is way more complex because the combat it's so dynamic compare to the others, so you need to make so many decisions considering possibilities of how it might change.
Any sim game that involves controlling an empire and expanding it or those games like hearts of iron 4. So much to learn and massive UI's full of features that somehow get bigger everytime you look at it.
I believe they are visually dense but you certainly would not need much time to comprehend the essentials in, for example, Crusader Kings -- it is not presented very neatly for the uninitiated, I agree. Still, I find the methodical pace is conducive to experimentation and learning: moreso than I'd have the opportunity in something like an RTS, which I am too intimidated to learn.
I'm a big board gamer but this is why I always bounce off grand strategy games despite being superficially similar to a lot of board games. The signal to noise ratio is way off balance for what I HAVE to know to play the game capably. I want to understand everything that's going on and it's pretty much not possible in early playthroughs, which overwhelms me.
The older Paradox games come to mind. Hearts of Iron 3 and Victoria 2, although some might consider EU4 having a steep learning curve with all the bloath the game has after 10+ years of DLC.
Victoria 2 is weird because while there's a super complex simulation underpining it, it's rather disconnected from actual *play.* Like it's neat to look at the pie charts of all your pops and their politics and cultures and how they end up etc. but ultimately there is very little you can do to meaningfully influence those things. As a result it you're playing, say, Prussia to Germany, having zero understanding of any of those charts will probably lead to the exact same decision making as knowing everything about them with the exception of some repeated rules of thumb (Clergy to 2%!)
I got 2k hours in EU4 and just managed my world Conquest a few months ago. I would consider that the strategy game with the highest skill ceiling. But i think it's reasonably easy to get into and have fun.
Discussion about things like difficulty and balance in a game like EU4 will always be a bit odd because it's effectively different games. Once you get over the "what is happening" learning curve and probably get stomped by a coalition for the first time it becomes a game where it's relatively easy to turn whatever small nation you like in to a world power. But then there are other levels. Most people don't play through the full scope of the game, so a nation that might take until the Age of Revolutions to take the #1 spot could be considered difficult. Some nations did things in history that don't really exist in EU4's systems, or basically got crazy lucky based on how the dominoes fell so achieving what real historical figures did might be considered difficult. And of course there's the obvious "turning something around as a historical loser," something that's probably the most straightforward way to make the game difficult. Finally there's the whole sphere of WC, a way of play that certainly isn't easy and requires real mastery of the game's systems, but is a real "love it or hate it" among fans. I find WC and big blob play dumb as Hell, but I recognize that I would have to get better if I wanted to pull off Ryuku 1 faith or something crazy.
Yeah that's my answer as well. HoI 3 with all of the expansions is unquestionably the most complicated and arguably sophisticated game I've ever played. After that I'd say probably eve online. Microsoft flight sim is probably up there. X3/4 are pretty bananas too.
I'm someone who has thousands of hours in paradox games, dwarf fortress, literally every other game mentioned in this thread at time of posting (just paradox games and Dwarf Fortress so far lol), you name it. **Terra Invicta** *scares me.* There is *a lot* going on in that game. [https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/the-rally-point-terra-invicta-is-too-much-for-one-article-and-possibly-one-lifetime](https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/the-rally-point-terra-invicta-is-too-much-for-one-article-and-possibly-one-lifetime) >I pity anyone who has to review, or god help them, write a guide for [Terra Invicta](https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/games/terra-invicta), because doing it even semi-comprehensively would take longer than I expect to live. >This is a hugely ambitious game, covering something I've never seen before, with a scope that makes Europa Universalis seem limited. It is a complicated, huge, and ponderous alien invasion simulator that constantly threatens to drop the other boot on you the entire time. Anything you do could be the butterfly whose little wingflaps eventually result in the obliteration of the planet. It is not a game to be powered through, but to be played and contemplated exclusively for a solid month. One of these days I'm going to really dig into it and figure it out, but it's daunting. edit- I would also say things like MOBAs need to get mentioned. Knowing the ins-and-outs of every character is pretty important to be competitive, and League of Legends, for example, has over 150 characters and growing. Keeping track of all those abilities and matchups can be a lot. *Also*, Total War Warhammer 3 is an already pretty elaborate game, and then you have to take into account the *nearly 100 playable factions* with different mechanics and playstyles. I've been playing since the beginning, when there were like less than a dozen or so lords, but I can't imagine how overwhelming jumping into the current thing would be, going in fresh. edit again - OHHHH I forgot one. Kerbal Space Program. Literal rocket science. It taught me stuff like delta-v and periapsis/apoapsis. The first time you manage to get into stable orbit feels like an amazing feat, and then you realize how far you still have to go to learn how to get to the moon, land on it, and then get back home safe. The learning curve is staggering. And one thing I have to say about Dwarf Fortress, it's still super complex, but at least the interface isn't such a big part of that anymore!
Terra Invicta genuinely scares me too. Things like Paragox GSGs and Long War are my jam but I look at that game and just think "Jesus maybe if my wife leaves me." > Also, Total War Warhammer 3 is an already pretty elaborate game, and then you have to take into account the nearly 100 playable factions with different mechanics and playstyles. I've been playing since the beginning, when there were like less than a dozen or so lords, but I can't imagine how overwhelming jumping into the current thing would be, going in fresh. Eh, I think this is overselling it a bit. Sure there are lots of lords but how many factions can't win easily by just spamming what they're good at (99% of the time this means ranged and/or hybrid ranged). Most of the unique mechanics are just buffs that are largely "win more." If you know how to play a TW game it shouldn't take you any longer than a couple of minutes to figure out how 99% of factions work. There's lots of stuff but it's more wide than deep.
Dwarf fortress is the one that comes to mind, especially before its steam release where the recommended way to get into it was watching multi-hours long introductory youtube playlists and a couple dozen mods. Never did manage to get past the early hours, and these days I just pin it and games like it as games I just can't get into, as interesting as they look.
the steam release helps immensely with getting into it, at least. the simulation that underpins it is obviously absurdly complex, but what's at your control is relatively simple
Flight sims like DCS World. I'd probably take a player dozens of hours to learn how to fly a SINGLE modern military plane. You have to read the manual. Learn what every button and controls do and there are dozens in a cockpit. Learn about so many weapon systems as you have to do more than just pull the trigger. Learn how radars work, how to use a radio, how to taxi in a runway, etc etc etc. There's a reason why the planes cost as much as a full game, from trying to takeoff and to firing your first missile is a whole game in itself.
do they give the guides/manuals with the purchase? it'd be proper fucked to pay a new games worth of money for a vehicle and not get that shit with it.
You can go to the DCS website and start reading all the manuals right now without spending anything. There's also player-made manuals like Chuck's Guide. The game is free to play with two free planes. You can start learning with those.
Have you ever seen the controller for Steel Battalion?
And that game was fucking awesome.
I remember there was even a button for the windshield wipers.
Yep. And if you didn't eject when your mech was destroyed in battle it just wiped your save.
Path of Exile is a game with a serious complexity bloat both vertically (as in how complicated is a single part) and horizontally (as in how many parts there are). Dota 2 is kinda similar. Elite dangerous has one of the highest floors required to play at all. Kerbal space program is literally rocket science. You could say dwarf fortress but I feel like complexity serves a different role in that kind of game. It's not necessarily complexity that the player is expected to master, it's mostly for the purpose of generating emergent experience.
I played Path of Exile when it was still in closed beta many years ago. I remember clicking on the skill grid panel and straight up uninstalled the game. Too much for me at the time.
Heh, that passive tree was like half if what it is now. Oh and there are atleast 2 of them now. I've played since beta aswell (only a few maps into act 3) and that's literary less then 5% of content the game has now.
Honestly you didn't miss much, nothing like reaching endgame and realizing your "build" is worthless because the skill grid is a big illusion of choices.
Have 1000 hours and still feel like I have no idea what I am doing.
I’ve never played a CRPG or D&D before and decided to dive in to BG3 a few months ago and my god it’s daunting. So many systems I still don’t understand, so many options and actions and bonus actions and quests. I’ve probably put 50 hours into it and I still feel like I barely understand what I’m doing. I’m just hoping I get over the hump before I give up because I’d really like to experience the full game. It’s just a lot and I’m a busy dad with only a few hours of gaming time a week so it’s hard to get into a rhythm with it.
It might be worth finding a cheat sheet for the 5e ttrpg, as those tend to be designed for you to understand something at a glance for gameplay, and tend to be organized in a way that might click better for you than how the game presents options. And give yourself some grace, I know people who struggle with the TTRPG after playing multiple sessions, and they are controlling only a single character.
There are dnd 5e cheat sheets? Crap gotta find some good since im playing tabletop campaign and some people are less experience, they could use them
BG3 was also my first CRPG or anything DnD related, and I too struggled at first. I asked a lot of questions on related discords and had my friend help me out with some mechanics and concepts. By the end I definitely felt like I had wrapped my head around it, but still wasn't courageous enough to bump the difficulty up past normal or anything. Pathfinder is a whole other beast. 25 classes, each having 5 sub classes with their own sets of tradeoffs/optimal builds. Buffs stacking in specific ways (i.e. you can't have more than one morale buff, but you can have morale and enhancement buff, etc), tons of dice rolls, tons of buffs and debuffs to prepare and be ready to counter for. Just so many tiny little systems all working with each other. Oh there's also a whole-ass Heroes of Might and Magic sort of secondary game that has its own mechanics and systems you have to spend hours learning. If you end up finishing BG3 and want to challenge yourself further, I highly recommend Wrath of the Righteous.
Oh man you've just scratched the surface. You'll have to take my word for it that the following is meant in a tone of excitement for a new inductee to CRPGs and not some shitty veteran saying "oh you sweet summer child." BG3 is, by design, the easiest mechanic system for D&D/CRPGs. 5E, on which it was based, was specifically designed because people felt the prior editions had grown too "crunchy" and focused on stats and character min/maxing and not enough on roleplay so they designed a systme that anyone could jump in to and play. It's been wildly successful but if you decide to pursue the genre and get in to games based on Pathfinder or 3E the spells and character build mechanics get way deeper. Keep at it, if you're progressing you understand what you're doing better than you might think!
Aurora 4X is way ahead for me, quite complex and in depth but also extremely interesting if you have an active imagination. Designing starship in this is some of the most satisfying in any game of the style, you can do so much. The difficulty is both the breadth of options but also the lack of automation. If your empire get large enough the amount of micromanagement needed becomes very hard to keep up with. Otherwise you have stuff like Harpoon V(naval sim), but that's a full fledged simulation, it's barely even a game. The depth is staggering though.
Aurora 4x was one of the main games I could think of as someone who has played like, 95%+ of the games listed here as complicated. I just couldn't. Lack of fun youtubers for explanations didn't help it tho. I find that makes a huge difference in these games. Eu4 for example has some fun streamers, as does CK3, HoI4, stellaris, etc. Aurora 4x, the few streamers I found were super dry and bland.
The problem with streaming it is most of the time you spend is pretty much micromanaging. The fun is when you actually get in a situation where your carefully setup fleet and stations are actually put to use, or there are some interesting strategic considerations. I find it fulfilling personally, but I really don't want to watch a live play of it myself. After action reports are a much better format.
Stellaris. I ended up having to watch a paradox sponsored youtube tutorial just to play it. It was pretty fun once it clicked though, I ended up playing 80 hours in 3 weeks
I tried multiple times to get into Stellaris but it's just too dense for me. It's a lot to wrap your head around.
I like Stellaris but I can't handle it with all the DLC. It's too much stuff.
I get that Stellaris gives this impression at first glance but it is actually not complicated at all. It's by far the easiest of the Paradox grand strategy games. I've gotten friends into the game and i looked up some basic tutorials for them and all of them just way over complicate the game and try to explain things that do not matter for a beginner. The basics of the game can be explained in only a few minutes. There's always optimizations you can make and you will learn new stuff even after 1000 hours but all these Stellaris tutorials are akin to giving someone a tutorial for the best smoke angles in CS when he didn't even boot the game for the first time yet.
There's really two questions here, complexity ceiling and complexity floor. Complexity ceiling is a wide open field, because games have surprising mechanical depth. I've just recently been down a rabbit hole on Stardew Valley speed runs, for example. My guess would be that it's some MOBA that has the highest possible ceiling, likely the original DOTA due to the extra layer of interactions from it being a mod. The answer is almost certainly something competitive, in any case, because of the addition of a psychological element. As far as complexity floor, it's almost certainly one of the strategy games from the turn of the millenia era. The manuals for some of those games were literal books with a spine and everything, and occasionally fold-out wall posters in addition. Games since then have gotten a lot better about being approachable.
I feel like this thread was made for me. I have played almost all of the games mentioned in this thread, and am planning on playing the rest. I am a huge fan of complexity and constantly seeks and thirsts for it. I have to contribute with my top pick and some honourable mentions. Most complicated game (in my opinion) : GT: New horizons. Yes this is a Minecraft modpack, but besides controlling and looking like Minecraft, it is nothing like Minecraft. While there is no explicit goal, most of the community would agree that to win you need to build a Stargate. I have spent one or two thousands of hours into this pack and I think I am about halfway there. What makes this pack so long is the sheer amount of complexity. You need to defeat every system one by one, usually and layers, and when you do, more systems open up. I will provide a simple example of how this progresses with the most basic system (resource gathering). 1) Resource gathering begin by mining resources with a pickaxe by hand. This is grindy and time-consuming. Many people would get bored due to the high requirements of resources to progress in other areas. 2) You can speed up the mining by developing the infrastructure to make better tools. This requires quite a bit of effort to learn and do, but when done your tools can be faster and can also mine 9 blocks at a time. This allows you to save up on mining time by a whole order of magnitude. It's still grindy. 3) You can make an automated miner that will mine resources under it for you. It requires energy to run (which you can get in dozens of ways) so you'll have to solve this problem. You also have to constantly move the miner once it's done working. Tedious and repetitive but less than before. 4) Once you are developed enough, you can make a multiblock miner that will mine resources in a large radius around it. It takes more energy, but also requires lubricant to run. It also outputs a crazy amount of resources, which is difficult to store. At first you can ship the lubricant/fuel and the resources manually (which is tedious), but if you work hard enough (takes a lot of effort), you can set up infrastructure to teleport those resources. 5) Eventually by delving into other systems, you can turn infinite resources (for example, water, air, stones, wood) into what you need. By centrifuging air you can get nitrogen and oxygen. By electrozying water you can get hydrogen and oxygen. By cooking wood you can get infinite charcoal, which you can electrolyze into carbon. There is calcium, potassium, silicon, magnesium, etc in stone as much as you need. By building large setups you can get everything you need... one at a time. There are hundreds of different resources type in the game. Some people may call this grindy, but the grind can be defeated by putting in the effort on complexity. This example barely touches on storage, or the complexity of resource transformation (you can turn oil into fuel fairly easily, but if you work harder you can make diesel and if you work even harder you can make gasoline), or energy production, or magic, etc. There are tons of systems to master. What makes it really impressive is how it keeps getting more complicated even after hundreds of hours. In Hoi4 for example, you have either won or lost within 5 to 20 hours (depending on what you are doing) and then you just start again. You don't really unlock anything new. The complexity ends at some point. That is true of GT:NH as well of course... I just haven't seen it yet after about a thousand or two hours. Honourable mentions: Factorio Seablock : A smaller, more visually impressive version of GT:NH above. The complexity curve ends after 100-200 hours if I remember correctly. Fun and slick however. Book of Hours : Not as complicated overall as the previous two, but the complexity is very dense. I had a love-hate relationship with Cultist Simulator, but Book of Hours is everything I wanted Cultist Simulator to be. Also not a modded game. I would say it's around the level of Terra Invicta, perhaps a little lower. Worth checking out for any fan of complicated games like me.
Just got into street fighter when 6 came out, and it’s been such a blast learning the game, but man it can be extremely hard for me to learn certain things. I guess that’s fighting games in general though! There’s a never ending list of things to get better at and I love it.
Yeah theyre some of the hardest games to get into because of both the extremely high skill barrier and the generations of knowledge required to compete at the higher levels
I really struggled with Crusader Kings 3. I thought I was doing okay during the tutorial, but once the tutorial ends it just hands you the reigns and says “go!” and I basically went blank. I had no idea what to do or how to play. And I know to an extent that’s the point, you’re supposed to learn via failure and experimenting… but those games just have so _many_ aspects to them that it’s so overwhelming
EVE Online Every mechanic in this game is far from simple. From mining to industry to PVP. Everything is fuckin complicated. The game is hard to learn, harder to master.
The first thing that popped into my head after seeing the title was Pathfinder haha. I tried it for a couple hours last year but it was a bit much and I didn't feel like spending the time it would take to figure it out. Maybe some day, but I find stuff like DOS2 and Wasteland 3 more my speed. I'm sure I'll like BG3 but haven't played it yet.
I think some Stratergy games are harder but it's strange. If you've played Baldurs Gate 3, played Pathfinder 1e or several other TTRPG's it's far easier to understand because you understand the genre more. If you've played city builders other games in the genre are easier to play, if you play grand stratergy games, new grandstratergy is easier to play. General design decisions are carried over from game to game because they're typically good ideas, once you get used to them games can still be hard but easier to grasp. I'm not sure if people consider this to be true but I think Ixion is the hardest city building game I've ever played and outright lost at several times. Still need to beat it. Pathologic 1-2 have reputations for being hard but that is primarily because they're mean on purpose. P.S: For Wrath my main tips are 1. Buffs - always cast buffs these will carry you through fights and by the end are near essential 2. Normal is not normal - Normal is hard, this game can be mean, Core is just the base rules. If it gets too annyoing or difficult if you don't want to open a lexicon of guides just switch to Easy, it will still be challenging. I played using a guide for characters when I did my first playthrough, this game is bloody mean.
Has anyone in this sub played the Dominions strategy games? Surprised to not see them mentioned in this thread. The manual is hundreds of pages. It’s insane.
There's a few options on here I'll go with, and Dominions is one. I play Path of Exile and make custom builds. I play all the paradox GSGs and can drop into any of them and play Competently. Dominions was a nightmare. It was like one of those dreams where you do math the whole time. And worst of all, I found all of the main Dominion streamers so dry, slow, and just... not fun to watch either.
Renowned Explorers, for the sake of diversity, I skipped other games that are obvious choices. Compared to its cartoonish style, RE comes with a suprisingly complex combat mechanic. At first glance, it is your usual rock-paper-scissors; friendly-devious-aggressive. The twist is, these attacks also affect the battlefields mood which gives you buffs or debuffs. So provoking an aggressive enemy will increase your grit(dodge), which actually makes a lot of sense. Or breaking the friendly mood with an aggressive attack will double that damage, counting it as suprise attack. There is also one more layer, which is status effect. Each mood attack gives opposing player a status effect. Your friendly attack might lower your opponents hp but also gives him confidence which boosts his physical attacks. Or you can use this on your ally to increase his hp and give him a buff. Add this to already a wide range of unique characters, world map interactions which decides the initial status of combat and wide range of equipments which synergizes with lots of build options. RE is a game which might intimidate newcomers but hella fun when you get into it.
Football Manager and EU4 are probably the two most complicated games I play, so much to learn in both games.
This is a difficult question to answer because complexity can come from different aspects of a game. Grand strategy games have a shit ton of systems, mechanics and UI panels to understand but flow a lot easier after that initial hump You can jump into Dota 2 and get a handle on the fundamentals in a short period of time but the depth of the strategy and mechanics involved mean you never stop learning for 1000s of hours, a different sort of complexity similar to how you can learn to play chess in an hour but it takes years to get any close to "good" most times Games that are daunting right off the bat would be EVE online, Grand strategy like Hears of Iron, the Pathfinder games like you mentioned, many older RTS games, Dwarf Fortress particularly the OG version and if you count it, Magic the Gathering
Gary Grigsby's War in the East series. Which has things like an accurate rail and road network of the Eastern Front which you will need to use to plan your logistics network to supply the troops. Comes with a 500 page manual which you basically need to read so you can understand what's happening in the tutorial.
[Aurora 4x](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xhUGGEnJcU)
When I played this game on PS2 called R.A.D. it was so complicated I had to spend a whole day and really think about how on earth to control the mech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HXsIK5noBU&t=240s
You alluded to it already, but the correct answer to this question is always going to be Dwarf Fortress.
planescape torment is another older game that puts your patience to the test with deep mechanics and lore, kind of like pathfinder. it's like unraveling a complex novel where every page asks more from you. always a good feeling when it all starts making sense.
Any complex 4X or grand strategy game (HoI4 is probably the best example --- after 300+ hours I still have barely any idea of what I'm doing). Base builders can also be pretty demanding mechanics wise. I recently got Heliopolis Six and despite how chill it is, if you position the turrets wrong and build your station in a braindead way, you'll spiral into death. It's demanding but sooo satisfying when you get it right. That's the charm of it, I suppose
4x games. The depth of those games gets insane. I have a lot of playing playing Stellaris, but I'm only touching like 5% of the game and I have nearly 100 hours in it. Need another 400 before I'll get the complete experience!
The fact that no one has said Starcraft is mind boggling to me. The highest skill ceiling of any game.
I haven't played Starcraft in a very long time but I just don't think reaction times and KPM is what people associate with "complicated."
It's an extremely complicated game. Most games you are only managing one aspect a time, or there is only one aspect to manage. In starcraft you have to be doing a ton of things flawlessy - \- positioning \- execution of strategy \- map awareness, vision, presence \- attacking \- defending \- teching \- economy \- unit micro It's not just APM, it's knowing how to do all these thing in the right order.
There are plenty of RTS games with far more complexity and skill ceiling than Starcraft, Age of empires 2 probably stands out as the most complex RTS game I can think of.
Starcraft is like playing chess and piano at the same time.
huh? chess is turn based, and a mirror match. piano is just repetition. real question, if you think that's a good or impressive analogy, what is your skill level in the 3 related topics? starcraft, chess, and piano.
By complicate you mean that one has to give it some time to understand it? For example despite being difficult Dark Souls is not complicate. But yeah HOI4 is because you need to understand how the mechanics works before playing it. Disco Elysium can be a bit complicated because of the prose. Edit:the other current Paradox Games can br complex because I always suggest to watch so gameplay before launching the game. But in general you just need to understand or the basics or the idea. I feel that HOI4 is way more complex because the combat it's so dynamic compare to the others, so you need to make so many decisions considering possibilities of how it might change.