The ‘A’ button actions in the Super Smash Bros. games also come to mind as an example of what can be done with a single ‘action’ button when used conjunction with directional controls. On the other hand, there’s a example of what not to with the interface of (at least the original) MOTHER – it uses a single button but is not context sensitive, requiring the player to choose whether they should ‘Talk’ or ‘Check’ something rather than listing only the actions which actually be used on the object which one is facing. Though I admit that, even to me, such an extremely outdated interface still appeals on account of its sheer retro value. It functions like the unintentional artefacts in old films or early printed books, or perhaps more accurately like the primitive narrative of something like the Epic of Gilgamesh or The Adventures of Prince Achmed, in that they remind us of the historical context in which the work was created – the aspects of something which are firmly of-its-time make the areas in which it was ahead of its time more apparent.

And now, where this gets really interesting is when these long-outdated techniques are used in contemporary productions for artistic purposes, usually to create the uncanny effect of discovering a long-lost masterpiece from decades ago. In films it is done by Guy Maddin, and now in games the analogue is being done with Nanashi no Gêmu (The Game with No Name) by Square Enix. I suppose Cave Story and Thule Trail also fit into this category… But Nanashi no Gêmu stands out as being one of the few major- developer efforts – indeed, one of the most ‘major’ developers there is – in a genre dominated by fan-made, often freeware creations.

It didn’t seem like Lionhead was trying to make its game more palatable to a wider audience. It seemed like they wanted to improve the design.

But of course some people will always prefer doors with seven locks and 23 handles. ;)

My expectation is that they would be better off following the paradigm in your DMC4 example: to design combat around complexity of input, but offer less-hardcore players a forgiving mode where mastery (or even utilization) of most aspects of the system is not required to progress in the game. Reducing required player input from the bottom up seems like a poor choice.

Or, better yet, to get out of the mindset of “how can we make this familiar genre of game palatable to a wider audience through simplification” and instead attempt to design more broadly-relevant core experiences altogether.

You talk about sword combat as if there is only one way to enjoy games: the hardcore gamer’s way. But only a very small percentage of humans falls in that category. I’m not saying that Fable has what it takes to appeal outside of that category. But I do know for a fact that simple combat can be extremely enjoyable by non-hardcore players. Devil May Cry’s easy mode was a lot of fun to us, e.g.

Also, a game that features sword combat does not have to be about sword combat. Which would be another motivation to reduce the complexity of interaction. I love flying in games, for instance, but in a real flight simulator game I can’t even get the plane off of the ground. So I have zero fun with that.

I think you and Jonathan may have a very pure gameplay mechanics focus. While other developers think of their games as entertainment in broader terms. The raw gameplay may be secondary to some of the more simple joys that people can get out of an interactive experience. And those need to be designed well too.

In fact those need to be designed a lot better since bad design often offers greater challenge. And hardcore gamers love that.