Quote Originally Posted by ItMe View Post
That was a very long post, so forgive me if I'm summing it up improperly, but... through all that it doesn't sound like you're contesting the notion that a game using the trinity isn't an inherently bad thing.
My intent was more to show that
  • Payadoya isn't wrong to think that there's a correlation between trinity-centric design and shallowed out party play. Historically, there is. More so than in generalist (less trinity-based) games.
  • That said, looking at games as trinity-based and non-trinity-based obscures a game's overall potential for engagement, which can be better considered a sum or product of breadth and depth.

You draw a direct link between "complexity" and "good"
That largely comes down to personal preference, though I feel it's a fairly common preference. Note, though, that the choices these days are generally between 'moderately complex' and 'very little complexity' (else I'd have to add "to a point" as disclaimer), and that personally I use the term "convolution" to describe complexity that just adds steps without adding opportunities for engagement.

I guess, to be more clear, I should also mention that the complexity I'm looking for is the kind that most leverages a game's visuals. Think, for instance, of the deliberate and granular decision making possible due to Nioh 2's incredibly precise hitboxes, as compared to chunky/bulky dodges or merely timing I-Frames. Or, in a very basic example pertinent to tanking, mobs' auto-attacks having a seemingly accurate range and their skills checking range at time of (would-be) release instead of via early snapshot, so you can better judge distances for kiting, and all the stringing, microkiting, or kite-cycling you can do as a result, ideally in an environment tuned as to make those feel like distinct and deliberate choices.