Is a game better because it is more accesible?

This is something I've been thinking around lately: Is Settlers a better game because everyone can play it? Is Tresham's Civilization worse because it takes a whole evening to take it from beginning to end? Is Netrunner's need for a stable group something that makes it worse or is just an unfortunate fact with no bearing on its quality?

I don't ponder about this from an "overhead" angle, if a game fulfills the same goals as another and is much easier to play well, then it's a better game. No, I wonder how much accessibility itself matters. An example:

1843 and 1825 have the same "fun/work" ratio but 1843 takes twice as long to beat and I have yet to get it to the table while 1825 does. Is 1825 better for it? Or is 1943 better because, well, it gives me more fun even if it requires more effort to play it?

Interesting question. I argue no, I'm guessing most F:ATies will agree. I think accessibility runs on a scale orthoganal to game quality---specifically it's all about how often you'll get it on the table.

If I had 3 friends in town who loved hardcore, inaccessible games, we would play the shit out of some of these big games I yearn to get onto the table. That I don't play them often right now does not make them bad, it just means they don't get played very often in my situation. I know Barnes makes an argument about getting rid of games you don't play, but I don't think even he would say that those games are low quality, even if you should get rid of them.

I think accessibility makes a game more playable, and the more playable game will provide more fun than the less playable game. It doesn't make it a better game, but it makes it a game that is more likely to provide fun. Does this make any sense?

No. The ability to get a game to the table more often should not be mistaken for the game being better than another. If it is better, then it's doing some other things right.

Rex is not better than Dune, Nations (while very good) is not necessarily better than TtA, and Battles of Westeros continues to be the best game in the C&C series.

Yes, in a way. The accessibility of a game has everything to do with the designer's skill in writing rules in such a way that complex subjects are broken down into digestible bites.

That said, an accessible game isn't always good - but a good game that's accessible is better.

Absolutely for me. If there are two games with similar depth, but one is more accessible due to clever design, it's better.

Anyone saying no is like those answering graphic vs gameplay debacle. They're comparing games with good graphic and bad gameplay against games with bad graphic and good gameplay. They should really be comparing good games with bad graphic vs good games with good graphic.

Being accessible is *always* a plus, and therefore a game will always better for it. It doesn't mean it has to suffer on other fronts for accessibility.

You could also front load the complexity on the design phase, instead of dumping it at players. The poster boy for this is the DBA miniature rules. The rules are based on extensive historical research. You don't need multitude of attributes, values & special rules to know why spears is good against mounted units. It's just is. The rules say so (well there are numbers, but they're considerably minimal).

I think we need to decide what "accessible" means. I don't think Erik is talking about the quality of the rule book.

S.

Candyland is more accessible than most games in the world. Its definitely not better.

Accessibility just means that a game is easier to digest for the players and more likely to hit the table. I don't think that this automatically makes a game better.

Lords of Waterdeep is WAY MORE accessible than Dungeon Lords. However, if I could choose to play either, I would go with Dungeon Lords 95% of the time. It's a meatier game that is more rewarding to play for me.

That is the trade off. Very few games are highly accessible, yet deliver that satisfying meaty experience. It's hard to pull off. Games like Battlestar Galactica and Chaos in the Old World are fairly accessible and offer an excellent experience. So it's not impossible to design these types of games.

I just don't buy into the easy to play - automatically better argument. Some games are a chore to learn...but once you get over the hump the game is totally worth it.

EDIT - Also, I think the fact that most games these days fall into the 1-2 hour range and aren't overly complicated is a direct backlash of the bloated stuff FFG (and other companies) used to pump out. It's become practically taboo to design a game that will require sitting down and playing for 3-5 hours these days. The hobby overall is probably better for having these more focused designed. However, I feel like there is still room for some great, complex and heavy games.

Mad Dog wrote: Candyland is more accessible than most games in the world. Its definitely not better.

Do 3 hits of acid before playing. Trust me on this - it IS the best game in the world under those parameters. I saw a dude jump out of his chair and bust his head open on a counter when Gloppy came up.

Accessibility is a trait, like artwork, that doesn't have an impact on a game as a collection of rules being good or bad.

Accessibility is a trait, like artwork, that does have an impact on game as a complete package to an individual viewing it as good or bad.

I hope that difference makes sense.

The very nature of some games being awesome is due to their "inaccessibility". TI3, while relatively simple in the rules, is greatly enhanced by the fact that it takes all day to knock out a big game. In hour 4 of 8, you'll be thinking about who fucked you early, and how you're gonna play the long game to fuck them proper, keeping them drinking enough that they have to keep getting up and annoying everyone else so it's easy on one of those piss breaks to turn the table against them so when they get back they discover someone else sitting on their home system...

But most of the time, if I'm gonna get a similar experience, I'm always grabbing whatever is going to be easier to teach, easier to finish in a reasonable amount of time, and has a cooler theme.

So many games these days are over designed for the goals they are trying to accomplish. If you're looking for a game with lots of negotiations, well Intrigue is dead simple and cuts right to the interesting bits without a whole shit ton of other nonsense around the deal making. So it's accessibility is the result of quality design. But with such a need for constant product churn, it's pretty much standard now for there to be a whole host of games trying to get that same vibe and capture those same sorts of moments, but also need to be "different" so you want to buy it.

I don't know if "better" is really the word to use, since it depends on what you are after at that moment. Most often, accessibility comes at the expense of depth. So if you want Advanced Squad Leader, you aren't going to be happy with something seriously stripped down but plays in 1/4 the time.

depends on what experience the game is trying to give. I would not want to play a four hour game of Carcassone with loads of rules complications but neither would i want TI, or High Frontier cut down. A game should be as accessible as it can be for that game experience. For some games this will remain a 30 page rule book at four hours plus play time.

Thinking about my collection, I have 3 very german area majority games I enjoy. China, El Grande, and Dominant Species. They are all different complexities, different playtimes and different mechanisms (card draft, bidding, worker placement).

I could easily play 4 games of China in the time it takes to play 1 game of DS, but if I have the crowd that wants to play DS I'd never go for 4 games of China back to back, or even 2 of El Grande. Though I love playing all 3.

Much like my last post, I don't know what my point is.