Is a game better because it is more accesible?

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.

Bull Nakano wrote: 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.

I think what I'm saying is the answer to the question is "no". I equally enough enjoy China and DS despite one taking 4x as long and having many more rules. Given the choice I would generally play the less accessible game in a similar group because of the fewer opportunities to play a less accessible game. I only play DS a handful of times per year, if I wanted I could get China played tenfold.

I think accessibility is an aspect of the game to be considered along side game design, art/aesthetics, and components. Or maybe it's an aspect INSIDE the game design portion of those 3.

Last night I was watching some short experimental films that Turner Classic Movies showed. Some really amazing stuff. I had never seen most of them apart from Maya Deren's absolutely incredible (and 40 years ahead of its time) Meshes of the Afternoon.

This film is absolutely inaccessible and for most audiences it would not even be acceptable as entertainment, art or both.

This does not mean that Die Hard is a "better" movie.

Accessibility is tricky and it is largely dependent on the audience. Avengers would be an example of how its accessibility makes it a better film than it would be if it were esoteric and obscure. It's a big budget crowd pleaser, and for the intended audience and overall goal of the film the accessibility is an asset.

With games like Love Letter, King of Tokyo, Settlers of Catan and Ticket to Ride, accessibility is an important part of the game. But that doesn't mean that Navajo Wars or Fields of Fire are worse. They're games with different goals and intended for different sets and subsets of players.

That said, I think accessibility is particularly important with board games since what you are doing is a social activity that requires for one or more other people to be involved. You're looking at different skill levels, interest levels, degrees of comittment and so forth. In an ideal setting, you're playing Magic Realm on these equal terms with people. But in a realistic setting, you need the game to be a common ground that everyone can engage to get the most out of it whether it's the first hobby game they've ever played or if they cut their teeth on Squad Leader.

Games that are more inaccessible- harder to teach, longer, with more component density or with esoteric subject matter- are going to be played less overall and like Matt said, you just aren't going to reach for them more unless you've got the psycho game group that doesn't really exist where everyone is down for Magic Realm every session.

I'm guessing that Erik doesn't have 'acces' to Scrabble

The set he bought didn't come with enough S tiles, they were pulled for the Scrabble: The S tiles expansion sold separately.*

*Cross thread joke

Accessibility is a reasonable measure of whether you're going to get enough plays to justify owning a game. But I would still want to own a game even if I only got to play it a few times, if those games were memorable and enjoyable. Ideally, I would be playing games more often in general, with time for even the long and otherwise inaccessible games. In actual practice, the easiest games to play around here are either the new hotness or the enduring favorites. And any time I can spare a full Saturday afternoon, I can play TI3 at the FFG Event Center.