Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

KK
Kevin Klemme
March 09, 2020
35150 2
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
January 27, 2020
20831 0
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
August 12, 2019
7407 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 19, 2023
3977 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 14, 2023
3502 0
Hot

Mycelia Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 12, 2023
2076 0
O
oliverkinne
December 07, 2023
2583 0

River Wild Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 05, 2023
2255 0
O
oliverkinne
November 30, 2023
2497 0
J
Jackwraith
November 29, 2023
3017 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
November 28, 2023
1973 0
S
Spitfireixa
October 24, 2023
3694 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
October 17, 2023
2625 0
O
oliverkinne
October 10, 2023
2461 0
O
oliverkinne
October 09, 2023
2290 0
O
oliverkinne
October 06, 2023
2506 0

Outback Crossing Review

Board Game Reviews
×
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)

Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.

× Talk about whatever you like related to games that doesn't fit anywhere else.

Is a game better because it is more accesible?

More
31 Mar 2014 23:55 #174796 by Bull Nakano

Michael Barnes wrote: 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.

...what did you say about Die Hard?
The following user(s) said Thank You: DeletedUser, Black Barney

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 Apr 2014 12:07 #176094 by sgosaric

Erik Twice wrote: I don't ponder about this from an "overhead" angle,

I always do. And will, like right here right now.
Of course, it's because the questions about overhead intrigue me, hence I'm bringing this point of view to this thread.

Erik Twice wrote: 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?

Depends.

The question is: how do the games do this and for what aim/result? What do the choices that these designs took mean on the gaming experience? And were some goals sacrificed for others?

Settlers is an interesting case as it's not a game everyone can play as it asks of it's players willingness to trade and talk with each other, keep the leaders in check and roll with the rolls of dice. (all these things are something plenty eurogamers aren't willing to do). However it's a perfect game for anyone looking for a cross between a social and "strategic" experience. (hence it's wide appeal). And light "strategic part" is a necessity to keep the social part alive, so that both are balanced.

Can't speak for Civilisation as I haven't played it - I live in a backwater of a gaming world.

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?

It's an integral part of how and why the game works.

What's going on:
1) The more the game asks of players the richer the game experience can be (and more rewarding for me at least), yet such a game will flop with players not realising or willing to bring to the table what the game desires.
2) If the game tries different angles the question is how much they overburden the mind of players. If I need 33% of my capacity to just facilitate the game phases and keep it running, I'll have less focus to spend on playing creatively. And it the game takes another 50% of my capacity to strategize and figure out its mechanisms and levers, I'll have less space in my mind where I can create a narrative of what's going on. Android is a demanding game because you need to do all these things to make the most of it, yet one could also use a spare (robotic) brain.
3) Another interesting point old school gamers make (Calandale in particular) is how these processes shape over time - in a slow epic game of old, you're not supposed to make a strategic decision every second of your turn, hence there's more space to enjoy the narrative of the game. In such a case a longer format might be more suitable for a game which tries to accomplish different goals as there's more room where player's brain can breathe.

In regard to question about Netrunner. - For me games which ask for the right kind of group definitely offer a richer experience and that's why I'll find them better and keep them in my collection even if I'll seldom find that right group for them. However I might set out and try to find a right group for them.

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.


I agree, though these "same goals" needs to be analysed on case by case example. My example where this is true is Lords of Waterdeep VS Yedo - while Yedo offers a tiny bit more narrative with different levels of quests the price is twice as long game with more overhead and minute optimisation than I ever wish to do.

In terms of overhead - definitely it's a better game, if it's easier to me to stop dealing with how the game works and start swimming in its environment and interact with other players. (as that's what I'm after).

Also when I want a narrative out of the game, I value simple resolution mechanisms (such as dice rolling VS complex thinkier ones) as they allow me to keep my mind focused on the atmosphere and narrative. Can't think of a case where higher overhead would be better for a 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?

Well you juggle cons and pros. (yeah, boring answer, but that's how it goes).
Is the extra fun worth the price of the effort and playing time?
Sometimes it is (which results in keeping both games in one's collection), sometimes it isn't.

My personal math is:
I want fun and interaction overall. I want it intense and I want people laughing. If there's less interaction, there's a second goal: I want to immerse in a narrative. For these reasons I gravitate towards simpler games with sturdy frameworks that allow for creativity and rich interaction as soon as possible (which might also mean a narrower audience which is able to produce the level of creativity needed). I avoid the gameyness in games as it reeks of puzzle solving, optimisation and other accountant skills I'm not eager to utilise in my leisure time. But I'll do it if I get rewarded with either interaction or narrative (and won't even notice I'm doing it).

Josh Look wrote: 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.

I'd paraphrase:
The ability to get a game to the table more often should not be mistaken for the game doing something better for me than another.

I can't say this game is better or worse, but I can say - this game does something better, or delivers it better. (which always implies I'm personally after what this game can do).

SuperflyTNT wrote: 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.

What he said.

There's a lot that development skills and good application of graphic design can do to minimise the game's maintenance and make it easy to use (play). I want to get to the heart of the game (which is for me interaction and/or theme) as fast as possible - even if I then need 10-20 repeated plays to actually understand what's going on.

Egg Shen wrote: 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 agree we're all doing trade offs - and designers/publishers are also doing them. Sometimes they meet ours, sometimes not. So the impossibility of designing such games depend on the publisher's ability to find that balance with which most their audience will agree with.

(Personally, I'm vegetarian. Fuck meaty games, I need sugar, caffeine and chocolate stuffed in my veins, I need interaction now, not 1 hour in the game, I need laughing in 5 minutes. So I'm obviously doing different trade offs than you. They're gaming dessert, not fillers!).

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.

Yeah, until you find the similar game without this hump.

But yes, I have a different trade off which matters more to me - I love creative games and richly interactive games, yet these need just the right kind of people. Hence I will try to find more sturdy games of this type which can tolerate some "almost the right kind of people".

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 Apr 2014 12:29 - 18 Apr 2014 13:21 #176101 by sgosaric

MattLoter wrote: So many games these days are over designed for the goals they are trying to accomplish.

And sometimes the goal is to be overdesigned.
"Meaty", "Gamey" is what it's needed for "proper" gamers, innit? Ooh an optimisation exercise within the game, wheeee.

Whenever I think of Dominant Species there's too much overhead for what it is. And it gets worse as it attracts the kind of people who want to overanalyse the shit out of it (more than it's actually productive). Calandale made a great video review about it:

MattLoter wrote: 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.

Absolutely agree.

Michael Barnes wrote: 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.


What he said (damn, my replies are getting boring).
Also some of Maya Deren's work is indeed amazing.

Michael Barnes wrote: 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.

True.

But there are subgroups of gaming community. Sometimes I feel it's not one hobby but several of them. There is stuff ameritrashers will play and eurogamers will not, or wargamers will play and no one else. Of course these audiences are changing, evolving and cross pollinating, but they are distinct. There's a large section of community which doesn't understand what the game which tries to be about fun first and winning second or last is for ("it's broken" "it's an activity" they shout) - so these games will be played by some other groups of players which want this out of their gaming.

I also speculate about different "breeds of gamers" and how they are related to socialising habits - games that are played in gaming clubs and other gatherings of strangers need to be more idiot proof and offer the same kind of experience whoever is playing them (heavy eurogames are made for this), while groups of friends hanging out for the social experience will seek for something else out the game. Even the focus of the games is different: 100% competitive (heavy euros) VS (for instance) 30% competitive 40% interactive 30% atmosphere (heavy AT game). Different kind of gaming habits generate different groups of players with different needs and wants.
Last edit: 18 Apr 2014 13:21 by sgosaric. Reason: now with more grammar

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 Apr 2014 12:46 #176103 by scissors
calandale drags it out in a professorial way... and WallenSHTEEN?!! really??wallenSHTEIN as in RAMMSTEIN. Grr.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 Apr 2014 18:34 #176115 by Applejack
Accessibility is very important for me. There are games I won't buy because of long rulebooks (War of the Ring, Mage Knight), or because it takes too long to play (Twilight Imperium). I would probably like all those games, but I know what I have the patience to learn, and I know what will never get played. I have too many unplayed games (I'm looking at you in particular, Android), and I've learned the hard way what games are for me. Not that simple is the bottom line. I think Lords of Waterdeep is mediocre and King of Tokyo is stupid. Games along the lines of 1775: Rebellion and BattleLore Second Edition, where they are easy to play, but there are many interesting, tactical decisions to be made. The 'dudes on a map' genre especially.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.152 seconds