Avoiding Common Criticisms

I added the Kingmaker item to the list. Thanks!

First, everyone, please note the title and lead-in to the blog post. This is a list of "common criticisms," most of which I have read about published games (just skim the BGG ratings comments for an example). It is not, in any way, a set of game design "rules." Even so, I think it was an interesting exercise to compile these and look at them while designing new prototypes. This doesn't guarantee that a new game won't receive any of these criticisms. Most likely, you'll even get contradictory critiques (I've had people describe Piece o' Cake as both "too brain burny" and "too simple and random," for example!). I do believe that the list can help a designer be more self-critical, and that is something notoriously difficult to do.

There are many ways you can make a game intuitive. Component and graphic design is the most obvious, and so is the theme. When I hear this criticism, I usually assume it has something to do with those factors. Unintuitive rules are rules that don't make sense given the game's setting, goals, and components. It has nothing to do with previous gaming experience (otherwise every new game that strays from a known formula would be unintuitive).

Yeah, I know what you mean. I don't limit innovation to simply having a new mechanic. And you can still argue that some things are "newer" ("fresher" is also a word that gets thrown around a lot without a clear definition) than other things. I mean, nobody played "worker placement" games a decade ago, although you could argue that it's just a new type of auction mechanic. But even there, you have to use the word "new." Speaking of auction games, Knizia had a ton of them in the 90's, but what he did with the genre is nothing less than innovative (or original or new) IMO.

How original it is, of course, is often a matter of opinion, but innovation does continue to happen. And it's what publishers and gamers are desperately searching for these days.

Thanks for your thoughts, L. Pulsipher.

Thanks for everyone's comments!

I think it's a good point, but again, not all-encompassing. As I type away on my Apple notebook computer, I can't help but think that the designers were trying to make the user interface as intuitive as possible--and not just for those with previous computer experience. And even though they made computers more user-friendly for the layperson, they haven't alienated people with experience.

I believe the same can be done with board games, and that an "intuitive" game can be easier to learn and play for both experienced and less-experienced gamers.

And, on the flip side, there are some games that are unintuitive no matter how much one plays them. If playtesters keep getting the same rule wrong, it's a good sign that the rule either needs to be communicated differently (better graphic presentation, possibly using an overview card) or that the rule itself needs to be changed or eliminated. Even if that is based on previous experience (sometimes cultural, non-gaming experience), it is still something to take into consideration when designing a game, as it will be a factor in how that game is received.

I enjoy living in Berlin, a city I have called home since graduating from college in '94. I learned most of the language here, through immersion. I'm not sure I could live anywhere else in Germany--or Europe, for that matter. This is just the right place for me, a large city that still knows how to slow down, with people who are both very direct and in-your-face at times, but also the most loyal friends I've ever known.

And many German publishers are very open to game submissions from English-speakers. The key is to pitch the right game to the right publisher. And the Hippodice competition is a great opportunity to get your prototype seen and played by many publishers at once, if the club selects it for its short list. Either way, you'll have an idea of how your game would fare in this market.