I’d like to debunk the current myth and trend that games need to get more and more casual and have less and less barriers.

A game is a challenge within a subset of rules.

Challenge doesn’t necessarily mean hard, because it could be anything, even pure luck. Roll the dice and win, or in the best example: A slot machine is still a game. Of course, even a slot machine has rules, you can’t just smash it open.

I think most people would define pure luck as poor gameplay, regardless of how compelled they may be to play.

I also think most people would define something that they cannot ‘beat’ as poor gameplay, but that’s more personal, because something extraordinarily difficult for one person could be relatively easy for another. Variety is the best solution.

The problem, I feel, is that the entire games industry is focusing on making things more casual / easy / accessible. It’s a natural turn, why wouldn’t they want to have a wider base of customers to sell to? So the ‘hardcore gamer’ as it were, is being vilified, even by people who probably fit the description (key note: If you’ve ever written a word about games on your blog). The bandwagon is currently praising elements that aren’t really gameplay.

The easiest way to become more accessible is to reduce gameplay. Reduce the challenge. It’s the biggest barrier, right?

The easiest way to reduce barriers is to lax and widen the ruleset. Rules are barriers.

After reducing challenge and rules, the next step to more inclusion is to increase the rewards. Dangle the carrot, maybe even drop it more often. Human beings have complex and numerous subtle incentives that they’ll react to.

In the hunt for reaching a wider, more casual market, developers have to be careful they aren’t gutting their games in the process.

Let’s just please not end up playing nothing but slot machines.