Depth vs. Complexity
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/784787/gameplay-depth-vs... ). This led to an interesting discussion about depth vs. complexity in the BGG ranked weight of games. This led me to thinking about how I feel about depth vs. complexity in games, which I hadn't done before.
As I stated in that thread: "I prefer medium to high depth, and low to medium complexity. I'm assuming this game is maybe (like Stone Age) low-ish depth, and low-mid complexity (whereas Stoneage is low complexity)"
which is a silly statement in terms of readability. So I started thinking in terms of actual games I've played. In my head, I was thinking in these terms:
Ton's of fiddly rules, lots of board maintenance.
Some meat on the bone in terms of system rules that I have to take into account every turn, but doesn't weigh the game down.
Brain dead simple mechanics, silky smooth gameplay.
My brain burns with all the potential options, and I always feel like there's something more to learn from playing.
Usually it's not too hard to choose from a few different strategies over the course of the game, and a few tactics on any given turn.
Moves are always painfully obvious, not much decision making, game plays itself.
So with those definitons in mind, I started thinking about games themselves, which I'll list here.
I don't know why exactly I'm making this list. It just got me really interested in thinking about how I value these elements in the games I play, and I figure I'd be interested to hear how others feel on the same topics. And if the list brings to light any games that fit my preferences of Depth: med-high, Complexity: low-med, then so much the better!
- [+] Dice rolls