Imaro
Legend
Okay, first let me state upfront that I don't have any data or proof or anything... and most of this is just thoughts and conjecture from observing my son and nephews play games ( videogames, ccg, roleplaying, board and SW miniatures)... but I'm starting to think system mastery might be something the younger generation enjoys and maybe even craves in games.
I know us experienced gamers have a tendency to decry system mastery as an objectively bad thing in roleplaying games... we tend to believe that we shouldn't have to sacrifice effectiveness in one area for aother or that there shouldn't be hidden traps and "not-so-obvious" choices that are objectively better or worse than others... but in observing my son and nephews I am starting to think this is an aspect of gameplay that they, and many of their peers, find enjoyable. Even though old hats may have grown into a dislike of it... is it really an objectively bad thing in game design.
My son and his cousins take pleasure in constructing their decks/Star Wars armies/rpg characters/etc. and showing how "awesome" of an entity (for lack of a better all encompasing word) that they have created. They also enjoy the fact that better choices lead to a recognizably better game entity.
This competitive build approach also causes them to become more interested in a particular game and it's intricacies in order to better show off their skill in said game. Now yes, I think some of this is due to the competitive factor in most young boys... but I also think most young boys are naturally competitive in some way with most "games"... even if it is a cooperative one. Most kills, highest damage, best items, etc. are all ways they may measure themselves... and games that require system mastery allow them to do this in a way that keeps them engaged and interested... it's one of the reasons I think CCG's were and still are so popular amongst young gamers.
I think I'll post some more thoughts on this later, but I really just wanted to get this topic out there and see what people think.
I know us experienced gamers have a tendency to decry system mastery as an objectively bad thing in roleplaying games... we tend to believe that we shouldn't have to sacrifice effectiveness in one area for aother or that there shouldn't be hidden traps and "not-so-obvious" choices that are objectively better or worse than others... but in observing my son and nephews I am starting to think this is an aspect of gameplay that they, and many of their peers, find enjoyable. Even though old hats may have grown into a dislike of it... is it really an objectively bad thing in game design.
My son and his cousins take pleasure in constructing their decks/Star Wars armies/rpg characters/etc. and showing how "awesome" of an entity (for lack of a better all encompasing word) that they have created. They also enjoy the fact that better choices lead to a recognizably better game entity.
This competitive build approach also causes them to become more interested in a particular game and it's intricacies in order to better show off their skill in said game. Now yes, I think some of this is due to the competitive factor in most young boys... but I also think most young boys are naturally competitive in some way with most "games"... even if it is a cooperative one. Most kills, highest damage, best items, etc. are all ways they may measure themselves... and games that require system mastery allow them to do this in a way that keeps them engaged and interested... it's one of the reasons I think CCG's were and still are so popular amongst young gamers.
I think I'll post some more thoughts on this later, but I really just wanted to get this topic out there and see what people think.