I wouldn't consider that a universal feature. It can certainly help, especially if you are aiming for a generalized audience, but not every game needs to be either intended for or accessible to every person.

I would use Crusader Kings as an example, it doesn't even seem like a game at first, you have no idea what is going on, and large swaths of options and features may take dozens of hours to stumble across. But yet it is still a great game with many fans and players.

There are notable counterexamples. I find life to be both complete and compelling as experience.

Eh, I definitely can't agree with this one. Some of the most beloved games of all time had effectively no on-ramp of any kind - especially if you're willing to go back 30 years - and none of the fans of those games would say "they are not compelling experiences" because of a learning cliff.

>good game design

There are plenty of good or even great games that dont give a shit about "good game design". And developing in the direction of "good game design" is sort of like Carcinization, AAA games have been tending towards a single unified structure. Its great for mass media but its terrible for art.

I learned Dwarf Fort through a mate of mine. We both played separately, and we would have phone calls discussing how we were able to achieve x or y outcome. Eventually we determined an ideal set of bootstraps to achieve a plateau of semi functional Dwarf society.

And then they dropped the dwarf economy update, and everything went to shit and we got to relearn how to pick ourselves up all over again.

Then Bees, then Taverns and Travellers. Then Danger Rooms started causing more serious wounds.

You are welcome to limit yourself to AAA games and yellow paint but thats you deciding to artificially limit what experiences you participate in. It doesnt cast a single shadow on people tooling around and experiencing the art of games.

>This has been a cornerstone of good game design for over 30 years.

First, this is completely wrong. There are many good games that have been designed over the last 30 years that didn't assume you were an invalid and needed your hand hand held every step of the way.

Second, many of us (including myself) have been playing computer games for ~50 years! In the 80s and 90s the average game was far more difficult than even the most difficult games put out today. It wasn't assumed that everyone, or even most people, were ever going to beat the game. There were games I played for hundreds of hours back then, and enjoyed greatly, that I never finished or even mastered all the complexities of! That didn't make it any less fun. I want to be challenged by a game. If I load up a game and am spoon-fed everything it isn't a game I play for long.

Religiously subscribing to every "cornerstone of great game design" is how you end up with the plain oatmeal of videogames. Inoffensive, bland, and easily forgotten.

I, for one, hate games spoonfeeding me. Most games are unlikely to be a player's first videogame. I don't need every damn mechanic tutorialized. Present me with my toolbox, and let me get to it.

Skill issue.

Claiming the game of systems and their interactions is not complete or compelling because it doesn't hold you hand is laughable.

Not everything has to be made or everyone, in fact I would argue that is exactly the reason games these days are bland and identical.

Press "F" to pay respects.