In board games, I often classify games by time requirement:filler (1-2 hours), medium (3-4 hours), and all nighters (6+ hours). Most (not all) of the shorter games are too “casual” for me, but as time goes on I find myself less and less inclined to spend the hours required for the big games. Deep strategy + 3-4 hours is a pretty certain hit with me (I’m finding Twilight Struggle to be a recent hit).

With computer games I find the deciding factors being a combination of complexity (in terms of stuff to keep track of) and time. And at least on my personal scale, there aren’t a lot of products that slot into the “sweet spot” (Armageddon Empires might be one, though).

I never understand people complaining that Dominions is too complex. Intimidating? Yes, but the beauty of Dominions is that it isn’t really as complex as it is deep. The primary actions are build army, move army, cast spell and forge items. The intricacies of doing those things well is what makes the game difficult to master.

How much of this complaining about complexity is just due to natural human laziness and/or resistance to learning something new? I’m not arguing for overly complex games mind you but I don’t think we are anywhere near having most strategy games resemble WitP.

Even less involved games like Team Fortress 2 or Company of Heroes have barriers to entry, mostly socially dictated, but also in combination with things like map mastery and expected behaviors. This is one of the reasons why I like playing with friends, who are generally more forgiving when I don’t have perfect navigational sense for a map that I haven’t played before.

The other big problem, and I suspect this is more of an issue for sports game in particular, is the lack of useful tutorials or introductions. I may know the rules of baseball, that’s not the same as understanding the game mechanics of how to hit the ball or throw it, many of which are borrowed from earlier games, and which the game often expects the player to understand a priori.