FILTER THE GAME RESEARCH BASED ON THE 4 PARAMETERS: Complexity, Strategy, Luck, Interaction

[ChiefPointThief]

Before diving into your list chess was going to be my example. I looked there 1st to see the rating because the rules for chess are actually simple and can be taught to a child in minutes.
So what parameter is being used to give it a 3?

The strategy part, probably

Has to be. But there is already a category for strategy in which chess gets a 5 here.

W/o counting I think I played about 30-40% of these. For games w/ both sites listed it looks like the bgg numbers are more accurate . Also instead of just listing the number for the base game maybe there should be a 2nd number for games w/ expansions. Some games expansions add more complexity than others. Stone age, living forest, , carcasonne, and terra mystica expansions should definitely add to complexity rating.

I would say targi, alhambra, century: spice road, wizard, splendor, chess, and cant stop are rated too high. Arguably living forest, welcome to, & ticket to ride (part of the reason why this is so popular is because of how easy it is. Also ttr is definitely easier than carcasonne).

[Romain672]

Something I don't like about complexity (and Chess is an excellent example of it), is that it englobe two parts:

1) The rules:
- How complex/thick is the rulebook?* How long does it take to play?
- How long does it take to learn the rules?
- How many times do you need to play before you feel like you "get" the game?

2) The strategy:
- What proportion of time is spent thinking and planning instead of resolving actions?
- How hard and long do you have to think to improve your chance of winning?
- How little luck is in the game?
- How much technical skill (math, reading ahead moves, etc) is necessary?

Personnally I would prefer to have those ratings separated. Here is what I would suggest:
- Complexity 0/5: you can play without reading the rules. The interface of bga is enough clear to tell you what is your options and how to win the game.
- Complexity 1/5: you can play without reading the rules. You could have difficulties to see how to win the game, but after the first game, you should understand everything.
- Complexity 2/5: rules are short. You can enter the game without reading the rules if you read them at the start of it.
- Complexity 3/5: rules aren't hard to grasp, but you need to read them to know how to play.

And you get the idea for 4&5 (i'm not playing them so I will not do a chaostic description).

And so with that rating, depending of how the game is coded and lead beginners or not, you can have a game gain one full complexity because of it.
Games like Yokai (ie simple rules, many planification) which is actually at 3 should be reduced to 1.

[cigma]

Thanks to all for your contributions!

Something I don't like about complexity (and Chess is an excellent example of it), is that it englobe two parts:

1) The rules:
- How complex/thick is the rulebook?* How long does it take to play?
- How long does it take to learn the rules?
- How many times do you need to play before you feel like you "get" the game?

2) The strategy:
- What proportion of time is spent thinking and planning instead of resolving actions?
- How hard and long do you have to think to improve your chance of winning?
- How little luck is in the game?
- How much technical skill (math, reading ahead moves, etc) is necessary?

Personnally I would prefer to have those ratings separated.

Before diving into your list chess was going to be my example. I looked there 1st to see the rating because the rules for chess are actually simple and can be taught to a child in minutes.
So what parameter is being used to give it a 3?

The strategy part, probably

Has to be. But there is already a category for strategy in which chess gets a 5 here.

That's the reason why I won't mix "complexity" with "strategy".

As "3" is the default for all parameters it might be that for chess it was simply kept (not as an actual decision).

I also wondered why Ticket to Ride was rated higher (2) than Catan (1). I guess the ratings are given by the developer? But you have to consider that developers are not necessarily very experienced in knowing a lot of different games and able to compare them. That's another reason why it should be set (or corrected) by the community, I think.

@Romain: How would you rate Yokai, Hanabi, Bandido?

@ChiefPointThief: So you would rate Targi, Alhambra, Century, Wizard, Splendor, Chess as 2 (instead of 3) and Can't stop as 1 (instead of 2)?

[ChiefPointThief]

I also wondered why Ticket to Ride was rated higher (2) than Catan (1).

@ChiefPointThief: So you would rate Targi, Alhambra, Century, Wizard, Splendor, Chess as 2 (instead of 3) and Can't stop as 1 (instead of 2)?

I’ve taught ttr to several people across different demographics and they all immediately got it. Ttr has to be a one.

Targi 2-1.5. You place 2 meeples on the outside and take the card in the middle where they intersect. Some of the outside cards and point cards have abilities but this can’t be higher than 2.

Alhambra. 1.5-1. Take a color card or use color cards to buy a tile. When placing a tile the boarders must match.

Can’t stop 0.5-0.

Splendor. 1. Take chips on your turn, reserve a card, or buy a card. How does this get a 3 rating?

[Romain672]

About Strategy let's see for simple games. The problem again is the luck factor. Since it's present somewhere else, it should not matter on that rating, which can make some weird things.
But at the same time, that mean an high luck game could be rated high in strategy.
- Strategy 4/5: game which can have 1000+ hours of strategy because they can be really deep
- Strategy 3/5: game with a lot of strategy which isn't obvious after a few game
- Strategy 2/5: game with strategy which can resolve out what is better than others
- Strategy 1/5: game with close to no strategy
- Strategy 0/5: child/visual/guessing/... game

@Romain: How would you rate Yokai, Hanabi, Bandido?

Complexity of the rules: Chess (2)>Hanabi (2)>Yokai (1)>Bandido (0)
Strategy: Hanabi (4)>Chess (4)>Bandido (2)>Yokai (2)

On Hanabi you can have: clue green to Bob or clue 5 to Cathy. They can both lead to lots of complexity.
On a game with lots of rules, you can have two differents choices which will make you gain 3 differents things like 1 of loyalty, which will matter only if you draw a specific card next... Complexity came from evaluating the options.

I feel like for Bandido there is one category missing (for coop games) which is 'difficulty'. A game can be really strategic, but since it's pretty easy to win, you can totally ignore it and take your 70% winrate. If now you want to improve it to 80%/90%/95%/98%/99%, it will be each time another step in strategy, which can be really hard to achieve.
But should the game get lower strategy since it's easy? Meh.

(and I wonder if i didn't undervalued Yokai and Bandido in Strategy still. It's very hard to not be biaised D: )

[Romain672]

Here is the actual ratings:
Hanabi: Complexity 2 / Strategy 3 (my vote: 2/4)
Yokai: Complexity 3 / Strategy 4 (my vote: 1/2)
Bandido: Complexity 1 / Strategy 3 (my vote: 0/2)
Chess: Complexity 3 / Strategy 5 (my vote: 2/4)

Yeah I guess I was too kind in my ratings, all my ratings could be +1 in strategy.
Funny how the strategy rating for those game look far better.

[ChiefPointThief]

99 addition card game. Complexity rated 2

Games can’t get much easier than this. Real rating 0

[ChiefPointThief]

You can already sort by complexity but the categories are core, casual, and regular. But for regular they have games ranging from 4 complexity down to 1. I would say if you are playing games with 4 complexity you reached the level of core gamer. Also when I was looking for easy games I would associate that with length but that isn’t always the case. I think it is important to have games correctly categorized. If someone is looking for something particular they may not try , find, or look for a game if it is categorized wrong.

[cigma]

I think it is important to have games correctly categorized. If someone is looking for something particular they may not try , find, or look for a game if it is categorized wrong.

Exactly!

[ChiefPointThief]

I think it is important to have games correctly categorized. If someone is looking for something particular they may not try , find, or look for a game if it is categorized wrong.

Exactly!

How Lady's Choice isn't labeled under surreal/silly/absurd is beyond me