So I've played Agricola four times in the past four days. It's been a comfort when I was sick, and a comfort when I was well, and a comfort when I was tired. For some reason it's even more addictive for me than Le Havre, and actually reminds me of the days when I was addicted to Magic: The Gathering, and even farther back, when I was addicted to Chess. Heck, at one point I was even addicted to Caylus, and that's quite a game to get addicted to.
This series of games made me think: what makes for an addictive game? Not every game has its addicts, but neither is the quality limited to what hard-core gamers generally like---you just have to play Ticket to Ride online to see the addiction at work with gateway games.
In summary, this is what I've come up with. Every "rule" here probably has its exception, like most things involving human beings.
1. The game must be easily available for play. This, in general, rules out games that can't find a consistent audience in your play circles, in person or online---even if, for certain games, the consistent audience is you. I think this is where Uwe Rosenberg is particularly genius---the entire big box Harvest series (and Le Havre) can be played solo. And I'm thinking about my addiction to The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game, which also can play relatively well solo provided you have a good card pool and experience under your belt.
This also explains why otherwise not particularly addictive games can suddenly take on addictive qualities when they become available on mobile devices, particularly with a pool of online opponents. I've played quite a few games of Lost Cities on my iPhone, and that's not a game I thought I would ever get addicted to. Ditto for Ascension, which has actually taken over Dominion for me in terms of addiction ever since the iPhone version descended.
2. The game's interface, as an application or as cardboard and wood and plastic, must be useable. Note that I'm not saying that the game has to be pretty---although that can certainly help move addiction along---I'm saying the game has to be usable enough that you don't get frustrated trying to play it. While this can take the form of good icons, non-confusing text, and an excellently laid-out rulebook, I think its most powerful form is when the mechanics and theme naturally fit each other. Agricola is particularly powerful in this aspect; you pen in your animals, you sow your fields, you build your house, and all of these non-abstract actions are point-scoring opportunities.
As well, many war games yield this mixture between mechanics and theme.
3. The game must, in general, give you enough decisions that you feel you're on the cusp of doing better the next time---without overwhelming the majority of the target audience. Yes, even Ticket to Ride gives you this control---picking tickets, knowing the ticket deck and especially car distribution; it's really similar to the Rummy family of games, and those can be quite addictive. And Agricola especially gives you enough control that you know you can improve each game. And the just-barely-failures serve to drive you forwards more often than the successes, oddly enough (this is actually a phenomenon seen in studies).
Of course, there is an exception to this---slots or games involving pure luck can still stimulate some folks into gambling addictions. At the very least, though, this operates on the "every failure drives you to persist on the path of possible payout".
These are just my observations, and I'm sure I'm leaving out vital characteristics for addiction. So what additional characteristics do you think leave ample opportunities for addiction?
This series of games made me think: what makes for an addictive game? Not every game has its addicts, but neither is the quality limited to what hard-core gamers generally like---you just have to play Ticket to Ride online to see the addiction at work with gateway games.
In summary, this is what I've come up with. Every "rule" here probably has its exception, like most things involving human beings.
1. The game must be easily available for play. This, in general, rules out games that can't find a consistent audience in your play circles, in person or online---even if, for certain games, the consistent audience is you. I think this is where Uwe Rosenberg is particularly genius---the entire big box Harvest series (and Le Havre) can be played solo. And I'm thinking about my addiction to The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game, which also can play relatively well solo provided you have a good card pool and experience under your belt.
This also explains why otherwise not particularly addictive games can suddenly take on addictive qualities when they become available on mobile devices, particularly with a pool of online opponents. I've played quite a few games of Lost Cities on my iPhone, and that's not a game I thought I would ever get addicted to. Ditto for Ascension, which has actually taken over Dominion for me in terms of addiction ever since the iPhone version descended.
2. The game's interface, as an application or as cardboard and wood and plastic, must be useable. Note that I'm not saying that the game has to be pretty---although that can certainly help move addiction along---I'm saying the game has to be usable enough that you don't get frustrated trying to play it. While this can take the form of good icons, non-confusing text, and an excellently laid-out rulebook, I think its most powerful form is when the mechanics and theme naturally fit each other. Agricola is particularly powerful in this aspect; you pen in your animals, you sow your fields, you build your house, and all of these non-abstract actions are point-scoring opportunities.
As well, many war games yield this mixture between mechanics and theme.
3. The game must, in general, give you enough decisions that you feel you're on the cusp of doing better the next time---without overwhelming the majority of the target audience. Yes, even Ticket to Ride gives you this control---picking tickets, knowing the ticket deck and especially car distribution; it's really similar to the Rummy family of games, and those can be quite addictive. And Agricola especially gives you enough control that you know you can improve each game. And the just-barely-failures serve to drive you forwards more often than the successes, oddly enough (this is actually a phenomenon seen in studies).
Of course, there is an exception to this---slots or games involving pure luck can still stimulate some folks into gambling addictions. At the very least, though, this operates on the "every failure drives you to persist on the path of possible payout".
These are just my observations, and I'm sure I'm leaving out vital characteristics for addiction. So what additional characteristics do you think leave ample opportunities for addiction?