I have become increasing attracted to an idea I stumbled upon when writing my list of design rules. 

The idea is thus: the essence of interesting game play is in decision making. 

Pretty simple, right?  Yet, the history of video games and the precedence for modern iterations, has different designs.  Early games were mostly tests of eye-hand coordination.  Gradually games became more sophisticated and were able to offer more interesting game play situations.  Yet video games remain inaccessible to large percentage of the population.  Compare video games to parallel medias such as cinema and radio and it is immediately apparent that video games have progress to make before they are considered a general medium of entertainment. 

I think that the key to videogame ubiquity and universal appeal is accepting that popular appeal is not in eye-hand coordination but in compelling decisions.

Can games be designed to require no skill other than general cognitive reasoning?  Perhaps this is a good time to recall MYST – one of the few successful games to breach the ‘gamer’ barrier and appeal to a wider percentage of the population.  MYST required no previous understanding of video game physics, eye hand coordination, rules or expectations.  In fact, all it expected of the user was propensities toward exploration, visual stimulation and a desire to solve a mystery.

The SIMS, another rare instance of a widely popular game, is also a game that requires no quick reflexes or fancy finger work.

One argument that arises is that these two examples are not ‘games’ in the pure sense – the first is something of a puzzle and the second is a toy.  In part, I agree with this sentiment – these are not exactly what is expected of a game and I do not claim that they are.  I have used them simply to illustrate the fact that the popular audience is willing and acceptant of video games if the games are presented on the popular terms.

The popularly appealing games I envision possess the flow, branching, tension, development and reinforcement of traditional games but without the ‘difficult’ avatar control.  All challenge and immersion is incorporated into the mental aspect of the game.

A possibly useful analogy to the difference between controller-based and mental-based game play could be found in team sports.  The controller-based challenge parallels actually playing in a team sport, such as football – your success is a product of natural physical talent, practice and split-second cunning.  The mental-based challenge parallels coaching a team (even armchair coaching) – your success is based almost entirely on decision making   Many people enjoy actually participating in sports but many more are either intimidated by the physical skill required or simply not in the mood for the brisk challenge.  Often, playing a game is simply not fun for a player who is not as physically skilled as his opponents.

Aside from not wanting to practice controller management, the potential mass audience game player does not want to be pressured by tense time constraints or stressful situations that lack carefully tuned periods of release.  Observe movies; movies balance stress with release, tragedy with joy and action with rest.  A video game based on user dexterity has no guaranteed balance between stress and release – what may be an even balance of the two for a skilled player would offer excruciating, nearly insurmountable periods of stress spaced by all too brief periods of rest for the casual player.

The two possible solutions to balancing games for the popular audience are redefining the objectives (something that gets attention when the discussion turns to attracting female gamers) and what I am proposing, which is changing the pacing and the way that the user interacts with the game.  Basically, in order for games to become more about decision making they need to be more accessible, more forgiving to user error, and more closely parallel to the user’s real-life paradigm for interaction.

Now I'm not advocating a complete departure from reaction-based games because, frankly, I find them very enjoyable, but I am saying that a paralell and much greater market exists for the world of gaming. Not only is 'casual gaming' a potential market but it is also a source of grounding for the designer who is searching for a means of instilling fun into a game of any color.