A game you can read at a glance is satisfying from the first session

The argument

A second argument for this explanation concerns legibility during play rather than at the point of entry. Proponents hold that the most important thing a game can give a player is a clear account of what just happened: who acted, what the result was, and what it had to do with the player's own choice. A game that supplies this constantly is satisfying almost immediately, because every event is intelligible and every outcome can be connected to something the player did. The argument holds that simplicity is what makes this possible. A game with few variables, clearly signalled, produces events a player can read without training, so a newcomer's experience is not confusion punctuated by occasional success but a continuous sequence of small intelligible results. Proponents contrast this with games whose richness means a new player often cannot tell why anything occurred, and argue that such games are rewarding only after a period of incomprehension which most people decline to serve. Proponents stress that this is not a claim that the game is shallow. A system can be simple to read and still admit of refinement, and the explanation holds only that the reading comes first: the player understands what is happening before they understand how to do it well, and that order is what makes the early hours enjoyable rather than merely instructive. On this account the franchise's popularity rests on getting that order right, and the complexity other explanations emphasise is available later to the players who look for it rather than being the reason anybody stayed.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Opponents reply that legibility is a property of presentation rather than of simplicity, since complicated games with good signalling are read easily while simple games with poor signalling are not, so the argument links the wrong things. They also argue that the period of incomprehension treated here as a deterrent is, for many audiences, part of the appeal, because the sense of a system worth learning is precisely what distinguishes a game people talk about from one they merely play. On this view the account describes a pleasant first session without explaining a durable audience.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Opponents hold that much of what players enjoy is not understood at the time, so satisfaction does not depend on reading events as they happen. [Rejecting P2] Legibility is a property of signalling rather than of simplicity, since complicated games with good signalling are read easily and simple ones with poor signalling are not. [Rejecting P3] For many audiences a period of incomprehension is part of the appeal, being the mark of a system worth learning. [Rejecting C] A pleasant first session is not a durable audience, so the conclusion claims more than the premises support.