I'm wondering whether or not the redesign came from a discussion in which somebody said, "We need to make it more interactive!" Thus, the E-bank thing was born, completely missing the point of a game like Monopoly.
Of course, it's always important to remember that people approach games for completely different reasons. Efficiency and clarity can take a back seat to challenge. I know folks who will intentionally play obtusely designed games (electronic or table-top) purely for the challenge of learning and mastering their systems. On the video game side of the equation, some of the most successful titles you can point to have some of the least usable interaction designs imaginable. The combat system in the Grand Theft Auto games is terrible, and widely recognized as such. But people love the action and combat sequences, anyway. In some sense, similar principles apply to table-top or board games, as well. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=49093 ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
