Immediacy is also the mark of a good game, one that thankfully has become more common. Designers now, for the most part, understand that frustrating interfaces aren't a good way to make games harder. Still, far too often, players encounter obstructionist design. In the "action-adventure" genre, for example, one finds block-pushing puzzles where pushing the blocks is tedious and time-consuming but the puzzles themselves are painfully obvious. In theory, the challenge is meant to be figuring out how to arrange the blocks. But the game's interface is an adversary in this goal, not a partner, so the challenge usually becomes finding the patience to work through the clear solution. The game slows down and obstructs the player's action (solving the puzzle) in a fashion contrary to how FreeCell assists the player.
Pacing has been the bane of strategy and RPG games for decades. Turn-based games are often excruciatingly slow as the player waits (and waits) for his turn to move. Conversely, real-time games often deny the player breathing space to meaningfully engage with the action, leaving him a reactive clicker, not a proactive player. In both cases, there have been efforts to improve, usually by streamlining the interface, but nevertheless, it seems the designers think of pacing in terms of the passive experience (is the player getting bored?) rather than in terms of active engagement (is he able to play, and to do so the way he wants?).
Fairness, by which I mean predictable consequences and the diminished role of luck, is at its apex in games that are overtly skill-based - like FPSes - and at its nadir in D&D-based RPGs. When a player's fate in battle turns more on the random numbers than on the strategy he adopts, there is something fundamentally unfair about the game. The player is apt to feel cheated, no matter how scrupulously the game adheres to its rules. The challenge must reside in the player's ability to process information and assess consequences, not in bait-and-switch gameplay or black-box random numbers.
Casual Games As Teaching Tools
If these four virtues are identifiable in all games, why talk about FreeCell? It's not the best game ever! Why not talk about a real game?
The trouble is most "real" computer games are dolled-up doxies that deflect attention from their real attributes (by which I mean gameplay) through alluring distractions: graphics, music and sound, story, artificial reward structures, etc. FreeCell, like many casual and independent games, is au naturel and unadorned. It rises or falls on its design, not on its packaging.
More importantly, in my experience, a hardcore gamer stuck with FreeCell can fall in love. Casual games thrive because they rest on solid, approachable gameplay in a way million-dollar blockbusters don't. There's no reason why the lessons of casual games like FreeCell can't be applied to the games hardcore gamers play; there's no reason why casual gamers shouldn't be able to play "real" games, provided their developers take a closer look at what makes games fun. And all designers need is a coffee break and a Windows box.
Marty O'Hale has written stories for a number of computer and videogames, primarily roleplaying and strategy games. He has also published a number of works of fiction. Currently, Marty's career is in the law.
