I guess it depends on the definition of "boring". The games you mention cater to different audiences than strategy games, and they make the repetitition a core part of their experience. Special thought went into making their loops feel engaging and rewarding.
So I guess the lesson is more like: Game designers need to remove all effective strategies which short-circuit the core gameplay that your audience expects.
Except there is a huge market of strategy gamers who buy them strictly for the single player campaigns, and many enjoy the slow and boring aspects of maximizing output before decimating a particular level. So, there's no actual differentiator in your example.
Much like the parent commenter, you appear to be insisting that there can only be one type of gamer per game type, and that a developer is making a "mistake" of some kind by allowing people to play the game in their preferred manor. But outside of FPSs, that just isn't the case.
Bejeweled and Candy Crush are not good games, and we click through the repetitive parts in games to get to the point.
The point is very rarely repetition itself, and even when it is, it's not actually performing the task but rather figuring out how to automate it.
Nobody enjoys clicking on a unit then clicking on where we want it to go. Our brains reward us for successfully moving units to where they need to be, whatever the action necessary to get there.
The same reason family abuse is so effective - your infantile survival depends on your parents. If your parents are abusing you, you develop a liking for it, because your survival odds improve by doing so (abusive parent is better than no parent at all). You seek partners to repeat that behavior even if it makes you miserable, because brain chemistry.
A good game is one where such mechanisms aren't exploited for profit.
Again, you're asserting your personal preferences as universal fact and using absolutes to describe human behavior, which makes this less of a conversation and more of a series of opportunities for you to repeat the same claims. You don't get to make the decision that Bejeweled and Candy Crush are bad games on humanity's behalf. You also don't get to decide which game mechanisms aren't enjoyable, especially when a billion other people enjoy them.
You're effectively saying that a baseball player can't enjoy the act of swinging their bat or throwing the ball, just because it's not the end goal. This is obviously untrue for so many reasons, and I'm struggling to understand why you're so caught up on there only being one way to enjoy something -- and that way has to be your way.
> The same reason family abuse is so effective - your infantile survival depends on your parents. If your parents are abusing you, you develop a liking for it, because your survival odds improve by doing so (abusive parent is better than no parent at all). You seek partners to repeat that behavior even if it makes you miserable, because brain chemistry.
This is both disturbing and another attempt at using absolutes to compress the behavioral spectrum into a singular idea, and unsurprisingly, that idea matches your own personal views. Unfortunately, none of what you said in that paragraph is representative of any psychology book I've ever read, or of my own experiences, or of the experiences of anyone I know.
So, if you'd like to link to some research backing up your claim, I'd love to read it. Otherwise, please avoid making outlandish assertions such as "if your parents abuse you, you will like it, and you will like it forever, and seek it out, and there is no other possible avenue for you." That's a movie you saw one time, not real life.
> you're asserting your personal preferences as universal fact [...] You don't get to make the decision that Bejeweled and Candy Crush are bad games on humanity's behalf. You also don't get to decide which game mechanisms aren't enjoyable
Yeah, I do. I've researched video games for decades on a scale and detail comparable to the cutting edge of any field. I'm a professional designer. My opinion is not a matter of preference, but expertise.
> You're effectively saying that a baseball player can't enjoy the act of swinging their bat or throwing the ball, just because it's not the end goal. This is obviously untrue for so many reasons, and I'm struggling to understand why you're so caught up on there only being one way to enjoy something -- and that way has to be your way.
Video games about baseball do not come with bat controllers to swing - you press buttons to play. So clearly swinging the bat is not the point of baseball, or baseball video games would include that aspect.
> if your parents abuse you, you will like it, [...] and there is no other possible avenue for you.
Your words, not mine. I didn't rule out other possible avenues, that's your mind betraying you with the very absolutes you accuse me of. I said it makes abuse more effective, and a simple thought exercise will lead you to the same conclusion.
It's called Stockholm Syndrome, look it up. Widely recognized in psychology.
I suggest you look more into Stockholm Syndrome. It is widely known, but not recognized. With what we currently know, it is a "contested illness" (as Wikipedia calls it) at best and useless media frenzy at worst.
This is all we need to know about you. Everything you've said comes from a place of extreme arrogance, while also possessing an immense ignorance on so many subjects. I'm done engaging with your psychopathy.
Haha oh yes, now you're "done" engaging with me, out of personal choice and disdain for me of course, not the dozen rebuttals I just made to your falsehoods you are unable to address :)
So I guess the lesson is more like: Game designers need to remove all effective strategies which short-circuit the core gameplay that your audience expects.