I honestly never really thought about complexity as a potential source of ratings bias on board games geeks, but now that it's been brought up I can definitely recognize even my own clear...
I honestly never really thought about complexity as a potential source of ratings bias on board games geeks, but now that it's been brought up I can definitely recognize even my own clear preference towards more complex board games and admit the bias may be present. However, whether that really needs "correcting" or not I think is open for debate. IMO more complex games are often more rewarding to play, often have more replayability and also often require a lot more work on the developer's part to balance. So if a complex game is done well should they not receive a slight boost to their score over a simple game done equally well?
Regardless, neat article and it's also really awesome they provide the entire "corrected" list to peruse as well.
I think that the problem with giving complex games that extra boost is that, as a side-effect, you end up potentially alienating people who don't enjoy the more complex games. There could also be...
I think that the problem with giving complex games that extra boost is that, as a side-effect, you end up potentially alienating people who don't enjoy the more complex games. There could also be some unintended selection bias in the data, where people who are more likely to rate board games are also more likely to rate complex board games higher and simpler board games lower. This sort of data correction helps give a more even distribution of games of different complexities, rather than being weighted largely on the more complex end of the scale, and could also correct for the potential selection bias as well.
I'm just speculating here, of course, but I think it's worth considering the potential confounding variables and any problems that could be caused by the results. Personally, I've never really had the chance to get into board games, so I don't have much stake in the discussion. I just find this to be an interesting subject :)
I honestly never really thought about complexity as a potential source of ratings bias on board games geeks, but now that it's been brought up I can definitely recognize even my own clear preference towards more complex board games and admit the bias may be present. However, whether that really needs "correcting" or not I think is open for debate. IMO more complex games are often more rewarding to play, often have more replayability and also often require a lot more work on the developer's part to balance. So if a complex game is done well should they not receive a slight boost to their score over a simple game done equally well?
Regardless, neat article and it's also really awesome they provide the entire "corrected" list to peruse as well.
I think that the problem with giving complex games that extra boost is that, as a side-effect, you end up potentially alienating people who don't enjoy the more complex games. There could also be some unintended selection bias in the data, where people who are more likely to rate board games are also more likely to rate complex board games higher and simpler board games lower. This sort of data correction helps give a more even distribution of games of different complexities, rather than being weighted largely on the more complex end of the scale, and could also correct for the potential selection bias as well.
I'm just speculating here, of course, but I think it's worth considering the potential confounding variables and any problems that could be caused by the results. Personally, I've never really had the chance to get into board games, so I don't have much stake in the discussion. I just find this to be an interesting subject :)