I just read a BoingBoing post The Case Against Candy Land and I mentally joined it with some stuff I had been reading about the history of Sesame Street, thanks to this guy’s blog.
I never played Candy Land when I was a kid. I think I’m going to go with the school of thought that there should be some, however small, element of decision making in the game. Some of the people defending Candy Land pointed out that kids playing it learn the basics of how to play a board game; taking turns, following the rules, counting.
I played Trouble as a kid, so maybe I’m biased, but I think that’s a good example for a first board game. In that, you had to choose which of up to four pieces to move. That was the only choice you had to make, but at least it was your choice. So kids playing that will learn that there’s two things that go hand-in-hand. Some of your actions must follow the rules, for the sake of the game, but some of your actions are your own choice.
It gets the kids to consider their options and judge for themselves which option is the best. Being able to learn the rules of the game can be a good skill for little kids, but I think this decision-making aspect is important, too.
But the comparison to video games is interesting, too. Because in a video game, the rules are coded directly into the interaction with the game, making it impossible for the player to break the rules.
A game is defined by its rules, and in card games and board games, the players are mutually following and enforcing the rules, and in so doing are willing the game into existence.
In Steven Johnson’s post, he compares Candy Land to a video game where there’s only one button, and you push it, and it does something at random, and then you push it again.
So, is it purely a matter of convenience to automate the rules? Or even in something as simplistic as Candy Land, are we participating in a way we can’t in video games?