Having recently played that game again and been aghast at its stupidity, I empathize with this article.

(It seems like half of what I post now is links to BoingBoing or things from there.)

2 responses:

Just read that today myself. Personally I think he's overthinking it a bit. Games like Candyland are good for really young kids to get used to the basics of games - taking turns, following a procedure, things like that.

Once they learn that a game has a framework that you follow, you can start introducing games that allow some choice and strategy within that framework.

That's my philosophy on it, anyway. And yes, Candyland is insanely boring, but then so is "Finding Nemo" after 10 viewings. Go figure ;)

Monday, January 26, 2009 at 10:38:00 AM PST  

The article and comments tended to leave out all the games I enjoyed playing as a kid in the 1960s and (very early) 1970s: Parcheesi, cribbage, Monopoly, Uno, Mille Bourne, Yahtze, Jotto, and the Bookshelf series of games like "Wallstreet". Why have the games I actually played in my childhood become obscure while the ones that were boring when I was 7 are touted as classics?

Monday, January 26, 2009 at 9:49:00 PM PST  

Newer Post Older Post Home

Blogger Template by Blogcrowds.