I had a realization lately after working on a few very simple game with very little components, which could have a look and feel to classic abstract games.
I thought those abstract games would be easier to design. Sure, there is probably less stuff to design than a convoluted games with tons of stats. But still, there is a lot of work required to balance the game and making it fun.
It seems that both the simple and complex game would require an equivalent amount of time to design. Sure the time will not be spent the same way, but simpler games don't seem faster to design.
On the other hand the complex game with tons of stats could hide balance issues within it's design, but will be difficult to detect compared to the simple abstract game that is somewhat naked and requires more careful attention.
To make a metaphor: Designing small board games feels like desiging the interior of a small room. You have little space to maneuver your furniture around, and you need to search for new products in order to optimise the space you have. Until you find those new products, you will have an non-optimised or even non-functionnal room. You have to wait until you discover the products you need to make your area functional. It can take years.
If you have a larger room, you can work with what you have to create a room that is good to live in. Sure, there are many ways to optimise your space, but the area can still be functional even if not optimal.
I think that is the major difference, the more space you have, the more flexibility you get and the less research you need, making the design experience less frustrating. This is why I find strategy video game easier to design because there is less restriction to deal with especially time and space.
In someway, I made a deduction that the more constrained is the game, the more mechanic searching will be required. Since I hate doing mechanic searching, creating loose design seems like the only solution. And so far, loose design seems only achievable using video games.
I kind of disagree with that affirmation. I have refered this in the past as Additive design vs Subtractive design. I understand the idea of refining something to make it better and more efficient. This is what we call refactoring in computer programming. If you have something to work with, trimming what you have in front of you is logical, but when you start from scratch, you have nothing to remove.
In computer programming, additive design is more interesting because you can solidify your program at each step making easier to add new features to what is already working. The pattern is generally:
Using this method, after each iteration, you are using you previous iteration as the foundation for your next iteration. Which makes it easier to just add the new feature one piece at a time. It prevents the need to design the entire thing all at once.