I'm in an interesting place right now with my board game critique. I find myself playing, testing, and analyzing a lot of games with a high experience differential based on skill - that is, a skilled player will have a wildly different experience than an unskilled player.

Take chess, for example. When two equally skilled people play, it's a great game. Whether they're both casual (moving pieces by instinct) or both incredibly adept (moving pieces based on years of experience) there is a satisfying interplay. Actions and reactions are balanced.

However, when people of unequal skill levels play against each other, that balance disappears. The decision space is so large, and the difference between correct and incorrect moves is so small, that it becomes almost impossible for a beginner to figure out what went wrong.

I am a competitive gamer. If I play a game that allows me to find an optimal path, I will stare at my options until I find that path, no matter how long it takes. When I play an experienced player, we'll both be frustrated - them that I'm slow, and me that they're still winning.

In these types of games, a new player will have a good experience against a new (or casual) player, but will often have a not great experience against a more seasoned player (for example, a tester playing against the game's designer).

There are many games like this that are successful (chess, for example!) But in an ever more crowded market, you can't rely on your game getting multiple plays for people to discover strategies that will keep them from getting crushed.