A Waste of Time?

When playing Wingspan I use actions to draw cards from a deck or open array, collect food, lay eggs, and then use the food and eggs to play those cards onto my player mat, with the aim of getting the most valuable birds I can (and the most useful powers) onto the mat so I can score as many points as I can at the end of the game. It would clearly be more efficient for me to look through the deck for the cards with exactly the birds I desire, placing them straight onto the player mat. But that wouldn't be playing Wingspan. In fact, that wouldn't be playing a game - That would be picking up to 15 birds to look at at once, and that might be worth my time - I might find it entertaining to pick an array of 15 birds that all have the same colour scheme might be entertaining, but in choosing to play Wingspan, I have chosen to put the birds onto my mat in an inefficient way. When playing Octopath Traveller, I kill monsters to give my characters EXP. When they gather enough EXP, they then level up, becoming more powerful. It would be mor efficient if every time I killed a monster - or even if my characters were as powerful as they could ever get right at the start, and for another game either of those might be the right approach, but in Octopath Traveller and similar RPGs, part of the enjoyment of the game is watching the characters get gradually more powerful. In his 1978 book The Grasshopper Games: Life and Utopia Bernard Suits states, "A game is the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles." {https://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2819037&seqNum=3}. In both of the examples I just gave, said unnecessary obstacles are part of what makes them appealing. So, why does it sometimes feel like games are wasting our time? Afterall, if games are about the overcoming of unnecessary obstacles, then surely adding more would make them better? {subheading?} If a video game is about making a fortune by buying goods in Chicargo and selling them in New York, then simulating the journey, while definitely erecting an obstacle, is unlikely to be an interesting obstacle since the game isn't about the journey, the journey just adds cost to each run. On the other hand, if the game is purely about making the journey from Chicargo to New York once in order to tell a story about doing that, then simulating that journey is absolutely going to be an interesting obstacle, since the journey is the game, while having them buy objects in Chicargo to then sell in New York upon their arrival trying to maximize profit would be fairly pointless, even if it's the motivation of the protagonist. If a strategy game has players drawing cards with their feet, this is more likely to frustrate players than to add to the experience. The game would almost certainly be wasting everyone's time by doing so. If a dexterity game has players racing to pick up a series of cards with their feet? That's an appropriate context for said obstacle, but being able to do tactical or strategic things with said cards might detract from the dexterity aspect of the game. All obstacles in games are, fundamentally, unneccessary. Super Mario Bros. didn't have to have enemies. There doesn't need to be platforms and pits. There doesn't need to be a time limit. The flag could be right next to the goal. It is likely a better game because of all of these things, but they don't need to be present. There are obstacles not present that could have been. There is no wind, no ice physics, the time limit is generous. There could be more enemies, more pits, hazards that are visually similar to power ups. All of these things could be added - and in various sequels most of them have been to at least some levels - and if that would have made it a better game might depend on the person playing. The game only giving visual indication of what's on the screen when Mario dies, or every 5 seconds, on the other hand, would have likely been an obstacle that is not only unneccessary, but one that detracts from the player's experience. And sometimes? What adds vs what subtracts is a matter of degree. In an RPG where you level up every time you kill an enemy, the levelling up process is probably going to feel like a pointless addition unless all enemies are bosses and levels do something aside from making you more powerful in combat. But I think most of us have played a game which feels just too stingy with it's EXP compared to character growth, with obstacles pitched so that we feel like we need more EXP than what can be gained by playing the game normally. The sweet spot for EXP growth is usually going to be between these two extremes, between the system being present at all feeling pointless, and it being pitched so high that playing through the game feels like a slog, but where that sweetspot is will vary from game to game and even player to player. Games can waste our time, but sometimes something that would be wasting our time in one context is the point of the game in another.