41–50 of 105 posts
I look at Boardgamegeek almost ever time I make a purchase of a game and to get ideas. To see what other peoples think, their reviews about the game and game play, strategy vs luck element, type of game etc It's similar to imdb for movies, its a place full of opinions. I take everything with pinch of salt, but it's the best review site around
> I was a bit shaken by Eat Poop You Cat, but it seems a nice game you can play with pen and paper. This looks like a marvelous game that requires no purchase and no special equipment. Why would it shake anyone except for a ridiculous name?
The fact that "pandemic" is at the top means that either we have a coincidence where the best game happens to be closely related to events of the past two years, or ratings merely reflect current fashion rather than game quality. This is further reinforced by the fact that pandemic didn't top best selling games lists until 2020-2021.
Board game need a lot of investment. Simple one like GO (which needs hours to play decades to perfect etc) is “easier” as at least you have clib, course, apps … etc. But complex rule one - who can play with you for hours. And what happen if you do not like it later. Or the game no more. Midway is a board game about the battle. Heard of it? How about Battiestar Galactic of just the reimagining fame. End up with catan…
The publisher no longer has the BSG license so they rethemed the game to Cthulhu instead, and just a month ago re-released the game under the name "Unfathomable". It's no longer set in space but now in an ocean on a Titanic-like ship.
Naturally over the years, video games have improved in visuals, design, cinematics, controls, etc. so they've ended up reviewing themselves into the corner.
It's more interesting to see that games average at 6.4 which is much lower, partially because board games don't improve so drastically, and partially because I guess board games have only just started gaining massive popularity in recent years
> I was a bit shaken by Eat Poop You Cat, but it seems a nice game you can play with pen and paper. This looks like a marvelous game that requires no purchase and no special equipment. Why would it shake anyone except for a ridiculous name?
Interesting; I've never heard of Eat Poop You Cat (and I doubt I would've forgotten it if I had), but it's basically the same idea as Consequences [0] or Picture Consequences [1], only less structured. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequences_(game) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exquisite_corpse#Picture_conse...
> Are heavy games really 'better' than 'light' games? To serious board game players, yes, more complex games are "better" because the simple games tend to have dozens of games with almost identical feel. If the game is complex there can be more variety. > But I don't have time to play games that are very complex and take many hours! And the authors personal biases heavily stilt things.
I look at Boardgamegeek almost ever time I make a purchase of a game and to get ideas. To see what other peoples think, their reviews about the game and game play, strategy vs luck element, type of game etc It's similar to imdb for movies, its a place full of opinions. I take everything with pinch of salt, but it's the best review site around
Apparently has one high up in the top 100 list somewhere.
> Are heavy games really 'better' than 'light' games? To serious board game players, yes, more complex games are "better" because the simple games tend to have dozens of games with almost identical feel. If the game is complex there can be more variety. > But I don't have time to play games that are very complex and take many hours! And the authors personal biases heavily stilt things.
Light games are great. Ever play "The Mind" or "Exploding Kittens" at a party? Super fun.
Everything is personal biases. If you have the time to set up and play Gloomhaven, great! But many people don't, and that doesn't mean that they're wrong or you're right or that the value they place on the games they play is illogical. If your goal is "have fun with some kids for a half hour" then setting up a solo-play of Mage Knight is a worse choice than shuffling up the Uno deck.
That said: Candyland is both the lightest "game" ever designed and is terrible. It's the gaming equivalent of waiting 10-20 minutes and then each player rolling a d100 to see who rolls highest and wins. /Candyrant
> Are heavy games really 'better' than 'light' games? To serious board game players, yes, more complex games are "better" because the simple games tend to have dozens of games with almost identical feel. If the game is complex there can be more variety. > But I don't have time to play games that are very complex and take many hours! And the authors personal biases heavily stilt things.
This is not limited to board games. You have the same with tabletop, video games and basically everything. There is always that special crowd that enjoys long, complex stuff. How many people here are proud of their hundreds and thousands of hours game time in something like factorio, civilization, rimworld, in the year-long work they invested in some obscure software-project or something physical they had built? Some…
It's just like any other form of entertainment. Think about genre movies. What makes more money, the latest giant Marvel/Disney zip bang popcorn flick, or the deep and complex Oscar Favorite? Why is the Marvel movie making all the money but not winning Best Picture? Why don't complex, difficult stories consistently pull in Marvel level money?
Value is always in the eye of the end user/consumer.