|
spoon daddy posted:I have 2 friends coming by my house this weekend and I was looking for recommendations for 3 player games. Our tastes are varied so we are up for really anything that be played under 2 hours(can be a little longer for initial learning curve) I'm never going to stop suggesting Hanabi.
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 03:34 |
|
|
I got into boardgames via Munchkin. I still enjoy Munchkin with the right (roleplaying) group of friends. It is not a good game and I wouldn't recommend it to new players, but it holds some nostalgic value for me. I need a genre recommendation: Outdoor-compatible games! The weather is fine, and my apartment is from a time when windows were not structurally sound, so I want to be outside, but also play boardgames. What are some good wind-resistant games? Preferably some with a decent amount of strategy. The most important thing is no cards to blow away and not too many small fiddly bits to get lost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
bowmore posted:It's probably because it's not very good Oh no not you too  I'll admit as a game it's kinda light on balance and heavy on fluff, but there's nothing wrong with that! Sure it can take forever to get started but it can also start right away and cause all kinds of crazy situations. The game is all about telling a story or creating one sometimes as the case may be. Plus after owning all this time i've still not played all 50 of the stories which is somthing to be said for longevity. If there is ever a game to get people together and just kind of screw around it's this one, at least with me and my group of people that like bad games 
The Shame Boy fucked around with this message at 09:32 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 09:28
|
|
|
HOOLY BOOLY posted:Oh no not you too You do realise that's not a rare opinion in this thread
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 09:30
|
|
|
Rumda posted:You do realise that's not a rare opinion in this thread Yeah i suppose it's not, but to each his own
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 09:35
|
|
|
I don't think people have issues with experience generators (people in the thread seem to like Tales of the Arabian Nights, for example), but the fact that in Betrayal the experiences are so random that they can often be negative, rather than positive experiences. This is partially due to the adversarial aspect of the game: if the game was full co-op and random stuff happened, maybe the effect would be lessened but then people would still complain about some of the scenarios just creating no-win situations. People ARE aware of the existence of experience-generators and I don't think the thread is excluding them as board games or anything like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 09:45
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:I'm never going to stop suggesting Hanabi. I was scolded for suggesting it as a "brainy" game in some other forum, in the middle of a sea of Le Havre and hex-and-counter wargames suggestions. The OP had requested a brainy game in the line of Arkham Horror, War of the Ring and Archipielago (his examples, not mine). Boardgame players are a bunch of snobs and meanies
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 09:48
|
|
|
BonHair posted:I need a genre recommendation: Outdoor-compatible games! The weather is fine, and my apartment is from a time when windows were not structurally sound, so I want to be outside, but also play boardgames. What are some good wind-resistant games? Preferably some with a decent amount of strategy. The most important thing is no cards to blow away and not too many small fiddly bits to get lost. Hive or Skull & Roses should work. I don't think you can find any heavy games.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 10:24
|
|
|
HOOLY BOOLY posted:Yeah i suppose it's not, but to each his own Honestly, it isn't the best game, but me and my online group usually just pull it out if we want to summon a giant spider which fucks everyone up. Then, again my group likes Talisman so you guys would hate them. FutureFriend fucked around with this message at 11:05 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 11:02
|
|
|
HOOLY BOOLY posted:Yeah i suppose it's not, but to each his own  I'd happily play it with you even if I'm not a huge fan
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 11:24
|
|
|
so im actually curious now, is there anyone in this thread who genuinely enjoys monopoly or is that person just a mythical beast?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
I have several friends who love 'x themed monopoly', eg Star Wars monopoly, yet who wouldn't dream of playing the original game unless in severe power outage scenarios. And every time of course it ends up being a shitshow, but damned if they don't ask constantly if it's available.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 11:35
|
|
|
FutureFriend posted:so im actually curious now, is there anyone in this thread who genuinely enjoys monopoly or is that person just a mythical beast? My opinion is that Monopoly isn't a bad game, but it's a mediocre game that has been part of the zeitgeist for so long, it is the poster child for board games to the common man. The basic rules to Monopoly are not terrible. Sure, it has roll and move without any possibility of agency on the players' part, but it doesn't do some of the awful things some RnM games require like landing by exact count to win. It also has player elimination, which is generally frowned upon. Not to say it totally bad to eliminated players, but no one wants to wait for hours before the next game is ready to start. Newer versions of Monopoly have remedied this by making the goal for the first person to a certain dollar value. Finally, and probably the worst part isn't even the game's fault: the rules. I say it isn't its fault because everyone "knows" the rules to Monopoly, but you'd be hard pressed to find a handful of people who have read the actual rules. I know I haven't. Why? Because, as I said, Monopoly has been a part of our culture for so long, that the rules have become a part of our oral tradition. Most people's first experience with Monopoly was with someone who taught them the game, and there was probably some variance in the rules taught. Take for example putting taxes on Free Parking. This house rule has become so wide spread, but it is one of the things that breaks the game to hell. In conclusion, liking Monopoly doesn't make you a bad person, but you could better spend your time with better games. Liking Talisman, however, makes you about on the level of Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 12:47
|
|
|
No, no one likes Monopoly unless they have nostalgic family memories of it. That's partly because Monopoly isn't a very fun game and partly because no one plays it correctly. If you don't house rule it and actually play with no Free Parking extra money and auction off unpurchased properties, it plays much faster and isn't the horrible 3 hour slog most people associate with Monopoly. But it's still not very fun. However, I did run across this variant recently, where the Banker is a discrete player. It looks interesting for driving home Monopoly's central theme - that Capitalism is, at the least, a stacked deck against the common man and, at worst, a completely hosed system. Lawen fucked around with this message at 12:57 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
FutureFriend posted:so im actually curious now, is there anyone in this thread who genuinely enjoys monopoly or is that person just a mythical beast? You might find a couple in the thread's long history. Outside of here you will probably find a lot of folks that do though, but generally they're the types of people that don't have experience with anything that is not a parker brothers or Milton Bradley game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 12:56
|
|
|
mongol posted:It also has player elimination, which is generally frowned upon. Not to say it totally bad to eliminated players, but no one wants to wait for hours bhttp://forums.somethingawful.com/editpost.php?action=editpost&postid=431172119efore the next game is ready to start. )
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 13:01
|
|
|
FutureFriend posted:so im actually curious now, is there anyone in this thread who genuinely enjoys monopoly or is that person just a mythical beast? I do but I always insist it be played by the actual rules. Property Auctions and no drat money on Free Parking. mongol posted:Liking Talisman, however, makes you about on the level of Hitler. 
Rutibex fucked around with this message at 13:05 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 13:01
|
|
|
The End posted:As more and more of their reviews pile up, it's getting clearer that they're pretty poor judges of complex games. Their reviews of Terra Mystica and Archipelago convinced me to purchase both games, and that has led me to many happy times since. I have a friend who hosts a game night on Thursdays, and he's always trying to get us to watch some Tom Vasel video. Seriously how did this horrible sperglord ever get to be popular?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 13:21
|
|
|
I wonder if Monopoly could be made a bearable light game if you cut the number of spaces in half and did anything else required to keep the playtime in the 30-45 minute range. Anyway the actual game makes a lot more sense when you consider that the original design was supposed to be an aid for teaching the economic principle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:I wonder if Monopoly could be made a bearable light game if you cut the number of spaces in half and did anything else required to keep the playtime in the 30-45 minute range. That sounds suspiciously like Monopoly Jr.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
The End posted:You don't have to defend them. They're already becoming the pre-eminent voice in the hobby. They'll survive us critiquing their critique. They're occasionally wrong, and that's okay. Except when they spaz out and defend their position ad absurdum a'la A Few Acres of Snow. Oh, I absolutely agree that they're occasionally just wrong (their Sentinels review!), and I find they're enthusiastic about certain things that would go over like a lead balloon at my table. But I do think it's important to remember that their goal isn't necessarily to cater to the tastes of the experienced and invested boardgamer. Both as context for the occasional slightly baffling take on a game and as a grain of salt against their enthusiasm when it comes to taking them as a buyer's guide.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
malkav11 posted:Oh, I absolutely agree that they're occasionally just wrong (their Sentinels review!), Their review of Sentinels was on-point and summarized nearly every single complaint I have against that game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
Pierzak posted:It's not. Player elimination can be a wonderful thing. I can go play something else (possibly with others who've dropped off too), go read a book, or something. On the other hand, if I have absolutely no chance to win (even with hypothetical total mastery of the game) and I'm expected to keep playing for another 90+ minutes, you can fully expect that I'll gently caress things up for my amusement, just because the game doesn't let me do anything better. (I realize some consider this dickish, but I'm quite open about this so if they still want me to play such a game they know what they're into The theoretical game you describe (playing 90+ minute with no hope of winning) is a bad game. Getting to leave early is a good thing because it's poorly designed. Generally speaking, you don't want a social activity to purposefully exclude people from it partway through the process.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:I'm never going to stop suggesting Hanabi. I pretty much won't stop suggesting Hanabi to anyone who will listen (and a few who won't). It's such a simple game that's fast to learn and easy to play, but hard to play well. I also love that it's small enough that I can slip it into my purse and bring it wherever, because it also doesn't need a lot of space to be set up. The fact that your strategy changes based on who is playing keeps me interested, and it's nice to have a game on the table where everyone is working towards a common goal once in a while. To avoid double posting, can anyone tell me if Arkham Horror is as good of a game as all the reprintings and expansions would suggest...? And would Call of Cthulhu be a good first LCG?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
Niemat posted:I pretty much won't stop suggesting Hanabi to anyone who will listen (and a few who won't). It's such a simple game that's fast to learn and easy to play, but hard to play well. I also love that it's small enough that I can slip it into my purse and bring it wherever, because it also doesn't need a lot of space to be set up. The fact that your strategy changes based on who is playing keeps me interested, and it's nice to have a game on the table where everyone is working towards a common goal once in a while. Arkham Horror is a mess of a game. Everything I've heard is that Eldritch Horror does much the same thing but in a cleaner and tighter package, although I'm still not sure you'd find a lot of recommendations for it either here. I've not heard of anybody playing Cthulu LCG.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
Niemat posted:To avoid double posting, can anyone tell me if Arkham Horror is as good of a game as all the reprintings and expansions would suggest...? The best reprint is Eldritch Horror. Play that instead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:Arkham Horror is a mess of a game. Everything I've heard is that Eldritch Horror does much the same thing but in a cleaner and tighter package, although I'm still not sure you'd find a lot of recommendations for it either here. Bummer, but I'm not 100% surprised. Sometimes I feel like games with a Lovecraft theme really just rely on the theme for sales instead of a solid mechanic. Edit: But that's probably a lot of themes in a lot of games, rereading that...
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
Metos posted:I have several friends who love 'x themed monopoly', eg Star Wars monopoly, yet who wouldn't dream of playing the original game unless in severe power outage scenarios. From what I've seen, Monopoly is the laziest of the 'themed' games (that is among stuff like Monopoly, Risk, Stratego, etc.)- Star Wars is exactly the same thing as the base game, for example. Even though Risk isn't a great game, I do appreciate that the licensed versions tried to experiment with the rules a bunch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:Arkham Horror is a mess of a game. Everything I've heard is that Eldritch Horror does much the same thing but in a cleaner and tighter package, although I'm still not sure you'd find a lot of recommendations for it either here. I would recommend Eldritch Horror. Unlike Arkham, there are clear objectives, clearly written rules, and it removes about 75% of the fiddly bits (keeping track of Reckoning effects is still sorta fiddly). It is not a masterpiece of game design and games can get suuuuper long past 4 players if you're reading all the flavor text, but enjoying Eldritch Horror is no longer a guilty pleasure. It is a genuinely enjoyable co-op experience.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
Niemat posted:To avoid double posting, can anyone tell me if Arkham Horror is as good of a game as all the reprintings and expansions would suggest...? And would Call of Cthulhu be a good first LCG? Netrunner, Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings are all good LCGs. Which one you should get depends on you and your gaming group. Netrunner and Star Wars are both two player duel games. although Star Wars has an expansion that provides multiplayer options. Lord of the Rings is a cooperative game that can also be played solo. Edit: Regarding Call of Cthulhu. It is one of the older LCGs and is seeing fewer releases. Coincidentally, I don't know anyone that plays it. Free Gratis fucked around with this message at 14:43 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:I do but I always insist it be played by the actual rules. Property Auctions and no drat money on Free Parking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I also unironically enjoy Monopoly according to the actual rules. But I don't enjoy it as much as numerous other games. I'd say it's roughly comparable to Settlers of Catan, and less good than Bohnanza. Speaking of Bohnanza, did anyone ever play the 'special' edition, where all the drawings were fan-made? Most of them just weren't very good, but a couple of them were just really bad racist caricatures. Edit: Ohhhkay, after checking the official art, apparently this is actually not too far off from what it's supposed to be. Dang, Bohnanza.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:I would recommend Eldritch Horror. Unlike Arkham, there are clear objectives, clearly written rules, and it removes about 75% of the fiddly bits (keeping track of Reckoning effects is still sorta fiddly). It is not a masterpiece of game design and games can get suuuuper long past 4 players if you're reading all the flavor text, but enjoying Eldritch Horror is no longer a guilty pleasure. It is a genuinely enjoyable co-op experience. Thanks! I'll have to look into Eldritch Horror instead! Bosushi! posted:Netrunner, Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings are all good LCGs. Which one you should get depends on you and your gaming group. Netrunner and Star Wars are both two player duel games. although Star Wars has an expansion that provides multiplayer options. Lord of the Rings is a cooperative game that can also be played solo. Excellent! Thanks! I'll probably look into The Lord of the Rings LCG based on that description.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:That sounds suspiciously like Monopoly Jr. Never played it but looking at it, still not small enough! Big McHuge posted:Their review of Sentinels was on-point and summarized nearly every single complaint I have against that game. http://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/a-scathing-review-of-sotm-on-penny-arcades-susd-4005 I do enjoy watching people miss the point so much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
Niemat posted:Bummer, but I'm not 100% surprised. Sometimes I feel like games with a Lovecraft theme really just rely on the theme for sales instead of a solid mechanic. They do, but at least not as bad as Zombie games.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:Watching this is like a summary of all the things I expect not to like about that game. Maybe one day I'll play it and see how it is. The best part though was searching for it brought up some prime whining from fans of the game way back: I'm going to get to try it for the first time on Sunday for a board game day. Definitely interested to see if my experience mirrors theirs in the end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
Speaking of SU&SD reviews I guess I was pretty surprised when they concluded that Takenoko of all games was going to stop people's friends from ever wanting to play games again. Because it's.. low interaction? It has hidden objectives? I don't really know. The kicker was Cosmic Encounter held up as the polar opposite.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:I think this is really something to keep in mind when watching their reviews. They're still unarguably the best 'board game video reviewers' out there, though that's not a very high bar to clear, but they're very caught up in the flash and spectacle of a game. Really, I have a deep suspicion that they don't play a game more than once or twice before reviewing it, especially longer ones. Which means games with more depth or nuance than, say, Kemet, tend to get given a not-entirely-fair view. It's pretty much a given at this point that they don't really give games more than a few playthroughs and their reviews should really be taken as first impressions at best. Tales of the Arabian Nights is actually a pretty good example. Quinns is pretty insistent that the sheer number of tales means that you won't hit repeats very often, but it honestly only takes a couple of plays before patterns become exceptionally obvious. Certain situations, like being pursued or put in jail, have a very limited number of events to play with and an obvious "best" choice to always take. I actually think their Vlaada game reviews show this pretty well too. Space Alert and Galaxy Trucker get high marks from them because those games are very front loaded and there's no need to play several games in order to see the appeal. Through the Ages and Dungeon Lords are deeper and more complex games that really need lots of playtime to shine, and they're down on both of them. I don't think any of this makes their reviews bad, but it's something that everyone should keep in mind when using their videos as buying guides.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
Played a game of Mage Wars last night, as the Druid vs. the Warlord. The Druid's gimmick is that she can drop "vine" tokens on the board, as they spread around the board she can then use spells to "pop" them and replace them with spells from her spellbook as long as they are a vine-type spell (which includes powerful trees/ents/carnivorous plants, and seedling pods - which are mini spells that grow into bigger ones). The Warlord's gimmick is that they can build a ton of soldiers, and support structures that boost the troops, like archer towers which allow troops to fire over walls and with extra range, and barracks which help them cast even more troops. The Warlord themselves are also pretty deadly in close combat, and could probably focus on a build that supported just them solo. The game reached a final point where the Warlord and his troops were all in a space huddled together, with all the forest spawning around them, with vines bursting thorns into the troops faces and plants trying to pull them away and separate them and devour them. It was pretty much the scene from Predator when all the guys are firing wildly into the jungle. I ended up dieing because I wasn't paying attention, and moved my Druid too close, and the Warlord dropped a boulder on my head after taking a ton of damage from his pile of troops firing at me. All in all, a very enjoyable game experience. After playing a couple games of it, it does seem like that while you can totally whiff on damage rolls due to the nature of dice, you can very much have a stronger board position due to clever card play, and that matters much more than any single die roll. Is it possible that you could lose based on a die roll? I would say it's possible, but there's alot of card play that would lead up to that, the game would probably last 10 turns on average, so there are many opportunities to manipulate your board position and advantage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 03:34 |
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:I would recommend Eldritch Horror. Unlike Arkham, there are clear objectives, clearly written rules, and it removes about 75% of the fiddly bits (keeping track of Reckoning effects is still sorta fiddly). It is not a masterpiece of game design and games can get suuuuper long past 4 players if you're reading all the flavor text, but enjoying Eldritch Horror is no longer a guilty pleasure. It is a genuinely enjoyable co-op experience. I arrived at Eldritch Horror from the other side of the spectrum with Elder Sign (Cthulhu yahtzee). The game intimidated the hell out of me and sat on a shelf for a few months, but during work one day I put a super long Let's Play on in the background and it taught me the game (http://bit.ly/1jyQvPH). Aside from a lot of play mechanics, the Let's Play calmed me down about having to know ALL THE RULES ahead of time, and how it's kind of normal to forget rules during a play and remember them a turn later. Anyhow, the game is my new favorite thing. If you enjoy it at all, get the expansion Forsaken Lore because it adds a ton more cards to the game which will cut down encounter repetition a lot. Hopefully more expansions are on the way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 16:48
|
|
