|
goodness posted:You don't like adventure time?
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
Zero_Grade posted:Petty? In the Board Game thread? Well I never! 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
There's better party/drinking games that aren't targeted to a specific audience, though. Munchkin is exclusionary by its very nature. EDIT: Also loving hell, it's right in the second post of this thread. This NEW thread. Please read that post. Tekopo fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Dec 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
goodness posted:Right in the second post where it says just because you think a game is bad doesn't mean it is bad/not fun for other people? But the point is, people saying something is poo poo doesn't stop people from playing it. But saying 'No it's fun and it's good in parties' says nothing. It's empty of actual information.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:I don't like Munchkin because the gameplay is shallow, the jokes are stupid and the game takes far too long. Gameplay is shallow, but that sometimes is not a bad thing. In a party situation, you don't want a game that is going to be too difficult to learn/too cerebral to play. But Munchkin hits the stop in which the rules actively detract from the enjoyment: this is mostly due to the end-game unfortunately, which drags indefinitely/until people are out of 'gently caress-you' cards. Also, if the game ONLY works in a party/drunk situations, why is that the case? Why are there games that work perfectly well in both a 'party' atmosphere as well as outside it (Cash 'n' Guns seems to spring to mind mostly). How can it be a strong recommendation if the only enjoyment you can derive from a game is when you need a social lubricant to actually make it work? Munchkin is also a game that leads to outright un-fun situations if people are getting screwed. Munchkin is a game where doing badly/getting unlucky can directly affect how much influence you have in the game. And telling someone that he is a bad sport because he feels down because the game isn't allowing him to progress is kind of crappy. I think Munchkin can be a step, but at least to me it can lead to dead-ends in terms of people progressing to better stuff. It might be a step up from the likes of Monopoly, but it is a small step and doesn't stop the thoughts of 'board games are still the random luck-fests that I played when I was young'. With so much out there, why settle for Munchkin when there are much better stepping stones, both in terms of party games and just games in general?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:People just post "YEAH DON'T PLAY MUNCHKIN" because the conversation about why Munchkin isn't a good game isn't interesting. The choices you make during your turn are rarely interesting or especially meaningful. There's little agency in your decisions, most choices are either obviously beneficial or not. A flow-chart could play the game as well as anyone. The victory mechanic doesn't reward playing well and turns the game into a slog because you just attack the winning player until you can't. The amount of variance in the door deck and the treasure deck means that difficulty of the challenge you encounter is not reliably proportionate to the reward you receive. And I find your points interesting, but that's just me, I love talking about board games, good or bad 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Speaking only for myself, another reason not to like Munchkin is not seeing the appeal in John Kovalic's artwork, like, at all. 1st Edition:  2nd Edition:  I mean, c'mon 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Hauki posted:I'm not gonna defend the game, but I will make a couple corrections. It's 1/12 for the first roll, the chain reaction is completely by choice, and then has a 50/50 chance of either negating the previous roll (no one dies) or making it worse as you described. If there are no other people at the location being moved to, you can safely push your luck every time. There are also some characters and a whole class of common items that allow you to avoid that die roll to begin with.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2014 12:47
|
|
|
ellbent posted:It would be really cool for people in this thread declaring a game as garbage to have actually paid attention when they played it, 'cause the exposure die is a big honking twelve-sided die and I don't see how people with so many complaints could confuse a caltrop with a baseball. Also, there's these handy cards all over the place that eliminate the risk entirely, because -- fancy that -- one of the core mechanics of the game is risk management. That's why cards like medicine and fuel are there; to force you to choose between protecting your characters and protecting your assets rather than hoarding them the whole game and being mad when a die you roll comes up bust when you have a fist full of "don't roll the die." Also the main issues with the game is how the traitor/personal game elements affect the game. The traitor can just play along (and it is actually advisable to do this) until he tanks the checks right at the very end, and it's impossible to work out if someone is a traitor because the only thing you can ask is 'well why are you hoarding cards?' and that doesn't help because almost everyone has to hoard cards. There's no reason for the traitor to sabotage before his reveal, since it is extremely easy to track down cards and trying to cover the fact that you are sabotaging (by following people around) is in itself suspicious. There's also the fact that some actions by human players are indistinguishable from actions by traitors. Take, for example, the ability of the Pirate guy. Taking cards from other players might piss them off, but it is actually a pro-strat for both townies and traitors. First of all, it might get you what you need to win: second, if the other player is hoarding for his own victory condition and not playing cards into checks because of it, well, then you can play the card for him! So as a townie, you might either improve the chances of your own victory, or improve the chances that the group survives. Sure, it will piss off the other player but what do you care about his own personal winning conditions? Also the action dice mechanism is crap. It just puts out barriers to actions that you can take for no real discernible reasons apart from the designers wanting some way to differentiate the characters. A system in which high dice are universally better than poor dice is a bad system (see Bora Bora for example: it has an interesting dice system in which high rolls give you more stuff but low rolls allow you to lock out the action: the point is that both high and low rolls are equally useful). Sure, there are cards that allow you to re-roll dice, but it is still basically wasting a card (iirc there is one card that allows you to re-roll dice) or waste valuable resources by using food (oh wait, another thing that can be easily screwed by the traitor with no way to stop it). All in all, Dead of Winter has a lot of badly designed mechanisms that are papered over with claims that the game is trying to be 'cinematic' or 'thematic' and that the issues aren't issues at all because you are meant to 'immerse yourself in the experience, man'. This is coming from someone that was legitimately excited about the game until I actually saw a few PbPs and run-throughs and took part in a PbP game myself. There's just so many things that I feel are wrong with the game and that are inexcusable in terms of how far we have gotten in terms of cohesive rules within this hobby.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Also, the first player marker goes anti-clockwise. So, if you are the traitor and haven't revealed yet and are last in the turn order, you can tank a check, create waste and eat all the food, then get another turn to tank checks/make noise etc. e;fb
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:Here's a terrible photo of mine with terrible lighting. The Rogue Success cards match the old Resistance cards, while the other new mission cards match the replacement Success/Fail cards they included. One set is tinted red.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
I really, really like Mysterium and I bought it mostly because I knew my SO would love it (I was right), but I feel it has a few flaws that stop it from being a good game and instead force it to be kind of mediocre. These flaws, I feel, are acerbated by playing it 2P only and with the same people. First of all, we have played like ~10 games of it and we had a few 'oh hey you played this card last time to indicate this card, so going by the same logic, it is this card again this time'. This is kind of annoying when it happens because you are going to see most of the deck after just a couple of games. The fact that there are a lot of how/where/who cards can help and some of the dream cards are well-designed because they can be used to point to several different cards (and this is where playing more than one card is useful), but some dream cards feel almost too specific. The other point is that the time restriction can end-up in situations in which you are certain of victory, even when you guess wrong. For example, in a 2P or 3P game, if you manage to get to the end-game on night 6, you have won, no questions about it. Alternatively, it is possible to lose the game before night 7 if someone doesn't have enough time left to guess the who/where/how, making early mistakes much more damaging than latter mistakes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2014 10:16
|
|
|
People trying to build 'perfect ships' are the worst. The best people are the ones that, after playing a game against a few people that hadn't played with me before, were glad that I was speeding the game up because it meant that they were pressured during the game.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Hannibal Rex posted:It's been a while, but I remember Spartacus being recommended in the previous thread. What's the general opinion on it, now that's it been out for a while? Also, is the expansion worth picking up? How well does it play with 5 or 6? The combat is a dice-fest, but there's some enjoyment in bidding, I guess. I've only played with the shorter scenarios, I can't imagine playing a full game though, it would be interminable.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
IB&C wanted to make a colourblind friendly game and they went a little bit overboard On that note, more games should be colourblind friendly. Age of Industry was good about this, as can be seen below:  Although I think it was the huge fallout from Liberté, which was unfriendly in terms of colours even if you weren't colourblind.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Oh btw, let's have a look at a bad, awful, no-good use of colours: This is the Liberte board.  These are some of the cards. Notice that the purple ones don't quite match any colour on the board!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Legendary Encounters is a guilty pleasure of mine. It kind of works in that it is full co-op, but in terms of a proper deckbuilder it is a bad game.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:The use of symbols is helpful, but upper left and lower center are nigh-indistinguishable to me.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
If you found Gric too dry (and are burnt out on Euros in general), don't buy Terra Mystica.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
What's the point of this post? They had the newbie not use Rough Roads but they did in order to make it more interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:I bought Maria finally and I can't help but feel like I'm hitting the hard stuff now. Anything I should know before I play? I expect to get it to the table once in the next ten years, so I want to be ready.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
CaptainApathyUK posted:I feel like I need a worker placement game in my collection, and am curious about Manhattan Project.  Manhattan Project is alright. It has a weird 'combat' system in that you can build fighters and bombers, where you match fighters off against the opponents and if the defender goes down to 0 fighters, you can bomb his stuff with his bombers. This both means that if you even have 1 less fighter than someone else, he can still hit you for full effectiveness. On the other hand, it does create that 'no one wants to strike first' thing that suits the theme. The worker placement section is that you have to take an action to take your guys back, and you can send your workers either to your own buildings or communal actions. You can also use espionage to use enemy buildings as well, which locks them up until you recall your guys. It works alright but I have a mild dislike for games in which you have to spend actions to recall stuff back (I have a similar problem with the Small World decline action). It was perfectly playable but it didn't blow me away like Caylus/Dungeon Lords/Dungeon Petz did in terms of worker placement games.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Well gently caress, GrandpaPants, thanks for taking the words out of my mouth 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
All the best WP games have direct ways to attack your opponents
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
T-Bone posted:What are some of the WPs besides like Dominant Species with tons of player interaction/direct conflict? - The prime example is, of course, Caylus. Caylus is a well designed game because not only it provides scarcity in resources, but it also provides means of direct competition/interaction in the use of the Provost as well as how the castle/favours work (where you want to be first on the castle queue but doing so means that potential resource spaces you need are taken over). Hell, even passing your turn in Caylus is a strategic, meaningful decision because of how the cost of placing an action increases when you end your turn. - Dungeon Lords is another good example, although the game is difficult enough that new players sometimes miss the depth of interaction possible. Not only do I need to look at what is a 'safe' option by seeing what other people have locked out, but I can directly screw over people by NOT playing certain cards. The funniest play is when someone has no food AND gold, and needs food that turn, so they play their food need third in the hope that someone else plays food, but the other three players notice this and don't play food. There's so much player interaction in Dungeon Lords it is quite frankly mind-boggling. - Dungeon Petz has some of the same factors given above, although less so. Still, being able to take up a pet or preventing someone from getting food is pretty funny. - Agricola is a game that feels completely different depending on who you play it against. I've played it with passive people that only cared about their own stuff and I've played it with a guy that will take advantage of every single opportunity he has to make your people starve. It was quite an education playing with him repeatedly. WP that don't have these sort of scarcity interactions are, to be honest, not worth playing. If you want to narrow down the definition of 'attacking your opponents' into simply 'killing his dudes', then yeah, sure, that does narrow down the list.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Stop raising to the bait, people, what's the point. Last Will was alright I guess, it just didn't feel like there was much competition outside of the race aspects. It was playable but somehow felt uninspired. Tzol'kin is probably the only game I've seen that does the 'put stuff on/take it off' gimmick done right.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
I think people got thrown off by the  at the end of the sentence, that's all.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2015 12:23
|
|
|
The most dangerous game (of 18XX): if you go bankrupt in game, you go bankrupt IN REAL LIFE 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
Fat Turkey posted:I got to try out the Draughts café in London on Sunday. Got there at 10:30am and there were only a few people there, so it was easy to grab a table and some games. The layout of the place is good, and £5 entry fee is pretty fair.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Fat Turkey posted:Well, I drove, which isn't much use to you. But my brother took the overground, regular enough services to south London, 30 mins, no problem. Its right outside the station so shouldn't be too difficult to get to. Don't know how Central you are but if you can get on that Overground route it shouldn't be a problem.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:This, in essence, is the core of CitOW. Finding the right balance of screwing everyone else and not getting screwed yourself. And there's no other game like it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
AMooseDoesStuff posted:I play most of my board games in a pub, in public. Which has been the limiting factor in getting Space Alert.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
What the gently caress are you people doing to my thread
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 08:58
|
|
|
I think they jumped the shark around the time of that extremely lovely 'Knizia invades from space' episode that was just one painful joke after the other. I still look at their videos because they are entertaining but their stuff only really works when you have both Paul and Quinn reviewing something, because they play off each other's analysis/tastes etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 10:56
|
|
|
I actually think Paul is into the more complex/heavy euros but his opinions seem to, quite often, be overshadowed by Quinn's. You can see it in reviews where there is a discrepancy between their views, Quinn is just more forceful in his opinions.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 11:45
|
|
|
Scyther posted:You can't perform an objective analysis of a game if you can't come to terms with the fact that you sometimes enjoy things that are objectively bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
I don't think there is a 'best game ever', because that description is purely a subjective view and in the end, it is just a personal ranking. I don't think it is possible to have the platonic ideal of a board game that would be universally praised by all people, which all have different tastes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
There are various reasons why I don't really frequent any of the forums for BGG but the constant cheerleading despite all odds is probably my main reason. Also I hate the wargaming community there, but not as much as I hate the 18xx community there. Anyone that has every talked about 18xx there knows what I'm talking about regarding the latter statement.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
Just use the Countdown theme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e32kaa9TzeE Works well because it naturally causes people to panic as the time goes down.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 13:52
|
|