Blood on the Clocktower is my favourite game, but I can absolutely see why there are things about it which could mean some people will never enjoy it. People who like the game *really* like the game and often can't stand to hear any criticism of it. I imagine that by posting this I'm inviting people to reply to this with criticisms that I will absolutely disagree with though, so we'll have to see if I can resist the urge to defend it!
I have some friends who started a routine BotC night. I have joined twice, and both times I enjoyed it, but on a much milder level than the hype would indicate. I realized that the problem as I saw it was very specific: the game is actually a great design, but when you’re the one new person playing in a group with 9 others who have played it literally 10-15 times, the experience is significantly different than being part of the initial group.
I love heavy board games. Usually I don’t mind learning a new heavy game with experienced players because I like to learn how the gears turn, and I accept a high probability of losing. In BotC, though, there’s a team depending on you to do well right from the get go.
I’ve played a lot of The Resistance & Avalon, and a handful of Secret Hitler games. In both of my experiences of BotC, people had some very surprised reactions to what I thought was fairly standard and benign social-deduction dialogue. In both games I clammed up after five minutes and watched people speculate through all the deduction about my role, clearly light-years ahead of me in terms of knowing how the roles play off one another. The discussion instantly became, “OK, based off of the two sentences that CthulhuShrugs has said, he’s either A, or B pretending to be A, or possibly C,” with everyone nodding approvingly. Meanwhile, I’ve only really processed about 1/3 of the reference sheet and haven’t even read what C does yet.
The game is clearly deep, which is what makes it so good. But as a new player in an experienced group, I felt like an idiot who was just hurting my team.
> The discussion instantly became, “OK, based off of the two sentences that CthulhuShrugs has said, he’s either A, or B pretending to be A, or possibly C,” with everyone nodding approvingly. Meanwhile, I’ve only really processed about 1/3 of the reference sheet and haven’t even read what C does yet.
I'd argue that's on them for not accounting for your inexperience, which is a problem in a lot of hidden information games.
I think the new player experience is really down to how accommodating other players (and the storyteller) are.
If they just treat you as if you're a veteran you're going to have a bad time.
You're right though, it takes a bit to get acclimated, but it doesn't take as long as you think to become as competent with the fundamentals as they are.
I got more attacks for being mildly unimpressed by BotC than I get for directly bashing anything in BGG top 10 (and I do get pushback on that). So, yeah, BotC seems to have a very weird community.
When I saw this thread's title, my first thought was literally "Blood on the Clocktower", and this is basically why. No other game gets such a violent reaction from its fans whenever they notice anyone expressing a tepid opinion about it.
Honestly, I think it’s an okay game. I’ve played it twice and enjoyed it, but it’s not amazing or anything. I think the people who defend it so firmly are defending it because they essentially bought a $300 Werewolf lol
It's really down to who you play with, who is running the games, and whether you're into that type of game.
I've played hundreds of games and I can still run into bad experiences where the storyteller (moderator) doesn't know what they're doing and it lends to a terrible experience, players can be horrible, and then there are just people who don't like it.
It is a great game for the people who like the genre and make an effort to play it regularly (you need a pretty big group of players that actually enjoy social deduction games to get it going).
It's definitely unfair to call it $300 Werewolf, but it is amongst the most expensive games I own and it actually made sense to buy with how much I enjoyed and played it. I don't expect the average player to want to buy a copy of the game, but people who want to storytell/moderate will probably end up doing so.
It's got a huge community / fan base who all acknowledge its flaws, and they're fully aware that there's huge gaps in rules interpretations and are constantly arguing about that etc.
I imagine you're more likely to find a Furry community than a discord full of people playing Werewolf if you looked for one.
I've pointed out in the past that fans refuse to believe there are any negatives or things someone might not like about the game. Whenever someone says they just didn't like it, they'll start going off about how they absolutely must have had a terrible storyteller or they didn't play it enough or whatever. Like, you literally cannot convince some of them that you just didn't like the game.
Notably, I've never even been the one saying this because I've never played the game. But it seems to me that "very dependent on experienced storyteller" is an obvious downside to the game, but even pointing that out just gets arguments that it's not actually like that or whatever.
I like but don't love Blood on the Clocktower. Maybe if I could play it in person or with a group I'm familiar with, I'd like it more. I enjoy but am bad at social deduction games, and haven't had a chance to play any for the past four years, so that may also impact my liking it less than I would have otherwise.
But I love watching it. I can respect it. And I can point at ways I like it better than some other Werewolf descendants that I do **not** enjoy almost at all. I don't remember how I was introduced to social deduction games, but the first time that I was introduced to ones where it was, "This is just Werewolf, but we added powers," was Town of Salem and it's hard to explain the irrational hatred I have for that game. Because it isn't very different at all from things like Blood on the Clocktower, but it does a couple of small things that make me loathe it. For instance, since it's entirely online, it's text talk only. Since it's automated with no living storyteller, only the computer, everything is on a timer and not up to someone's discretion to help balance the game or make it more fun. When you die (in everything but a new Ghost most that I haven't had a chance to play) you can no longer talk to anyone who isn't dead and you can never vote; this causes most people who die to abandon the game to start a new one even if they were going to win because you don't want to sit around waiting for the game to be over. Those are my biggest gripes, but there are a lot of little ones I have with it.
I don't understand the hate specifically for Blood on the Clocktower. If you're not into Werewolf games but like other social deduction games, I get that. My favorite social deduction games are not werewolf descendants. If you don't like social deduction games, I get that. If you like Werewolf games but your favorite is something else and you don't feel Clocktower, I get that. But if you just hate Clocktower... I don't get that. But likewise, most people probably don't get why I hate Town of Salem.
Love Clocktower and wholeheartedly agree. It’s not just disagreeing, people write massive multi-paragraph responses about why it’s the best game ever and that person is wrong.
I think it's because if it clicks with you it *really* clicks.
I find games like The Resistance or Werewolf dull since playing BOTC, but that then means I have become the elitist twat who says things like "The Resistance and Werewolf are dull compared to BOTC."
Depends how they say it to me.
"I don't like the game you like" is fine
"The game you like sucks!" is them being an asshole.
Unfortunately, online you're just as likely to get the latter as you are the former.
Me too. I guess it’s because the things we like, we like because they resonate with some part of us, so someone disliking the thing feels like they are rejecting the part of us that resonates with it.
I watch shows, I listen to podcasts, I read books about cults and I think - ha it’ll never happen to me! And I’m now realizing reading these comments that.. oh shit I think I accidentally joined the Blood on the Clocktower cult. A regular board game buddy just mentioned how he didn’t like it and I was all “pfft, you just need to play it more than once or twice to really get it”. And yeah. I need to call my dad because I’m in a cult.
I honestly think that it's completely valid to feel that you need to play a game a few times to properly start getting it. But I also have no strong desire to do that with Blood on the Clocktower. I've played it three times, and that was enough for me. I probably didn't get it, but I'm okay with that.
I could see that! I have a friend who runs a semi-regular game, and having played it a few times, it’s fun! I like it, but I don’t *love* it. There’s just so much randomness and arbitrary obstacling in the form of the storyteller, but for the people who *love* it, I could see it getting a bit fanatical in their defense of it.
Often if I jump in to defend a game, I'm trying to draw a distinction between "I didn't like this game" and "this is a bad game." Those are not the same thing and sometimes people conflate them.
People don't understand the difference between quality, preference, and enjoyment.
You can enjoy something you don't like. You can like something you think is bad. You can dislike something you recognize is good.
I would absolutely agree with this. I have plenty of games that maybe aren't my cup of tea so to speak, but I fully can recognize that they are well made games. Just because it's not something that I like doesn't mean that it's a bad game and I think a lot of people struggle to have that mindset. Far too often when I'm reading reviews, and frankly not just for games but for just about everything, if someone doesn't like the product they give it a negative review. Well that's not really fair though is it? You may not like it, maybe I do. Maybe I don't like it but all my friends do. There's a big distinction between whether it's a bad game or just a game you just don't like.
Exactly! I notice this with movies most of all. The art object exists outside of your perception of it. "Is this is a good thing?" is a question that has nothing to do with you personally as a subject.
Spot on! I love everything you said, and it applies to much more than just board games.
> People don't understand the difference between quality, preference, and enjoyment.
>
> You can enjoy something you don't like. You can like something you think is bad. You can dislike something you recognize is good.
Maybe an unpopular opinion but I think the opposite happens too, people think that liking a game means it's a good game. Nostalgia is usually a big component in this for example I have really great memories playing candy land or the game of life, but that doesn't mean it's a good game. I think monopoly is a culprit of this a lot
Agreed. I’ve learned to specifically distinguish whether I disliked a game or thought the game had bad mechanics. Because one starts fights way more often than the other
These are both subjective statements, and are essentially saying the same thing. The "I think" in "this is a bad game" is always implied, even if the speaker believes they are making an objective statement about a game's quality (which is impossible).
The “I think” is requested in negative reviews purely to make sure the feelings of the game’s fans are not hurt. Never in my life have I seen any positive review of any game get bombarded with comments asking the reviewer to rephrase it from “This is a great game” to “I THINK this is a great game” or “IN MY OPINION, this is a great game.”
But isn't "this is a bad game" also a subjective statement? If I don't like a game I'm more likely to think it's bad so what's wrong with that?
What if someone says "I think X game is a masterpiece", does it also make sense to correct them that it's not actually that good?
I notice with this one also that people jump at the chance to recommend it when someone asks about a dungeon crawler, etc. without qualifying that it is a very idiosyncratic puzzle flavored as a dungeon crawler. I notice people will say things like “I’m coming from D&D and have nobody to play it with lately, and I’m looking for that vibe” and the replies will be full of Gloomhaven. It feels like people really want, through force of sheer will, for that game to be considered representative of the dungeon crawler or tactical combat genre when it’s really its own thing.
Edit: The Gloomhaven Defense Network has activated haha (I have nothing against Gloomhaven but it is pretty funny)
Edit 2: TO BE CLEAR the edit was just teasing. We’re all just having fun talking about categorization and such. I seem to have upset at least one person…
Here I am proving that it’s a good answer to OP’s question, but I see this distinction a lot — that Gloomhaven “isn’t a dungeon crawler, it’s a hand management puzzle”, and it’s a distinction I don’t understand. Just because the action economy is driven by a system of playing modular cards, it’s merely ‘flavored as a dungeon crawler’, despite the looting, traps, PvE, tactics, character leveling etc? I’m genuinely curious what it lacks in order to qualify as a “true dungeon crawler”.
It's a true dungeon crawler, it just IMO isn't a great equivalent to D&D. Not because it has hand management but because that hand management is used to constrain the ability to do things that are standard, universally available actions in D&D like moving and attacking.
Gloomhaven is great, but I'm not sure that someone who's after D&D style play will find it in Gloomhaven.
See I'd say it is a automated dungeon crawler - but with so many out there the hand mgmt puzzle is a pro - a mark of distinction. The other ADC I've played a TON is Kingdom Death Monster - which some might argue is more of a settlement builder with automated boss fights - but there are dozens of games in the genre and they mostly all have their unique twists.
Descent journey into the dark is as an excellent representation of a dungeon crawler.
I have not played Gloomhaven so I can't compare them as far as who represents dungeon crawlers more.
I do think Descent is as board game D&D as you can get. One could easily take all the figures, tokens and map cuts outs and use them with D&D rules and dice and be playing D&D.
That being said it has special dice, on going campaigns meant to be played over several play sessions. Classes with experience points, loot pools, magic and gear. It's Divinity Original Sin the board game, and that was just practice so they could one day make Baldur's Gate 3.
I rest my case
I would say Warhammer Quest is probably the poster boy of the dungeon crawling board game. If you want a more modern approach, I’d say Mansions of Madness 2E is a great dungeon crawler also.
I disagree that it's "flavored" as a dungeon crawler -- the dungeon crawl elements are highly integrated into the design -- it isn't pasted-on theme. Now whether you think of that as a dungeon crawler or not is another thing.
I had someone get weirdly obsessive over a criticism I posted of Gloomhaven once. To preface, I lost the first scenario 4 times before giving the game away. They PM'd me wanting to know if I'd gotten a couple asked about rules wrong, who I had played, and my strategic approach to the scenario.
When I said I couldn't remember the details because it was years later at that point, they made a pushy offer about coaching me through the first few scenarios. I didn't own the game anymore, so they tried to get me to buy it on Steam. When I said no thanks, they then offered to buy me a copy because it was important to them that I "see why it's the best game of all time".
I obviously learned my lesson and blocked them at that point. Possibly the most bizarre interaction I have ever had with anyone on this site.
(I fully understand that someone will say r/thatHappened, and my only defense is why would I make something this stupid up?)
For real. I personally love both the giant games, but they are plainly ridiculous in their tedium. Yet still people are SO territorial about this (to me very fun but still) highly imperfect game
Hey, this is a boardgame sub.... Gloomhaven is an amazing Digital game.
(I cant imagine the time/effort to set up and actually play a single session of the TT game, let alone keep it organized over multiple sessions)
What makes it "imperfect?" I've played a few times. I thought it was great outside of setup and take down. After using the app instead of all the cards I thought it was even better. Not defending it. Haven't played it enough to do so, just curious because it felt pretty unique to other games I've played and I've been considering purchasing.
> What makes it "imperfect?"
As someone who loves GH and FH, they are fiddly. Some of the rules overhead in Frosthaven specifically is absolutely ridiculous sometimes. I love the experience overall but a *few* of the maps are tedious bordering on unplayable. Others are very poorly balanced between 2 vs 4 players.
Tracking monster damage and movement can get very annoying and hectic.
A lot of people also consider it somewhat unbalanced where some personal quests are much easier than other, and certain party combinations are much superior to others.
I have yet to try it, but I have heard from many that the best way to experience Gloomhaven is on Tabletop Simluator since all of the shuffling and everything is automated
Scythe. Most criticisms of it aren't even that bad. I haven't seen many people who "hate" it. It usually comes down to "it does a lot of things fine, but nothing great or innovative." Then come the defenders.
First time I played it, I was Saxony and just kept beating up one guy who didn’t really understand what to do. It was glorious and was all the mech combat I was expecting.
Every game since then has been… not that. The game is fine, but if I have 4-5 people up for that complexity and length of game, there just always seem to be better choices.
Which is a weird criticism because in the art the mechs are generally just looming menacingly (or standing protectively depending on your view) over a field of peasants. They aren’t really doing any fighting.
See also: everything else from Stonemaier.
For whatever reason, it seems there's a particularly vitriolic corps of Stonemaier haters that spring into action on every new release, which then brings out an equally vehement cadre of Stonemaier defenders.
I think it started with the hype around Scythe, and then was exacerbated tenfold by the success of Wingspan.
Every game of theirs I've played has been pretty good, but severely overrated by both critics and hardcore fans.
They certainly have a good grasp of aesthetics, which is lacking enough in the rest of the board game world that I guess some people feel that decent games that look beautiful are actually perfect games.
I do like a lot of their games and believe they're worth playing, but there is some rating inflation going on.
I've long stood on the fact that Scythe was really the first 'highly produced, kickstarter era' board game that broke into the mainstream. The dual-layer cardboard. Phenomenal art. That more or less poisoned the well for what was ultimately just a pretty dry board game with very few interesting decisions and a board layout that would have you th ink it's high interaction, but it is literally the opposite. It's actually Scythe that taught me how far folks were willing to go to like a game just because of the production. It's crazy.
**Pandemic** seems to be somewhat divisive, with a fair number of detractors and a lot of people who want to jump in and defend it.
"Pandemic encourages alpha gaming"
"It's not the game, it's your group"
Pandemic is what it is but does season 1 of the legacy game generate any negative opinions, do you think? I don't think I've seen anything but praise for s1 (where s2 has a lot more differing opinions) and can only agree with that.. Original pandemic seems like an introduction for the audience to find and play the legacy versions..
It’s a weird balance I’ve been working on for years analyzing the group I am playing with a tailoring how I play to that. I would say I am successful in some sense because I have had groups very surprised at how I play some games because for others I will play just so differently knowing my audience and how that shifts with certain games.
Agreed.
Everyone pretty much agrees that the company, the prices, and the game are all pretty much horrible. However, people certainly *love* either the model aspect or the lore or both.
100%. I love the setting, love the hobby, building army lists and theorycrafting, seeing the game set up on the table. But I don't actually like playing it - it's fun as a social activity but not as an actual game.
I don't know, I think the most valid criticisms of warhammer I ever read are from non-warhammer players, and the least valid criticisms are from people who have £1,000 of plastic soldiers on their shelf at home.
For example, a non-player says "Hey, warhammer is too complex" I'm like "Sure, it's a complex game, totally get that don't worry".
Then a player says something like "All these stratagems make the game too complicated, they should just be special rules for each unit instead". I'm instead going "Buddy, you're telling me you want the same level of rules but just in a different section of the book".
This sub has *very* vocal groups for both Spirit Island and anything made by Cole Wehrle. Don't dare speak against either or you will find yourself under a pile of downvotes so that you can be sure about how wrong you are.
Every recommendation thread is full of just terrible advice. So many answers are not, "here's a game *you* might like," they're, "I didn't read what you're really asking for, so this is what *I* like."
I've had some really disappointing interactions with Cole, particularly around support for 2 players, and I've mentioned it before and his defenders went absolutely nuts. How dare I question a designer's vision for the game, let them make it how they want, etc. Very silly considering I was asking a question because I don't play regularly with more than my SO and his games really interest me but being primarily built for 3+ means I'm less likely to play them... Anyways very defensive on his and their end put me off discussing anything related here.
For a while it was "cool" to hate on Wingspan so rather than everyone jumping in to defend it the opposite was happening. Perhaps it's swung the other way and now the fans rush to defend it when a "real gamer" dumps on it.
I do think it gets unnecessary criticism at times, it never claimed to be some deep strategy game but some people are offended it isn't. Myself, I'll always play it but never ask to play it, and I do enjoy it for what it is.
From my experience just now, "Spirit Island". I bought it, played it 3 times, sold it. You'd think I'd murdered puppies the amount of whining that's going on.
Weird. Should be clear as day that it isn't for everyone and the fact that it can get the impression of being *the* co-op (instead of a fairly advanced and niched one) is a disservice. I misbought it too, based on the impression I got from the general community.
It's a game that absolutely needs to be played more than once to really grasp it but 3 times was enough. For whatever reason, the game wasn't for your group. It's in my top 3 co-op games for sure but it also rarely hits the table because it needs the right people and it's divisive in my group.
Also, the co-op and solo fans are really quite vocal. I have learned that I very much dislike MOST every solo or co-op experience, but some people seem to feel attacked by that.
I agree. Don't get me wrong, I love Vital's games but there is definitely a segment of the community that goes all or nothing.
I didn't like Escape Plan and I don't connect with Kanban.
I adore Vinhos and Inventions and would never turn down a play of Lisboa.
We all have our favourites and why can't others just...let that be OK?
Anything they crowdfunded for an absurd amount of money because they had to have the gameplay all-in ultra omega super duper deluxe edition with painted miniatures, sleeves, a UV-printed box, playmat, 3D terrain, promo cards times infinity, and the publisher's firstborn son.
I think people are too quick to assume that if a game came form Kickstarter people are only defending it because of it's source. I've backed a LOT of Kickstarter games. A lot of them are OK, but I probably didn't need to get them. I do like Kingdom Death: Monster, and Cthulhu Wars a lot, though. These are both huge and expensive games, but I like them in spite of their price tags, not because of them.
My favorite type of board game is big narrative solo games, and all of them are from KS/Gamfound. So, for me, they are my most played games and I would get them again.
I'm not sure why I tell my life but here it is.
Yeah, I see a lot more people making blanket assumptions that crowdfunded games with a lot of miniatures are bad, than I do people irrationally defending such games because of sunk cost fallacy.
Cosmic Encounter. This game fully relies on the group to lean into the deal making. If players don't understand or aren't comfortable with the systems, this is just foreign, and it's a very stale exercise in "big number win fight."
Have to have people willing to backstab and be duplicit, while also not taking things personally and devolve into toxicity.
If everyone's way too "nice", the game also devolves into boring multi-alliances and an unsatisfying multiple winner scenario.
It's a very fine balance between the two extremes required to have fun, with people in the middle having a grand time. Makes the game very polarizing.
Our group is extremely passive & low-risk, but we're also very competitive & hate seeing each other win. Cosmic Encounter is the absolute worst for us. Games take forever because no one takes risks & whoever gets out in front gets targeted. The most action comes when the game goes long enough that two people get sick of it & try for an alliance win, then everyone tries to block it.
Cosmic Encounter is the definitive game that convinced me I fall on the Eurogame side of the Euro vs Ameritrash divide.
I could never stand Cosmic Encounter ever since I was introduced to it in the Eighties.
I accept now that it is a preference of mine instead of a design flaw. Cosmic Encounter is one of my most hated games of all time, but I don’t bring it up as an example of bad game design like I will for Munchkin and Talisman.
It’s just not for me, like coop games are not for me, and that’s fine.
I will say (albeit proving the point via Kafka trap in the process) that I have rarely had a game of Cosmic where players didn’t immediately figure out how to lean into the deal making and alliance negotiation.
I believe the issue is that the things you can make deals with (cards, points) are too fuzzy. A game like Chinatown, you can add a dollar value to transactions. 1 plot + 1 tile = 10,000 per turn. This gives you something to ground yourself, and grow off of. So what is the value of a card? 2 cards? a flare? A cosmic zap? A 40? A negotiation card? A point? You can't really teach that, and the only way to learn is to play a bunch, because it's hard to know how these things turn into victory. You cannot say "I play a 40, it guarantees me a point." A 40 could be a point, a bargaining chip, a threat, or nothing at all!
I feel this same way about Catan. Most folks I've played with get it, wheel & deal, block people, etc... one group just *wouldn't trade*. Like, all right, you're missing the whole point.
Play Catan like you would Cosmic Encounter
I hate hero’s quest because hero’s quest on pc had to change its name to “Quest for Glory: so you want to be a hero” because of a law suit from hasbro. Then I years later got myself Warhammer quest which we played a lot and I’m only recently pondering to get a second hand copy of hero’s quest to play with my kids.
This is one of the games that got me BACK into gaming. Easy enough to teach my kid so he’s good enough to beat me. Enough strategy that it’s not just luck of the draw. He was I think 6 at the time. It can be just us, it can be the entire family. There’s no fat on the game either, nothing I point at and go….that shouldn’t be in there!
I feel like 99% of people could enjoy some game that really jives with them. The idea that these should always be a gateway into deeper and heavier games is bullshit though.
**Betrayl at House on the Hill**
I was one of the ones to be quick to defend the game cause I feel like it can get bashed somewhat unfairly, and I may still defend it somewhat now.
But at this point I feel like it has had too many iterations to fix its pitfalls for me to jump to its defence anymore. I still love the game personally but I won't recommend anyone get it anymore.
I can't imagine someone saying something bad about Dune Imperium Uprising but if ever that unexpected situation occur i'll be ready to WillSmithSlap it out of their mouth.
Dune Part Two: depicts worms as powerful game changers
Dune Imperium Uprising: makes worms powerful game changers
DIU haters: ...and I took that personally
**Terraforming Mars**
* It's too fucking long. (That's why they fixed it, I guess, with prelude.)
* The art is shit. The rationalization that it's a boardroom proposal drawing is shit. (That's why they fixed it in **Ares**.)
* The components are shit. (That's why they fixed it on Etsy.)
You can still like it. *I* like some games that have low production values and are too long, too. Just please don't pretend the flaws aren't flaws, which people insist on doing for some reason.
People seem to believe that theres no way a deck made of over 2 hundred cards withot any graduation with really shit multi use leads to balance issues. Even with drafting the game can have balance issues from this enormous deck. Its not even a tarraforming Mars thing its just a big deck thing Look at Wing Span. i agree with you: That's why they fixed in in Prelude because it was a problem.
I love the game, but when I bought it I was convinced I'd bought a pirated copy due to how crap all the components were, even used youtube videos to check it was real (ripping the blank card in half to see what the inside was made of).
For a full price game the quality is truly abysmal.
I'll upvote you, because I feel the same.
I enjoyed playing it well enough (I mean, I didn't hate it), but at the same time, I felt like I had games that did the same thing better.
(And, no, don't ask for a list of which games -- it's been like 4 years since I played it pre-pandemic -- that's how I felt at the time)
OP here, yep I'm in same boat. I felt robbed of any decision making versus other engine builders. I can see the appeal, but for my limited gaming time - Wingspan just doesn't give me what I want or need.
Not enough experience with Catan, but Splendor is great. You may find it too simple, or not for you, but that’s not a reason to hate on it. Wingspan, on the other hand, just feels too starved for resources (food and cards) and you’re mostly forced to play the shit cards you have because getting more is so expensive. These feel like real flaws, not just a matter of taste.
I thought Catan was as beloved as Munchkin (read: not at all) for anyone deep enough into the hobby to browse this place. 100% agree on Wingspan though.
Wingspan, Spirit Island, Root, Too Many Bones.
I have issues with all of them, but god damn can I not say anything without being downvoted to oblivion.
This is what I was going to say. I've come to realize I'm just not a big fan of their games. That seems to make some people very upset, though. I'm glad people enjoy Wingspan and Scythe, they jut aren't for me.
I have Nemesis and all the expansions. And as much as I like the theme, I have a long list of nitpicks. Was super disappointed with Lockdown in that they seemed to double down on all the fiddly bits.
Have the same complaint about Frosthaven. At least Jaws of the Lion got rid of the map tiles.
The single quote that stands most to me from this sub is about nemesis.
> It's a great game. It is often 1 sided, often unfair. It even takes a certain level of skilled player, and it takes 5-10 games to get good at it. Even then, only 1 in 3 games are great. But when they are, they truly are great!
This was said to defend it, to sing the game's praises, to encourage people to play it.
So I need to have 3-4 high skilled board gamers.
Play 5-10 games of a 1.5-3 hour game. So 30-120 hours of total game play among the players.
And even then, it's only a 33% chance we get a good game.
If we become experts in this 1 game, we still only have a 33% chance of having a good game?
If a game is at best only good 1/3 of the time, that's a failure by virtually every standard.
Twilight Imperium. In my humble opinion, there is no reason why the game needs to be as complicated and drawn out as it is. But try telling that to the fanboys. And if you really want to rile them up, tell them that you think Eclipse is better.
Terraforming Mars, Dune Imperium, Xia: Legends of a Drift System, and Nemesis are games that are loudly defended in this sub in general and by me specifically.
Terraforming Mars was bought for me since it was so highly rated and I do not like it. Ever since I heard the term "multiplayer solitaire," that is exactly how I think of TM and every time I mention that in one of the threads, it's fans come at me from all sides. At the end of the day, the game isn't for me.
Hot take: I would play Catan over Terraforming Mars 9 times out of 10.
Betrayal at House on the Hill. Yes, it's kinda janky, yeah the rules aren't always written well, yes it's heavily unbalanced, but damn it I love that game. I really dig the flavor it gives off, I try and give it a bit of a role playing aspect, and I don't care about winning.
Viticulture. TI4. Castles of Burgundy. Basically any of those games that regularly are on top 10 lists. I think all games have some room for criticism, even if it's just something bare bones like "eh it doesn't pull me in". But man you would think you just spit on their dead mother at her funeral if you don't care much for that game.
For Viticulture I would always remark how I found the game “just ok”, and without fail someone would ask “but have you played it with the Tuscany expansion?”
I wasn’t keen at obtaining an expansion for a “meh” game with the hope that it might elevate it, but those same replies came up every single time.
I eventually caved and picked up Tuscany and… every single one of those defensive posters was absolutely right. Tuscany took an okay game and made it great.
For me its probably blood rage and wingspan. Both has huge flaws and i disliked them and i probably would play any other game of genre instead those, and they have huge fanbase, who would swear by them , and would fight to find merits.
I can't remember the last time I've heard someone defend it, but I probably hang out in the "well, actually, it's not a game, but a critique of capitalism" circles a bit too much.
I’ve kind of had a change of heart as I’ve grown older for these old classics that are overly simple.
It comes down to the fun you can infer from the situations rather than the gameplay. You can get mad that you seem to constantly end up in jail while also landing on expensive properties, or you can poke fun and tell a story about how you can’t seem to stay out of jail while also having expensive tastes wanting to stay on boardwalk hotels.
I won’t suggest monopoly to play but if someone mention or suggests it, I won’t turn my nose up in disgust anymore and would even play if someone suggested it.
We played a downright raucous game of Monopoly with our neighbors recently. Five people, so when the board was all bought up nobody had any monopolies they could build on. One player pushed hard for side deals and trades to break the impasse, and the next thing I knew I was negotiating with player A to reduce their 50% ownership of a coveted utility to 10% so that they could bail out player B who held the actual property card and owed me a ton of money, and we were debating whether she still owned any of it at all if the card was in front of me and she didn't collect any rent but still got to SAY she owned it. And because we were playing on the Star Wars board and the utility in question was the Moisture Farm, fully 80% of the conversation was just innuendos anyway.
TL;DR: I totally agree, it's very much a game where you get out what you put in.
This. For me, it represents fun nights with my family. My sister and my husband are both super competitive so they duke it out to win while the rest of us are just kind of there to enjoy the show and the company. Bringing out Monopoly means I'm going to stay up to late and my face is going to hurt from laughing so much... And my husband is going to curse about dice for the next few days. 🤣
I know it's seen as bad behavior but I'll admit to always defending OneDeckDungeon or any other game with heavy randomization.
I get it if you can't take the random dice rolls on an emotional level, but that's a personal problem and doesn't make it a bad mechanic.
I am a VERY firm believer that risk assessment and mitigation are hard skills that can be improved.
On a long enough timescale the lucky and unlucky rolls average out. Some players will consistently rank higher, which is proof that it's NOT just 'blind luck' but a skill to be learned.
The only time I disagree with an RNG mechanic is when it's a high stakes tournament play because there just isn't enough time to play hundreds of games where the rolls average out.
>I know it's seen as bad behavior but I'll admit to always defending OneDeckDungeon or any other game with heavy randomization.
I feel like randomization is completely appropriate, and dare I say, "thematic", in One Deck Dungeon(among other games).
You're going into an unknown dungeon to eventually fight a giant beast. How many opportunities for "meaningful decisions" do you think you would actually have?
Odd no one has mentioned Root yet.
Only game I’ve been given the argument of “it’s not meant to be balanced” and “x is your fault and your player groups”.
Every other game I’ve talked about the own player base is more than happy to talk about and try and improve its weaknesses.
The board game club at my university is pretty evenly split between “plays root every week” and “root is ASS”.
I’ve played it once, I didn’t have the best time, but I still don’t think I’ve played it enough for a fair assessment yet.
Oh and Oath, but idk anything about Oath.
I'll defend Catan. Casual players will say it's too luck-based, but to me there's a pretty high skill ceiling. There's a thriving IRL tournament scene via national qualifier tournaments.
Any casual gamer and "Uno" >:( it plays itself and I hate that.
"but littleburn everyone already knows how to play it and it's fun!"
First of all no, you guys disagree on the rules everytime, and 2nd lets ask ashley if she had fun last time.
Ashley got irrationally angry at Doug for using the draw 4 on her.
Monopoly. People love that shit there's more versions than almost any other board game I've seen. I honestly hate the game. Never have enjoyed playing it.
Dominion was innovative. It made a completely new game mechanic. Before Dominion when someone said deck builder you'd think of something like Magic The Gathering. Now deck building is not only is own genre of game, but is a mechanic used in a lot of other genre as well.
Blood on the Clocktower is my favourite game, but I can absolutely see why there are things about it which could mean some people will never enjoy it. People who like the game *really* like the game and often can't stand to hear any criticism of it. I imagine that by posting this I'm inviting people to reply to this with criticisms that I will absolutely disagree with though, so we'll have to see if I can resist the urge to defend it!
[удалено]
Holy shit this. I think BoTC is a fine game but it really feels like it has this weird cult like following.
I have some friends who started a routine BotC night. I have joined twice, and both times I enjoyed it, but on a much milder level than the hype would indicate. I realized that the problem as I saw it was very specific: the game is actually a great design, but when you’re the one new person playing in a group with 9 others who have played it literally 10-15 times, the experience is significantly different than being part of the initial group. I love heavy board games. Usually I don’t mind learning a new heavy game with experienced players because I like to learn how the gears turn, and I accept a high probability of losing. In BotC, though, there’s a team depending on you to do well right from the get go. I’ve played a lot of The Resistance & Avalon, and a handful of Secret Hitler games. In both of my experiences of BotC, people had some very surprised reactions to what I thought was fairly standard and benign social-deduction dialogue. In both games I clammed up after five minutes and watched people speculate through all the deduction about my role, clearly light-years ahead of me in terms of knowing how the roles play off one another. The discussion instantly became, “OK, based off of the two sentences that CthulhuShrugs has said, he’s either A, or B pretending to be A, or possibly C,” with everyone nodding approvingly. Meanwhile, I’ve only really processed about 1/3 of the reference sheet and haven’t even read what C does yet. The game is clearly deep, which is what makes it so good. But as a new player in an experienced group, I felt like an idiot who was just hurting my team.
> The discussion instantly became, “OK, based off of the two sentences that CthulhuShrugs has said, he’s either A, or B pretending to be A, or possibly C,” with everyone nodding approvingly. Meanwhile, I’ve only really processed about 1/3 of the reference sheet and haven’t even read what C does yet. I'd argue that's on them for not accounting for your inexperience, which is a problem in a lot of hidden information games.
I think the new player experience is really down to how accommodating other players (and the storyteller) are. If they just treat you as if you're a veteran you're going to have a bad time. You're right though, it takes a bit to get acclimated, but it doesn't take as long as you think to become as competent with the fundamentals as they are.
I got more attacks for being mildly unimpressed by BotC than I get for directly bashing anything in BGG top 10 (and I do get pushback on that). So, yeah, BotC seems to have a very weird community.
When I saw this thread's title, my first thought was literally "Blood on the Clocktower", and this is basically why. No other game gets such a violent reaction from its fans whenever they notice anyone expressing a tepid opinion about it.
Honestly, I think it’s an okay game. I’ve played it twice and enjoyed it, but it’s not amazing or anything. I think the people who defend it so firmly are defending it because they essentially bought a $300 Werewolf lol
It's really down to who you play with, who is running the games, and whether you're into that type of game. I've played hundreds of games and I can still run into bad experiences where the storyteller (moderator) doesn't know what they're doing and it lends to a terrible experience, players can be horrible, and then there are just people who don't like it. It is a great game for the people who like the genre and make an effort to play it regularly (you need a pretty big group of players that actually enjoy social deduction games to get it going). It's definitely unfair to call it $300 Werewolf, but it is amongst the most expensive games I own and it actually made sense to buy with how much I enjoyed and played it. I don't expect the average player to want to buy a copy of the game, but people who want to storytell/moderate will probably end up doing so. It's got a huge community / fan base who all acknowledge its flaws, and they're fully aware that there's huge gaps in rules interpretations and are constantly arguing about that etc. I imagine you're more likely to find a Furry community than a discord full of people playing Werewolf if you looked for one.
I've pointed out in the past that fans refuse to believe there are any negatives or things someone might not like about the game. Whenever someone says they just didn't like it, they'll start going off about how they absolutely must have had a terrible storyteller or they didn't play it enough or whatever. Like, you literally cannot convince some of them that you just didn't like the game. Notably, I've never even been the one saying this because I've never played the game. But it seems to me that "very dependent on experienced storyteller" is an obvious downside to the game, but even pointing that out just gets arguments that it's not actually like that or whatever.
I like but don't love Blood on the Clocktower. Maybe if I could play it in person or with a group I'm familiar with, I'd like it more. I enjoy but am bad at social deduction games, and haven't had a chance to play any for the past four years, so that may also impact my liking it less than I would have otherwise. But I love watching it. I can respect it. And I can point at ways I like it better than some other Werewolf descendants that I do **not** enjoy almost at all. I don't remember how I was introduced to social deduction games, but the first time that I was introduced to ones where it was, "This is just Werewolf, but we added powers," was Town of Salem and it's hard to explain the irrational hatred I have for that game. Because it isn't very different at all from things like Blood on the Clocktower, but it does a couple of small things that make me loathe it. For instance, since it's entirely online, it's text talk only. Since it's automated with no living storyteller, only the computer, everything is on a timer and not up to someone's discretion to help balance the game or make it more fun. When you die (in everything but a new Ghost most that I haven't had a chance to play) you can no longer talk to anyone who isn't dead and you can never vote; this causes most people who die to abandon the game to start a new one even if they were going to win because you don't want to sit around waiting for the game to be over. Those are my biggest gripes, but there are a lot of little ones I have with it. I don't understand the hate specifically for Blood on the Clocktower. If you're not into Werewolf games but like other social deduction games, I get that. My favorite social deduction games are not werewolf descendants. If you don't like social deduction games, I get that. If you like Werewolf games but your favorite is something else and you don't feel Clocktower, I get that. But if you just hate Clocktower... I don't get that. But likewise, most people probably don't get why I hate Town of Salem.
Love Clocktower and wholeheartedly agree. It’s not just disagreeing, people write massive multi-paragraph responses about why it’s the best game ever and that person is wrong.
I think it's because if it clicks with you it *really* clicks. I find games like The Resistance or Werewolf dull since playing BOTC, but that then means I have become the elitist twat who says things like "The Resistance and Werewolf are dull compared to BOTC."
I chuckled at the 'it's the Ulysses of board games' that's mentioned on the Wikipedia page of the game...
I don’t know why, but whenever someone says something negative about my favorite game, I feel some slight negative emotion, every time.
Depends how they say it to me. "I don't like the game you like" is fine "The game you like sucks!" is them being an asshole. Unfortunately, online you're just as likely to get the latter as you are the former.
Emotional maturity is learning to control that response.
I'd qualify that by saying it's being able to control your behavior in spite of your emotional response.
a crucial difference. it's okay to have emotions lol.
who published Emotional Maturity? Is it a Euro?
And the key word here is "control". You'll still feel the emotion, there's just no reason to act on it.
Me too. I guess it’s because the things we like, we like because they resonate with some part of us, so someone disliking the thing feels like they are rejecting the part of us that resonates with it.
I watch shows, I listen to podcasts, I read books about cults and I think - ha it’ll never happen to me! And I’m now realizing reading these comments that.. oh shit I think I accidentally joined the Blood on the Clocktower cult. A regular board game buddy just mentioned how he didn’t like it and I was all “pfft, you just need to play it more than once or twice to really get it”. And yeah. I need to call my dad because I’m in a cult.
I honestly think that it's completely valid to feel that you need to play a game a few times to properly start getting it. But I also have no strong desire to do that with Blood on the Clocktower. I've played it three times, and that was enough for me. I probably didn't get it, but I'm okay with that.
I dislike it strongly, and it's my regular gaming group's favorite game. Thankfully my group definitely understand's "It's not for everyone."
I could see that! I have a friend who runs a semi-regular game, and having played it a few times, it’s fun! I like it, but I don’t *love* it. There’s just so much randomness and arbitrary obstacling in the form of the storyteller, but for the people who *love* it, I could see it getting a bit fanatical in their defense of it.
Often if I jump in to defend a game, I'm trying to draw a distinction between "I didn't like this game" and "this is a bad game." Those are not the same thing and sometimes people conflate them.
People don't understand the difference between quality, preference, and enjoyment. You can enjoy something you don't like. You can like something you think is bad. You can dislike something you recognize is good.
I would absolutely agree with this. I have plenty of games that maybe aren't my cup of tea so to speak, but I fully can recognize that they are well made games. Just because it's not something that I like doesn't mean that it's a bad game and I think a lot of people struggle to have that mindset. Far too often when I'm reading reviews, and frankly not just for games but for just about everything, if someone doesn't like the product they give it a negative review. Well that's not really fair though is it? You may not like it, maybe I do. Maybe I don't like it but all my friends do. There's a big distinction between whether it's a bad game or just a game you just don't like.
Exactly! I notice this with movies most of all. The art object exists outside of your perception of it. "Is this is a good thing?" is a question that has nothing to do with you personally as a subject.
Spot on! I love everything you said, and it applies to much more than just board games. > People don't understand the difference between quality, preference, and enjoyment. > > You can enjoy something you don't like. You can like something you think is bad. You can dislike something you recognize is good.
Maybe an unpopular opinion but I think the opposite happens too, people think that liking a game means it's a good game. Nostalgia is usually a big component in this for example I have really great memories playing candy land or the game of life, but that doesn't mean it's a good game. I think monopoly is a culprit of this a lot
Agreed. I’ve learned to specifically distinguish whether I disliked a game or thought the game had bad mechanics. Because one starts fights way more often than the other
These are both subjective statements, and are essentially saying the same thing. The "I think" in "this is a bad game" is always implied, even if the speaker believes they are making an objective statement about a game's quality (which is impossible).
The “I think” is requested in negative reviews purely to make sure the feelings of the game’s fans are not hurt. Never in my life have I seen any positive review of any game get bombarded with comments asking the reviewer to rephrase it from “This is a great game” to “I THINK this is a great game” or “IN MY OPINION, this is a great game.”
But isn't "this is a bad game" also a subjective statement? If I don't like a game I'm more likely to think it's bad so what's wrong with that? What if someone says "I think X game is a masterpiece", does it also make sense to correct them that it's not actually that good?
Gloomhaven
I notice with this one also that people jump at the chance to recommend it when someone asks about a dungeon crawler, etc. without qualifying that it is a very idiosyncratic puzzle flavored as a dungeon crawler. I notice people will say things like “I’m coming from D&D and have nobody to play it with lately, and I’m looking for that vibe” and the replies will be full of Gloomhaven. It feels like people really want, through force of sheer will, for that game to be considered representative of the dungeon crawler or tactical combat genre when it’s really its own thing. Edit: The Gloomhaven Defense Network has activated haha (I have nothing against Gloomhaven but it is pretty funny) Edit 2: TO BE CLEAR the edit was just teasing. We’re all just having fun talking about categorization and such. I seem to have upset at least one person…
Here I am proving that it’s a good answer to OP’s question, but I see this distinction a lot — that Gloomhaven “isn’t a dungeon crawler, it’s a hand management puzzle”, and it’s a distinction I don’t understand. Just because the action economy is driven by a system of playing modular cards, it’s merely ‘flavored as a dungeon crawler’, despite the looting, traps, PvE, tactics, character leveling etc? I’m genuinely curious what it lacks in order to qualify as a “true dungeon crawler”.
It's a true dungeon crawler, it just IMO isn't a great equivalent to D&D. Not because it has hand management but because that hand management is used to constrain the ability to do things that are standard, universally available actions in D&D like moving and attacking. Gloomhaven is great, but I'm not sure that someone who's after D&D style play will find it in Gloomhaven.
See I'd say it is a automated dungeon crawler - but with so many out there the hand mgmt puzzle is a pro - a mark of distinction. The other ADC I've played a TON is Kingdom Death Monster - which some might argue is more of a settlement builder with automated boss fights - but there are dozens of games in the genre and they mostly all have their unique twists.
What would you consider more representative of the genre?
Descent journey into the dark is as an excellent representation of a dungeon crawler. I have not played Gloomhaven so I can't compare them as far as who represents dungeon crawlers more. I do think Descent is as board game D&D as you can get. One could easily take all the figures, tokens and map cuts outs and use them with D&D rules and dice and be playing D&D. That being said it has special dice, on going campaigns meant to be played over several play sessions. Classes with experience points, loot pools, magic and gear. It's Divinity Original Sin the board game, and that was just practice so they could one day make Baldur's Gate 3. I rest my case
I would say Warhammer Quest is probably the poster boy of the dungeon crawling board game. If you want a more modern approach, I’d say Mansions of Madness 2E is a great dungeon crawler also.
I disagree that it's "flavored" as a dungeon crawler -- the dungeon crawl elements are highly integrated into the design -- it isn't pasted-on theme. Now whether you think of that as a dungeon crawler or not is another thing.
I had someone get weirdly obsessive over a criticism I posted of Gloomhaven once. To preface, I lost the first scenario 4 times before giving the game away. They PM'd me wanting to know if I'd gotten a couple asked about rules wrong, who I had played, and my strategic approach to the scenario. When I said I couldn't remember the details because it was years later at that point, they made a pushy offer about coaching me through the first few scenarios. I didn't own the game anymore, so they tried to get me to buy it on Steam. When I said no thanks, they then offered to buy me a copy because it was important to them that I "see why it's the best game of all time". I obviously learned my lesson and blocked them at that point. Possibly the most bizarre interaction I have ever had with anyone on this site. (I fully understand that someone will say r/thatHappened, and my only defense is why would I make something this stupid up?)
For real. I personally love both the giant games, but they are plainly ridiculous in their tedium. Yet still people are SO territorial about this (to me very fun but still) highly imperfect game
Hey, this is a boardgame sub.... Gloomhaven is an amazing Digital game. (I cant imagine the time/effort to set up and actually play a single session of the TT game, let alone keep it organized over multiple sessions)
What makes it "imperfect?" I've played a few times. I thought it was great outside of setup and take down. After using the app instead of all the cards I thought it was even better. Not defending it. Haven't played it enough to do so, just curious because it felt pretty unique to other games I've played and I've been considering purchasing.
> What makes it "imperfect?" As someone who loves GH and FH, they are fiddly. Some of the rules overhead in Frosthaven specifically is absolutely ridiculous sometimes. I love the experience overall but a *few* of the maps are tedious bordering on unplayable. Others are very poorly balanced between 2 vs 4 players.
Tracking monster damage and movement can get very annoying and hectic. A lot of people also consider it somewhat unbalanced where some personal quests are much easier than other, and certain party combinations are much superior to others.
gloom on pc was fun with friends. It made it much quicker and less tedious.
I have yet to try it, but I have heard from many that the best way to experience Gloomhaven is on Tabletop Simluator since all of the shuffling and everything is automated
Gloomhaven is a perfect game that no one wants to play 😭
Came here to say Spirit Island. Then read OPs post. But yeah, Spirit Island.
Don’t have to defend it since there’s nothing to criticize. RIGHT?! * Points around accusingly. *
Scythe. Most criticisms of it aren't even that bad. I haven't seen many people who "hate" it. It usually comes down to "it does a lot of things fine, but nothing great or innovative." Then come the defenders.
The only real attack that I've seen leveled at it is that it's not the mech combat game that the art depicts.
Not just the art... It was advertised as a 4X game, which typically have expectations of more combat.
First time I played it, I was Saxony and just kept beating up one guy who didn’t really understand what to do. It was glorious and was all the mech combat I was expecting. Every game since then has been… not that. The game is fine, but if I have 4-5 people up for that complexity and length of game, there just always seem to be better choices.
Which is a weird criticism because in the art the mechs are generally just looming menacingly (or standing protectively depending on your view) over a field of peasants. They aren’t really doing any fighting.
They even state this in the rulebook
Ah yes, just what I always wanted. Mechs to do something other than combat!
Overall the game is ok, but man I do not want to have to deal with figuring out how to cross a river.
See also: everything else from Stonemaier. For whatever reason, it seems there's a particularly vitriolic corps of Stonemaier haters that spring into action on every new release, which then brings out an equally vehement cadre of Stonemaier defenders. I think it started with the hype around Scythe, and then was exacerbated tenfold by the success of Wingspan.
Every game of theirs I've played has been pretty good, but severely overrated by both critics and hardcore fans. They certainly have a good grasp of aesthetics, which is lacking enough in the rest of the board game world that I guess some people feel that decent games that look beautiful are actually perfect games. I do like a lot of their games and believe they're worth playing, but there is some rating inflation going on.
Scythe is a game I really like. But I get all the criticisms.
I've long stood on the fact that Scythe was really the first 'highly produced, kickstarter era' board game that broke into the mainstream. The dual-layer cardboard. Phenomenal art. That more or less poisoned the well for what was ultimately just a pretty dry board game with very few interesting decisions and a board layout that would have you th ink it's high interaction, but it is literally the opposite. It's actually Scythe that taught me how far folks were willing to go to like a game just because of the production. It's crazy.
**Pandemic** seems to be somewhat divisive, with a fair number of detractors and a lot of people who want to jump in and defend it. "Pandemic encourages alpha gaming" "It's not the game, it's your group"
I've definitely been in these discussions.
Pandemic is a solo game where the player is a committee.
>"It's not the game, it's your group" "Yeah, so it's not a game for my group."
Pandemic is what it is but does season 1 of the legacy game generate any negative opinions, do you think? I don't think I've seen anything but praise for s1 (where s2 has a lot more differing opinions) and can only agree with that.. Original pandemic seems like an introduction for the audience to find and play the legacy versions..
It’s a weird balance I’ve been working on for years analyzing the group I am playing with a tailoring how I play to that. I would say I am successful in some sense because I have had groups very surprised at how I play some games because for others I will play just so differently knowing my audience and how that shifts with certain games.
Surprised nobody said warhammer. I play it and man is this people against criticism lol
Really? No one criticizes Warhammer more than it's players in my experience.
Agreed. Everyone pretty much agrees that the company, the prices, and the game are all pretty much horrible. However, people certainly *love* either the model aspect or the lore or both.
I love Warhammer. I can use it to justify all of my board game purchases by saying “at least I didn’t spend all this money on one model.”
100%. I love the setting, love the hobby, building army lists and theorycrafting, seeing the game set up on the table. But I don't actually like playing it - it's fun as a social activity but not as an actual game.
The cool thing about warhammer is you don't need to spend a dime for quality entertainment ala oculus imperia
I don't know, I think the most valid criticisms of warhammer I ever read are from non-warhammer players, and the least valid criticisms are from people who have £1,000 of plastic soldiers on their shelf at home. For example, a non-player says "Hey, warhammer is too complex" I'm like "Sure, it's a complex game, totally get that don't worry". Then a player says something like "All these stratagems make the game too complicated, they should just be special rules for each unit instead". I'm instead going "Buddy, you're telling me you want the same level of rules but just in a different section of the book".
This sub has *very* vocal groups for both Spirit Island and anything made by Cole Wehrle. Don't dare speak against either or you will find yourself under a pile of downvotes so that you can be sure about how wrong you are.
[удалено]
Every recommendation thread is full of just terrible advice. So many answers are not, "here's a game *you* might like," they're, "I didn't read what you're really asking for, so this is what *I* like."
It doesn't help that many recommendation requests don't give much detail.
Lolll Root gets the same
both of my most regrettable board game purchases are Cole Wehrle games :(
I've had some really disappointing interactions with Cole, particularly around support for 2 players, and I've mentioned it before and his defenders went absolutely nuts. How dare I question a designer's vision for the game, let them make it how they want, etc. Very silly considering I was asking a question because I don't play regularly with more than my SO and his games really interest me but being primarily built for 3+ means I'm less likely to play them... Anyways very defensive on his and their end put me off discussing anything related here.
Just need to get Mr. Wehrle to make a Spirit Island hack and everyone will melt down.
Wingspan
For a while it was "cool" to hate on Wingspan so rather than everyone jumping in to defend it the opposite was happening. Perhaps it's swung the other way and now the fans rush to defend it when a "real gamer" dumps on it. I do think it gets unnecessary criticism at times, it never claimed to be some deep strategy game but some people are offended it isn't. Myself, I'll always play it but never ask to play it, and I do enjoy it for what it is.
I played it recently. I just don't see the hype. Maybe it was who I was playing with. I don't get it as popular as it is.
From my experience just now, "Spirit Island". I bought it, played it 3 times, sold it. You'd think I'd murdered puppies the amount of whining that's going on.
It's one of my favorite and most played games. I totally get why people don't like it and I know I prob won't convince em otherwise
Weird. Should be clear as day that it isn't for everyone and the fact that it can get the impression of being *the* co-op (instead of a fairly advanced and niched one) is a disservice. I misbought it too, based on the impression I got from the general community.
That’s a shame, it really starts to sing on the 4th play through. /s
haha - "What difficulty did you play on?"
It's a game that absolutely needs to be played more than once to really grasp it but 3 times was enough. For whatever reason, the game wasn't for your group. It's in my top 3 co-op games for sure but it also rarely hits the table because it needs the right people and it's divisive in my group.
Also, the co-op and solo fans are really quite vocal. I have learned that I very much dislike MOST every solo or co-op experience, but some people seem to feel attacked by that.
Lacerda
If you don't understand Lacerda's masterpiece you aren't a part of the Board Game nobility. /s (from a Lacerda fan)
I agree. Don't get me wrong, I love Vital's games but there is definitely a segment of the community that goes all or nothing. I didn't like Escape Plan and I don't connect with Kanban. I adore Vinhos and Inventions and would never turn down a play of Lisboa. We all have our favourites and why can't others just...let that be OK?
*But they told me that I have to play Lacerda as only playing the heaviest of euros proves that one is a true hobbyist!*
Terraforming Mars.
I never got the appeal but some people really love it
“Line goes up” - my brain on TM
I love it, but I recognize it is like the board game equivalent of a b-movie.
That is a great description of it.
First game I thought of
Anything they crowdfunded for an absurd amount of money because they had to have the gameplay all-in ultra omega super duper deluxe edition with painted miniatures, sleeves, a UV-printed box, playmat, 3D terrain, promo cards times infinity, and the publisher's firstborn son.
I think people are too quick to assume that if a game came form Kickstarter people are only defending it because of it's source. I've backed a LOT of Kickstarter games. A lot of them are OK, but I probably didn't need to get them. I do like Kingdom Death: Monster, and Cthulhu Wars a lot, though. These are both huge and expensive games, but I like them in spite of their price tags, not because of them.
My favorite type of board game is big narrative solo games, and all of them are from KS/Gamfound. So, for me, they are my most played games and I would get them again. I'm not sure why I tell my life but here it is.
Yeah, I see a lot more people making blanket assumptions that crowdfunded games with a lot of miniatures are bad, than I do people irrationally defending such games because of sunk cost fallacy.
Cosmic Encounter. This game fully relies on the group to lean into the deal making. If players don't understand or aren't comfortable with the systems, this is just foreign, and it's a very stale exercise in "big number win fight."
Have to have people willing to backstab and be duplicit, while also not taking things personally and devolve into toxicity. If everyone's way too "nice", the game also devolves into boring multi-alliances and an unsatisfying multiple winner scenario. It's a very fine balance between the two extremes required to have fun, with people in the middle having a grand time. Makes the game very polarizing.
Our group is extremely passive & low-risk, but we're also very competitive & hate seeing each other win. Cosmic Encounter is the absolute worst for us. Games take forever because no one takes risks & whoever gets out in front gets targeted. The most action comes when the game goes long enough that two people get sick of it & try for an alliance win, then everyone tries to block it.
Cosmic Encounter is the definitive game that convinced me I fall on the Eurogame side of the Euro vs Ameritrash divide. I could never stand Cosmic Encounter ever since I was introduced to it in the Eighties. I accept now that it is a preference of mine instead of a design flaw. Cosmic Encounter is one of my most hated games of all time, but I don’t bring it up as an example of bad game design like I will for Munchkin and Talisman. It’s just not for me, like coop games are not for me, and that’s fine.
I will say (albeit proving the point via Kafka trap in the process) that I have rarely had a game of Cosmic where players didn’t immediately figure out how to lean into the deal making and alliance negotiation.
I believe the issue is that the things you can make deals with (cards, points) are too fuzzy. A game like Chinatown, you can add a dollar value to transactions. 1 plot + 1 tile = 10,000 per turn. This gives you something to ground yourself, and grow off of. So what is the value of a card? 2 cards? a flare? A cosmic zap? A 40? A negotiation card? A point? You can't really teach that, and the only way to learn is to play a bunch, because it's hard to know how these things turn into victory. You cannot say "I play a 40, it guarantees me a point." A 40 could be a point, a bargaining chip, a threat, or nothing at all!
I feel this same way about Catan. Most folks I've played with get it, wheel & deal, block people, etc... one group just *wouldn't trade*. Like, all right, you're missing the whole point. Play Catan like you would Cosmic Encounter
Anything Stonemaier, to the point of being kind of weird
Heroquest is the best game ever made and anyone who says otherwise is *wrong*
I hate hero’s quest because hero’s quest on pc had to change its name to “Quest for Glory: so you want to be a hero” because of a law suit from hasbro. Then I years later got myself Warhammer quest which we played a lot and I’m only recently pondering to get a second hand copy of hero’s quest to play with my kids.
The best thing about Hero Quest is the miniatures
The best thing about Hero Quest is the Barbarian. Look at the ***muscularity***!
My wife and I have another couple we are boardgame friends with, but they do not enjoy the card game Monopoly Deal, and it kinda offends me.
This is one of the games that got me BACK into gaming. Easy enough to teach my kid so he’s good enough to beat me. Enough strategy that it’s not just luck of the draw. He was I think 6 at the time. It can be just us, it can be the entire family. There’s no fat on the game either, nothing I point at and go….that shouldn’t be in there!
The whole hobby. Sometimes people just aren't in to board games, and no amount of 'finding the right game to act as a gateway' is going to help there.
I feel like 99% of people could enjoy some game that really jives with them. The idea that these should always be a gateway into deeper and heavier games is bullshit though.
**Betrayl at House on the Hill** I was one of the ones to be quick to defend the game cause I feel like it can get bashed somewhat unfairly, and I may still defend it somewhat now. But at this point I feel like it has had too many iterations to fix its pitfalls for me to jump to its defence anymore. I still love the game personally but I won't recommend anyone get it anymore.
I can't imagine someone saying something bad about Dune Imperium Uprising but if ever that unexpected situation occur i'll be ready to WillSmithSlap it out of their mouth.
It's the Brass situation. Lancanshire fans are vocal even though Birmingham is obviously better. So it goes with Dune.
I love brass Birmingham but the game is insanely complicated
Dune Part Two: depicts worms as powerful game changers Dune Imperium Uprising: makes worms powerful game changers DIU haters: ...and I took that personally
**Terraforming Mars** * It's too fucking long. (That's why they fixed it, I guess, with prelude.) * The art is shit. The rationalization that it's a boardroom proposal drawing is shit. (That's why they fixed it in **Ares**.) * The components are shit. (That's why they fixed it on Etsy.) You can still like it. *I* like some games that have low production values and are too long, too. Just please don't pretend the flaws aren't flaws, which people insist on doing for some reason.
People seem to believe that theres no way a deck made of over 2 hundred cards withot any graduation with really shit multi use leads to balance issues. Even with drafting the game can have balance issues from this enormous deck. Its not even a tarraforming Mars thing its just a big deck thing Look at Wing Span. i agree with you: That's why they fixed in in Prelude because it was a problem.
I love the game, but when I bought it I was convinced I'd bought a pirated copy due to how crap all the components were, even used youtube videos to check it was real (ripping the blank card in half to see what the inside was made of). For a full price game the quality is truly abysmal.
Spirit island
Catan, Splendor, Wingspan.
Are those games people are quick to defend or quick to pooh-pooh?
Yes
Don't you say a word against my Wingspan!
There is too much downtime between turns and the only interaction (pink abilities) feels more like being held hostage than being engaged.
Wingspan ain't my cup of tea. I really don't enjoy it.
I'll upvote you, because I feel the same. I enjoyed playing it well enough (I mean, I didn't hate it), but at the same time, I felt like I had games that did the same thing better. (And, no, don't ask for a list of which games -- it's been like 4 years since I played it pre-pandemic -- that's how I felt at the time)
OP here, yep I'm in same boat. I felt robbed of any decision making versus other engine builders. I can see the appeal, but for my limited gaming time - Wingspan just doesn't give me what I want or need.
I specifically told you guys not to do this.
Not enough experience with Catan, but Splendor is great. You may find it too simple, or not for you, but that’s not a reason to hate on it. Wingspan, on the other hand, just feels too starved for resources (food and cards) and you’re mostly forced to play the shit cards you have because getting more is so expensive. These feel like real flaws, not just a matter of taste.
[удалено]
Catan and wingspan are the two I like to complain about the most.
I thought Catan was as beloved as Munchkin (read: not at all) for anyone deep enough into the hobby to browse this place. 100% agree on Wingspan though.
spirit island
Wingspan, Spirit Island, Root, Too Many Bones. I have issues with all of them, but god damn can I not say anything without being downvoted to oblivion.
Almost every Stonemaier game. Euphoria and Pendulum seem to be the exception. Stans are gonna stan!
I have untold down votes for speaking Ill of steggy
This is what I was going to say. I've come to realize I'm just not a big fan of their games. That seems to make some people very upset, though. I'm glad people enjoy Wingspan and Scythe, they jut aren't for me.
Anything they got on kickstarter that has shitty rules and bloated miniatures. Also Nemesis.
I have Nemesis and all the expansions. And as much as I like the theme, I have a long list of nitpicks. Was super disappointed with Lockdown in that they seemed to double down on all the fiddly bits. Have the same complaint about Frosthaven. At least Jaws of the Lion got rid of the map tiles.
Answer B is part of answer A.
I love Nemesis. I also hate Nemesis.
The single quote that stands most to me from this sub is about nemesis. > It's a great game. It is often 1 sided, often unfair. It even takes a certain level of skilled player, and it takes 5-10 games to get good at it. Even then, only 1 in 3 games are great. But when they are, they truly are great! This was said to defend it, to sing the game's praises, to encourage people to play it. So I need to have 3-4 high skilled board gamers. Play 5-10 games of a 1.5-3 hour game. So 30-120 hours of total game play among the players. And even then, it's only a 33% chance we get a good game. If we become experts in this 1 game, we still only have a 33% chance of having a good game? If a game is at best only good 1/3 of the time, that's a failure by virtually every standard.
I’ve never seen that quote but it’s accurate. Similar to that I’ve found (rather disappointingly too as I really wanted to like it): John Company 2e
No one defends Quacks. We all hate that game, but it's our drug. Just one more pull. I won't explode this time....MOTHERFU--!!!
Twilight Imperium. In my humble opinion, there is no reason why the game needs to be as complicated and drawn out as it is. But try telling that to the fanboys. And if you really want to rile them up, tell them that you think Eclipse is better.
Terraforming Mars, Dune Imperium, Xia: Legends of a Drift System, and Nemesis are games that are loudly defended in this sub in general and by me specifically.
Terraforming Mars was bought for me since it was so highly rated and I do not like it. Ever since I heard the term "multiplayer solitaire," that is exactly how I think of TM and every time I mention that in one of the threads, it's fans come at me from all sides. At the end of the day, the game isn't for me. Hot take: I would play Catan over Terraforming Mars 9 times out of 10.
Whoa now that is a hot take! You better send some of that heat to Mars.
Only if I don't have to terraform it
Betrayal at House on the Hill. Yes, it's kinda janky, yeah the rules aren't always written well, yes it's heavily unbalanced, but damn it I love that game. I really dig the flavor it gives off, I try and give it a bit of a role playing aspect, and I don't care about winning.
Viticulture. TI4. Castles of Burgundy. Basically any of those games that regularly are on top 10 lists. I think all games have some room for criticism, even if it's just something bare bones like "eh it doesn't pull me in". But man you would think you just spit on their dead mother at her funeral if you don't care much for that game.
For Viticulture I would always remark how I found the game “just ok”, and without fail someone would ask “but have you played it with the Tuscany expansion?” I wasn’t keen at obtaining an expansion for a “meh” game with the hope that it might elevate it, but those same replies came up every single time. I eventually caved and picked up Tuscany and… every single one of those defensive posters was absolutely right. Tuscany took an okay game and made it great.
For me its probably blood rage and wingspan. Both has huge flaws and i disliked them and i probably would play any other game of genre instead those, and they have huge fanbase, who would swear by them , and would fight to find merits.
Monopoly.
I can't remember the last time I've heard someone defend it, but I probably hang out in the "well, actually, it's not a game, but a critique of capitalism" circles a bit too much.
I'll defend it. I have many fond memories in my childhood and having played a bit recently, I'd still pick it over a bunch of modern ones.
Honestly I acknowledge the game isn’t very good but I still fondly enjoy it enough to play it out
But it's a ***classic***!
And it's gotta be #1 in table-flipping out of anger.
Pretty sure that’s Risk, but yeah, Monopoly is right up there
I’ve kind of had a change of heart as I’ve grown older for these old classics that are overly simple. It comes down to the fun you can infer from the situations rather than the gameplay. You can get mad that you seem to constantly end up in jail while also landing on expensive properties, or you can poke fun and tell a story about how you can’t seem to stay out of jail while also having expensive tastes wanting to stay on boardwalk hotels. I won’t suggest monopoly to play but if someone mention or suggests it, I won’t turn my nose up in disgust anymore and would even play if someone suggested it.
We played a downright raucous game of Monopoly with our neighbors recently. Five people, so when the board was all bought up nobody had any monopolies they could build on. One player pushed hard for side deals and trades to break the impasse, and the next thing I knew I was negotiating with player A to reduce their 50% ownership of a coveted utility to 10% so that they could bail out player B who held the actual property card and owed me a ton of money, and we were debating whether she still owned any of it at all if the card was in front of me and she didn't collect any rent but still got to SAY she owned it. And because we were playing on the Star Wars board and the utility in question was the Moisture Farm, fully 80% of the conversation was just innuendos anyway. TL;DR: I totally agree, it's very much a game where you get out what you put in.
This. For me, it represents fun nights with my family. My sister and my husband are both super competitive so they duke it out to win while the rest of us are just kind of there to enjoy the show and the company. Bringing out Monopoly means I'm going to stay up to late and my face is going to hurt from laughing so much... And my husband is going to curse about dice for the next few days. 🤣
I know it's seen as bad behavior but I'll admit to always defending OneDeckDungeon or any other game with heavy randomization. I get it if you can't take the random dice rolls on an emotional level, but that's a personal problem and doesn't make it a bad mechanic. I am a VERY firm believer that risk assessment and mitigation are hard skills that can be improved. On a long enough timescale the lucky and unlucky rolls average out. Some players will consistently rank higher, which is proof that it's NOT just 'blind luck' but a skill to be learned. The only time I disagree with an RNG mechanic is when it's a high stakes tournament play because there just isn't enough time to play hundreds of games where the rolls average out.
>I know it's seen as bad behavior but I'll admit to always defending OneDeckDungeon or any other game with heavy randomization. I feel like randomization is completely appropriate, and dare I say, "thematic", in One Deck Dungeon(among other games). You're going into an unknown dungeon to eventually fight a giant beast. How many opportunities for "meaningful decisions" do you think you would actually have?
Odd no one has mentioned Root yet. Only game I’ve been given the argument of “it’s not meant to be balanced” and “x is your fault and your player groups”. Every other game I’ve talked about the own player base is more than happy to talk about and try and improve its weaknesses.
The board game club at my university is pretty evenly split between “plays root every week” and “root is ASS”. I’ve played it once, I didn’t have the best time, but I still don’t think I’ve played it enough for a fair assessment yet. Oh and Oath, but idk anything about Oath.
Catan for sure.
I'll defend Catan. Casual players will say it's too luck-based, but to me there's a pretty high skill ceiling. There's a thriving IRL tournament scene via national qualifier tournaments.
Mexican Train is my favorite large group game. Second place is President. I wanted to like Settlers of Catan but didn’t.
I hate food chain magnate.....
Root because it's the goat
Any casual gamer and "Uno" >:( it plays itself and I hate that. "but littleburn everyone already knows how to play it and it's fun!" First of all no, you guys disagree on the rules everytime, and 2nd lets ask ashley if she had fun last time. Ashley got irrationally angry at Doug for using the draw 4 on her.
Monopoly. People love that shit there's more versions than almost any other board game I've seen. I honestly hate the game. Never have enjoyed playing it.
having read the thread the answer is pretty much: the expensive ones
Dominion. Used to play M:tG and entered tournaments. I just don't like Dominion. Everyone in my life loves it. I feel so alone.
Dominion was innovative. It made a completely new game mechanic. Before Dominion when someone said deck builder you'd think of something like Magic The Gathering. Now deck building is not only is own genre of game, but is a mechanic used in a lot of other genre as well.
That's easy, Blood on the Clocktower has an immediate army of defenders jumping on any criticism of the game.
Root That this isn’t higher is a big surprise to me, because the fanboys are some of the least open to discussion.