Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Wow

I was outright attacked by my Dad who says that the boardgames I play suck because not a lot of people buy them.

I then said that the vast majority of REALLY popular boardgames, the kind of that get millions of sales, are games that are simple and that include the ages below 12. While a complicated game where even learning the rules, or basic strategy, likely won't sell anywhere close to that no matter how good it is.

I don't know... it was a weird arguement where I was trying to say that just because something is good, or even REALLY good, it doesn't mean it is going to be popular.

[Mephansteras]

Very true. Your average consumer is both turned off by any sort of complex play, they tend to refuse to consider games beyond the mass market 'classics' that they are used to. They assume that those games are the best simply because they are popular and what they grew up with. And once they have 5 or 6 boardgames they don't see any reason to get more, since they don't really play the ones they have all that often anyway. It's sort of a self-perpetuating cycle of mediocrity.

[Neonivek]

What I should have done was challenge him to think of an original game, that isn't an offshoot, that was made in the last 5 years.

He wouldn't be able to. All the boardgames he knows that he has played are decades old.

The MOST original popular game I can think of that recently came out... was an offshoot of Monopoly that added a bunch of new rules.

[Anvilfolk]

I've seen Settlers of Catan next to the popular bunch (monopoly, risk, etc) quite often here in Pittsburgh. It still has a lot of luck, but it's a nice, addictive game that's not the usual suspects. I think it's fairly old by now though.

[Mephansteras]

I've seen Settlers of Catan next to the popular bunch (monopoly, risk, etc) quite often here in Pittsburgh. It still has a lot of luck, but it's a nice, addictive game that's not the usual suspects. I think it's fairly old by now though.

Yeah, settlers is really good. Makes a great introduction to modern boardgaming.

[Anvilfolk]

After the novelty wears off, I don't think it's that good of a boardgame, but sure makes for some laughs Takes too long with the analysis paralysis bunch I play with, and I honestly don't feel there are many meaningful decisions for such a long game. The optimal strategy is generally somewhat clear, so from then on it's just getting on with rolling the dice.

I couldn't stop playing it at the beginning though

[nenjin]

Settlers was ok....I never really understood what people found so amazing about it other than it being a unique approach to a MP game format.

I mean it was a fun little game, don't get me wrong. But a lot of people I know put it up on a pedestal and I never figured out what it was doing that made people love it so. It certainly as the style or the aesthetic or anything like that.

[Mephansteras]

Base settlers gets boring eventually, but I find Knights and Cities to be a great expansion for it. Adds enough extra aspects to the game to make it more interesting.

[EagleV]

I really loved Settlers, and the Knights and Cities expansion, but that was before I realized there were a lot more (more or less) complex boardgames out there. For many people, it's their introduction to the advanced boardgame concept. It suits that purpose very well as it is complex enough to be challenging, and easy enough as a starter. And I think it's that position as a typical starter, that made people love it so much. They were used to monopoly and risk, and then suddenly they played Settlers, expecting something along the lines of what they played before, but getting something completely different, and they loved it. Anything they would play afterwards would then be a smaller step from settlers, than it was from monopoly to settlers, so that wouldn't be such a surprise as settlers was.

So far for the possibly way-off sociology.

I recently heard about a LoTR living card game, which was cooperative and for 1-3 or 1-4 players, does anyone have it, or played it?

[nenjin]

And I think it's that position as a typical starter, that made people love it so much. They were used to monopoly and risk, and then suddenly they played Settlers, expecting something along the lines of what they played before, but getting something completely different, and they loved it. Anything they would play afterwards would then be a smaller step from settlers, than it was from monopoly to settlers, so that wouldn't be such a surprise as settlers was.

Well, these were hardcore gamers playing out of war-gaming shop. When you spend your days playing 40k and GWS games, stuff like Settlers is pretty tame. Yet these guys were huge fans and it always surprised me. I get accessibility is a large part of it, but basic Settlers was so just so...bland.

[Mephansteras]

Depends a bit on who you play with. My group likes to come up with bizarre reasons for how you make roads out of sheep and the like. So that part is a lot of fun regardless of the rest of the game.

I still enjoy settlers, but I play it rarely enough that it isn't too boring. Having a lot more game options helps quite a bit in keeping all of them fresh.

[Neonivek]

I have to admit quite a few boardgames seem to be like that

The base game seems simple yet it is missing something... then expansions come out and overload you but say "well we did fill in those gaps"

I REALLY wish I had a case that could hold all the extras... honestly Arkham Horror became a nightmare to transport and set up with only ONE expansion. I can't imagine those people who play with all the expansions at once. It would be a total nightmare!

[Werdna]

A few I enjoy that haven't been mentioned:

Nexus Ops - this game plays pretty quick, and it has the unique quality of playing well with three players.  I only have two regular gaming buddies and its a real pain finding games that play well with three players - either they play a lot like solitaire (Dominion) or they become a big exercise in clobber-the-leader (Shogun, etc).  Nexus Ops has hidden missions that score your victory points, so attacking other players usually involves trying to satisfy a mission requirement and not so much beating the living crap out of them.  The net effect is a lot of fun skirmishing, with frequent all-out battle royale's over the central tile.  OTOH, the secret missions make the game a bit strategy-lite - since you don't know what motivates the other players, its a bit hard to counter them. 

Race for the Galaxy - this plays very similar to Puerto Rico.  We found the sci-fi theme a lot more engaging however.  The biggest difference is that RftG uses a lot fewer game pieces, replacing nearly all pieces with cards, which makes it much easier to set-up and tear down.  I haven't played enough of either to really comment on/compare how different/deep the strategy goes between the two though.

Carcasonne - this is a pretty simple game and not quite my usual taste (which runs a bit closer to Arkham Horror or Shogun/Samurai Swords), but it has several qualities that I enjoy - its very portable (I carry mine around when I travel in a big plastic bag), its easy to explain to and attract people that don't normally game, and it plays in a very reasonable amount of time.  When you have mixed company looking for a simple game to play this one fits the bill.  Typical play with newbies is to play without farmers in the 1st game, and explain farmers before you tear down the 1st game's pieces, then play the 2nd game with them.

Since I've mentioned it several times, Shogun, aka Samurai Swords, is a fantastic wargame that my friends and I often played instead of the original Axis and Allies.  It has some ugly components to it however - as a free-for-all it involves a lot of diplomacy (and thus, various levels of backstabbing) and sadly there are incentives for outright eliminating players.  I've seen plenty of feelings hurt, as well as people sidelined for hours by an early exit.  When it goes well however we've had some really epic games.  4 players seems to be the correct amount - fewer, and you get clobber-the-leader; more, and you tend to have early exits from players with poor starting positions/grasp of the game. 

Lastly if you are a Scrabble fan, try Bananagrams sometime.  Its a lot more fun I think, and super portable for trips.

[BigD145]

For a step beyond Carcassonne, but with fewer parts, I'd try Gheos.

San Juan is the card version of Puerto Rico. Race is the space version of San Juan.

[Anvilfolk]

Worker placement games are slightly more brainy, and not particularly exciting. I've read an article that said Carcassone was not a game you should use to introduce people to boardgames, and I've kind of come to agree with them.

I think Settlers is still the best game for introducing people... although the rules get somewhat confusing the the initiate Survive: Escape From Atlantis is another nice one, and the rules are about the same complexity. It's a really nice game, with more direct conflict. People won't take it to heart though, since when you screw them over it's the optimal move and they would do it to you

Also, Settlers is not a "little" game... jesus, games with 4 players usually end up being 2h+ over here... but like I said, analysis paralysis. What REALLY irks me is the downtime and the fact that you don't do many meaningful choices during those 2h+. Trading alleviates that somewhat, as does the 5/6 player expansion, by allowing you to build afterwards.

The one game with Cities and Knights we played took FOREVER.