I prefer fixed rounds in a lot of cases. Games where the end can be ‘raced’ typically lead to a feeling after the game where it either ends too soon before you get going, or went on way too long. And usually racing to end as soon as possible is the better strategy.
Completely agree. I dislike racing games because usually the optimal strategy is to limp across the end line first instead of actually building something that combos and makes you excel to victory. See Ark Nova. Feel it would be a lot better if it was a set number of rounds or something.
I already knew I aligned with you in a lot of points, this video was just another confirmation of it. Very well done, your fluidity and thought process never cease to impress me. And the presentation is always on point! You’re constantly and gradually improving on your channel’s quality. Very cool! :) That said, I overall obviously agree with you in your points. Campaign games can be a bit, or a huge bit, of a commitment, depending on the game. Big ones are bound to scare me off (that’s why I passed on Kingdom’s Forlorn), but I do enjoy them a lot. I would add another 2 points, for me: the thematic disconnection between mechanics and the abstraction they are supposed to represent and the infamous roll to move, but that’s an obvious one. The theme is also very important, but that’s is a very personal and subjective aspect. Great video, Alex!
Really appreciate this video. I always say that a great reviewer isn’t someone who likes the same games as you (because that is almost impossible) but rather a reviewer who does a great job of explaining why or why not they like a game.
Thanks for creating this video. It was well articulated and highlights why I do find your tastes and mine align a lot (except you like area control/direct confrontation games and solo games more than I). Great examples and analysis!
I think it's great that you made this video and the variability one because it's helped me realise that there are some areas where we have pretty different opinions on what's fun and that in turn is useful for contextualizing your reviews, etc. I wish more reviewers would do this, it would probably cut down on the number of games I've backed because of a positive review...from a reviewer with a different idea of fun to mine :-)
Yep :-) That's the intent, there are certain content creators who I find very entertaining to watch, but it often took me a lot of misfires before I realized that we don't align in tastes
This is so funny. My wife, daughter, and I were playing Terraforming Mars today after Terra Mystica yesterday. We all agreed that fixed round games weren’t quite as fun even though we like Terra Mystica a lot. It was just a very clear back to back comparison that got us talking about it.
@@BoardGameCo Yes agree on Legendary Mode you have limited wriggle room for a bad start. I've started playing on the easier modes to mitigate this and give me some points to spend on fun more situational skills rather than being forced down the Meta for a Gearlock / Tyrant.
I very much agree with almost all of these points. The one I slightly disagree with is fixed umber of rounds/turns. For me, it depends on whether the number of turns is organic to the game design or not. Terraforming Mars is an example where the variable number of turns is organic - Mars isn’t terraformed if you raise the temperature and surface water but don’t raise oxygen. But some games may take place over a fixed time interval (say a year), with each turn representing a month. For that type of game, the number of turns feels natural. (I should add that my daughter agrees with you 100%.) I am in complete agreement re: excessive take that. I’m far less tolerant of excessive take that than I used to be. In small fillers, sure. But in games where a take that can undo several turns of planning. Not for me.
I agree on the Cascading Failure. There are some games (Talisman - like) get to the point where if you fail, you'll get too far behind and have a low chance of winning. As far as the Set number of rounds, I don't mind, as long as it is balanced. Some of the round numbers you get to the end an you're wishing there were more. But some, you're getting to the end and you wish it would end sooner. But one that I don't think you covered that is on my list is "No risk for death". Some games if you character dies, and there is no penalty, then some people will just play with little to no thought. "oh well, I died, let me just move my piece back to the start", as opposed to "oh crap I'm about to die, I'll loose everything I worked for.....let me think about my next move" . My main concern on this is that sometimes, their "respawn" puts them in a decent position for their next move. I used to not keep score when I played Racquetball, I just wanted to play. A friend of mine taught me, you need to keep score, otherwise you won't go for the tough ones. And he was right, without the risk of loosing a point, I wasn't playing at my best. The risk needs to be there.
I feel you on cascading failure for sure, I wonder if it could be countered by cascading success where, yes, bad things make it harder but you can recover from it in a big way.
Maybe, but by the definition of cascading failure it will always be less likely you are able to be successful the next time so the cascading success becomes less likely to achieve. To me it depends on the level of cascading failure. A failure that makes the next event/turn 10% more likely to fail is a very different feel than one that makes the next one >50% likely to fail.
Work to reward was never an issue when I was younger, but as a busy adult, it's really an issue now. I often end up playing an ok game that has 2 minutes of setup over an awesome game that has 15 minutes of setup, just because I'm tired, and I just want to play a game, and I don't have the mental energy to refresh the rules in my mind.
I never played the first edition, but I feel like in _Eclipse: Second Dawn_ the luck factor is mitigated by being able to upgrade ones computers. Sure the "big" hit is a 1 in 6, but you can upgrade to get a hit on a 2+ and that makes combat less about luck and more about having enough ships to tackle the Guardians and Ancients.
Even the first edition definitely had mitigation through upgrades, which is always something that you have to take into account, but it would still suck if an entire battle and game came down to die rolls. Sure, you could have upgraded, but now you didn't and the other player wins through luck, not because they upgraded.
@@BoardGameCo There's so much mitigation in Second Dawn. Most new players consider a lot of aspects of Eclipse luck based, but this is mostly due to inexperience. I would consider Eclipse (2nd Dawn) and excellent example of a game that does luck mitigation excellently, but it's not immediately obvious (without going into specifics, because that would take a few pages..). I'd say luck might be the factor that decides the game for you in 1 out of 20 games. The other 19 times you made mistakes (which aren't that obvious to new players). I like your channel a lot btw:D I just think that the times you mention Eclipse you're usually wrong, because you haven't played it enough (understandably).
@@GDRunia I own eclipse 2nd edition too and agree that their is skill in choosing which tech to upgrade, the tech that you should always get is orbitals and monoliths as they mitigate the risk of exploring.
Take that has to be my #1 .I agree, its less frustrating when its helping an opponent towards a goal. But when its just nasty to be nasty, i hate it. Although you could argue, any negative against an opponent is helping you towards a goal....
Thanks for this discussion, I finally have a name for something I hate in games lack of "Player Agency". I have this gripe with Solomon Kane the illusion of agency but in most cases it felt like it was on track and not fun. It is also the reason I really like Unsettled, even though I do not like co-ops, is because players have a lot of agency.
This would be one of the reasons you prefer "Cubitos", to "Quacks of Quedlinburg" Quacks has a set number of rounds, while in Cubitos the length of the game depends on the pace of the players.
The points v fun struggle in Oceans is good, where the deep cards are tremendously powerful but require points to spend. If anything I overspend on fun and leave myself point-poor
23:00 the pokey mans game does that. Every health and damage is in increments of ten, and they're not subtle about it. But the kids want their Pikachu to do 80 points of damage rather than 8
Hi Alex. I have only been board gaming for a couple of years and I sometimes feel like I can’t articulate why I don’t like some games. This can often result in patronising comments on forums that usually allude to one being more educated and that’s why I didn’t ‘get’ the game. We are almost identical in terms of some of the reasons we don’t like games and I’d like to ask if you could recommend some of your favourite games. You could argue I should know if I follow your channel but I came here due to your review of Lords of Hellas and will be subscribing now 🙂
I totally agree concerning fixed number of rounds although there are several games with fixed number of rounds that I like. Having a fixed number of rounds takes away something from a game and makes it too calculable. I also agree in some other points: - lack of variability - bad artworks/graphic design - luck in heavy games without enough mitigation - not enough player agency Not quite sure about the rest of the points. They might depend on the particular game for me.
Really useful overview I find you are the content creator I agree with the most and after watching this it makes total sense. The only one that doesn’t bother me is the finishing blow
I value mastery and variability almost equally. I love both styles. I hate cascading failure with no way to catch back up in a long game IF that failure had any chance involved. I'm with you on the luck thing EXCEPT for games like TI4 or Nemesis (or Eclipse 😄) as those are much more negotiation or cinematic experience. I LOVE final blow if it's all strategy and no luck. And I love the math/cost-benefit analysis of games, so fixed round optimization puzzles are actually fun for me. Gotta agree on Mage Knight being a lot of work, but to me the reward is waaaay worth it. Way worth it. I've heard Game Brains ask "is the juice worth the squeeze".
I recently discovered that the 2nd to last point in this video is a major concern of mine. I didn't think so but it is. Gloomhaven for example, is a fantastic game, that I love, but getting it to the table is such a burden that i'd rather play something else. I discovered the Matagot war games a few weeks ago, somehow I never stumbled upon them, ( Kemet, Inis, Cyclades ) and those are GREAT examples of cool games with depth and very few rules and setup time compared to what you get out of it. Kemet is 4 pages of rules and what a banger.
The "fixed number of rounds" issue is amplified by another issue which is: currency of the game is also the main source of victory points. Let's take Evo for instance: you can upgrade your specie with mutation points and mutation points are the only way to get victory points, so even if for that game the number of rounds is not precisely known (there is 3 possibilities) you must carefully invest when approaching the end and you must choose points over fun. But let's take 7 Wonders on the opposite, you can score points with money but it's not the main source of points. You may score a lot of points with money, but you have to choose that strategy. The number of turns is fixed but as it's almost always better to invest your money rather than saving it you don't have to choose points over fun.
Totally agree to your Luck in Heavy Games part! I owned Eclipse Second Dawn and had the same problems with luck. Although I also find the Luck Part also dominating the exlore action (especially 2nd planet systems) and the technology tiles you draw (ex. some tecnologies totally change the game if drawn, even if drawn late and only once)
I think if you play Eclipse (Second Dawn) enough, you realize that it's not very luck based at all. Funnily enough because there's plenty of mitigation. I would argue that in exploring there's hardly any luck involved. It's more about figuring out how to best deal with what you find. Would you consider finding a lot of Ancients bad luck?
@@GDRunia I would say that it is a big difference if you are findind Acients as Draco Player or as Planta Player. But if you don´t agree on my opinion about Luck it would be too much effort to discus this :-)
@@j.illner6720 Hehe I do disagree, but I don't disagree that it would be too much effort to discuss. Just maybe reevaluate and keep an open mind about ancients then.
So agree on Dominion. I am one of the play testers for the app, but if you do not play optimal against the AI you get trounced which is no fun at all. That is really points over fun. As a result I will not buy the physical game.
Have you played princes of the renasonce? It's an old game but got rereleased. The set up is almost the same each time but every game is always different... You have to always adapt to everyone else's actions.
Sometimes bad art really lends itself to the game. Obviously it depends on the game, but sometimes I really dig an old school looking game with really bad art
I do not like games that have a runaway leader problem. Especially if someone gets an early lead and it’s obvious to everyone there are no chances to catch up. I also am not a big fan of games that are too asynchronous. Where it’s basically learning complete sets of different rules for each player.
I agree with this list except the campaign part, purely for the reason that not everyone can have constant flow of new games and campaign games a lot of times have the highest replay ability and best value for cost per play. I am glad you brought up luck in complex games. I played Dwellings of Eldervale this weekend and I hated the feeling of playing a euro but then your constantly rolling for battle where only the high die matters. It made me wonder how so many people love the game and if I'm missing something for disliking it.
The "poor dice rolling" crescendoing into catastrophic loss ... yeah I can live without that in my game for sure! Fixed rounds, couldn't agree more, gross! Bad components - with you on this too! Give me STONE dice, triple layer everything. spiral bound books, sprue miniatures, that shiny highlighting on tokens (Middara) ... Gametrayz and wood organizers ... I want all of it. Take that can get left at the door ... but the Mitigation is always welcome at the Table lol. My only deletion from the list Alex would be Campaigns .. Id have too get rid of most of my games! Great topic and video sir!
For me, fiddly and unintuitive rules can be a showstopper. Rules that make little thematic sense or feel inconsistent with other rules (for no apparent reason)
I particularly dislike the effect in multiplayer competitive games when player who has no chance of winning ends up "picking" the winner in the end, e.g. by conflicting with second best player or in any other way (like selecting specific target they want to achieve but ignoring losses in any other dimension which benefits one player). This happens in many Ameritrash games but also in area control classics (that I strongly dislike btw) like Game of Thrones. Another aspect that I HATE in multiplayer competitive games is not controling the "outside" social dynamics of the game in the form of making alliances etc. Multiplayer competitive games usually involve some alliance making (I don't attack you, you leave me this area but I do not enter in your area etc), however not that many games transform it into a core mechanic. This, however, SHOULD be a core mechanic if alliance making is important for how the gameplay unfolds. That's why for instance I like Rising Sun with the "tea" ceremony mechanic that incentivizes and in some cases forces players to make pacts between themselves. I actually like fixed turns because I dislike another element - games that drag for so long you cannot finish them. I personally believe that designers do not think enough about duration of the games.
The points vs fun topic is an important one for me too. I was just telling someone how this really bugs me in Terra Mystica (one of my favorite games). As I got better at the game, it really bummed me to learn that some of the best moves are just taking point generating tiles instead of engine boosting ones. Sure, they’ll maximize my score, but ugh! Boooring!
Not enough player agency is what kills game the most for me. Usually after 3-4 plays of a euro I 'feel' like I see the patterns and decisions make themselves. And heavy euros which might solve that feel like work :p
Fixed number of rounds is interesting; I hadn’t thought of this as a potential negative before. Isn’t this just basically a subset of variability? Like I don’t think you can math out A Feast For Odin or even something “smaller” like Lost Ruins of Arnak, Brass, 7 Wonders, etc. Those games provide big variety in what appears throughout the game, so even though you can be good at them, I don’t think they are solvable per se. Regardless, you’ve given me something to think about!
Cascading failure is an interersting one, and I guess I somewhat agree. But I do wonder how games can avoid that. An easy patch would be somekind of catchup mechanic which is far worse for anyone who likes their moves to matter in games.
Cascading failure can be fun if the game has multiple Hail Mary plays to reverse your misfortune. But I do agree that, in general, cascading failure is terrible. I’m looking at you, Hostage Negotiator. The illusion of agency is probably my number one. Most everything else, I can get past, but if there is no real choice, I would instead read a book or watch a movie.
I play the same games with three distinct groups of people, with different capabilities for understanding and retaining rules. I am far more likely to invest in games that have different levels of variability built in to the same game. I couldn't do a 70 page rule book, because I would have to teach it three times, which would kill me.
I wish you were a little more specific as far as referencing what you mean for each game. Fir example you say vagrant song has i obvious choices but don’t give an example. Are you referring to the skills? Going for the rituals?
Ohhh, I HATE fixed number of rounds ❤️❤️ good one. It often feels like an arbitrary and inelegant cut off point to keep the game artificially contained. Cascading failure has put me off games entirely.
Yea, totally the opposite of you on campaign games. To me, they are much easier to table since you already know how to play them. I can pull KDM out at any time and get right into it. The key is not stopping for long periods of time (months), which is a luxury you don't have. As for Vagrantsong, Zee stated in his review that it was the perfect mix of agency, story, and randomness.
Do you ever find yourself being overly critical on board games because of these points? Or do you find yourself remaining objective during the play/experience of the game?
Enjoy your videos. "I dont like rewarding someone else for happening to be in the right spot, at the right time, getting the thing done" But yeah, that's a hard disagree with me there. If you know that's the goal in the game, then you just need to set yourself up to be that person. That's the point. If you can't, then you shouldn't be rewarded for it. That would be a terrible game if you weren't rewarded for doing this.
agree on a lot of these but I love campaign games...gloomhaven(finished everything and ordered crimson scales, 155 plays), etherfields done, lord of the rings LOTL all finished,.....and lots of campaign kickstarters comming. I would rather play some games I love a lot dthen a lot of games a few times.
The best thing about boardgames is the content you and the birds create 😇 Haha sorry too easy but still kind of true (best thing ofcourse playing the game, so you are second;))
Unnecessarily fiddly rules. TMB and Mage Knight both have fiddly rules, but they are massive games with an equally massive number of potential interactions. The fiddly rules generally exist to address edge-cases one might encounter during game play. Then you have a game like Nemo's War, ugh what a miserable rulebook. There are rules that trigger or modify _other_ rules, rather than addressing something that happens in-game. Horrible game design.
I love Pandemic and I don't consider it cascading failure with the possibly exception of Outbreaks. The world dying around you is only cascading failure if it also makes the next round have even more bad stuff...which the Reckoners does because of Epic escalation.
@@BoardGameCo Cascading failure in and of itself doesn't bother me that much. It's a function of how much impact a given failure has (10% higher failure next turn vs >50% failure next turn are very different impacts) and how much opportunity you have to mitigate the starting conditions of the failures in the first place. I love Pandemic and think it is definitely a game that uses cascading failure mechanisms. In addition to the outbreaks, the result of an epidemic event is to stack the existing infection cards back on top of the deck making failure more likely do to reinfection of the same locations. The strategy (and one of the core aspects of the game) is to understand the level of impact for failure conditions and to cooperatively figure out how to deal with them before they can begin the failure chain. The type of cascading failure that would bother me is one that carries over from one scenario/mission to another in a campaign that significantly reduces your abilities without much hope of mitigation/recovery. Haven't played it but heard this is a potential issue with something like Arkham Horror LCG for example.
I would argue on pinning this to your main youtube page. This a clear "know your reviewer" disclaimer that everyone should have!
Definitely not unreasonable, except I actually have a video soon that I plan on pinning the main page.
@@BoardGameCo Better than this one?
I prefer fixed rounds in a lot of cases. Games where the end can be ‘raced’ typically lead to a feeling after the game where it either ends too soon before you get going, or went on way too long. And usually racing to end as soon as possible is the better strategy.
Completely agree. I dislike racing games because usually the optimal strategy is to limp across the end line first instead of actually building something that combos and makes you excel to victory. See Ark Nova. Feel it would be a lot better if it was a set number of rounds or something.
Which plays into the "fun" vs. "points" issue.
I already knew I aligned with you in a lot of points, this video was just another confirmation of it. Very well done, your fluidity and thought process never cease to impress me. And the presentation is always on point! You’re constantly and gradually improving on your channel’s quality. Very cool! :)
That said, I overall obviously agree with you in your points. Campaign games can be a bit, or a huge bit, of a commitment, depending on the game. Big ones are bound to scare me off (that’s why I passed on Kingdom’s Forlorn), but I do enjoy them a lot.
I would add another 2 points, for me: the thematic disconnection between mechanics and the abstraction they are supposed to represent and the infamous roll to move, but that’s an obvious one. The theme is also very important, but that’s is a very personal and subjective aspect.
Great video, Alex!
Completely agree on most of these - especially choosing points over fun, and the need for variability!
Yep :)
Really appreciate this video. I always say that a great reviewer isn’t someone who likes the same games as you (because that is almost impossible) but rather a reviewer who does a great job of explaining why or why not they like a game.
Thanks William!
Thanks for creating this video. It was well articulated and highlights why I do find your tastes and mine align a lot (except you like area control/direct confrontation games and solo games more than I). Great examples and analysis!
How far can you squirt
I think it's great that you made this video and the variability one because it's helped me realise that there are some areas where we have pretty different opinions on what's fun and that in turn is useful for contextualizing your reviews, etc.
I wish more reviewers would do this, it would probably cut down on the number of games I've backed because of a positive review...from a reviewer with a different idea of fun to mine :-)
Yep :-) That's the intent, there are certain content creators who I find very entertaining to watch, but it often took me a lot of misfires before I realized that we don't align in tastes
Excellent video.
You manage to put words on feelings i had but didn't know how to formulate.
This is so funny. My wife, daughter, and I were playing Terraforming Mars today after Terra Mystica yesterday. We all agreed that fixed round games weren’t quite as fun even though we like Terra Mystica a lot. It was just a very clear back to back comparison that got us talking about it.
Yep :) plenty of fixed round games I love, but not a mechanic I like
TMB is a great example example of cascading failure. One of my faves but sometimes if I fail an early encounter I just reset.
Yes! 100% agreed. An early bad round I'll usually reset.
@@BoardGameCo Yes agree on Legendary Mode you have limited wriggle room for a bad start. I've started playing on the easier modes to mitigate this and give me some points to spend on fun more situational skills rather than being forced down the Meta for a Gearlock / Tyrant.
I very much agree with almost all of these points. The one I slightly disagree with is fixed umber of rounds/turns. For me, it depends on whether the number of turns is organic to the game design or not. Terraforming Mars is an example where the variable number of turns is organic - Mars isn’t terraformed if you raise the temperature and surface water but don’t raise oxygen. But some games may take place over a fixed time interval (say a year), with each turn representing a month. For that type of game, the number of turns feels natural. (I should add that my daughter agrees with you 100%.)
I am in complete agreement re: excessive take that. I’m far less tolerant of excessive take that than I used to be. In small fillers, sure. But in games where a take that can undo several turns of planning. Not for me.
I agree on the Cascading Failure. There are some games (Talisman - like) get to the point where if you fail, you'll get too far behind and have a low chance of winning. As far as the Set number of rounds, I don't mind, as long as it is balanced. Some of the round numbers you get to the end an you're wishing there were more. But some, you're getting to the end and you wish it would end sooner. But one that I don't think you covered that is on my list is "No risk for death". Some games if you character dies, and there is no penalty, then some people will just play with little to no thought. "oh well, I died, let me just move my piece back to the start", as opposed to "oh crap I'm about to die, I'll loose everything I worked for.....let me think about my next move" . My main concern on this is that sometimes, their "respawn" puts them in a decent position for their next move. I used to not keep score when I played Racquetball, I just wanted to play. A friend of mine taught me, you need to keep score, otherwise you won't go for the tough ones. And he was right, without the risk of loosing a point, I wasn't playing at my best. The risk needs to be there.
I feel you on cascading failure for sure, I wonder if it could be countered by cascading success where, yes, bad things make it harder but you can recover from it in a big way.
Maybe, but by the definition of cascading failure it will always be less likely you are able to be successful the next time so the cascading success becomes less likely to achieve. To me it depends on the level of cascading failure. A failure that makes the next event/turn 10% more likely to fail is a very different feel than one that makes the next one >50% likely to fail.
Work to reward was never an issue when I was younger, but as a busy adult, it's really an issue now. I often end up playing an ok game that has 2 minutes of setup over an awesome game that has 15 minutes of setup, just because I'm tired, and I just want to play a game, and I don't have the mental energy to refresh the rules in my mind.
Exactly. I'm ok with the work, but the payoff has to be there.
I never played the first edition, but I feel like in _Eclipse: Second Dawn_ the luck factor is mitigated by being able to upgrade ones computers. Sure the "big" hit is a 1 in 6, but you can upgrade to get a hit on a 2+ and that makes combat less about luck and more about having enough ships to tackle the Guardians and Ancients.
Even the first edition definitely had mitigation through upgrades, which is always something that you have to take into account, but it would still suck if an entire battle and game came down to die rolls. Sure, you could have upgraded, but now you didn't and the other player wins through luck, not because they upgraded.
@@BoardGameCo There's so much mitigation in Second Dawn. Most new players consider a lot of aspects of Eclipse luck based, but this is mostly due to inexperience. I would consider Eclipse (2nd Dawn) and excellent example of a game that does luck mitigation excellently, but it's not immediately obvious (without going into specifics, because that would take a few pages..). I'd say luck might be the factor that decides the game for you in 1 out of 20 games. The other 19 times you made mistakes (which aren't that obvious to new players). I like your channel a lot btw:D I just think that the times you mention Eclipse you're usually wrong, because you haven't played it enough (understandably).
@@GDRunia I own eclipse 2nd edition too and agree that their is skill in choosing which tech to upgrade, the tech that you should always get is orbitals and monoliths as they mitigate the risk of exploring.
Take that has to be my #1 .I agree, its less frustrating when its helping an opponent towards a goal. But when its just nasty to be nasty, i hate it. Although you could argue, any negative against an opponent is helping you towards a goal....
Yep, it's a balance
Thanks for this discussion, I finally have a name for something I hate in games lack of "Player Agency". I have this gripe with Solomon Kane the illusion of agency but in most cases it felt like it was on track and not fun. It is also the reason I really like Unsettled, even though I do not like co-ops, is because players have a lot of agency.
This would be one of the reasons you prefer "Cubitos", to "Quacks of Quedlinburg" Quacks has a set number of rounds, while in Cubitos the length of the game depends on the pace of the players.
Good call :)
Really great video Alex!
Thanks Matt :)
The points v fun struggle in Oceans is good, where the deep cards are tremendously powerful but require points to spend. If anything I overspend on fun and leave myself point-poor
23:00 the pokey mans game does that. Every health and damage is in increments of ten, and they're not subtle about it. But the kids want their Pikachu to do 80 points of damage rather than 8
Hi Alex. I have only been board gaming for a couple of years and I sometimes feel like I can’t articulate why I don’t like some games. This can often result in patronising comments on forums that usually allude to one being more educated and that’s why I didn’t ‘get’ the game. We are almost identical in terms of some of the reasons we don’t like games and I’d like to ask if you could recommend some of your favourite games. You could argue I should know if I follow your channel but I came here due to your review of Lords of Hellas and will be subscribing now 🙂
I totally agree concerning fixed number of rounds although there are several games with fixed number of rounds that I like.
Having a fixed number of rounds takes away something from a game and makes it too calculable.
I also agree in some other points:
- lack of variability
- bad artworks/graphic design
- luck in heavy games without enough mitigation
- not enough player agency
Not quite sure about the rest of the points. They might depend on the particular game for me.
Really useful overview I find you are the content creator I agree with the most and after watching this it makes total sense. The only one that doesn’t bother me is the finishing blow
Thanks Beorn :)
On your point about small increments of gain, I think that Clans of Caledonia might be guilty of that.
Oh no! I still want to play that one.
I value mastery and variability almost equally. I love both styles.
I hate cascading failure with no way to catch back up in a long game IF that failure had any chance involved.
I'm with you on the luck thing EXCEPT for games like TI4 or Nemesis (or Eclipse 😄) as those are much more negotiation or cinematic experience.
I LOVE final blow if it's all strategy and no luck. And I love the math/cost-benefit analysis of games, so fixed round optimization puzzles are actually fun for me.
Gotta agree on Mage Knight being a lot of work, but to me the reward is waaaay worth it. Way worth it. I've heard Game Brains ask "is the juice worth the squeeze".
I recently discovered that the 2nd to last point in this video is a major concern of mine. I didn't think so but it is. Gloomhaven for example, is a fantastic game, that I love, but getting it to the table is such a burden that i'd rather play something else. I discovered the Matagot war games a few weeks ago, somehow I never stumbled upon them, ( Kemet, Inis, Cyclades ) and those are GREAT examples of cool games with depth and very few rules and setup time compared to what you get out of it. Kemet is 4 pages of rules and what a banger.
The "fixed number of rounds" issue is amplified by another issue which is: currency of the game is also the main source of victory points. Let's take Evo for instance: you can upgrade your specie with mutation points and mutation points are the only way to get victory points, so even if for that game the number of rounds is not precisely known (there is 3 possibilities) you must carefully invest when approaching the end and you must choose points over fun. But let's take 7 Wonders on the opposite, you can score points with money but it's not the main source of points. You may score a lot of points with money, but you have to choose that strategy. The number of turns is fixed but as it's almost always better to invest your money rather than saving it you don't have to choose points over fun.
couldnt stop looking at that dented corner of Vagrantsong
Well that's just fair.
Totally agree to your Luck in Heavy Games part! I owned Eclipse Second Dawn and had the same problems with luck. Although I also find the Luck Part also dominating the exlore action (especially 2nd planet systems) and the technology tiles you draw (ex. some tecnologies totally change the game if drawn, even if drawn late and only once)
I think if you play Eclipse (Second Dawn) enough, you realize that it's not very luck based at all. Funnily enough because there's plenty of mitigation. I would argue that in exploring there's hardly any luck involved. It's more about figuring out how to best deal with what you find. Would you consider finding a lot of Ancients bad luck?
@@GDRunia I would say that it is a big difference if you are findind Acients as Draco Player or as Planta Player. But if you don´t agree on my opinion about Luck it would be too much effort to discus this :-)
@@j.illner6720 Hehe I do disagree, but I don't disagree that it would be too much effort to discuss. Just maybe reevaluate and keep an open mind about ancients then.
Games that require a minimum of 3 players
Fair :)
So agree on Dominion. I am one of the play testers for the app, but if you do not play optimal against the AI you get trounced which is no fun at all. That is really points over fun. As a result I will not buy the physical game.
Fair :)
Take a drink when Alex says "at the end of the day" or "regardless" = )
Have you played princes of the renasonce? It's an old game but got rereleased. The set up is almost the same each time but every game is always different... You have to always adapt to everyone else's actions.
Sadly I never did, that's one of those that kind of disappeared off my radar after it came out.
Sometimes bad art really lends itself to the game. Obviously it depends on the game, but sometimes I really dig an old school looking game with really bad art
I do not like games that have a runaway leader problem. Especially if someone gets an early lead and it’s obvious to everyone there are no chances to catch up.
I also am not a big fan of games that are too asynchronous. Where it’s basically learning complete sets of different rules for each player.
Totally hear on both
I agree with this list except the campaign part, purely for the reason that not everyone can have constant flow of new games and campaign games a lot of times have the highest replay ability and best value for cost per play. I am glad you brought up luck in complex games. I played Dwellings of Eldervale this weekend and I hated the feeling of playing a euro but then your constantly rolling for battle where only the high die matters. It made me wonder how so many people love the game and if I'm missing something for disliking it.
Alex Radcliffe, a man after my own heart. If I designed a game all these things would be top priority.
Nice :)
The "poor dice rolling" crescendoing into catastrophic loss ... yeah I can live without that in my game for sure! Fixed rounds, couldn't agree more, gross! Bad components - with you on this too! Give me STONE dice, triple layer everything. spiral bound books, sprue miniatures, that shiny highlighting on tokens (Middara) ... Gametrayz and wood organizers ... I want all of it. Take that can get left at the door ... but the Mitigation is always welcome at the Table lol.
My only deletion from the list Alex would be Campaigns .. Id have too get rid of most of my games!
Great topic and video sir!
For me, fiddly and unintuitive rules can be a showstopper. Rules that make little thematic sense or feel inconsistent with other rules (for no apparent reason)
I particularly dislike the effect in multiplayer competitive games when player who has no chance of winning ends up "picking" the winner in the end, e.g. by conflicting with second best player or in any other way (like selecting specific target they want to achieve but ignoring losses in any other dimension which benefits one player). This happens in many Ameritrash games but also in area control classics (that I strongly dislike btw) like Game of Thrones.
Another aspect that I HATE in multiplayer competitive games is not controling the "outside" social dynamics of the game in the form of making alliances etc. Multiplayer competitive games usually involve some alliance making (I don't attack you, you leave me this area but I do not enter in your area etc), however not that many games transform it into a core mechanic. This, however, SHOULD be a core mechanic if alliance making is important for how the gameplay unfolds. That's why for instance I like Rising Sun with the "tea" ceremony mechanic that incentivizes and in some cases forces players to make pacts between themselves.
I actually like fixed turns because I dislike another element - games that drag for so long you cannot finish them. I personally believe that designers do not think enough about duration of the games.
Great video, nice bird's eye view of board game design.
Thanks Boaz :)
Great list!
Thanks :)
The points vs fun topic is an important one for me too. I was just telling someone how this really bugs me in Terra Mystica (one of my favorite games). As I got better at the game, it really bummed me to learn that some of the best moves are just taking point generating tiles instead of engine boosting ones. Sure, they’ll maximize my score, but ugh! Boooring!
Mmm>mibn. No
Not enough player agency is what kills game the most for me. Usually after 3-4 plays of a euro I 'feel' like I see the patterns and decisions make themselves. And heavy euros which might solve that feel like work :p
Fixed number of rounds is interesting; I hadn’t thought of this as a potential negative before. Isn’t this just basically a subset of variability? Like I don’t think you can math out A Feast For Odin or even something “smaller” like Lost Ruins of Arnak, Brass, 7 Wonders, etc. Those games provide big variety in what appears throughout the game, so even though you can be good at them, I don’t think they are solvable per se. Regardless, you’ve given me something to think about!
Less about matching out the entire game and more about focusing too easily on the return of a single action....removes some of the mystery
Cascading failure is an interersting one, and I guess I somewhat agree. But I do wonder how games can avoid that. An easy patch would be somekind of catchup mechanic which is far worse for anyone who likes their moves to matter in games.
Cascading failure can be fun if the game has multiple Hail Mary plays to reverse your misfortune. But I do agree that, in general, cascading failure is terrible. I’m looking at you, Hostage Negotiator.
The illusion of agency is probably my number one. Most everything else, I can get past, but if there is no real choice, I would instead read a book or watch a movie.
I play the same games with three distinct groups of people, with different capabilities for understanding and retaining rules. I am far more likely to invest in games that have different levels of variability built in to the same game. I couldn't do a 70 page rule book, because I would have to teach it three times, which would kill me.
Games stuffed full of unnecessary grey plastic minis that double the price of the game, together with yet more metal coins could be added to the list
I mean, I like them....but I hear you :)
I wish you were a little more specific as far as referencing what you mean for each game. Fir example you say vagrant song has i obvious choices but don’t give an example. Are you referring to the skills? Going for the rituals?
Ohhh, I HATE fixed number of rounds ❤️❤️ good one. It often feels like an arbitrary and inelegant cut off point to keep the game artificially contained. Cascading failure has put me off games entirely.
Interesting video and I agree with a lot of these.
But what is this "game mechanic" repair person you keep talking about? :-P #DefinitionOfMechanic
Great number 1. Bad art is the worst!
Yep
Fixed Number of Rounds is my number one.
Yea, totally the opposite of you on campaign games. To me, they are much easier to table since you already know how to play them.
I can pull KDM out at any time and get right into it. The key is not stopping for long periods of time (months), which is a luxury you don't have.
As for Vagrantsong, Zee stated in his review that it was the perfect mix of agency, story, and randomness.
Yep, totally reasonable, like I said, they for sure have an audience...and I'm always still tempted by them.
@@BoardGameCo I haven't received my preorder copy of Vagrantsong yet, so cannot speak from personal experience.
My biggest dislike is really badly written rule books, books with no contents or index page etc.
Do you ever find yourself being overly critical on board games because of these points? Or do you find yourself remaining objective during the play/experience of the game?
Enjoy your videos.
"I dont like rewarding someone else for happening to be in the right spot, at the right time, getting the thing done"
But yeah, that's a hard disagree with me there. If you know that's the goal in the game, then you just need to set yourself up to be that person. That's the point. If you can't, then you shouldn't be rewarded for it. That would be a terrible game if you weren't rewarded for doing this.
agree on a lot of these but I love campaign games...gloomhaven(finished everything and ordered crimson scales, 155 plays), etherfields done, lord of the rings LOTL all finished,.....and lots of campaign kickstarters comming. I would rather play some games I love a lot dthen a lot of games a few times.
I dislike a game saying “plays up to X players” but really it’s only good with 2 or 3 or whatever
The best thing about boardgames is the content you and the birds create 😇
Haha sorry too easy but still kind of true (best thing ofcourse playing the game, so you are second;))
What you just said about Dominion tells me that you haven’t played Dominion that much.
The whole “all you need to do is buy gold” just ain’t true.
To be clear, you need to do more than buy gold, but gold is generally bought far frequently than it should be.
I wonder... these bad game mechanics are known for years. Why are those games even published in modern games?
Not all of them are bad, some a matter of taste.
and yet you are a fan of Food Chain Magnate-- that violates a number of these rules
Variability and bad art, what else? And yep, I gave plenty of examples of games I love that have aspects I don't like. That's part of it :)
@@BoardGameCo excessively take that!
Unnecessarily fiddly rules. TMB and Mage Knight both have fiddly rules, but they are massive games with an equally massive number of potential interactions. The fiddly rules generally exist to address edge-cases one might encounter during game play. Then you have a game like Nemo's War, ugh what a miserable rulebook. There are rules that trigger or modify _other_ rules, rather than addressing something that happens in-game. Horrible game design.
Do you like Pandemic and do you consider it cascading failure?
I love Pandemic and I don't consider it cascading failure with the possibly exception of Outbreaks. The world dying around you is only cascading failure if it also makes the next round have even more bad stuff...which the Reckoners does because of Epic escalation.
@@BoardGameCo Cascading failure in and of itself doesn't bother me that much. It's a function of how much impact a given failure has (10% higher failure next turn vs >50% failure next turn are very different impacts) and how much opportunity you have to mitigate the starting conditions of the failures in the first place. I love Pandemic and think it is definitely a game that uses cascading failure mechanisms. In addition to the outbreaks, the result of an epidemic event is to stack the existing infection cards back on top of the deck making failure more likely do to reinfection of the same locations. The strategy (and one of the core aspects of the game) is to understand the level of impact for failure conditions and to cooperatively figure out how to deal with them before they can begin the failure chain.
The type of cascading failure that would bother me is one that carries over from one scenario/mission to another in a campaign that significantly reduces your abilities without much hope of mitigation/recovery. Haven't played it but heard this is a potential issue with something like Arkham Horror LCG for example.
niceeee
Blood rage!
I have to click :)
Lol fair