TOP 10 Board Games RUINED by ONE thing!!!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 มิ.ย. 2024
- Discover 10 board games that were completely ruined by a single game mechanism. From player elimination to luck-based mechanics, find out which games to avoid at your next game night!
Timestamps:
0:00 Intro
0:58 Number 10
1:56 Number 9
2:52 Number 8
3:50 Number 7
5:11 Number 6
6:18 Number 5
7:30 Number 4
8:25 Number 3
9:21 Number 2
10:49 Number 1
Follow me:
FACEBOOK: / diceonahill
TikTok www.tiktok.com/@diceonahill?_...
Instagram diceonahill...
![เก่งแต่ลับหลัง (FINSTA) - ส้ม มารี (Zom Marie) Ft. Punch 4EVE [Official Teaser]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Fvt0Wz1hfGY/mqdefault.jpg)
1K views!!! Thanks guys you are awesome!
I have a few but I'll mention one:
Ready Set Bet.
I love Ready Set Bet but the calculation of points after each round, slows the pacing down to a crawl.
A ton of calculations and the distributing money to all the players was just way too slow with 6+ players
Cosmic Encounter shines with the right players. We had a game a month or two back where one guy could have one with others, but decided to sabotage them at the last minute so he could taste victory alone... which then led to another guy almost winning, and me being slingshot from last place to winning the game due to a combination of my powers and others seeing my position as no threat. It's a great game with selfish people.
I often think about what ruins traditional board games and quite often it is down to one mechanism. For instance, Cluedo (or Clue for anyone in the US) is actually a great game at its core but the roll and move mechanism just ruined it for me as a child. The very fact that you could miss a turn to start a rumour just because you rolled poorly is such poor design. I know a lot of people house-ruled it out but it really shouldn't have been there to begin with. Don't know whether it has changed in subsequent printings but my fix was that you don't use dice at all but could just move to adjacent rooms or use secret passageways.
Tile tearing is real. I hate it and that's why i use a hobby knife when unboxing new games. Live and learn!
Yeah, this one is a bit on me. Although I do think the game would be overall better with plastic tiles or something. As over time, the wear and tear would create the same problem.
@@Diceonahill Frankly, you should have either taken it back to the shop or complained/ asked for replacements from the publisher.
Skull is in my top 10, but... Yes I agree, i can play it 6 player really cause of the same component issue. I need to buy second copy....
Completely agree with what you said about Scythe, Dwellings of Eldervale, Paperback, and Cosmic Encounter (I haven’t played the others). I also dislike player elimination and dice combat. I like Scythe more than the others in your list, but I’ve noticed that faction imbalance is a common thread in Stegmeier’s games (Tapestry, e.g.).
Here are some of mine:
BREW. You wouldn’t expect a game with this many Euro mechanisms and pretty art to be this mean.
BROOM SERVICE, REVOLUTION, etc. Almost as bad as the “random dice luck determines everything” is the “players make choices in secret, reveal, then cancel each other out if they match” kind of luck. SEPTIMA does this too, but that’s not the only thing I disliked about that game (I also didn’t like how the action loop was too predictable).
CINQUE TERRE: Why do unfulfilled contracts take negative points? Their ability to be fulfilled is determined by a dice roll at the beginning of the game. You start with a contract, and if the dice are unfavourable it’s not worth as many negative points, but it’s not worth as many positive points either, and as soon as you complete a contract you get another one.
HUES AND CUES. The hues on the cards don’t match the hues on the board due to bad component quality, so you have to look it up on the board, surrounded by other colours. Huge fail!
KLUSTER: This game is beautifully elegant in its simplicity. But I’m easily startled, and don’t enjoy being startled, so this game is just torturous. (Similarly, I also don’t like READY SET BET because of all the sudden yelling.)
MERCHANTS OF THE DARK ROAD: Why are there extra hardships for the person who starts a quest when anyone can follow a quest and get almost as much benefits and no risk (they just miss out on the track placement)? For us it turned quickly into a game of chicken because no one wanted to start their own quest.
OCEANS: Those predators can get so swingy. You can literally get ones that are so strong that you are passively killing all your neighbours’ species and they have no way to catch up.
PULSAR 2849: I’m not convinced that structures are ever worth going for. They require so much of an investment and you have to dig so deep into the pile to get decent ones that if you’re the only one going for structures you’ll definitely lose.
That’s all I can think of at the moment!
That's a solid list! Hopefully, some of them you can still enjoy. Although, we are very lucky to have so much variety in games that if something bugs us we can move on to another game.
@@DiceonahillVery true! 😀 In going through my game stats to think of examples of this phenomenon, I realised there weren’t as many as I thought. It turns out that I actually like a lot more games proportionally than I thought I did, and the games I didn’t like were usually the wrong genre for me entirely. I’m fortunate to have three game groups per week, so I have the opportunity to try a lot of new, great games. There are many bad games, but also so many good ones!
I think having one overpowered faction in a game like this is a good thing. It can be given to a new player to even things out. It can be an AI player to compete alongside other players. Or it can just not be used for a group that is experienced. Having varied strengths in a game serves as a handicapping system. The better players get the weakest factions the newer weaker players get the stronger factions.
That's an interesting perspective. Personally I would prefer a way to handicap a player in some way if thats the case. The ability as it is now is static and can't be adjusted, unless house-ruling. What you are saying is valid though.
My play group are in the middle of a gloomhaven campaign and we just did a scenario in which there are a lot of monsters and allies. Much of the game was spent going through the motions of the automated monster turns and it absolutely killed the experience for us. Each round was taking 45+mins and everyone was completely switched off by the time it came to their turn. Hasn't quite ruined it for us but definitely playing some shorter games at our next game night!
That sounds awful! Haha. Someone might have to cook up a house rule or something for that scenario.
Go west and Alexandros by colovini: scoring was visible and shouldn't have been. When you score, you score for everyone in that area, so you can see it will help your opponent more than you, but by how much more? Is it worth it? Oh, yes, I can see it will not be worth it, and we'll give the lead to them. So, why would I score the area? You can clearly see who is in the lead at all times, even before you try to score.
Scoring only for you, sure, or to take it out of the picture for the opponent to score, but nope, they score it as well. Scoring, knowing you will not gain on your opponent needs to be hidden scores, and the incentive to not let them score that area needs to be more along the lines, player who initiates the scoring gets double points, so if you let them score, they gain much more; but if you score it, you take away points from them in a way.
I'm sorry, what game are you talking about?
Great idea for a list and a good list (thanks for the warnings). It would be nice if you could recommend a house rule to potentially fix each issue, or perhaps it's broken beyond any hope. Thanks.
The "Skull" entry is not limited to that game. Any game with punch boards can suffer from this. But, not all tokens are hidden in the game, and therefore not as much of a concern. Two things I do to mitigate the tearing is: punch them out back-to-front, and punch them out slowly. I have torn a few tokens, and as long as the torn piece is in good shape, you can carefully glue it on. Might not work perfectly for a hidden token though, such as in "Skull".
Yeah that is a good idea! If I revisit the topic I'll consider that.
And yes, the tokens with skull. I bought it to play with my niece and nephew. They were keen so we unboxed it together. So arguably my fault haha. Though, cardboard wears over time so eventually there are going to be nicks. I guess I felt plastic would have been a better choice.
Hostage Negotiator is really good, but yeah if you ignore the mitigation and live on RNG dice rolls then sure it'd be frustrating.
What midigation are you referring to? The 4 side allows you to discard for a success but you still have to roll it? Apart from rolling a 4, how else can i change the result? If I am missing something do let me know.
Nemesis allows a player who is eliminated to take control of the aliens, so I dont think its particularly a problem that there is player elimination. Its very rare that more than one player would be eliminated early on. From my experience, players are mindful that if other players are eliminated too early, nobody will survive, but I get that if you are playing with a particular crowd it could end up that way.
Yes, it is true that there is a variant that tackles that. So they at least have tried to address the problem.
I really enjoy "Smash Up", but I agree that constantly counting damage on each base was annoying -- which I why I use cubes. Each player has cubes in his/her own color to signify how many of the damage points are theirs on each base. I also have base boards (which came with one of the expansions, I don't remember which -- perhaps one of the "big boxes"), on which you place your bases in play, each which has a number track around the edge on which to place a counter. Either is an easy fix to this problem if you otherwise enjoy the game.
Fun video! It’s interesting to see a “truthful opinion” about some of these games which the fan boys are constantly foaming over! Too many people don’t want to admit they just spent $100 on a game they will only play once..
For me, it’s ANKH… that mechanic where one team has to merge with another ruined an otherwise great game. I couldn’t find any sort of house rule that would circumvent this terrible catchup mechanic, it ticked off so many players.
Yeah, I imagine many people feel as you do. If you're interested, I have a vid on my channel discussing this very topic.
nice video, interesting topic, i don't believe there is a perfect game, even after many play testing, there will always be flaws; i guess it is how much the game appeals to you and if you are weighting the fun over the flaws; and i just subscribed to your channel :)
Thanks for the support :)
My first thought: Why Skull? And then it was the cardboard, puh! 🙂
Yeah, this one is more of production problem rather than mechanical. When making the video it was originally titled 'Games ruined by one thing'. So I may have to revert back due to this entry.
A very fun video.
Thanks man! I appreciate it!
Sweet video, dude!
Thanks friend!
TOP 10 Board Games RUINED by a experience or my own perception. Not by a Mechanism
I hear you, but the games mechanics lead to my misenjoyment. There is only one that'd I'd argue isnt really about a mechanism. But hey, this is just my opinion, doesnt mean these games are objectively bad.
That is way more common yes. But when the mechanism is the issue it is harder to workaround...
I would encourage you going forward to separate objective truth from your opinion. A game is rarely "ruined" by a mechanic. Declaring that a game mechanic "ruins" a game is simply invalid. You have no idea what that designer intended, the playtesting involving to arrive at the design decision, or why that design decision was made. It is valid to say, "This mechanic ruined my play experience, and here is why," which is what I think you're attempting to do here. As they say, there is no accounting for taste. You are entitled to your subjective opinions. However declaring that a game is "ruined" as an objective truth due to something that you disagree with, I find to be a bit arrogant.
Also, full disclaimer I am a game designer and this popped up on my feed. I've only watched the first minute or so, so in the event my game is on your list I absolutely do not take offense and am not commenting on my game specifically.
Designers spend hundred and sometimes thousands of hours playtesting games with hundreds of different people over the course of years. Most of us do it out of love. Please have respect for that process.
Thanks for that feedback. I'll keep that in mind for future.
I think it's implied it's just his opinion.
He appeals to personal experience at the very beginning of the video and says so explicitly in the first minute.
@domineas Only watched a minute or so? So you would have seen the disclaimer that this is an opinion video. I don't think he could have been clearer that these were his own experiences. I get that a lot of time and effort goes into making a game but that doesn't mean individuals aren't going to have bad experiences from time to time from a rare set of circumstances and that can 'ruin' a game for them.
I think you need to revisit the meaning of the word objectivity. Objectively, he played these games and had a bad experience and has relayed to us what ruined it for him. His experiences may have been influenced by his own subjective biases, but objectively he has a bad time because of these things. It might not be what the designer intended or even came up in playtesting but it doesn't stop the fact that it is what he experienced. I don't think that's arrogant at all, how is he supposed to know what the designer intended by a certain mechanic if that's not what it did for him?