Shitty board games and Cards Against Humanities Bickering

[Paelos]

It's pretty much accepted fact that Monopoly is an objectively bad game. The only people that enjoy it are children, bad parents, and the mildly to grossly retarded.

If you're one of those things, I apologize. Continue to enjoy Monopoly. It's ok to like bad things, but don't pretend it isn't because people enjoy it.

Oh look it's the internet I was talking about.

[schild]

It's pretty much accepted fact that Monopoly is an objectively bad game. The only people that enjoy it are children, bad parents, and the mildly to grossly retarded.

If you're one of those things, I apologize. Continue to enjoy Monopoly. It's ok to like bad things, but don't pretend it isn't because people enjoy it.

Oh look it's the internet I was talking about.

No, it's reality. Do me a favor and go play some Monopoly to completion and tell me the redeeming qualities and how it's not a bad game when you get back. If you ever get back.

[Paelos]

Played some this holiday. We're accountants. And financial analysts. You seem to forget this. Ridiculous deals get made.

I don't pretend it's for a dance around the Maypole for everyone, but it always seems to sell, and I enjoy it. It's not a bad game. It's a bad game FOR YOU.

[Rasix]

Not everyone wants to give a shit about board games.  Sometimes, you just play them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

I doubt the family will ever progress beyond the staples, because really, no one cares.  Maybe the boy will get into it, until then, I've got Monopoly.  We never feel compelled to finish. 

[jgsugden]

If you *want* to entice people into more complex games, I like the following chain of games to step people up from 'I play Monopoly' to 'I hate Monopoly':

1.) Lost Cities.  2.) Ticket to Ride.  3.) Settlers of Catan 4.) Stone Age.  5.) Primordial Soup. 6.) Lords of Waterdeep. 7.) Dominion 8.) Power Grid 9.) Agricola 10.) Twilight Struggle

[schild]

I don't know. I feel completely comforted by the fact accountants would play what may be the most backasswards game about financing ever made. There couldn't possibly be a better game about numbers accountants would enjoy more. Such a thing surely doesn't exist because Monopoly just fits the bill so well.

[Samwise]

Not everyone wants to give a shit about board games.  Sometimes, you just play them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  

I doubt the family will ever progress beyond the staples, because really, no one cares.

To me this is like everyone getting together for Family Movie Night every week and putting a copy of Ishtar in the VCR each time and then giving up halfway through because not everyone wants to give a shit about movies.

I can sort of understand it, but surely you can understand how it's sort of horrifying to people who actually enjoy things.

[Pagz]

So the girlfriend played Settlers of Catan for the first time and loved it every part of it. Since there's like a hojillion expansions and spin offs for it, which ones are worth getting?

[Morat20]

Played some this holiday. We're accountants. And financial analysts. You seem to forget this. Ridiculous deals get made.

I don't pretend it's for a dance around the Maypole for everyone, but it always seems to sell, and I enjoy it. It's not a bad game. It's a bad game FOR YOU.

Last time I played Monopoly, which was about three years ago and because it was "Beatles Monopoly' and my brother insisted, it boiled down to three people competing against one because it was realized half-way through that three people were screwed. And everyone knew who those three people were.

The end-game was bitter. Shouldn't have let me get all the railroads and the utilities, bitches.

Honestly, it's one of those games I'd only play half-seriously while doing something else -- whether it's socializing or drinking or whatever. Sometimes that's the game that fits. One that's more an excuse than an activity.

[Rasix]

Not everyone wants to give a shit about board games.  Sometimes, you just play them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  

I doubt the family will ever progress beyond the staples, because really, no one cares.

To me this is like everyone getting together for Family Movie Night every week and putting a copy of Ishtar in the VCR each time and then giving up halfway through because not everyone wants to give a shit about movies.

I can sort of understand it, but surely you can understand how it's sort of horrifying to people who actually enjoy things.

Ugg.. terrible analogies.  No mas. Please.  

I seriously hadn't played a board game since college.   I maybe played like a game or two of Apples to Apples when Yoru visited the f13 house, pre child days.  I could be mistaken; we were drinking a lot.

So, all I own are the dumb board games you play with a 5 year old.  They're all super exciting.  But he's 5.  He's got a limited strategic capacity and hates losing.  I don't feel bad about fudging dice rolls so he wins.  

[Thrawn]

Not everyone wants to give a shit about board games.  Sometimes, you just play them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  

I doubt the family will ever progress beyond the staples, because really, no one cares.

To me this is like everyone getting together for Family Movie Night every week and putting a copy of Ishtar in the VCR each time and then giving up halfway through because not everyone wants to give a shit about movies.

I can sort of understand it, but surely you can understand how it's sort of horrifying to people who actually enjoy things.

Ugg.. terrible analogies.  Here come the analogy wars.   

Indeed, it kind of works both ways.  You get together for Family Movie Night and every week you watch Norbit because a few people don't want to ever watch anything new or try anything better.

[Rasix]

SEE.

[Thrawn]

SEE.

 

[Samwise]

If I skipped the analogies and just said games are a creative work, it is possible to have fun with them rather than having them be a thing you just endure to kill time, and that some are better crafted toward that purpose than others, would that work better or would you tune out halfway through the sentence because you don't speak pretentious hipster?  

Handwaving any sort of critique or discussion away with "it's all subjective" or "nobody cares" would seem weird if you did it to most other artistic/design disciplines, but for all the time that people spend playing games, the entire concept of game design is still treated as a red-headed stepchild for some reason.

[lamaros]

Again, you and I are not the sum total of all adult types. Some like it because its exactly that.

Not all games are or have to be about skill.

They don't, but then there need to be other elements that make the game fun, like humor, or excitement.  Clue's got a certain amount of humor potential (as the movie proved) but it doesn't take long to exhaust that.  Plodding around the board and hoping to roll higher dice so you can plod a little faster isn't exciting.  You can get excitement out of pure luck-based games but those games always have very short rounds, because you need to reset the game in order to keep that element of uncertainty alive while still making each roll feel like it has consequence.

That said, some people might like it anyway but I would argue it's because they literally do not know any better -- it has somehow escaped their notice that the game is devoid of meaningful choices (which would allow the game to be exciting for them because the illusion that they're solving a mystery is exciting), in which case they're basically in the "child" category.  Or they're doing it because it's a thing to do to waste some time until their inevitable death and they don't care that it's not fun because they don't know what fun is.  Which is sad, but I do know a lot of people like that.

There are actually a few people on BGG who like Clue. I have no idea why, but it's absolutely not because they don't know any better.

It's very hard not to judge, but I think it's best to just judge the game and not the people who don't agree with your judgement of the game.

[lamaros]

If you *want* to entice people into more complex games, I like the following chain of games to step people up from 'I play Monopoly' to 'I hate Monopoly':

1.) Lost Cities.  2.) Ticket to Ride.  3.) Settlers of Catan 4.) Stone Age.  5.) Primordial Soup. 6.) Lords of Waterdeep. 7.) Dominion 8.) Power Grid 9.) Agricola 10.) Twilight Struggle

Or not. God I get bored shitless playing some of those games. You'd have lost me and a few I know. Give me something thematic and conflict heavy. We managed to enjoy Catan a bit last Christmas, but it was only because the game went for 2+ hours and consisted of a lot of trade banter. Me winning every time didn't hurt either, it drove their spirit of competition in to overdrive.

So the girlfriend played Settlers of Catan for the first time and loved it every part of it. Since there's like a hojillion expansions and spin offs for it, which ones are worth getting?

Depends. Views range from "plays best with 4 and four only" to "get the 5-6 player expansion" and "just play original, expansions take longer and ruin the fun of the experience" to "make it epic and add in everything!"

Without knowing why your girlfriend likes it and etc it's pretty hard to give recommendations. Crap answer, but also true. Read up as much as you can about them and try and see what you think would connect with her.

[eldaec]

If you *want* to entice people into more complex games, I like the following chain of games to step people up from 'I play Monopoly' to 'I hate Monopoly':

1.) Lost Cities.  2.) Ticket to Ride.  3.) Settlers of Catan 4.) Stone Age.  5.) Primordial Soup. 6.) Lords of Waterdeep. 7.) Dominion 8.) Power Grid 9.) Agricola 10.) Twilight Struggle

While understand your point and can relate to what you are doing here,  I think it kind of misses the point of this discussion.

The purpose of playing good family games isn't to train people to like Agricola, it is because they are great in their own right and there is practically unlimited scope in that weight class.

My 'path' for non-gamers consists mostly of Carcassonne, Carcassonne expansions, the occasional foray into TtR, Mysterium, Love Letter and back to more Carcassonne, if I'm really brave maybe Cosmic with the green aliens or Dixit and Balderdash. To be honest there isn't even a need to get to stuff as complex as Catan unless you really feel your family would appreciate it.

[Ironwood]

This thread is what happens when you DON'T do a Festivus thread.

You monsters.

[schild]

Not everyone wants to give a shit about board games.  Sometimes, you just play them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  

I doubt the family will ever progress beyond the staples, because really, no one cares.

To me this is like everyone getting together for Family Movie Night every week and putting a copy of Ishtar in the VCR each time and then giving up halfway through because not everyone wants to give a shit about movies.

I can sort of understand it, but surely you can understand how it's sort of horrifying to people who actually enjoy things.

Ugg.. terrible analogies.  No mas. Please.

I actually don't see how that's terrible. It's basically exactly what you're doing when you play Monopoly.

"Hey everybody, let's play, literally, one of the worst board games ever made."

Just because our parents had bad fucking taste doesn't mean we have to subject our children to it.

Edit: Followup, fucking boomers.

[Paelos]

Handwaving any sort of critique or discussion away with "it's all subjective" or "nobody cares" would seem weird if you did it to most other artistic/design disciplines, but for all the time that people spend playing games, the entire concept of game design is still treated as a red-headed stepchild for some reason.

Nobody is hand-waving away critique. I fully understand why you don't enjoy Monopoly. Telling people why you specifically didn't enjoy a game or why it's not for you is perfectly fine. Where I start drawing the line is, "Because it's a bad game and nobody should like it because there are so many better options."

One is your opinion. The other is trying to hoist your opinion as gospel of fun.

[Bunk]

So the girlfriend played Settlers of Catan for the first time and loved it every part of it. Since there's like a hojillion expansions and spin offs for it, which ones are worth getting?

We've played the game for years and own most of the expansions. We generally consider Cities and Knights mandatory. Adds a bit more complexity, but blends with the game well. Seafarers is also decent, without changing the game too much. All the other expansions I tried were more like scenarios or alternate ways to play, so we didn't really ever go back to them.

Also, there is a thread for good board games that might have gotten a quicker response, since this seems to be the shitting on people's poor taste in games thread.

[Rasix]

I actually don't see how that's terrible. It's basically exactly what you're doing when you play Monopoly.

"Hey everybody, let's play, literally, one of the worst board games ever made."

Just because our parents had bad fucking taste doesn't mean we have to subject our children to it.

Edit: Followup, fucking boomers.

[IainC]

I see Paelos has moved the goalposts once again from 'you can't prove design is objectively bad' to 'stop commenting on my opinions about terrible games'. I'm a games designer, if I tried to argue that games design can't be objectively bad then I'd never find work again.

[Phildo]

That's ok, I'll move them back.  You can't prove that design is objectively bad.  You may not like it, but your opinion is suspect because I heard you like X, which I know to be objectively rubbish.



(Where X is Nickelback, Birdemic, Fifty Shades of Grey, or something else that people think is terrible but is also inexplicably popular)

[Goreschach]

I'm a games designer, if I tried to argue that games design can't be objectively bad then I'd never find work again.

Warhammer Online

[Samwise]

That's ok, I'll move them back.  You can't prove that design is objectively bad.  You may not like it, but your opinion is suspect because I heard you like X, which I know to be objectively rubbish.

(Where X is Nickelback, Birdemic, Fifty Shades of Grey, or something else that people think is terrible but is also inexplicably popular)

That falls down in the face of most of us who argue for the concept of objectivity also admitting that we like some things that are objectively awful for subjective reasons.

Here's one for Paelos: I keep all my savings in a checking account rather than putting it somewhere that it'll earn interest.  Is this an objectively bad financial decision even though it makes me personally feel more comfortable?   

[Phildo]

The second half was intended to be a preemptive, sarcastic rebuttal to someone coming up with a theoretical "no, Y is objectively awful because I said so".

[eldaec]

Arguing about adjectives is bad. Objectively so.

[Johny Cee]

That's ok, I'll move them back.  You can't prove that design is objectively bad.  You may not like it, but your opinion is suspect because I heard you like X, which I know to be objectively rubbish.

(Where X is Nickelback, Birdemic, Fifty Shades of Grey, or something else that people think is terrible but is also inexplicably popular)

That falls down in the face of most of us who argue for the concept of objectivity also admitting that we like some things that are objectively awful for subjective reasons.

Here's one for Paelos: I keep all my savings in a checking account rather than putting it somewhere that it'll earn interest.  Is this an objectively bad financial decision even though it makes me personally feel more comfortable?   

It's not objectively bad, if you have a desire/need for liquidity....  or during periods of stockmarket volatility leaving money in a checking account is insulating yourself from investment volatility.


You can say something is objectively bad, but only in certain parameters.  Monopoly is a social lubricant game:  it's easy to understand, learn and play, and facilitates hanging out.  In my family, we play a fair amount of a card game called Pitch at larger or longer gatherings.  It's pretty simple, pretty easy to learn, and facilitates shooting the shit while also not taking up a considerable amount of attention.  It isn't a particularly deep game, highly draw/luck based, etc.

Basically, people are freaking because Monopoly isn't objectively good, if your objective is fun or a well-designed skill based game or whatever.  But really people play monopoly to facilitate social interaction and the game can't be hung up on one person not paying attention or whatever.  Apples to Apples is also a great game for random get togethers where people don't know each other (easy to learn, not deep, doesn't matter if one player isn't paying attention, social lubricant).

A game where you spend half an hour going over the rules, and the play bogs down because Person A is too busy watching the game and Person B is constantly leaving the room to talk to someone else?  Yah, not so good.

[Paelos]

Here's one for Paelos: I keep all my savings in a checking account rather than putting it somewhere that it'll earn interest.  Is this an objectively bad financial decision even though it makes me personally feel more comfortable?  

No. A financial analyst who tells you to do what makes you completely uncomfortable is an idiot. Plenty of rich people sit on piles of cash earning nothing because of fear/risk, and it's a valid financial decision to keep a base of cash to avoid that risk.

Is it the best strategy to increase your wealth? No. The thing you're continually not addressing is goals. If you have a goal of making 10% a year, than it's an objectively bad decision to sit on an interest account earning less than 1% with a heavy majority of your cash. If the goal is to be happy with your investments and sleep at night? Then you have different viewpoints on how much risk it takes to accomplish that goal.

With entertainment if the goal is fun or togetherness? There are no objectively bad games. If the goal is that it provides this kind of defined result like for example a game finishes in less than 30 minutes? Absolutely there can be objectively bad designs for that goal. But your goal can't be nebulous or subjective. Because if the goal is subjective, then the ways to achieve that goal are going to be subjective too.

[jgsugden]

So the girlfriend played Settlers of Catan for the first time and loved it every part of it. Since there's like a hojillion expansions and spin offs for it, which ones are worth getting?

The 5-6 player expansion is worthwhile if you have a large group, but I would not get an expansion for this game as my 2nd investment in recent games - I'd get another game.  Ingenious, Ticket to Ride, Stone Age, or Primordial Soup are all good candidates if she enjoyed Settlers.  I'd go back and invest in the expansions for Settlers down the road when you've played it 20 or so times...

[shiznitz]

I would suggest the Seafarers expansion for Catan, but stop there.  It introduces boats as an addition to roads but does not complicate things more than that.  The other expansions add many other rules and variables that become cumbersome to track.

[Ironwood]

I'm going to buy Dungeon!

Fuck you all.

[Jeff Kelly]

I never understand people that'd rather spend an insane amount of energy, time and effort to rationalize why what they like is secretly great than admit that what they like is bad but that they like it regardless. Big fucking deal. The thing you love is not that great. Welcome to the club. No need to write a whole PhD thesis about it.

Most entertainment is mediocre or objectively bad (yes objectively, deal with it). I like lots of stuff that is ridiculously bad, everyone does. The difference is that most people have no problem admitting that what they like is shit yet still continue to like it.

Why is your self worth coupled so tightly to only liking things that are good that you keep on arguing about the merits of fucking monopoly? What's next? A deep mechanical analysis of Candyland or 22 ways why 'The Game of Life' is secretly awesome?

I like Munchkin. Is it a bad game? Yes, it's fucking terrible! Does it matter? No!

So can we get back to the discussion of bad games and why they are bad without people getting their panties in a bunch just because we insulted their special brand of bad entertainment?

[Paelos]

For the hundredth time, nobody cares if you think something is bad. That's valid opinion.

It's the IT'S BAD IN ALL UNIVERSES AND YOU MUST ADMIT THIS!

Fuck off with that.

The flip side is that if you believe something is bad that somebody likes, there's no reason to make them agree with you that it's bad.