Been discussing boardgames recently with some members and ex-members of this forum, curious what your favourite and least favourite boardgames are?
A dislike:
I’ll start off with an international favourite that I can’t stand – Monopoly.
As a simulation on the evils of capitalism, it’s great; as a game overall it sucks.
It’s still popular and I think I know why –
Great design – the board and components look great, iconic by now even and the big piles of cash you get dealt out at as part of the game start is appealing to small children (I certainly liked that bit).
It also, common with many great games has something that I’ll grandiosely call ‘changed phase play’ in that the game, conditions and patterns of play effectively alter as the players take over the game world by buying properties (in a lot of really good games the style of play can change subtly or not so subtly requiring different strategy and tactics in subsequent player turns e.g. in chess, the relative ‘value’ of some pieces change as the play progresses and your playing decisions reflect this).
So far so good for Monopoly – looks great, nice playing pieces and enough change to keep things interesting at first. But from then on, this is where the game goes from fun family past time to sucky argument fest. After the relatively early decisions in the game are made regarding property purchase, there’s nothing left to do but watch other players lose – little you choose to do from then on will alter the outcome of the game. The way a player wins is by knocking out other players, over what can sometimes be a tediously long exercise, mostly involving random chance – there is no real play balance in that once a player starts to lose, they will likely continue to do so barring an overly flukey series of very lucky die rolls.
For those of you saying “Oh but I really used to like Monopoly” ask yourself this, why don’t you still play it?
A (new) favourite:
Lancaster – a relatively simple game that takes place around 15th Century England
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/96913/lancasterHad a go at this the first time this weekend – absolutely loved it.
Firstly it can be played with up to five players (theoretically can be played with two but a lot more fun with five) but has good game mechanics to alter the playing conditions to suit a lesser number of players.
It’s a relatively short game, probably can be finished in an hour or less once you have learned the rules. It only has five turns but these break down in to five or so (from memory) different phases, one of which can repeat itself a fair bit, especially in the last two turns.
It’s a victory points based game, in that while you occupy the game map throughout each turn, it’s cleared after the end of each turn, preventing runaway victories and the way scoring is worked out, it can be uncertain who the definite winner will be until the game ends (and a fortuitous change of laws in the last phase could swing this too).
Play balance is further achieved through a system of laws which players vote on (a lot more fun than it sounds), with each of the different laws helping or hurting various players. One of the other game mechanics is collecting nobles to your cause, each of which adds a vote to your side during the law phase (so a powerful baron can try and force through laws that favour them).
Another game mechanic which might prove popular with some is that the game involves as a key mechanic almost constant war with France – covered by an abstracted system which allows players to earn both victory points and favours from the king.
The gameplay, while each phase is repeated throughout the turns becomes very different as the game progresses (for one thing you will have acquired more playing pieces and the game map therefore becomes a lot more crowded).
Lastly, the game looks great. Nice, easy to understand mapboard, good, tactile components (I’m a sucker for wooden playing pieces) and some hidden pieces to keep things interesting.
So what are your likes/dislikes?