Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

KK
Kevin Klemme
March 09, 2020
35136 2
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
January 27, 2020
20816 0
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
August 12, 2019
7404 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 19, 2023
3964 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 14, 2023
3485 0
Hot

Mycelia Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 12, 2023
2074 0
O
oliverkinne
December 07, 2023
2582 0

River Wild Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 05, 2023
2250 0
O
oliverkinne
November 30, 2023
2494 0
J
Jackwraith
November 29, 2023
3009 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
November 28, 2023
1971 0
S
Spitfireixa
October 24, 2023
3690 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
October 17, 2023
2617 0
O
oliverkinne
October 10, 2023
2460 0
O
oliverkinne
October 09, 2023
2288 0
O
oliverkinne
October 06, 2023
2504 0

Outback Crossing Review

Board Game Reviews
×
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)

Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.

× A place to talk about stuff that doesn't belong anywhere else.

Anti-Barnes Gaming

  • SuperWeeks TNT
  • SuperWeeks TNT's Avatar Topic Author
  • Visitor
  • Visitor
22 Jun 2011 14:59 #98387 by SuperWeeks TNT
Replied by SuperWeeks TNT on topic Re: Anti-Barnes Gaming
I am always looking for games to add to my collection that can be played with Barnes and Grandma. I call these "X factor games"

The Really Nasty Horseracing Game comes immediately to mind as one in this group.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Jun 2011 16:15 #98391 by Matt Thrower
Replied by Matt Thrower on topic Re: Anti-Barnes Gaming

ubarose wrote: I think it is very interesting to see a reviewer's 10-12 most disliked games (no matter what the actual rating scale is).


Yay! Article inspiration. Thanks Uba.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Jun 2011 19:23 #98397 by dave
Replied by dave on topic Re: Anti-Barnes Gaming

ubarose wrote: I think it is very interesting to see a reviewer's 10-12 most disliked games (no matter what the actual rating scale is).


My 7 most disliked games (as judged by the likelihood of me muttering "stupid fuckin' game" during a match):

Bohnanza: I seem to never *ever* have what people are looking for.

Union Pacific: I hate card drafting, and the track cards are super-annoying chrome (which I've heard have been removed in the latest iteration, Airlines: Europe).

Dominion: When I see folks playing it, I want to punch them in the face; if they say that it's just like playing a CCG, I just might do it. I'll let this one serve as the sole rep of the entire despicable deck-building genre.

Amun Re: Like the auction mechanism copied from Evo; hate the VP accumulation nature of it, the randomness of the card draws, and the mid-game reset.

Wallenstein: Probably has more to do with whom I played with, but it annoys me to no end that folks are focused on building churches and harvesting food rather than who should be attacked.

Bang!: I'm excused from ever having to play this again after I had a one-on-one match go on for what seemed like a half hour after everyone else was eliminated. And that other player in the match will run screaming before I do.

Saint Petersburg: I disliked PoF and PR for introducing the wave of VP optimization games, but I despise St. Pete for being the first to drain everything interesting from it.

Citadels and Shadows Over Camelot were removed from this list due to having totally awesome matcheds of them the last time I played. Honestly, I always loathed these games, but those last matches were the best and most memorable moments of my last five years of gaming.

---

As for Barnes' TtR review, it's just one man's opinion and he has no more duty to be "responsible" with his ratings than a non-entity such as myself. I like playing it with my family, but the game *is* incessant card drafting and plastic playing and deserves to be shat on by a non-fan. Funny that I so adamantly defend his criticism of the game, when I was one of the (non-overweight) people to be so tweaked by his sniping at certain folks in the same review.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • SuperWeeks TNT
  • SuperWeeks TNT's Avatar Topic Author
  • Visitor
  • Visitor
22 Jun 2011 19:39 #98398 by SuperWeeks TNT
Replied by SuperWeeks TNT on topic Re: Anti-Barnes Gaming
I just took a look at Matt Thrower's 1's and 2's on BGG.

Matt rated Tic Tac Toe a 1! Come on Matt! This is a serious hobby, we don't have time for your droll humor and frankly I expect more from you considering the depth of your articles.

However, Matt does have Risk: Lord of the Rings and Elixer rated a 2.

I own both of these games and while I have not played them in a while I think both would rate higher than a 2. Once I done debunking Barnes, I will move quickly to Matt.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • SuperWeeks TNT
  • SuperWeeks TNT's Avatar Topic Author
  • Visitor
  • Visitor
22 Jun 2011 19:47 #98399 by SuperWeeks TNT
Replied by SuperWeeks TNT on topic Re: Anti-Barnes Gaming
Dave has a good list of bad games, with the exception of Bohnanza, I would agree with all of them.

Its funny I sold Union Pacific on ebay and it was the only negative feedback I have gotten in years. The guy that bought was upset because some of the pieces fell out of the box during shipping. I figured it must have been Alan Moon himself buying a copy of his own game to boost interest.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Jun 2011 19:48 #98400 by Ken B.
Replied by Ken B. on topic Re: Anti-Barnes Gaming
Wally, man...the trick is to let *them* build churches...and then you take them with great violence. Swords speak louder than gods, right?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Jun 2011 20:02 #98403 by Rliyen
Replied by Rliyen on topic Re: Anti-Barnes Gaming

Ken B. wrote: Wally, man...the trick is to let *them* build churches...and then you take them with great violence. Swords speak louder than gods, right?


RESPECT!!!!!!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Jun 2011 20:06 #98404 by dave
Replied by dave on topic Re: Anti-Barnes Gaming

Ken B. wrote: Wally, man...the trick is to let *them* build churches...and then you take them with great violence. Swords speak louder than gods, right?

Yes, but I can only do so much by myself.

Again, I recognize that other games such as Runewars and the latest Civ could very well have the same problem, and I don't really see anything in Wallenstein that forces you away from combat. If anything, the nature of the actions coming out in Wallenstein should cause combat, but I rarely see much of anything beyond a skirmish. Civ is more freeform in allowing folks to decide what to do, and it as a result is more fragile wrt folks puttering about while the early leader coasts to victory. Like I said, my violent reaction to Wally is likely the result of the specific matches I had leaving bad tastes in my mouth.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Jun 2011 20:11 - 22 Jun 2011 20:45 #98405 by Ska_baron
Replied by Ska_baron on topic Re: Anti-Barnes Gaming
Dave - I'd be inclined to say it's the crowd you play with in Wallenstein if you like it otherwise. Attacking must be balanced with shoring up your lines of defence, building defensible buildings for points, and not pissing off too many peasants.

Why build a palace, church and trading post when you can conquer a territory and gain all 3?

EDIT - I TYPE SLOOOOOOW. So, uh, what Ken said.
Last edit: 22 Jun 2011 20:45 by Ska_baron.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
23 Jun 2011 10:05 - 23 Jun 2011 10:10 #98427 by Matt Thrower
Replied by Matt Thrower on topic Re: Anti-Barnes Gaming

SuperWeeks TNT wrote: However, Matt does have Risk: Lord of the Rings and Elixer rated a 2.

I own both of these games and while I have not played them in a while I think both would rate higher than a 2. Once I done debunking Barnes, I will move quickly to Matt.


Boy, are you ever wrong. But enjoy pissing several hours of your life up the wall if you want to, just don't claim you weren't warned. I was going to cover LotR Risk in my article on the subject but not Elixir as it's less well-known. Basic problem is that there's an obvious and unbeatable strategy to winning, and once everyone spots it, it's just a pointless dicefest. Make sure you're playing the right Elixir - the Three Wishes/TSR one is the awful one but there's a more recent game from Asmodee with the same name that I know nothing about.

For more dross, check out my three ratings - there are a couple more "gamer's games" in there. But they'll be included in the upcoming piece.
Last edit: 23 Jun 2011 10:10 by Matt Thrower.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
23 Jun 2011 13:14 #98432 by moofrank
Replied by moofrank on topic Re: Anti-Barnes Gaming
Elixir is kind of cute but dated. Its most fatal flaw is that the Take That cards have associated costs that are usually (but not always too high). And so Interaction is fairly limited. As an early 80's mass-market game (which is what TSR was going for, I think it holds up fairly well.)

Remember, this was the era when TSR was trying to move into Toys R Us desperately, riding on a wave of D&D love. It failed and killed them. I bought my copy of Elixir at TRU back in the day.

Admittedly, the high point of 3 Wishes is a game called S.P.I.V.S. It is crazy random, a little long, massively capricious, evil to its heart, and really gets across the idea that "Everything in space wants to kill you. Even the cute little furry mammal-thing."

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
23 Jun 2011 13:20 #98434 by clockwirk
Replied by clockwirk on topic Re: Anti-Barnes Gaming

MattDP wrote:
For more dross, check out my three ratings - there are a couple more "gamer's games" in there. But they'll be included in the upcoming piece.


I'd say your 4s are more controversial.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
23 Jun 2011 13:46 - 23 Jun 2011 13:46 #98436 by Matt Thrower
Replied by Matt Thrower on topic Re: Anti-Barnes Gaming

clockwirk wrote: I'd say your 4s are more controversial.


Well yeah. But by that point you're getting into "I don't like this, but I don't truly hate it" territory. Games at that level have some redeeming features.
Last edit: 23 Jun 2011 13:46 by Matt Thrower.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • SuperWeeks TNT
  • SuperWeeks TNT's Avatar Topic Author
  • Visitor
  • Visitor
23 Jun 2011 14:07 #98439 by SuperWeeks TNT
Replied by SuperWeeks TNT on topic Re: Anti-Barnes Gaming

Boy, are you ever wrong. But enjoy pissing several hours of your life up the wall if you want to, just don't claim you weren't warned. I was going to cover LotR Risk in my article on the subject but not Elixir as it's less well-known. Basic problem is that there's an obvious and unbeatable strategy to winning, and once everyone spots it, it's just a pointless dicefest. Make sure you're playing the right Elixir - the Three Wishes/TSR one is the awful one but there's a more recent game from Asmodee with the same name that I know nothing about.


Elixer is not that bad. You need to look at through your "fun" lense not your "analytical" lense. Branham is again correct, it is a family game and don't be surprised if your daughter loves it! Fun always trumps balance every time!

There is also two versions of Lord of the Rings Risk. I have the early one without Mordor on the board. I never understood the reason for two versions. Was it a rights issue? Also is there any changes between the two editions?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
23 Jun 2011 14:29 #98441 by MattFantastic
LotR:Risk:Trilogy Edition is the 2nd one and it's a lot better. Not my favorite Risk variant but it's a fun game once in a while.

I LOVED Elixer when I was a kid. Haven't played it in forever but it's a game I could never part with.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.153 seconds