I’m sorry I didn’t follow the rules for this thread. I just reread the whole thing but I didn’t see where it was said that only games that are played by people on this board are allowed.
I’ll try to do better in the future. Sorry.
Machi Koro is the most disappointing game I’ve bought in a few years. The standard “in the box” version is totally broken from a gameplay perspective. The best strategy requires few of the cards or rolls and the best path is to just gather some lower end cards/powers and get to the end ASAP.
It’s sitting on my shelf mostly unused.
Even with the proper rules, though, it isn’t a well designed game. It’s 98 percent luck, pushing 100 percent if your opponent(s) are not suffering from head trauma, and people can be blown out of the game well before its conclusion.
With endless money it’s definitely worse. It’s still bad, though.
I’d say “Game of Life” is even worse. I’m not sure anyone plays that anymore, though.
Often not mentioned in these discussions, though, is one of the most ill-designed and yet beloved games of modern times: Trivial Pursuit. I love trivia games, so I always liked Trivial Pursuit, but the design of the game is genuinely atrocious. The die-rolling and movement is an utter waste of time that adds a level of pointless randomness to the game. There is no reason for the Roll Again spaces to be in the game at all. The game is substantially more fun if you just throw the board in the garbage and count up correct answers. You can tell that the “Board game” element of the game was put together basically by guys says “well, board games have little pieces and dice, so I guess this game should have them too.” Early versions of the game were also plagued with poorly written questions and answers of dubious accuracy, even though its creators apparently stole most of the questions.
It really isn’t. It may be so at the top tier of the game, but most people don’t play Monopoly well enough to know enough. When playing games of four where folks are casual players, I would wager I win over 75% of the time. Most people over value some monopolies and under value others. They don’t take into account state of the game and cash in hand while making deals. They don’t take into account board position and dice probabilities when making deals. They don’t know the %ages for which properties get landed on the most statistically. With that knowledge – and it takes a lot of play and studying to learn it – you can consistently end up on top in a game of four. The entire mechanic of the game is deal-making.
When I was a kid I would also play the C64 and NES versions of Monopoly and I just got tired of kicking the computer’s ass almost every single time I played it. My win rate must have been around 90%. Bad AI, I know. (I would wager, though, that a properly designed AI today would kick my ass equally.)
But, yes, players of equal skill, then it does end up being a lot luck. I’ve just rarely encountered games where everyone has equal skill. Most people suck at Monopoly.
(And I feel I’m being conservative here with my wager. My real guess would be closer to 85/90% of the time for truly casual players. In my group of four fairly serious Monopoly players – like we played pretty much every day for a summer – my win rate was around 60%).
War kind of sucks, when you are over 5 years old.
Any AI today that cannot kick anyone’s ass at any game is not properly designed. That includes Rock-Scissors-Paper and high-stakes Poker.
Oh, good Lord. Thank goodness my kid finally learned Crazy 8s (which is basically a regular card deck version of Uno.) I know Uno was mentioned upthread, but I actually do find it a fun family game. And Crazy 8s is great because you can start with simple concepts like wild cards (the 8s), and then add “skip” cards and “reverse” cards and the such (there’s many variants) as your kids get used to the card mechanic. (Or, I guess, you can just get an Uno deck, but I like to teach on regular playing cards.)
Yeah, the Rock-Paper-Scissors/Roshambo AIs are pretty impressive. I mean, relatively simple conceptually, but really shows at how bad humans are at being random.
Hmm, I cheated to win Chutes & Ladders when my kids were little. But, we played for money, so I had an incentive. Good way to get the chores done for free by winning back all their allowance.
The original version of Machi Koro is pretty bad. But the first expansion introduced new set-up rules which greatly improved the game.
With Chutes & Ladders, I don’t care who wins. I just want the damned game to be over. And every time it seems the merciful end is near, somebody keeps hitting those chutes in the top row dropping them down three rows (and the official rule is you have to hit 100 exactly to win, not go over), and then hits the chute on 87 which drops them all the way down to 24, and you’re back down to basically playing another game of Chutes and Ladders.
What an annoying game.
That’s hilarious. And you are one cold kitty!
You’re kidding, right?
ETA: The worst game, IMO, is singing, no, *hearing *“99 bottles of beer.”
Chutes and Ladders, Candyland, and Parchisi, were all dull board games I played as a child. The Game of Life was better and Monopoly evey more so, but in high school, we all started playing Risk. It’s not a difficult game, but it taught me more about how to align yourself with or against other players as a strategy so that I could sometimes win or come close to winning. Mille Borne is a game I enjoyed for a while but I couldn’t ever find enough other players.
I bought it in the 90s for $5 marked down from $50 on a whim. It’s actually much better than monopoly, despite his fucking face being on EVERYthing.
Yeah, Risk was kind of fun. It made me aware of the strategic importance of the Sinai Peninsula.
Scribblers 8 can bring down nations with how awful it is.
I actually like Risk, but that is the issue. If you play a five player game (which seemed typical for us), typically, you’d have two players go out in the first hour or two, and then the other three would battle it out for the next three to five hours or so (depending on how much you’re drinking and bullshitting). The Australia strategy isn’t even necessarily the best one; I believe I’ve read that objectively South America is the better place to get a foothold, especially if you’re playing with Australia-strategy folks. I find it reasonably fun, but if you get a shit draw of countries to start with and can’t get a continent relatively early, you’re out pretty quickly and just watching from the sidelines for far too long. (ETA: Actually, the numbers simply appear to be, in a 4 player game, 35% win chance for the first person to grab a hold of a continent, and 40% if that continent is Australia. So the game theory here with me is, most folks know about Australia and there’s usually some bloodbath going on there, so I try to get South America if it looks like there’s just going to be a free-for-all there.)
The above is from a sampling of 1000 actual games mentioned here, so it may not be definitive. I’d be curious to see what an AI would determine as optimum strategy.