The PC game worked fine. It wasn’t hard to learn at all. Maybe wolf means the board game.
If we restrict “game” to “boardgame”, then tic-tac-toe
if we include computer games…
NOTHING in the whole of existence comes near the failure that is:
Atari’s E.T. the extra terrestial.
The perfect example of why one should not make a game from a movie franchise without giving the game dev enough time.
Poker is not that trivial since you have to know how much to bet (not just whether to or not) etc. and calculate in real-time the probabilities with which you should make each possible move. And make random decisions, at which humans are notoriously bad. You are invited to analyse even a simplified model with fewer cards if you think there aren’t any decisions to make.
I’ve only ever played the “simplified” version where there is no voting for Prime Minister/government. My recollection is that players with a stock-heavy portfolio and those with a bond-heavy portfolio were effectively playing two different games: the stock guys were trying to land on their stock spaces and the bond guys were trying to get the interest rate track to pay off on their bonds. Without the government’s ability to buy back bonds, I think bonds were way better as an investment. (This is based on playing it a few times, decades ago.)
As video games go I doubt E.T. was even one of the five thousand worst games. The game wasn’t good, mediocre even by the standards of the Atari 2600, but it technically worked (which many video games don’t) and the game rules and mechanics worked. It was a financial disaster but that’s not a thing about the game.
Calling ET the worst game ever is like calling “Ishtar” the worst movie ever. Ishtar was mediocre and it was a financial disaster, but there have been countless worse movies.
There was a “sim” racing game with semi trucks a while back where the “AI” opponents never moved off of the starting line, your speed was faster in reverse than it was forward, and terrain didn’t hinder your movement at all (drive along an 80º cliff? Sure!). It’s tough for the likes of ET to compete with that.
I kind of enjoyed E.T. Granted, I was like 5, hadn’t seen the movie (still haven’t), and didn’t understand anything about it, but I liked walking around and floating out of holes. What can I say, I was an easily entertained kid.
As for the worst, never been a fan of Monopoly, but my vote would have to go with The Game of Life. It just sucks.
The worst game ever was something called Class Struggle. It was Marxist propaganda disguised as a game. It was…dreadful. Very little gamey about it at all. It’s probably the one game (other than the Candy Land type of game, which as others have correctly noted are not games at all but training grounds for games) that I would absolutely refuse to play if stuck in an elevator for ten thousand years.
Of course, Life was a propaganda game, too.
For a major commercial release, it was much worse than mediocre. Half the game seems to be falling down and getting out of holes and was frustrating as shit as a kid.
That said, Atari’s version of Pac-Man is arguably more of a disappointment. There are no two games I hated more on that system then ET and Pac-Man. Just awful. (Yes, I know there’s also Custer’s Revenge, but we obviously did not have that, and that was a niche release.) And it’s too bad, because it was developed by an excellent developer who simply was rushed by execs to get it out in time for Xmas. (Howard Scott Wrashaw – he made one of my favorite 2600 games in Yars’ Revenge) He did well enough given the time constraints, I suppose, but it was still a terrible game for a major release. I would have loved to have seen what he could have made if given a reasonable development time.
I don’t see how it’s any different than betting on the outcome of a game of the aforementioned Candy Land or Chutes and Ladders. The outcome is predetermined, and all you’re doing is betting on probabilities.
Note that there are no sticks or hooks, so the guys on horseback actually have to lean way over the side of their horse to grab the calf off the ground. Aside from the fairly gruesome look of the ‘ball’ I don’t see how it’s any more barbaric or comic than lacrosse or polo. It’s not like the calf starts out alive or anything.
You could make bets on the outcome of a Candyland game, partway through the game (whoever’s currently ahead is the most likely to win, but just how likely?). But it still wouldn’t be as interesting as poker gambling, because betting on a Candyland game, all of the bettors would have the same information. If gambling on Candyland were common, then there would quickly arise tables and calculator apps and heuristic rules on what the probability was of winning for players ahead by a certain amount at a certain stage of the game, and so there’d be no skill in the betting.
But in poker, not everyone has the same information. You know your own cards, but not those of the other players. You know the actions of the players who bet before you, but you don’t know the actions of the players who are betting after you. If you’re the second person to bet, and the first person bet big, that probably (but not necessarily) means that they’re holding pretty good cards. With the knowledge that they’re holding pretty good cards, what do the odds look like for you right now? There’s room for a lot of strategy there, enough so that money consistent flows from bad players to good players, in the long run.
I mean, it’s not a very good game for me, because I dislike betting. So I’m obviously not going to play a game where all of the interesting parts come from betting. But for those players who do like betting, it’s a fine game.
Oh, this reminds me of an excellent book I read fairly recently by British comedian Dave Gorman - it was all about him travelling around the UK to play games with strangers. One chapter involved him being inveigled into creationist propaganda disguised as a board game (which in itself wasn’t even any good). I won’t spoil the ending (it’s called Dave Gorman vs the rest of the world, you should read it) but I think that game falls into a similar category.
In addition to Chronos’ excellent answer, the outcome is not predetermined, because you might be able to induce the holder of a better hand to throw it away by means of your betting, thus winning the money without having to reveal your cards.
Just wanted to note that if you are able-bodied and don’t like Twister, you’re just playing with the wrong people. 
Talking about this one.
I can seen they made up to 4 editions, so maybe it got better documented later, but the first version was incomprehensible.
In addition to the information you gain from the bets in this round, there’s also the information you’ve gained from previous rounds. During the course of an evening of poker, you’ll start spotting behaviors like who is more likely to bluff, who is more likely to take risks, and who is more likely to play conservatively. You also look for tells, where the other players display unconscious signs of whether they have a good hand or a bad one.
And above a certain level, these observations can become a metagame. The players will all be aware that everyone is watching for these patterns and will begin creating false patterns in an attempt to deceive the other players. A player who plans on bluffing late in the game, for example, will deliberately avoid bluffing early in the game to create a false impression and make his later bluffs more effective.
Oh god that was horrible. The migraine inducing screen refresh 3 times per second shit was s bad as tech gets.
Regarding games where one is merely betting on the outcome, some of the people playing Roulette in the casino seem to enjoy the atmosphere, chatting, and having a drink, while some do little more than stare listlessly at the wheel while they wait for the next round. There is more going on behind the scenes to determine how much fun people are having than the game itself, which we can all agree is not that interesting.
ETA and, by the way, people have been literally murdered because of Bridge, which we can all agree is supposed to be a fun and social card game, highly intricate and strategic without any betting.
Out of curiosity, do you have a background in hex-and-counter wargames? I’ve seen people who are quite experienced in playing boardgames decide to try out a wargame and find that it’s a different world. And the same is true for a boardgamer or a wargamer trying out a role-playing game for the first time.
It’s not that any of these genres of gaming are inherently more complicated than the others. But they all have different forms of complexity which don’t transfer between them.