The topic was brought up in the “Least Favourite…” game thread, And I thought I would turn it into a thread of its own.
I have played the “Twin Peaks” game-Overly complicated yet you’ll only get through it via pure luck…and they miss-spell “Cooper” as “Gooper” both on a board square and in the instruction book.
I have played “Capitol Punishment”-A right-wing diatribe poor disguised as a board game. You try to get your opponent’s prisoners executed while playing as a Liberal trying to keep your own opponents alive. If you aren’t far right-wing, skip it.
My pick for worst is “Men Are From Mars-Women Are From Venus”-I made the mistake of pulling this from the game library at a friend’s house many years ago, and I should have realized something was up when my friend’s wife rolled her eyes and promptly left the room. It was confusing, sexist, boring…and the two females that volunteered to play rightfully walked away a third of the way through the game.
Chutes and Ladders. There is nothing worse than having a 3 year old be like 8 spots from winning, and land on a chute that sends her back to the beginning of the game.
I can’t recall playing a really bad board game ever. I’ve played one or two marginally boring ones, or ones that weren’t well-suited to replayability (in my mind). But nothing stands out as being something I would definitely avoid like the plague. Thankfully.
Candyland, how I hate thee.
As a non-parent, I played a game once called Shogun. It was like a four hour game, and it was my first play-through while other people were experienced.
Two hours into the game, I realized that I was guaranteed to come in last place. No problem, someone’s got to, and it wouldn’t be the first time for me. In such circumstances, I start looking for ways to play kingmaker, because that can be fun, too: a bit of control over who gets first place can rock.
Except I realized I couldn’t do that. I didn’t even have enough influence to determine who would come in second-to-last. I checked in with the more experienced players, and they agreed with my assessment.
And the game had two hours to go, and no forfeit conditions.
It may be bad form, but I explained to the other folks that my play from then on would be as passive as possible, purely defensive play, and that they could roll the dice for me (or whatever the mechanic was) from then on. There was no way I was gonna sit around for two hours going through the motions; I said my goodbyes and let them finish the game.
This is, I think, terrible game design. Ideally, your game gives everyone a chance to squeak out a victory until the end, or at least obscures who’s in first place effectively (through, for example, secret victory conditions). If it doesn’t do that, it needs to make alliances with weak players useful; if it doesn’t do that, at least it needs to have some early-forfeit possibilities so folks can exit gracefully. Requiring losing players to stay at the table for hours with no hope of progress so that the game works correctly for winning players is rotten.
Ironically, I like Shogun.
Monopoly is one that I avoid at all costs. Happy to play all kinds of other board games again and again.
I haven’t even read the thread yet, but my cash is on you as the winner.
Candyland is easier to deal with if you accidentally lose all the candy cards in a wastebasket, leaving only the colored squares.
Chutes and Ladders–Chizzuk Version, has an additional rule where the maximum number of times a player of elementary school age or lower can fall down a chute is 5.
Other than this big stinking flaw, I think it’s probably a fine game; and it’s possible that this flaw doesn’t show up in every play-through. But it sure as hell showed up in the first time I played it, and the world’s full of games that don’t make that first impression on me :).
We usually play that you draw two cards at a time and choose which one to play (giving the tiniest element of choice to the game, and almost always avoiding the go-back-home bullshit). The main problem with Candyland is that it takes too long to play a full game. Ideally, they’d make it last less than ninety seconds, and then I wouldn’t hate it so much.
Candy land is less a game and more of an activity. The game is set once the shuffle is done. Kind of like War.
Love Monopoly when played completely by the rules, auctions, housing shortages, and all. But it’s a universal whipping boy for this sort of poll.
The one I hate is Life. Not only is there like zero strategy to it, but even if you’re way ahead in the game at the end, some jackass can win it by betting all his assets on a number from 1 to 10 and becoming a tycoon. (Or something like that. Can’t remember.)
Yeah, I’m pretty sure the only point to Candyland is to teach small children how to follow rules and how to act when they win or lose.
We’ve got a board game called Dragonology which is probably the most disappointing game I’ve ever played. It’s got great production values, lovely little figures for the dragons and the player pawns, but the game itself is a very dull roll-and-move bore-fest that doesn’t have any sort of scope for interesting decisions, but has plenty of dull ones.
We played it over christmas, because they kids like the dragons. I got lucky, and entirely through lucky card draw managed to win in about half an hour. A very dull half an hour, even though I won.
I am a board game hobbyist so my least-favorite games are not very well known outside the hobby.
I agree that Monoply is bad, although it is tolerable under the original rules. The game is much shorter that way.
The games like Catan and Carcasonne are not my favorites, but they are great gateway games into the hobby so I tolerate them too.
The special place in my heart for bad games is reserved for Battlestar Galactica. It is not a well balanced game and includes a hidden traitor mechanic that is so complex it requires the player to continuously read the rule book, which make it hard to hide your status as traitor.
Machi Korois a badly made game, though it has a nice idea. However, you only need the low level cards in it to be able to win the game. It is so fundamentally flawed, it should really be repaired and re-issued.
I strongly recommend against it unless they have fixed it.
I like Kingmaker, but the absolute worst game of anything I’ve played was a game of Kingmaker, about 20 years ago.
Everyone had their cards and their potential Kings when my buddy’s wife walked right out in front of me with the #1 from the House of Lancaster, while I had the #3. I also had about 2.5x the soldiers she had. I walked out and stomped her stack and killed her royal.
Both she and the other woman playing got angry and walked away from the game. I was sitting there going “But that is how the game works. Last royal wins.” to no avail. We just folded the game and I never brought it out to play with those folks again.
Back in the mid-eighties a group of us attempted to play the infamous The Campaign For North Africa. I say “attempted” because I don’t think anyone has ever played this thing to the end.
- It takes 8 to 10 people to play supposedly. We had 12.
- The minimum playing time for those that are proficient in the game is 60,000 minutes(over 40 days!)…and nobody is proficient in this game, so it’ll theoretically take half again as much time…
- It’s best you take the insane instruction/history book and make copies of it for everybody, because you can’t get through two moves in a row before getting into a fight about what is or is not allowed. Not that the book is likely to clear things up.
My group went three days straight playing this black hole of a game before giving up, and we are still not sure if we even set the board up right when we started.
I semi-recall a board game called “The Un-Game” when I was a kid (25 years ago or so). Something about talking about feelings.
It was terrible. My mom loved it.
“Games” designed to teach life lessons aren’t games-they are tools, and nobody wants to associate with a tool.
Life. (The recent version, that is. Can’t remember about the one I played as a kid in the early 1960s.) The Firebug, now 10, has long since graduated from Candy Land, but he still likes this horror of a game. Other than choose to go to college (which everyone does), there’s almost nothing you can do to affect your chances for winning.
Now lots of games have that aspect - Candy Land, Chutes and Ladders, War, etc. have zero strategy. But at least with those games, it’s clear who’s ahead at a given moment, even if that can abruptly change. In Life, most of the time you have little idea whether you’re leading or trailing or roughly even, until you cash everything in and add up the dough at the end.
This. John Calvin would have LOVED this game. The identity of ‘the elect’ is predetermined, but you can’t know who is and who isn’t ‘elect’ until you’re done.
War? Even more boring because it lasts forever, but when you win a war within the game, you can put those 10 cards at the bottom of your stack in any order. So no predestination.