I found the games to be underhyped. But I waited for reviews and knew exactly what to expect. It is a combat simulator. You fight, that's it. The real important part is the mechanics. The double use cards, having to uses a top and bottom each turn AND using it for initiative as well is quite different. Your deck is also a timer, run out of cards and you are down and out for that scenario. Having someone in your crew say "I made my personal goals, I'm leaving, good luck" is also quite different. Having those neat envelopes for enemies with a grid to keep track of how much damage to who is also a really nice. Also not your standard Elf, orc, dwarf, human species a nice change of pace. This is all great stuff., quite unique and interesting.
10 cowboys way of the gun, cowboys 2, empty 2:50 maracaibo - flat and less than gwt 4:00 nimitz - slog and shit rules, half game, dumped to another. 6:20 western legends - lackluster, 8:30 hellenica story of greece - no flavor, no variety 11:00 clank 12:10 rebellion 15:30 jotl - card, hack, card, hack, booring 18:10 def of procyon - disconnected fanciness 21:30 earth - like TM fell flat, point salade. left dude likes wargames but gets disappointed in each. Try helgin right dude likes euros but gets disappointed in each. Try tzolk'in. Great solo.
I owned Tzolkin for many years, played it a few times, and it never landed. I wasn’t a fan of ‘hurry up and wait’. Claim a worker placement spot and then wait multiple rounds until it’s powerful enough to collect what you needed. It’s a highly regarded game though. 👍
I like Maracaibo more than GWT . . . but the "combat" mechanism in Maracaibo was such a letdown that I didn't want to play it again. Everything else about it I like more than GWT.
Great show, it's good to hear about the negatives in games. Earth, i didn't play it but I was for some reason afraid that this game indeed had to much overload , exactly the way you described. If it doesn't matter if you go left or right, because you always get something decent out of it, the game kills itself because what is the challenge then? To get 312 point instead of 308? I am glad to hear (for the first time) that my intuition was right. Interesting picks and refreshing opinions, all though I don't always agree with them.
Yes I completely align with your tastes in not enjoying an overload of points, etc. Just doesn’t open itself to any sensation of ‘payoff’ or ‘can’t believe I managed to pull off that strategy!’ Thanks for your comment and support!
100% agree about Earth being so overrated. The card art turns me off quicker than 12-week old milk. However, Terraforming Mars is my number 1 game of all time. I LOVE the card play and the art work is fine, the tile placement is so meaningful and fun. I don't think there is much overhead in that one once you're used to it.
Rome Total War is in my top 5 to this day. So I imagine we experienced an equal level of delight (rabid FOMO) when the board game version was announced. However, the absence of a single review, walkthrough, anything, threw up red banners (being thematic). I think its KS was 4 years ago, which is astounding. I honestly think they Kickstarted it to get the funding to produce (you could with that IP), and I still see no manufacture let alone shipping date, yet somehow they get a pass. Part of me still wants it, but I'm certainly waiting for reviews. I sincerely hope it turns up for you and it's great.
Kinda weird to put a game on the list you didnt even play? Hellenica is very good and in my top 10. It has no asymmetry, because the PLAYERS create the asymmetry in how you play. You can go economical, military, religion, academic, etc. You have a lot of freedom in how you want to play. I've played it 4x in the last 2 weeks with different groups and everyone has loved it and wants to play more. The only negative it has is the combat system is a little outdated.
My complaint about the game is it lacked theme. I saw no connection between the historical factions involved in the board game and how they function mechanically. Obviously that is a personal preference thing, some clearly dont mind that at all and enjoy the mechanics of the game as it seems you do, but to me I really wanted to feel each faction played different immediately, and not that my faction developed different just because I wanted it to and not because of how it historically behaved. I did not say it is a BAD game, I simply am saying I am disappointed in it, and I know playing it wouldn't have changed my thoughts
I played Earth, then Ark Nova, 2-player. Huge difference. Earth is solitaire, which is just a style and not bad in and of itself, otherwise I wouldn't own games like Sagrada, Planet Unknown or Ecosystem: Coral Reef (which does have closed drafting to be fair), which I all really enjoy. But my decisions at some point weren't interesting to me anymore and felt more like grinding, like "I gotta do action X enough times to be able to play card Y and then do action Z again", and I mean, there's a plethora of cards, but they all didn't seem different enough to keep me interested in playing any particular one. It rather came down to point calculations. And you always had a plethora of stuff, with different cards giving you nudges in different directions, but nothing sensational. It all somehow went along and gave you more points, but you didn't feel clever for achieving them. Marvel Remix/Fantastic Realms does this better by making the cards and their combos more unique. Nayway, we played Ark Nova right after that, and boy, was it a difference. This gave you a goal and made you feel clevwr for finally achieving it. It was much more interactive and all in all more alive, even though you still got the cards and the pondering and weighing of options. The choices felt more meaningful and gave me more drive to make the right choices. It was also more interactive. So I personally wouldn't see Earth as an Ark Nova killer either.
I didn’t have as high of expectations for Ankh as I have had for other games. Ankh fell a little flat, but I still think it’s a decent game. I was expecting a good game and received ‘decent’. The games on this list I had hopes and expectations for that were ‘through the roof!’ but then gameplay felt ‘meh’.
Wait, so how is this a "top ten" when each of you is only doing 5 each? Should you both do a top ten as separate lists? Shouldn't this be called Top Five since the two of you are like, different people?
My disappointing games are Blood Rage and Root. I love combat games but these were awful for me. Blood Rage rewards those who LOSE fights, which is so dumb imo. Root is just anti-king maker.
I can understand your views on both those games. Blood Rage’s ‘gain points if you lose a battle’ concept has been and is still an interesting gameplay/strategic dynamic for me that I enjoy. My only complaint is the Quest Card that doubles points earned during that Age of the game… I feel the player who wins every time has found a way to exploit that card in a way that breaks the game. Also, for Root, the anti-king maker dynamic is a major part of the strategies that all players must be aware of. Good choices though. Thanks for commenting!
@@TalkingCardboardI am willing to bet that you both headline the top 10 most disappointing attempts at a person wherever you are. Keep up the sub par effort 👍
I feel the inverse of you. Great western trail bores. Maracaibo is a top 25 game for me. I love the decisions with the cards, moving up the various tracks feels good. The manipulation of the cow cards was uninteresting to me. I have no interest in playing GWT again. Have you tried Boon Lake? I really enjoyed that one too
The pitfall that you have in making these kinds of videos, as there are likely one or more of these games that people really enjoy and then feel disenchanted with your view as a result. In my case, Jaws of the Lion is a very well designed game and a great entry point to Gloomhaven and Frosthaven which are true campaign gems and top notch for depth, replay ability, and game mechanics, and some of the biggest and most liked games on BGG. Does this mean that you don’t like those games too?
I see your point, but on the flip side, that is actually the premise to the reason behind making this video. Most of these games are loved and well respected by the vast majority of board gamers; that is what lead to such disappointment when we finally got around to playing these games and (for us) didn’t live up to our expectations. There are probably hundreds of games I LOVE to play that others dislike for various reasons. That doesn’t invalidate other people’s opinions. I’d like these kinds of videos to resonate with people who have not yet tried the games on the list… they can listen to the reasons why we didn’t like the game, and then compare it to other videos where reviewers explain their reasoning behind why they DO enjoy the game. From that point, the viewer should have all the information they need to make an educated decision on whether or not the game will resonate with them. I personally have not played big box Gloomhaven or Frosthaven, but for me, if Jaws of the Lion was proper indication as to how the system plays… I have no interest in trying either of them. Thanks for commenting!
It's an interesting tightrope they have to walk. I watched a different youtuber doing the same topic recently, who was just a little more colorful in his complaints about the games, and a couple viewers got salty about his takes (He was not rude or anything, he was just having fun). I often watch board game vids early in the morning, before eating anything, and I could see myself getting cranky and defensive over games I've invested in getting mocked. I think this is why most repeat the caveat "If you like it, that's great!". I honestly appreciate how most board game content is sort of overly polite.
You’re using circular logic based on the premise that everyone should strive to have Gloomhaven. Then you somehow seem to think that Bgg has any authority at all on their ranking, while you don’t actually know how this ranking actually works.
The video is for information and entertainment. We talked about games we were excited to play but gameplay did not meet our expectations. For me it’s an interesting topic, so I decided to make a video about it.
Dan Verssen's "Leader" series works best when applied to a squadron of aircraft. The more it strays from that original premise (Thunderbolt/Apache Leader from 1991), the less suitable it becomes. But the real crime going on is Kickstarter. Kickstarter board games are - for the most part (but not exclusively) - undeveloped designs that are not thoroughly playtested by playtesters who take their responsibility seriously, looking for holes and failures in the system. (Or, even if problems are identified, they are often ignored due to the timeline dictated by promises of the delivery window.) Kickstarter does more to disappoint board gamers, yet people continue to back its offerings (and demand their bad decisions vociferously). And can we please shitcan the overly simplistic phrase "dudes on the map"? It sounds like something a 10 year-old says. "1775" is a "wargame", dudes, albeit a simplistic one.
I personally stand by the board game colloquialism "dudes on a map" as that description immediately evokes a certain kind of wargame such as "risk" or "axis and allies" whereas just saying "wargame" could really mean almost anything, including something as abstract as chess. You could argue that "area control" works better, but when I hear "area control" I dont necessarily think it means "army units on a board" whereas that is what "dudes on a map" implies to me. Anyway, one of those things that is to each their own
I , personally, find Earth closer to Everdell (Main mechanic is building a Tableu that triggers endgame) more than Ark Nova. Based on your feedback a less convoluted Tableu builder with some worker placement I suggest Everdell Farshore.
Good call on 'Clank Legacy'! The rest of my group thought it was amazing, and the reviews were glowing, but I just didn't get it; it fell so flat for me. Maybe because it was the first non co-op legacy I've played, but I'm not sure. Some of the cards were funny, and some of the new locations were cool. But it was ultimately just Clank...many games of Clank...normal game nights sacrificed to play Clank...over and over. Ugh. I was SO happy when it was over...but just found out someone ordered the sequel. Ahhhh!
Ankh was a tricky one for me… I enjoy it more now than the first couple plays, but yes, it definitely has its flaws. I distain the merging gods mechanism. -Cory
@talkingcardboard The merging is not my problem with the game. Not by far. My problem is that the ankh Powers are definatly not balanced, and there are clearly good and bad ones. And its really Common for someone to get ahead in the first events, and end up winning without anyone having a chance to catch UP (Merge or no Merge). And the battle resolution is VERRY unsatisfying. The way the cards work and the way people score in the battles gets repetitive really fast.
I agree with you on Jaws of the Lion and Gloomhaven in general. I think it's way overhyped and both of them don't deserve such a high apot on bgg...
I found the games to be underhyped. But I waited for reviews and knew exactly what to expect. It is a combat simulator. You fight, that's it. The real important part is the mechanics. The double use cards, having to uses a top and bottom each turn AND using it for initiative as well is quite different. Your deck is also a timer, run out of cards and you are down and out for that scenario. Having someone in your crew say "I made my personal goals, I'm leaving, good luck" is also quite different. Having those neat envelopes for enemies with a grid to keep track of how much damage to who is also a really nice. Also not your standard Elf, orc, dwarf, human species a nice change of pace. This is all great stuff., quite unique and interesting.
10 cowboys way of the gun, cowboys 2, empty
2:50 maracaibo - flat and less than gwt
4:00 nimitz - slog and shit rules, half game, dumped to another.
6:20 western legends - lackluster,
8:30 hellenica story of greece - no flavor, no variety
11:00 clank
12:10 rebellion
15:30 jotl - card, hack, card, hack, booring
18:10 def of procyon - disconnected fanciness
21:30 earth - like TM fell flat, point salade.
left dude likes wargames but gets disappointed in each. Try helgin
right dude likes euros but gets disappointed in each. Try tzolk'in. Great solo.
I owned Tzolkin for many years, played it a few times, and it never landed. I wasn’t a fan of ‘hurry up and wait’. Claim a worker placement spot and then wait multiple rounds until it’s powerful enough to collect what you needed.
It’s a highly regarded game though. 👍
@@TalkingCardboard well good that you gave it a try. No problem, I like it a lot.
I like Maracaibo more than GWT . . . but the "combat" mechanism in Maracaibo was such a letdown that I didn't want to play it again. Everything else about it I like more than GWT.
Great show, it's good to hear about the negatives in games. Earth, i didn't play it but I was for some reason afraid that this game indeed had to much overload , exactly the way you described. If it doesn't matter if you go left or right, because you always get something decent out of it, the game kills itself because what is the challenge then? To get 312 point instead of 308? I am glad to hear (for the first time) that my intuition was right. Interesting picks and refreshing opinions, all though I don't always agree with them.
Yes I completely align with your tastes in not enjoying an overload of points, etc. Just doesn’t open itself to any sensation of ‘payoff’ or ‘can’t believe I managed to pull off that strategy!’
Thanks for your comment and support!
100% agree about Earth being so overrated. The card art turns me off quicker than 12-week old milk. However, Terraforming Mars is my number 1 game of all time. I LOVE the card play and the art work is fine, the tile placement is so meaningful and fun. I don't think there is much overhead in that one once you're used to it.
Rome Total War is in my top 5 to this day. So I imagine we experienced an equal level of delight (rabid FOMO) when the board game version was announced. However, the absence of a single review, walkthrough, anything, threw up red banners (being thematic).
I think its KS was 4 years ago, which is astounding. I honestly think they Kickstarted it to get the funding to produce (you could with that IP), and I still see no manufacture let alone shipping date, yet somehow they get a pass.
Part of me still wants it, but I'm certainly waiting for reviews.
I sincerely hope it turns up for you and it's great.
Earth is a great game! Much easier to get to the table than ark nova
I’d agree it’s much easier to table! …and plays 3x faster. Ark Nova, still the better game 😉
@ agreed! Ark nova is a little overwhelming for some people in our game group though.
Kinda weird to put a game on the list you didnt even play? Hellenica is very good and in my top 10. It has no asymmetry, because the PLAYERS create the asymmetry in how you play. You can go economical, military, religion, academic, etc. You have a lot of freedom in how you want to play. I've played it 4x in the last 2 weeks with different groups and everyone has loved it and wants to play more. The only negative it has is the combat system is a little outdated.
My complaint about the game is it lacked theme. I saw no connection between the historical factions involved in the board game and how they function mechanically. Obviously that is a personal preference thing, some clearly dont mind that at all and enjoy the mechanics of the game as it seems you do, but to me I really wanted to feel each faction played different immediately, and not that my faction developed different just because I wanted it to and not because of how it historically behaved. I did not say it is a BAD game, I simply am saying I am disappointed in it, and I know playing it wouldn't have changed my thoughts
Earth is also my #1 game that fell flat. For whatever reason, it just isn't fun for me.
I played Earth, then Ark Nova, 2-player. Huge difference. Earth is solitaire, which is just a style and not bad in and of itself, otherwise I wouldn't own games like Sagrada, Planet Unknown or Ecosystem: Coral Reef (which does have closed drafting to be fair), which I all really enjoy. But my decisions at some point weren't interesting to me anymore and felt more like grinding, like "I gotta do action X enough times to be able to play card Y and then do action Z again", and I mean, there's a plethora of cards, but they all didn't seem different enough to keep me interested in playing any particular one. It rather came down to point calculations. And you always had a plethora of stuff, with different cards giving you nudges in different directions, but nothing sensational. It all somehow went along and gave you more points, but you didn't feel clever for achieving them. Marvel Remix/Fantastic Realms does this better by making the cards and their combos more unique. Nayway, we played Ark Nova right after that, and boy, was it a difference. This gave you a goal and made you feel clevwr for finally achieving it. It was much more interactive and all in all more alive, even though you still got the cards and the pondering and weighing of options. The choices felt more meaningful and gave me more drive to make the right choices. It was also more interactive. So I personally wouldn't see Earth as an Ark Nova killer either.
When I typed "nayway", I meant "anyway"
Couldn’t have said it better myself. 😁
Time stamps?
Got it updated 👍
@@TalkingCardboard no you did not.
but i did them for you.
Check in the video description.
Bummer about Hellenica. I was kinda interested in that one.
But he never actually played it? It's actually a very good game with a lot of freedom of strategy.
Yes!!!! Played earth once and I won……but it was so boring, I just kept tucking cards, doing the same thing over and over and over again.
I was so hyped about Western Legend and when I finally got it and played it, it felt so shallow and meh.
My expectations where to high I guess.
Same. I REALLY wanted to like it! The mechanisms and actions were boring.
Ankh seems so meaningless that it didn’t even made the list, I guess.
I didn’t have as high of expectations for Ankh as I have had for other games. Ankh fell a little flat, but I still think it’s a decent game. I was expecting a good game and received ‘decent’.
The games on this list I had hopes and expectations for that were ‘through the roof!’ but then gameplay felt ‘meh’.
Wait, so how is this a "top ten" when each of you is only doing 5 each? Should you both do a top ten as separate lists? Shouldn't this be called Top Five since the two of you are like, different people?
Just decided to make a collective list, 5 each.
My disappointing games are Blood Rage and Root. I love combat games but these were awful for me. Blood Rage rewards those who LOSE fights, which is so dumb imo. Root is just anti-king maker.
I can understand your views on both those games. Blood Rage’s ‘gain points if you lose a battle’ concept has been and is still an interesting gameplay/strategic dynamic for me that I enjoy. My only complaint is the Quest Card that doubles points earned during that Age of the game… I feel the player who wins every time has found a way to exploit that card in a way that breaks the game.
Also, for Root, the anti-king maker dynamic is a major part of the strategies that all players must be aware of.
Good choices though. Thanks for commenting!
The shtty editing in this video is the most entertaining part.
That’s why you make the big bucks 😉
@@TalkingCardboardI am willing to bet that you both headline the top 10 most disappointing attempts at a person wherever you are. Keep up the sub par effort 👍
Maracaibo... The cards tho!
What about the cards?? 😄😄
I feel the inverse of you. Great western trail bores. Maracaibo is a top 25 game for me. I love the decisions with the cards, moving up the various tracks feels good. The manipulation of the cow cards was uninteresting to me. I have no interest in playing GWT again. Have you tried Boon Lake? I really enjoyed that one too
@@MCJesse-hu4ru i agree,, love them both that if u ask me only to pick one i cannot answer it yet XD
The pitfall that you have in making these kinds of videos, as there are likely one or more of these games that people really enjoy and then feel disenchanted with your view as a result. In my case, Jaws of the Lion is a very well designed game and a great entry point to Gloomhaven and Frosthaven which are true campaign gems and top notch for depth, replay ability, and game mechanics, and some of the biggest and most liked games on BGG. Does this mean that you don’t like those games too?
I see your point, but on the flip side, that is actually the premise to the reason behind making this video. Most of these games are loved and well respected by the vast majority of board gamers; that is what lead to such disappointment when we finally got around to playing these games and (for us) didn’t live up to our expectations.
There are probably hundreds of games I LOVE to play that others dislike for various reasons. That doesn’t invalidate other people’s opinions. I’d like these kinds of videos to resonate with people who have not yet tried the games on the list… they can listen to the reasons why we didn’t like the game, and then compare it to other videos where reviewers explain their reasoning behind why they DO enjoy the game. From that point, the viewer should have all the information they need to make an educated decision on whether or not the game will resonate with them.
I personally have not played big box Gloomhaven or Frosthaven, but for me, if Jaws of the Lion was proper indication as to how the system plays… I have no interest in trying either of them.
Thanks for commenting!
It's an interesting tightrope they have to walk. I watched a different youtuber doing the same topic recently, who was just a little more colorful in his complaints about the games, and a couple viewers got salty about his takes (He was not rude or anything, he was just having fun). I often watch board game vids early in the morning, before eating anything, and I could see myself getting cranky and defensive over games I've invested in getting mocked. I think this is why most repeat the caveat "If you like it, that's great!". I honestly appreciate how most board game content is sort of overly polite.
You’re using circular logic based on the premise that everyone should strive to have Gloomhaven.
Then you somehow seem to think that Bgg has any authority at all on their ranking, while you don’t actually know how this ranking actually works.
The video is for information and entertainment. We talked about games we were excited to play but gameplay did not meet our expectations.
For me it’s an interesting topic, so I decided to make a video about it.
@talkingcardboard lol, did an ai write that?
Dan Verssen's "Leader" series works best when applied to a squadron of aircraft. The more it strays from that original premise (Thunderbolt/Apache Leader from 1991), the less suitable it becomes. But the real crime going on is Kickstarter.
Kickstarter board games are - for the most part (but not exclusively) - undeveloped designs that are not thoroughly playtested by playtesters who take their responsibility seriously, looking for holes and failures in the system. (Or, even if problems are identified, they are often ignored due to the timeline dictated by promises of the delivery window.) Kickstarter does more to disappoint board gamers, yet people continue to back its offerings (and demand their bad decisions vociferously).
And can we please shitcan the overly simplistic phrase "dudes on the map"? It sounds like something a 10 year-old says. "1775" is a "wargame", dudes, albeit a simplistic one.
I personally stand by the board game colloquialism "dudes on a map" as that description immediately evokes a certain kind of wargame such as "risk" or "axis and allies" whereas just saying "wargame" could really mean almost anything, including something as abstract as chess. You could argue that "area control" works better, but when I hear "area control" I dont necessarily think it means "army units on a board" whereas that is what "dudes on a map" implies to me. Anyway, one of those things that is to each their own
I , personally, find Earth closer to Everdell (Main mechanic is building a Tableu that triggers endgame) more than Ark Nova.
Based on your feedback a less convoluted Tableu builder with some worker placement I suggest Everdell Farshore.
That’s a good comparison. I’ll have to give Farshore a closer look… wasn’t much a fan of base Everdell.
Thanks! -Cory
Good call on 'Clank Legacy'! The rest of my group thought it was amazing, and the reviews were glowing, but I just didn't get it; it fell so flat for me. Maybe because it was the first non co-op legacy I've played, but I'm not sure. Some of the cards were funny, and some of the new locations were cool. But it was ultimately just Clank...many games of Clank...normal game nights sacrificed to play Clank...over and over. Ugh. I was SO happy when it was over...but just found out someone ordered the sequel. Ahhhh!
I usually learn about the games before buying. So far I had only one disapointment: Ankh.
Ankh was a tricky one for me… I enjoy it more now than the first couple plays, but yes, it definitely has its flaws. I distain the merging gods mechanism. -Cory
@talkingcardboard The merging is not my problem with the game. Not by far.
My problem is that the ankh Powers are definatly not balanced, and there are clearly good and bad ones. And its really Common for someone to get ahead in the first events, and end up winning without anyone having a chance to catch UP (Merge or no Merge).
And the battle resolution is VERRY unsatisfying. The way the cards work and the way people score in the battles gets repetitive really fast.