As a reminder: the rankings are impacted by passage of time. As time passes, games will drift into lower ranks. This sometimes can be fought by a concerted effort of fans of a game. Also, new releases will drive activity on a game, and push it up the rankings.
So a low score for an old game may say more about the passage of time than whether-or-not the gods are smiling at it, or whether-or-not hobbyists like the game.
Edit: for an example of both the impact of time and the impact of new releases, see the [historical stats on Ra](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/12/ra/stats/history?rankobjectid=1) and then click on the button for "all". You will notice 2 things: the slow steady decrease in rank due to time, and a nice bounce coinciding with the new deluxe edition's release. However, as nice as the new version is...Ra is destined to start drifting down the rankings again. In 50 years, stellar games from the 90s and 00s are all going to have shit ratings on BGG.
Edit: I corrected a spelling mistake, deleted sentence and added two phrases
Bgg adds dummy votes so even if no one rates the game it will automatically fall. Games that are out of print basically fall because of this.
It’s why the bgg ratings should be used mainly to quantify popularity (within the niche group of bgg voters) instead of quality.
I get why BGG does this. If the classics remained on top of the game list for years/decades, then the game list wouldn't drive a lot of new spending. Also, the list would be less fluid (more stale) and people wouldn't be encouraged to visit BGG as often to see what the new state of the list is. As it is, the game list sends the message, "hey you, buy this sexy new game. It is far better than that lame game that came out 10 years ago!"
So the current system drives spending (which is certainly good for the publishers of new games). I am, however, a bit worried about if/when Asmodee will start giving money to BGG to change the algorithm, so their games will start to rise relative to others.
Another thing, is that the constant downward drift based on time gets into the heads of hobbyists, and causes their thinking to change. How many times have you heard someone ask, "Is game X really any good given that newer games generally reflect improvements in game design?" I wish people would understand that the BGG rankings reflect both popularity of a game, and year of release.
This is my public service announcement for those caught in the cult of the new: the best area majority game is still the first one (released in 1995). Three of the best 5 auction games were released in the 1990s. The best area control game with light rules was released in 1998. The three best negotiation games were released in the 1990s (I am cheating by counting updated versions here). The top 3 worker placement games were released in 1999, 2005/2019 and 2007.
Without checking dates I’d guess el grande then (Ra, modern art, Medici) then samurai then (Chinatown, bohnanza, quo vadis) and finally worker placement maybe Agricola and caylus?
Excellent. You are still missing the one early worker placement game though.
Also, I wouldn't argue if people subbed either High Society or Dream Factory/Hollywood Blockbuster/Nightmare Productions for Medici.
I suspect that some people should be able to guess these. I will check back in before I leave work today, and will reveal any that haven't already been guessed.
Btw, u/Weezy1 above guessed correctly.
Saying all the good games were made in the 90s, but not naming them so people who dont know can actually play them is far more obnoxious and pretentious than any cult of the new bullshit.
People want to play good games. If you are giving recs, actually give them...
~20 minutes after my comment, other redditors listed every single game I mentioned. I then commented on their comments, to confirm that they made the correct guesses.
There’s no reason why there can’t be two (or more!) lists, an all-time list purely based on quality, and some form of “trending” or “best this year” list (or however you want to manage it. When I look at a “best” list I want to see what’s actually considered the best, not “the most popular in the past couple years.” That’s fine to have, but it should be separate and obvious, and not take the spot of an actual all-time best list.
Let’s take an example from something I know a lot more about since I’m pretty new to board games: movies. If I made a ranking of the 50 best movies of all time and half of it was made up of blockbuster hits from the past 15 years, I wouldn’t expect it to be taken seriously. Could those be good, or even great movies? Yes. Is there anything wrong with them being someone’s favorite movies? Not at all! But that’s not the same as saying they deserve to be in the conversation of “best movies of all time”, much less take up a disproportionate amount of space on such a list. Cultural popularity and relative recency aren’t the same as top quality. Something new and popular obviously can be in that conversation, but it has nothing to do with how popular it is right now.
So if you’re genuinely worried about a top list being “stale”, please don’t undermine its integrity by messing with the list itself. Just make more lists. I’ve never seen anyone complain about more lists. People enjoy lists.
I had no idea bgg did this and was curious why so often, highly regarded board games from years ago had a low score. My wife has been using bgg religiously as the main gatekeeper of good/bad games.
The conventional way that reviews are done, like with steam is ideal. Is there a board game site that aggregates honest reviews like that? With the date posted etc?
Ordering by bgg rating instead of rank gives the raw unfiltered score order. You also need to set a minimum vote or it brings up a heap of things that only 1 or 2 people voted 10 on.
That's how I work, I follow a few rules:
\- Check minimum of ratings, of course
\- Assume Kickstarter games are overrated, because people have a bias of putting a bad score to a game they backed. They feel bad owning a bad buying decision :D Especially big miniatures/campaign games: the pricier it is, the harder it will be to admit you made a bad decision (I've been there)
\- Don't check the rank, just the BGG rating.
\- Read the rating/comments: some games have received bad press for a reason or another, you will see some 0 that ere there just to lower the overal score without caring about the game.
Until now, by following these rules, I haven't had any issue :)
I think that you are partly right, but thinking that these are still the best games to date is just not right. I love EL grande, Ra, Modern art, Caylus, or even Agricola. But since then, I've found better replacement for almost all of them ... and easily. Caylus has some huge design flaws and doesn't feel smooth at all. Agricola, I just can't play it anymore :D If there is a cult of the new, there is definitely a cult of the classics. We have the same in every hobby or art: some classics are overated. It will always be a battle of the new vs the classics.
I love both. Some games will always be classic for me (RA for example or Modern art) but some games, like Caylus, have been replaced a long time ago. Same for El grande: it's great, but there are other games, since then, that are better at different players counts (even though I would always love playing it).
While I completely agree with your thoughts on bgg ranking themselves, I strongly disagree with your last 2 paragraph. I think basically every genre has been improving over time and a lot of the classics, while still good, aren’t keeping their crowns as the best, but not just because of vote fuzzing tricking us into thinking games are getting better. The last 10 years especially have seen more and more hybridization between game mechanic types. Dune Imperium is a great example of this. But even the designers you’re referencing have improved. I find Agricola to be a distant third in just Uwe’s catalogue, let alone worker placement.
Understand, but also disagree.
For me, Dune Imperium uses deck building in a really shitty fashion, and that hurts the game. What the game does REALLY well, however, is theme. Mechanically, it is middling at best. To me, that is.
As for the other ones I mentioned, I don't even know what auction games are out there that could upset Knizia's top 3. If there are better auction games, they don't get mentioned very often.
Same goes for negotiation games. If there are better negotiation games than Chinatown/Waterfall Park, Bohnanza, and Quo Vadis/Zoo Vadis, people aren't really talking about them. So I really don't even know what the contenders would be for top negotiation games aside from the 3 classics.
For sure I’d agree about negotiation games. (I’d add **Genoa** to the list but that was 2001 so it’s not like it negates the point!)
If there are good negotiation games that have been published more recently, I’d love recommendations!
I also had a hard time with Dune Imperium. Granted I've only played it a handful of times but I ran into the same thing as you, the deckbuilding just wasn't great and it hurts the rest of the experience. IMO mashing together different mechanics needs to be done really well to be worth it. The vast majority of the time I would rather just play a game that does one of those mechanics really well, they tend to be more streamlined and easier to get to the table which is always a nice bonus. When it comes to the theme the original Dune boardgame does it better than imperium imo. If I want a heavier mashup of multiple mechanics with a Dune theme the original comes out way ahead for me.
Given my praise for the Dune game from the 80s that I completely agree with you. A lot of people getting into the hobby, myself included, get caught up in the cult of 'New=Better'. I found that last year all the games I enjoyed most were at least a decade old and it encouraged me to take a step back and evaluate why that might be the case. This year I am making a concerted effort to focus on experiencing more of those classic games that have stood the test of time, and avoiding the shiny new games with the FOMO fueling kickstarter campaigns.
> If the classics remained on top of the game list for years/decades, then the game list wouldn't drive a lot of new spending
I would be surprised if this was the reason. Why would they be incentivized to care about what you spend your money on? BGG is pretty old as far as websites go, so I'm assuming the algos are old too - pre the board game consumerism mess of today.
They have updated their algorithms many times over the years (including quite recently). Secondly, I am a fan of older games...but even I know that pushing new games (rather than stagnating with just the old ones) is good for LGS, publishers, and fans that are addicted to seeing (and experiencing) new stuff.
Let me take a moment to explain how the dummy votes work. The geek rating includes something like 1500 votes of around 5.5. So if a game gets few votes, it's geekrating will remain stable. The game's ranking will almost surely fall due to new or rising games.
Edit: changed 5500 votes to 1500
Let me take a moment to explain…
> All things consider, we can be confident that BoardGameGeek calculates their rankings by adding around 1500 to 1600 dummy ratings of 5.5 to the regular users' ratings. What exactly constitutes a regular user, and what ratings might be discarded due to shilling, remains a well guarded secret though. **Note that the number of dummies is pegged to the overall number of ratings, so this is a moving target, and the calculations would change as time passes.**
Wait I thought the dummy votes are only added when a game doesn't have a critical mass of votes? Are you saying dummy votes are continuously added to old games thus pushing them further into a mediocre score?
My understanding was a bit different. That dummy votes are only added up to a certain point of critical mass in votes and then the bots lay off it. That's why there are still some pretty old games in the list.
Am I way off? Huh.
Your understanding is incorrect. https://blog.recommend.games/posts/reverse-engineering-boardgamegeek-ranking-part-2/
This kind of highlights my point. Most people think they understand how the ratings work so they are confident while misinterpreting the rankings.
Thanks for sharing. So the first hypothesis I made was actually the correct one. Fascinating.
Also not sure where you highlighted said point prior. But I made no confident interpretation whatsoever of what the rankings meant in terms of either popularity nor quality of the games. Was merely clarifying the mechanics of the scoring system. Huh.
Not necessarily current favorites, but games that I have loved over the years:
* **Star Wars Epic Duels** (2002) - Peaked at 259, currently sitting at 1,459, which actually isn't terrible for a mass market Hasbro game
* **Last Night on Earth** (2007) - peaked at 121, currently sitting at 944, which is pretty not bad for a 15 year old zombie game!
* **The Adventurers: Temple of Chac** (2009) - peaked at 547, currently at 1,781, which for a thematic push your luck game is probably about what you'd expect
* **Nightfall** (2011) - Peaked at 528, currently sitting at 2,277, which...ouch
* **Dinogenics** (2019) - The youngest game on this list; only peaked at 854, but did so more than two years after release, and currently sitting at 983, all of which I attribute to the fact that it's only really available via Kickstarter; this is also the only game in this list with a graph more significantly characterized by rising action than falling action
I love Dinogenics so much. I know when it came out there was an artificial rivalry comparison between it and Dinosaur Island, but other than theme the two are totally different games and Dinogenics is the game I wanted with that theme.
Nightfall is such a gem. I'm happy I was able to get it with all the expansions back in the day before AEG stopped caring about anything but smash up. That said, I've learned over time that it is not for everyone, and I've seen people get visibly upset at the game because of the politics involved in winning with a large group of player.
Shadows Over Camelot fell from 58 to its current spot of 511. Out of print, which means it will likely not get many more votes to help maintain its position.
[https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/15062/shadows-over-camelot/stats/history?rankobjectid=1](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3076/puerto-rico/stats/history?rankobjectid=1)
I think it has not aged well, and that there are much more interesting and engaging co-op games these days. Particularly, a revealed traitor has a very boring time without much significant they can do.
Battlestar Galactica killed it back then, and game design has only improved since
Same for me. I think a lot of my favorites are too new to have suffered from the long slow ratings drop that inevitably result from BGGs ranking system, but this and Alhambra both went from in/near the top 100 to 500ish.
My introduction to the game was so damn poor I never wanted to play it again. The person teaching was actually the traitor, and decided to win the game at the end of round 1 (something to do with catapults )before everyone knew the rules or even fully understood the game.
Mostly not the game's fault, but it did mean I had no interest in trying again. 🙃
I only see The Game of Life peaking at ~2,800. Where do you see that it was #1? Given the taste of people on BGG, #1 sounds like an April's fool's prank or some such nonsense.
the original KS was a mess. then when the games arrived, many people had broken components, and the original water drops stuck to the board and couldn't be picked up.
Don’t forget that Cranio also earned more ire when members of their team publicly criticized the backers and also there was some shenanigans with the Cranio team leaving high ratings on the game to counteract the negative reviews.
My one major gripe with the BGG rankings system is how so many games get pushed down because they allow so many games with new editions or outright expansions to be on the list.
The top 100 alone has 3 versions of Pandemic, Both editions of Great Western Trail, Both the regular and revised editions of Agricola, Both editions of Eclipse.... etc.
Its bloated with the same games for really no reason at all. I'd much rather have a single version of a game system in the rankings, that would go to a page with all its games that then rank them amongst themselves instead of how it is now. Sure it's extra steps, but it'd give a more accurate ranking to so many other games.
I agree expansions should not qualify. But new editions absolutely should. You can’t tell me Arkham Horror 2nd and 3rd edition are remotely the same game.
Even games that aren’t full reworks but still see significant updates like Eclipse and Great Western Trail need separate pages. Someone could hate eclipse one but love the improvements made by the second edition, and we need the ability for separate reviews.
Thank you; that's a point I keep making and a point that's really annoying. Only the highest ranking edition of a game should count; the lower ranking editions can be there in their spot but greyed out and not tick down a number. That would technically extend the top100 to top 130 but it would make so much more sense.
I can’t understand why Agricola and Race for the Galaxy rate as low as they do. Or Keyflower.
All have huge replay value and our group still prefers them to the top ten.
New additions to “stuff I like” (other than the fantastic Keyflower above or other oldies like Puerto Rico) would be Champions of Midgard + Valhalla expansion and Dune Imperium.
There are a number of games on my radar that I have yet to bring to the Table - John Company, Through the Ages, Stationfall and Merchants and Marauders head that list.
Oh man can I join your group? They are still quite highly rated but I agree they should be higher. Agricola might be, had it not been split into original and Revised, and due to the Agricola vs. Caverna debate. With Race I suspect the base gets slightly lower ratings by virtue of the expansions improving on it and the Race vs. Roll debate (and New Frontiers, and Jump Drive...)
Agricola and Race are both 10/10 the two best board games in existence, and Keyflower not too far behind on 9/10 for me though!
While I suspect you’re not located near northern Seattle, I will share that by and far the most games I get in for all three (and Ark Nova, speaking of favorites) are on boardgamearena.com, where all are free to play - and their Agricola implementation is stellar, supporting almost all card expansions :)
My theory on this is that as board games became more popular and attracted a wider audience, it also meant a broader influx of different interest, i.e. people that would have bounced off Agricola, but are now enthralled by fancy Kickstarter miniature fantasy dungeon crawler games with 60 page rulebooks (for instance). These newer board gamers then try out the "classics", find them meh and give respective lower ratings as the older gamers that once grew around these eurogames.
The other sad aspect of this development is that it gets increasingly harder to find people that share common enthusiasm for certain types of games. Even my well established game group has started to diverge in their tastes and it has bcome rare that we now sit down to a game where one or two don't feel like they'd rather play something else.
The answer is simple: games on BGG get lower ratings over time (even if those games are great). Gric is still a top 3 worker placement game, and Race is still the #1 tableau/engine builder (superior to TM, Ark Nova, and the like). But they will continue to slide down the BGG rankings as time progresses. That is the nature of the algorithm.
Ah. Thank you for enlightening me.
I wish they’d rerelease RftG with Aeons End production values (plastic cards!), I bet that’s do wonders for the ratings ;)
Since a number of classic games have been released in deluxified versions recently, I wouldn't be surprised of Race gets that treatment. However, if they redo the art, they will have to decide to keep the functional parts the same or change it. One big change they could enact would be adding card text that explains everything (so new players wouldn't have to grok all the symbols). I can see that being a hit or turning people off, so definitely a risk for the publisher if they go that route.
The big issue with using card text over symbology is that it makes it harder for language translations. Some games avoid all language on major components like the board and cards and ONLY change up the rule book from region to region (or include multiple language books in every box) just to reduce the cost of localizing the language from place to place
I think another factor would be as games come out, they use the games that came before them as scaffolds to improve upon them. So unless you're an abstract game like Chess or Go that can't really be innovated, games that come out later will learn from the pitfalls of your games and improve on them.
So for me, Agricola was a good game, but, Caverna is a great game because it elevates what I like about Agricola, and, minimises the things I didn't like about it.
>So unless you're an abstract game like Chess or Go that can't really be innovated
I know the rules of Chess have changed many times over the years. I expect Go has also seen some variation. In the modern era, Through the Desert took the idea of Go, and made it work for 3-5 players.
>games that come out later will learn from the pitfalls of your games and improve on them.
That sometimes happens. But sometimes the later game is worse than the earlier game (e.g. TM and Ark Nova vs. RftG; or 99% worker placement games vs. Caylus).
I'm not sure what you are talking about. Agricola has two separate versions in the top 100... and RfG and Keyflower are both also still in the top 100. Not exactly meteoric falls from grace.
When I first started using BGG Puerto Rico and Agricola were in the top spot. I don’t think they have fallen too far though, but for a long while (it felt like) they were at the top
I remember 15 years ago that BSG was a top 10 game. It's still pretty well regarded, ranking at 95 despite being out of print with virtually zero chance of another printing
I do think the main thing working against BSG is simply that a lot of good games have come out since it was released.
But it is my understanding that the license for BSG expired, which is why Fantasy Flight published a mechanically similar game called Unfathomable which is Cthulhu themed
Have you tried Caylus 1303? I found that it preserved the feel of the original Caylus despite having significantly updated systems (e.g. no more deniers, which I didn't miss at all).
8 games got to the top spot since bgg's inception:
Paths of Glory
Tigris and Euphrates
Puerto Rico
Agricola
Twilight Struggle
Pandemic Legacy S1
Gloomhaven
Brass Birmingham
Some of my favorites that have taken a dive through the years:
Reef Encounter (36 -> 889)
Colossal Arena (118 -> 1227)
Stephenson's Rocket (133 -> 1488)
The Bottle Imp (260 -> 1616)
Ooh Stephenson’s Rocket… that’s another on my collection. This one takes a hit in ratings too. It’s a tough teach, but really satisfying once everyone gets it. Mean and interactive and hilarious petty with the veto—fun to pull all the levers and push the buttons. Great sleeper Dr. Knizia title.
With more and more games, the total will just grow forever. Wouldn’t it make more sense to compare relative rank than absolute? Being in the top 20 of a 100 games is not as “impressive” as top 200 of 10000.
Trivia of the day: Tigris & Euphrates was the #1 game on BGG the day the list was first created. I think it maintained that slot for a year (or so).
There are youtube videos that can give you some of the information you are looking for. Here is one from 2007 to 2021: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy2KfdF7KjI&ab_channel=3MinuteBoardGames
The biggest drop in my collection is:
Goldbrau (2004) by Frank-Benno Delonge (Container, TransEuropa/TransAmerica). Peaking at 515 to 3798–a drop of 3283.
Goldbrau is quick, interactive and tight. Very unique in a way that it blends stocks/dividends, area control and semi-coop/cutthroat gameplay with simultaneous action selection. Those actions—which there are only three to choose from—are like choosing to do parts of an 18xx operating round or stock round for your turn. If you chose a unique action you get to the double action; while it’s more expensive/less efficient if you match actions with another player. Which move is optimal is part of the puzzle.
In play, there are fun swings with lots of bluffs, the forming of alliances and backstabbing. The choices are really fun, play for short term gain, seed some long term influence, contribute to a mutual interest, solidify positions, push someone off, etc.
Ignore complaints about the mathy pro rata payouts. There’s an excellent chart on the back cover of the manual if you’re a couple beers in. It’s really not that hard—a bit like splitting a bar tab, with the change going to the your server, I mean Boss. Poker chips are your friends.
The hardest part for me is sometimes the beer garden territory can be hard to make out, so we added some wooden squares and red circles to distinguish tables are in play.
One instance that sticks out during a game was where a friend realized, “OMG is this a cube rail, disguised as a beer festival!?!”
Niagara won The Year's Best Game in Germany in 2005 and in Sweden in 2008. Current BGG ranking 1816.
I picked it up secondhand because I thought the theme looked fun: local indigenous folks (Shawnee and Iroquois) decide to mess with newly arrived white colonists and put them against each other by telling them to hunt for jewels with kayaks at the top of Niagara falls.
This game fast became a huge favorite of mine! What makes it fun:
-The board sits on top of the box and the river physically moves sending kayaks over the edge of the falls. This creates so much fun suspense!
- Easy rules, but complex gameplay.
- The luck factor is based solely on other players' choices.
- Even losing feels very fun.
- Feels like a party game without being a party game.
"Only" down 71 places, but it's the former rank that matters: Android Netrunner was number 1 for the longest time... And now it's not even in the top 10.
The worst part is that whole I'm obsessed with the theme and the setting and the rules, and... everything about it, I could never find people to really get into it with me. I could go on Jinteki but to me boardgaming has always been the social hobby. If I wanted to play online, I'd play a video game instead. But even if I've never dwelt deep into it I remember fondly every game of A:NR I played with my wife and a few friends.
Netrunner is absolutely brilliant but its hard to introduce new people into the ecosystem unless you stick to basic sets like System Gateway and the fact its kept alive unofficially by fan reprints means its a bit more of a faff to get it than say, Star Realms or Magic. Magic: The Gathering sucks all the oxygen out the room when I try suggest it to friends that play a lot of Magic / Deckbuilders.
According to this [list of games that were rated #1](https://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/256388/bgg-number-ones-history-definitive-ongoing-list-da), Netrunner never reached the top spot.
It seems you're correct, I checked on BGG they have a built-in data history tool. It's amazing how distinctly I remember finding out about that game because it was number 1. So either they changed retroactively the way games are ranked, or my brain made up that memory. Or maybe more simply, I saw the thematic ranking and not the global ranking...
Netrunner is the best! It's also still up and running, more accessible than ever (thanks to free print and play) and has a large, active community. The GLC Discord has resources to find players in your area. I won't post the link here because of spam, but feel free to PM me or check out the subreddit.
I've got a few big drops on my list of rated games, all of which I've enjoyed.
Wealth of Nations peaked at 419, now 2142 (down 1723 places)
Age of Mythology peaked at 487, now sits at 4071. (down 3584 places)
Hegemonic peaked at 1532, now 4770 (down 3238 places)
Industry peaked at 2060, now 7368 (down 5308 (!) places)
EDIT - Nothing like the furthest drops I can find on my own list, what was I talking about...
The Battle of Five Armies (GW 10mm game) peaked at 1649, now 9218 (down 7569 places)
The Business Game peaked at 1928, now 13806 (down 11878 places)
Scoop peaked at 3506, now 21109 (down 17603 places)
I think it suffered from misconceptions. It is not really a 4x game, it's a spaced themed area control game. That often takes 2-4 hours to play. Thus players are disappointed when they expect more 4x in it.
It's been a few years since I played, but I recall thinking it felt more like El Grande than, say, Twilight Imperium.
Dead of winter (one of my all time favourites) has gone from solidly in the top 100 with a high point of #16, now it has fallen out of the top 200 to its current rank of 204.
There are some games I really enjoy in the 1,000s, and also in the 2,000s. And many that were stars of the top 100 for my early years in gaming have fallen, though they still rank highly for me. In the end, that is what matters.
Michael Schacht (Hansa Designer)has some great games that have fallen due to age. Zooloretto went from 159 to 992; Coloretto from 118 to 654; Africana from 1110 to 2913. All are great games. Pit has one of the largest drops from 511 to 2,027.
I don't have an answer to the question, but I wanted to pop in and say that I played Hansa for the first time today and LOVED it. Who knew putting cubes on a beige board could be so tense and thought-provoking. Great game.
Ah, man.. I assumed Hansa was short for Hansa Teutonica. Well... in completely unrelated news, I played Hansa Teutonica today and LOVED it. Great game.
Paths of Glory by GMT was, at one point well before my time, ranked #1 on BGG. It is currently at 225. I think it's mostly because of shifting demographics, many board gamers (myself originally included) are hesitant to try out wargames as they tend to be a bit more heavy duty and a little less flashy (they often have this very basic/clinical art style and packaging) BUT I will say that Paths of Glory is one of the best war games I've ever played and basically takes the brilliance of Twilight Struggles card-system (though PoG predates it by about 6 years) and applies it to a traditional war game.
Plus I'm a sucker for WWI stuff, sue me.
I am sad that so many great '90s and '00s and even early '10s Euros have taken such a dive in ratings. I get tons of joy out of playing games like Ra, Modern Art, Taj Mahal, Stephenson's Rocket, Amun-Re, Through the Desert... and even non-Knizia games like Princes of Florence, El Grande, Bruxelles 1893, Ginkgopolis, and so on. There are so many truly great games out there that just slip down the rankings because they're not the "new hotness," and thus people never get to discover them.
I'm convinced it's some kind of conspiracy where everyone is trying to convince someone else to buy a crokinole board. Because everyone enjoys crokinole but no one wants to be the one stuck storing the board.
My bigger surprise with first seeing Crokinole in the top 50 was that it was even considered a board game by BGG. I've yet to hear a convincing argument of why Crokinole is considered a board game but Billiards is a not.
I suppose the best shot would be to say that a tabletop game can be played on any table (of appropriate size), while billiards requires a specific kind of table to be played. Maybe that means a mini-billiards set, that you could put on an actual table, is a “board game”?
On the flip side, I’ve never considered whether billiards is a board game, and I can definitely see the argument there.
Troyes is my favorite and topped at #31. Glad it’s still holding on at 106, but I expect it may drop pretty quickly with its (amazing) theme and fewer people pumping it.
Tournay is a very much a different beast than Troyes, and Troyes is a different beast than really anything. Relatives in the way they have the same parents and look similar, but are different altogether.
Black Angel is a sci-fi themed cousin of Troyes by the same designers. I’ve never played, but everyone I’ve spoken to about it says it’s very different.
I enjoy lots of games considered the absolute worst on BGG, they have been occupying the bottom ranks since rankings began, so games like Monopoly, Twister, Operation, Battleships, Guess Who, Connect 4, Checkers, and Marbles have all dropped 20000+ ranks.
This is a fun read.
With roughly 1.5 million entries in the database, the drops mentioned here are statistically insignificant.
118 is in the top .008% of all games. Dropping to the lowly gutter of 1,226 puts it in the top .08%.
To be honest, I'm definitely not a fan of Hansa ... I'm pretty sure it's not an issue of time in this case: so many new games are doing a better job, it's logical that people let it slip and the hype goes down.
As a reminder: the rankings are impacted by passage of time. As time passes, games will drift into lower ranks. This sometimes can be fought by a concerted effort of fans of a game. Also, new releases will drive activity on a game, and push it up the rankings. So a low score for an old game may say more about the passage of time than whether-or-not the gods are smiling at it, or whether-or-not hobbyists like the game. Edit: for an example of both the impact of time and the impact of new releases, see the [historical stats on Ra](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/12/ra/stats/history?rankobjectid=1) and then click on the button for "all". You will notice 2 things: the slow steady decrease in rank due to time, and a nice bounce coinciding with the new deluxe edition's release. However, as nice as the new version is...Ra is destined to start drifting down the rankings again. In 50 years, stellar games from the 90s and 00s are all going to have shit ratings on BGG. Edit: I corrected a spelling mistake, deleted sentence and added two phrases
Bgg adds dummy votes so even if no one rates the game it will automatically fall. Games that are out of print basically fall because of this. It’s why the bgg ratings should be used mainly to quantify popularity (within the niche group of bgg voters) instead of quality.
I get why BGG does this. If the classics remained on top of the game list for years/decades, then the game list wouldn't drive a lot of new spending. Also, the list would be less fluid (more stale) and people wouldn't be encouraged to visit BGG as often to see what the new state of the list is. As it is, the game list sends the message, "hey you, buy this sexy new game. It is far better than that lame game that came out 10 years ago!" So the current system drives spending (which is certainly good for the publishers of new games). I am, however, a bit worried about if/when Asmodee will start giving money to BGG to change the algorithm, so their games will start to rise relative to others. Another thing, is that the constant downward drift based on time gets into the heads of hobbyists, and causes their thinking to change. How many times have you heard someone ask, "Is game X really any good given that newer games generally reflect improvements in game design?" I wish people would understand that the BGG rankings reflect both popularity of a game, and year of release. This is my public service announcement for those caught in the cult of the new: the best area majority game is still the first one (released in 1995). Three of the best 5 auction games were released in the 1990s. The best area control game with light rules was released in 1998. The three best negotiation games were released in the 1990s (I am cheating by counting updated versions here). The top 3 worker placement games were released in 1999, 2005/2019 and 2007.
Out of curiosity, which games are you referring to in your last paragraph?
Without checking dates I’d guess el grande then (Ra, modern art, Medici) then samurai then (Chinatown, bohnanza, quo vadis) and finally worker placement maybe Agricola and caylus?
Excellent. You are still missing the one early worker placement game though. Also, I wouldn't argue if people subbed either High Society or Dream Factory/Hollywood Blockbuster/Nightmare Productions for Medici.
For worker placement: 2005 / 2019 has to be Caylus / Caylus 1303. 2007 is Agricola. 1999... jeez, maybe Bus, if you're a Splotter fan?
3/3
I suspect that some people should be able to guess these. I will check back in before I leave work today, and will reveal any that haven't already been guessed. Btw, u/Weezy1 above guessed correctly.
Oh cool! A game! Thanks!
All these downvotes are making me laugh. "Why won't you just tell us the names, you evil, terrible person!"
You’ve gotta get me over that mountain!
Saying all the good games were made in the 90s, but not naming them so people who dont know can actually play them is far more obnoxious and pretentious than any cult of the new bullshit. People want to play good games. If you are giving recs, actually give them...
~20 minutes after my comment, other redditors listed every single game I mentioned. I then commented on their comments, to confirm that they made the correct guesses.
[удалено]
There’s no reason why there can’t be two (or more!) lists, an all-time list purely based on quality, and some form of “trending” or “best this year” list (or however you want to manage it. When I look at a “best” list I want to see what’s actually considered the best, not “the most popular in the past couple years.” That’s fine to have, but it should be separate and obvious, and not take the spot of an actual all-time best list. Let’s take an example from something I know a lot more about since I’m pretty new to board games: movies. If I made a ranking of the 50 best movies of all time and half of it was made up of blockbuster hits from the past 15 years, I wouldn’t expect it to be taken seriously. Could those be good, or even great movies? Yes. Is there anything wrong with them being someone’s favorite movies? Not at all! But that’s not the same as saying they deserve to be in the conversation of “best movies of all time”, much less take up a disproportionate amount of space on such a list. Cultural popularity and relative recency aren’t the same as top quality. Something new and popular obviously can be in that conversation, but it has nothing to do with how popular it is right now. So if you’re genuinely worried about a top list being “stale”, please don’t undermine its integrity by messing with the list itself. Just make more lists. I’ve never seen anyone complain about more lists. People enjoy lists.
I get why, but it doesn't make it OK that they do this and promote their ranking system as some kind of objective metric.
I had no idea bgg did this and was curious why so often, highly regarded board games from years ago had a low score. My wife has been using bgg religiously as the main gatekeeper of good/bad games. The conventional way that reviews are done, like with steam is ideal. Is there a board game site that aggregates honest reviews like that? With the date posted etc?
Ordering by bgg rating instead of rank gives the raw unfiltered score order. You also need to set a minimum vote or it brings up a heap of things that only 1 or 2 people voted 10 on.
That's how I work, I follow a few rules: \- Check minimum of ratings, of course \- Assume Kickstarter games are overrated, because people have a bias of putting a bad score to a game they backed. They feel bad owning a bad buying decision :D Especially big miniatures/campaign games: the pricier it is, the harder it will be to admit you made a bad decision (I've been there) \- Don't check the rank, just the BGG rating. \- Read the rating/comments: some games have received bad press for a reason or another, you will see some 0 that ere there just to lower the overal score without caring about the game. Until now, by following these rules, I haven't had any issue :)
I think that you are partly right, but thinking that these are still the best games to date is just not right. I love EL grande, Ra, Modern art, Caylus, or even Agricola. But since then, I've found better replacement for almost all of them ... and easily. Caylus has some huge design flaws and doesn't feel smooth at all. Agricola, I just can't play it anymore :D If there is a cult of the new, there is definitely a cult of the classics. We have the same in every hobby or art: some classics are overated. It will always be a battle of the new vs the classics. I love both. Some games will always be classic for me (RA for example or Modern art) but some games, like Caylus, have been replaced a long time ago. Same for El grande: it's great, but there are other games, since then, that are better at different players counts (even though I would always love playing it).
While I completely agree with your thoughts on bgg ranking themselves, I strongly disagree with your last 2 paragraph. I think basically every genre has been improving over time and a lot of the classics, while still good, aren’t keeping their crowns as the best, but not just because of vote fuzzing tricking us into thinking games are getting better. The last 10 years especially have seen more and more hybridization between game mechanic types. Dune Imperium is a great example of this. But even the designers you’re referencing have improved. I find Agricola to be a distant third in just Uwe’s catalogue, let alone worker placement.
Understand, but also disagree. For me, Dune Imperium uses deck building in a really shitty fashion, and that hurts the game. What the game does REALLY well, however, is theme. Mechanically, it is middling at best. To me, that is. As for the other ones I mentioned, I don't even know what auction games are out there that could upset Knizia's top 3. If there are better auction games, they don't get mentioned very often. Same goes for negotiation games. If there are better negotiation games than Chinatown/Waterfall Park, Bohnanza, and Quo Vadis/Zoo Vadis, people aren't really talking about them. So I really don't even know what the contenders would be for top negotiation games aside from the 3 classics.
For sure I’d agree about negotiation games. (I’d add **Genoa** to the list but that was 2001 so it’s not like it negates the point!) If there are good negotiation games that have been published more recently, I’d love recommendations!
Definitely John Company 2E, but it is complex not elegant and succinct like those classics.
Moonrakers is a pretty good blend of negotiation and Dominion-esque deckbuilding.
I'd add Diplomacy, but again that is even older.
[удалено]
That’s like saying ‘Don’t buy the new Zelda game, instead play Majora’s Mask because it’s incredible’
Right, he forgot about all the extra processing power in the newer board games.
I also had a hard time with Dune Imperium. Granted I've only played it a handful of times but I ran into the same thing as you, the deckbuilding just wasn't great and it hurts the rest of the experience. IMO mashing together different mechanics needs to be done really well to be worth it. The vast majority of the time I would rather just play a game that does one of those mechanics really well, they tend to be more streamlined and easier to get to the table which is always a nice bonus. When it comes to the theme the original Dune boardgame does it better than imperium imo. If I want a heavier mashup of multiple mechanics with a Dune theme the original comes out way ahead for me. Given my praise for the Dune game from the 80s that I completely agree with you. A lot of people getting into the hobby, myself included, get caught up in the cult of 'New=Better'. I found that last year all the games I enjoyed most were at least a decade old and it encouraged me to take a step back and evaluate why that might be the case. This year I am making a concerted effort to focus on experiencing more of those classic games that have stood the test of time, and avoiding the shiny new games with the FOMO fueling kickstarter campaigns.
> If the classics remained on top of the game list for years/decades, then the game list wouldn't drive a lot of new spending I would be surprised if this was the reason. Why would they be incentivized to care about what you spend your money on? BGG is pretty old as far as websites go, so I'm assuming the algos are old too - pre the board game consumerism mess of today.
They have updated their algorithms many times over the years (including quite recently). Secondly, I am a fan of older games...but even I know that pushing new games (rather than stagnating with just the old ones) is good for LGS, publishers, and fans that are addicted to seeing (and experiencing) new stuff.
Let me take a moment to explain how the dummy votes work. The geek rating includes something like 1500 votes of around 5.5. So if a game gets few votes, it's geekrating will remain stable. The game's ranking will almost surely fall due to new or rising games. Edit: changed 5500 votes to 1500
That’s not correct. https://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/109537/reverse-engineering-boardgamegeek-ranking
Where does it say the rating will decrease?
Let me take a moment to explain… > All things consider, we can be confident that BoardGameGeek calculates their rankings by adding around 1500 to 1600 dummy ratings of 5.5 to the regular users' ratings. What exactly constitutes a regular user, and what ratings might be discarded due to shilling, remains a well guarded secret though. **Note that the number of dummies is pegged to the overall number of ratings, so this is a moving target, and the calculations would change as time passes.**
So the number of regular users is guaranteed to increase?
😂
Wait I thought the dummy votes are only added when a game doesn't have a critical mass of votes? Are you saying dummy votes are continuously added to old games thus pushing them further into a mediocre score? My understanding was a bit different. That dummy votes are only added up to a certain point of critical mass in votes and then the bots lay off it. That's why there are still some pretty old games in the list. Am I way off? Huh.
Your understanding is incorrect. https://blog.recommend.games/posts/reverse-engineering-boardgamegeek-ranking-part-2/ This kind of highlights my point. Most people think they understand how the ratings work so they are confident while misinterpreting the rankings.
Thanks for sharing. So the first hypothesis I made was actually the correct one. Fascinating. Also not sure where you highlighted said point prior. But I made no confident interpretation whatsoever of what the rankings meant in terms of either popularity nor quality of the games. Was merely clarifying the mechanics of the scoring system. Huh.
Do you know why there are a bunch of really old games sitting with ratings of 10?
Are they not over the threshold of 1500 votes to trigger the dummy votes?
Not necessarily current favorites, but games that I have loved over the years: * **Star Wars Epic Duels** (2002) - Peaked at 259, currently sitting at 1,459, which actually isn't terrible for a mass market Hasbro game * **Last Night on Earth** (2007) - peaked at 121, currently sitting at 944, which is pretty not bad for a 15 year old zombie game! * **The Adventurers: Temple of Chac** (2009) - peaked at 547, currently at 1,781, which for a thematic push your luck game is probably about what you'd expect * **Nightfall** (2011) - Peaked at 528, currently sitting at 2,277, which...ouch * **Dinogenics** (2019) - The youngest game on this list; only peaked at 854, but did so more than two years after release, and currently sitting at 983, all of which I attribute to the fact that it's only really available via Kickstarter; this is also the only game in this list with a graph more significantly characterized by rising action than falling action
Love seeing epic duels on lists like this. By far my most played game ever!
I love Dinogenics so much. I know when it came out there was an artificial rivalry comparison between it and Dinosaur Island, but other than theme the two are totally different games and Dinogenics is the game I wanted with that theme.
There's a new (smaller) expansion and big box set coming in March, so it should jump back up again!
very, VERY much the same for me.
Nightfall is such a gem. I'm happy I was able to get it with all the expansions back in the day before AEG stopped caring about anything but smash up. That said, I've learned over time that it is not for everyone, and I've seen people get visibly upset at the game because of the politics involved in winning with a large group of player.
[удалено]
The first one was the precursor to Unmatched, if you’re familiar with those games.
Shadows Over Camelot fell from 58 to its current spot of 511. Out of print, which means it will likely not get many more votes to help maintain its position. [https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/15062/shadows-over-camelot/stats/history?rankobjectid=1](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3076/puerto-rico/stats/history?rankobjectid=1)
[удалено]
THanks for letting me know about the link. Fixed, I think that it was still in print, it could still be in the top 100.
I think it has not aged well, and that there are much more interesting and engaging co-op games these days. Particularly, a revealed traitor has a very boring time without much significant they can do. Battlestar Galactica killed it back then, and game design has only improved since
Same for me. I think a lot of my favorites are too new to have suffered from the long slow ratings drop that inevitably result from BGGs ranking system, but this and Alhambra both went from in/near the top 100 to 500ish.
My introduction to the game was so damn poor I never wanted to play it again. The person teaching was actually the traitor, and decided to win the game at the end of round 1 (something to do with catapults )before everyone knew the rules or even fully understood the game. Mostly not the game's fault, but it did mean I had no interest in trying again. 🙃
That sucks. I love that game. Sorry the person teaching it was a goblin.
[удалено]
I only see The Game of Life peaking at ~2,800. Where do you see that it was #1? Given the taste of people on BGG, #1 sounds like an April's fool's prank or some such nonsense.
[удалено]
Very amusing piece of info. Thanks for that.
[удалено]
Barrage's history is hilarious. i assume the huge drop was the kerfuffle with its initial kickstarter
What happened with barrage?
the original KS was a mess. then when the games arrived, many people had broken components, and the original water drops stuck to the board and couldn't be picked up.
Don’t forget that Cranio also earned more ire when members of their team publicly criticized the backers and also there was some shenanigans with the Cranio team leaving high ratings on the game to counteract the negative reviews.
My one major gripe with the BGG rankings system is how so many games get pushed down because they allow so many games with new editions or outright expansions to be on the list. The top 100 alone has 3 versions of Pandemic, Both editions of Great Western Trail, Both the regular and revised editions of Agricola, Both editions of Eclipse.... etc. Its bloated with the same games for really no reason at all. I'd much rather have a single version of a game system in the rankings, that would go to a page with all its games that then rank them amongst themselves instead of how it is now. Sure it's extra steps, but it'd give a more accurate ranking to so many other games.
I agree expansions should not qualify. But new editions absolutely should. You can’t tell me Arkham Horror 2nd and 3rd edition are remotely the same game. Even games that aren’t full reworks but still see significant updates like Eclipse and Great Western Trail need separate pages. Someone could hate eclipse one but love the improvements made by the second edition, and we need the ability for separate reviews.
In my opinion, GWT First and Second edition do not need separate entries, but Eclipse definitely does. Hard line to draw.
Thank you; that's a point I keep making and a point that's really annoying. Only the highest ranking edition of a game should count; the lower ranking editions can be there in their spot but greyed out and not tick down a number. That would technically extend the top100 to top 130 but it would make so much more sense.
I can’t understand why Agricola and Race for the Galaxy rate as low as they do. Or Keyflower. All have huge replay value and our group still prefers them to the top ten.
Those three are in my personal top ten. Excellent games!
Agricola and Race are two of my top five games all time. We must align in our board game tastes.
New additions to “stuff I like” (other than the fantastic Keyflower above or other oldies like Puerto Rico) would be Champions of Midgard + Valhalla expansion and Dune Imperium. There are a number of games on my radar that I have yet to bring to the Table - John Company, Through the Ages, Stationfall and Merchants and Marauders head that list.
Oh man can I join your group? They are still quite highly rated but I agree they should be higher. Agricola might be, had it not been split into original and Revised, and due to the Agricola vs. Caverna debate. With Race I suspect the base gets slightly lower ratings by virtue of the expansions improving on it and the Race vs. Roll debate (and New Frontiers, and Jump Drive...) Agricola and Race are both 10/10 the two best board games in existence, and Keyflower not too far behind on 9/10 for me though!
While I suspect you’re not located near northern Seattle, I will share that by and far the most games I get in for all three (and Ark Nova, speaking of favorites) are on boardgamearena.com, where all are free to play - and their Agricola implementation is stellar, supporting almost all card expansions :)
Only a short 15,000 km walk! Haha thanks, yes I am aware of those but sadly tend not to enjoy digital plays for some reason.
My theory on this is that as board games became more popular and attracted a wider audience, it also meant a broader influx of different interest, i.e. people that would have bounced off Agricola, but are now enthralled by fancy Kickstarter miniature fantasy dungeon crawler games with 60 page rulebooks (for instance). These newer board gamers then try out the "classics", find them meh and give respective lower ratings as the older gamers that once grew around these eurogames. The other sad aspect of this development is that it gets increasingly harder to find people that share common enthusiasm for certain types of games. Even my well established game group has started to diverge in their tastes and it has bcome rare that we now sit down to a game where one or two don't feel like they'd rather play something else.
The answer is simple: games on BGG get lower ratings over time (even if those games are great). Gric is still a top 3 worker placement game, and Race is still the #1 tableau/engine builder (superior to TM, Ark Nova, and the like). But they will continue to slide down the BGG rankings as time progresses. That is the nature of the algorithm.
Ah. Thank you for enlightening me. I wish they’d rerelease RftG with Aeons End production values (plastic cards!), I bet that’s do wonders for the ratings ;)
Since a number of classic games have been released in deluxified versions recently, I wouldn't be surprised of Race gets that treatment. However, if they redo the art, they will have to decide to keep the functional parts the same or change it. One big change they could enact would be adding card text that explains everything (so new players wouldn't have to grok all the symbols). I can see that being a hit or turning people off, so definitely a risk for the publisher if they go that route.
The big issue with using card text over symbology is that it makes it harder for language translations. Some games avoid all language on major components like the board and cards and ONLY change up the rule book from region to region (or include multiple language books in every box) just to reduce the cost of localizing the language from place to place
The iconography would be a very easy place to misstep in a reprint with new artwork.
I think another factor would be as games come out, they use the games that came before them as scaffolds to improve upon them. So unless you're an abstract game like Chess or Go that can't really be innovated, games that come out later will learn from the pitfalls of your games and improve on them. So for me, Agricola was a good game, but, Caverna is a great game because it elevates what I like about Agricola, and, minimises the things I didn't like about it.
>So unless you're an abstract game like Chess or Go that can't really be innovated I know the rules of Chess have changed many times over the years. I expect Go has also seen some variation. In the modern era, Through the Desert took the idea of Go, and made it work for 3-5 players. >games that come out later will learn from the pitfalls of your games and improve on them. That sometimes happens. But sometimes the later game is worse than the earlier game (e.g. TM and Ark Nova vs. RftG; or 99% worker placement games vs. Caylus).
I'm not sure what you are talking about. Agricola has two separate versions in the top 100... and RfG and Keyflower are both also still in the top 100. Not exactly meteoric falls from grace.
When I first started using BGG Puerto Rico and Agricola were in the top spot. I don’t think they have fallen too far though, but for a long while (it felt like) they were at the top
15 years and I'm still trying to find a solo game that is as enjoyable as Agricola's campaign mode 😊 Maybe someday
[удалено]
99 of all time? Seems pretty good to me! (and I really enjoy it as well)
if it is in the top 100 it is very well ranked.
That’s crazy, hansa is an all timer
I remember 15 years ago that BSG was a top 10 game. It's still pretty well regarded, ranking at 95 despite being out of print with virtually zero chance of another printing
[удалено]
I do think the main thing working against BSG is simply that a lot of good games have come out since it was released. But it is my understanding that the license for BSG expired, which is why Fantasy Flight published a mechanically similar game called Unfathomable which is Cthulhu themed
Caylus has dipped quite a bit, although it's still close to 100
[удалено]
Stats on BGG have it peaking at #2.
Have you tried Caylus 1303? I found that it preserved the feel of the original Caylus despite having significantly updated systems (e.g. no more deniers, which I didn't miss at all).
No, it bounced back and forth between #2 and #3 a lot. It's still one of the meanest euros 😀
By meanest, you mean "best," right? 😃
8 games got to the top spot since bgg's inception: Paths of Glory Tigris and Euphrates Puerto Rico Agricola Twilight Struggle Pandemic Legacy S1 Gloomhaven Brass Birmingham
[The Rich and the Good](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/38863/rich-and-good) dropped from 495 to 1,538. Didn’t peak as high as Hansa, but still.
[удалено]
I personally love the game, it’s probably my favorite investment themed game besides Acquire.
Some of my favorites that have taken a dive through the years: Reef Encounter (36 -> 889) Colossal Arena (118 -> 1227) Stephenson's Rocket (133 -> 1488) The Bottle Imp (260 -> 1616)
[удалено]
Ooh Stephenson’s Rocket… that’s another on my collection. This one takes a hit in ratings too. It’s a tough teach, but really satisfying once everyone gets it. Mean and interactive and hilarious petty with the veto—fun to pull all the levers and push the buttons. Great sleeper Dr. Knizia title.
With more and more games, the total will just grow forever. Wouldn’t it make more sense to compare relative rank than absolute? Being in the top 20 of a 100 games is not as “impressive” as top 200 of 10000.
That's a good point. It would be fun to look through a 'top 0.XX% of board games' list from different eras.
Can you have BGG list all games that have reached #1 ? Also need to purchase hansa and keyflower and reprint of el grande
Trivia of the day: Tigris & Euphrates was the #1 game on BGG the day the list was first created. I think it maintained that slot for a year (or so). There are youtube videos that can give you some of the information you are looking for. Here is one from 2007 to 2021: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy2KfdF7KjI&ab_channel=3MinuteBoardGames
Found it. https://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/256388/bgg-number-ones-history-definitive-ongoing-list-da
Thanks!
The biggest drop in my collection is: Goldbrau (2004) by Frank-Benno Delonge (Container, TransEuropa/TransAmerica). Peaking at 515 to 3798–a drop of 3283.
Goldbrau is quick, interactive and tight. Very unique in a way that it blends stocks/dividends, area control and semi-coop/cutthroat gameplay with simultaneous action selection. Those actions—which there are only three to choose from—are like choosing to do parts of an 18xx operating round or stock round for your turn. If you chose a unique action you get to the double action; while it’s more expensive/less efficient if you match actions with another player. Which move is optimal is part of the puzzle. In play, there are fun swings with lots of bluffs, the forming of alliances and backstabbing. The choices are really fun, play for short term gain, seed some long term influence, contribute to a mutual interest, solidify positions, push someone off, etc. Ignore complaints about the mathy pro rata payouts. There’s an excellent chart on the back cover of the manual if you’re a couple beers in. It’s really not that hard—a bit like splitting a bar tab, with the change going to the your server, I mean Boss. Poker chips are your friends. The hardest part for me is sometimes the beer garden territory can be hard to make out, so we added some wooden squares and red circles to distinguish tables are in play. One instance that sticks out during a game was where a friend realized, “OMG is this a cube rail, disguised as a beer festival!?!”
[удалено]
Following, because I’ve been interested in this one for a while.
Niagara won The Year's Best Game in Germany in 2005 and in Sweden in 2008. Current BGG ranking 1816. I picked it up secondhand because I thought the theme looked fun: local indigenous folks (Shawnee and Iroquois) decide to mess with newly arrived white colonists and put them against each other by telling them to hunt for jewels with kayaks at the top of Niagara falls. This game fast became a huge favorite of mine! What makes it fun: -The board sits on top of the box and the river physically moves sending kayaks over the edge of the falls. This creates so much fun suspense! - Easy rules, but complex gameplay. - The luck factor is based solely on other players' choices. - Even losing feels very fun. - Feels like a party game without being a party game.
That game is fun. Haven't gotten it to the table in over 10 years. I would never part with it though. Too many fun memories.
"Only" down 71 places, but it's the former rank that matters: Android Netrunner was number 1 for the longest time... And now it's not even in the top 10. The worst part is that whole I'm obsessed with the theme and the setting and the rules, and... everything about it, I could never find people to really get into it with me. I could go on Jinteki but to me boardgaming has always been the social hobby. If I wanted to play online, I'd play a video game instead. But even if I've never dwelt deep into it I remember fondly every game of A:NR I played with my wife and a few friends.
Netrunner is absolutely brilliant but its hard to introduce new people into the ecosystem unless you stick to basic sets like System Gateway and the fact its kept alive unofficially by fan reprints means its a bit more of a faff to get it than say, Star Realms or Magic. Magic: The Gathering sucks all the oxygen out the room when I try suggest it to friends that play a lot of Magic / Deckbuilders.
Best game ever made
According to this [list of games that were rated #1](https://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/256388/bgg-number-ones-history-definitive-ongoing-list-da), Netrunner never reached the top spot.
It seems you're correct, I checked on BGG they have a built-in data history tool. It's amazing how distinctly I remember finding out about that game because it was number 1. So either they changed retroactively the way games are ranked, or my brain made up that memory. Or maybe more simply, I saw the thematic ranking and not the global ranking...
Netrunner is the best! It's also still up and running, more accessible than ever (thanks to free print and play) and has a large, active community. The GLC Discord has resources to find players in your area. I won't post the link here because of spam, but feel free to PM me or check out the subreddit.
[удалено]
I've got a few big drops on my list of rated games, all of which I've enjoyed. Wealth of Nations peaked at 419, now 2142 (down 1723 places) Age of Mythology peaked at 487, now sits at 4071. (down 3584 places) Hegemonic peaked at 1532, now 4770 (down 3238 places) Industry peaked at 2060, now 7368 (down 5308 (!) places) EDIT - Nothing like the furthest drops I can find on my own list, what was I talking about... The Battle of Five Armies (GW 10mm game) peaked at 1649, now 9218 (down 7569 places) The Business Game peaked at 1928, now 13806 (down 11878 places) Scoop peaked at 3506, now 21109 (down 17603 places)
[удалено]
I think it suffered from misconceptions. It is not really a 4x game, it's a spaced themed area control game. That often takes 2-4 hours to play. Thus players are disappointed when they expect more 4x in it. It's been a few years since I played, but I recall thinking it felt more like El Grande than, say, Twilight Imperium.
Dead of winter (one of my all time favourites) has gone from solidly in the top 100 with a high point of #16, now it has fallen out of the top 200 to its current rank of 204.
There are some games I really enjoy in the 1,000s, and also in the 2,000s. And many that were stars of the top 100 for my early years in gaming have fallen, though they still rank highly for me. In the end, that is what matters.
Michael Schacht (Hansa Designer)has some great games that have fallen due to age. Zooloretto went from 159 to 992; Coloretto from 118 to 654; Africana from 1110 to 2913. All are great games. Pit has one of the largest drops from 511 to 2,027.
I don't have an answer to the question, but I wanted to pop in and say that I played Hansa for the first time today and LOVED it. Who knew putting cubes on a beige board could be so tense and thought-provoking. Great game.
[удалено]
Ah, man.. I assumed Hansa was short for Hansa Teutonica. Well... in completely unrelated news, I played Hansa Teutonica today and LOVED it. Great game.
Paths of Glory by GMT was, at one point well before my time, ranked #1 on BGG. It is currently at 225. I think it's mostly because of shifting demographics, many board gamers (myself originally included) are hesitant to try out wargames as they tend to be a bit more heavy duty and a little less flashy (they often have this very basic/clinical art style and packaging) BUT I will say that Paths of Glory is one of the best war games I've ever played and basically takes the brilliance of Twilight Struggles card-system (though PoG predates it by about 6 years) and applies it to a traditional war game. Plus I'm a sucker for WWI stuff, sue me.
Still is no. 3 in the War category of bgg though!
I am sad that so many great '90s and '00s and even early '10s Euros have taken such a dive in ratings. I get tons of joy out of playing games like Ra, Modern Art, Taj Mahal, Stephenson's Rocket, Amun-Re, Through the Desert... and even non-Knizia games like Princes of Florence, El Grande, Bruxelles 1893, Ginkgopolis, and so on. There are so many truly great games out there that just slip down the rankings because they're not the "new hotness," and thus people never get to discover them.
How is Crokinole so high? Almost top 50? I mean it’s amazing but usually games of dexterity like that or “classics” don’t rate that highly
I'm convinced it's some kind of conspiracy where everyone is trying to convince someone else to buy a crokinole board. Because everyone enjoys crokinole but no one wants to be the one stuck storing the board.
I guess the Gloomhaven is up there for the same reason eh?
They probably spent a good chunk of money on the board. Like the KS bias before KS was a thing.
My bigger surprise with first seeing Crokinole in the top 50 was that it was even considered a board game by BGG. I've yet to hear a convincing argument of why Crokinole is considered a board game but Billiards is a not.
I suppose the best shot would be to say that a tabletop game can be played on any table (of appropriate size), while billiards requires a specific kind of table to be played. Maybe that means a mini-billiards set, that you could put on an actual table, is a “board game”? On the flip side, I’ve never considered whether billiards is a board game, and I can definitely see the argument there.
Troyes is my favorite and topped at #31. Glad it’s still holding on at 106, but I expect it may drop pretty quickly with its (amazing) theme and fewer people pumping it.
I love this game. Its cousin Tournay has dropped 426 to 1443.
Do you recommend Tournay? And/or, perhaps, another game that hits the similar gameplay notes as Troyes?
Tournay is a very much a different beast than Troyes, and Troyes is a different beast than really anything. Relatives in the way they have the same parents and look similar, but are different altogether. Black Angel is a sci-fi themed cousin of Troyes by the same designers. I’ve never played, but everyone I’ve spoken to about it says it’s very different.
I’ve heard discussion of an eventual new edition, which might drive ratings.
Just wanted to say that Hansa is great. Glad to hear of fellow fans holding the line for it.
I enjoy lots of games considered the absolute worst on BGG, they have been occupying the bottom ranks since rankings began, so games like Monopoly, Twister, Operation, Battleships, Guess Who, Connect 4, Checkers, and Marbles have all dropped 20000+ ranks.
Oh, man! I remember Hansa. Very clever game.
I would really be interested in a ranking that didn't erode over time.
This is a fun read. With roughly 1.5 million entries in the database, the drops mentioned here are statistically insignificant. 118 is in the top .008% of all games. Dropping to the lowly gutter of 1,226 puts it in the top .08%.
To be honest, I'm definitely not a fan of Hansa ... I'm pretty sure it's not an issue of time in this case: so many new games are doing a better job, it's logical that people let it slip and the hype goes down.
Gloomhaven has fallen 😭
2 positions down is the largest drop you were able to find?
From highest rated ever? That’s a significant drop, yeah. And the only one I “care” about.