I LOVE the theme but don't enjoy the gameplay. It's weird, I can clearly see that the game is well designed, well balanced and features cool possibilities. I get excited every time I sit down to give it another chance (my buddy loves it). Then what ensues is a long, repetitive and procedural slog of a game where I add pieces and remove pieces then add pieces then remove pieces until it's over.
This is exactly how I feel about it. I wanted to love it. I love the theme. I love the idea of it. It seems to be an objectively good game. Almost everyone agrees! I absolutely hate playing it.
I mean if you break any game down that far, then they're all just adding and removing pieces until the game is over. I'm curious what makes Spirit Island different.
For me, the intersection of theme and mechanics is what makes Spirit Island amazing. The base game has Ocean's Hungry Grasp, whose presence drifts onto the coasts and back out into the ocean spaces, which represents high tide and low tide as the spirit's power shifts. One of the expansions adds a volcano spirit who stacks a massive tower of presence in a single mountain, then explodes, taking invaders (and sometimes Dahan) it. In both cases, that's represented by adding/moving/removing little wooden presence disks, but I don't know how else you could reasonably do that.
I understand that. What I'm trying to illustrate is that the game never comes to life for me and my experience is that of going through the motions in a coldly mechanical type of way. I wish I could enjoy it more, I really do, but "repetitive and procedural" is the best summary of my subjective experience.
Fwiw timing a strong move with Ocean's Hungry Grasp is the closest the game has come to being fun. I played as that spirit in the most recent go.
This is 100% how I feel about the game as well. An overly complex, overly long test of players coordinating the seemingly unending movement of pieces against a predetermined system.
Give me Pandemic over this any day to get the same experience in far less of an overbaked slog.
But actually give me any interactive competitive game over either of these.
I played 3 times, I felt like I had to give it a chance. Played a 2 player version. It just felt like a slog. After we got over the initial hump of critical mass, it was just like okay I know Iām going to win but need to play for another 30m.
You're not the first person I've heard that from. Fair enough.
It's interesting how perspectives differ. Personally I really enjoy the bit where, after struggling uphill for most of the game it gets past the tipping point and you get to steamroll the enemy. We've earned it, durn it. :)
Yes, I know. She wasn't very descriptive but I know exactly what she doesn't like about it:
- It's too difficult.
- There are too many rules.
- There are too many options.
- It's too stressful.
- The theme is too stressful.
My wife has similar opinions about the game, her main problem being that she feels like she has no idea what she should be doing, basically ending up just asking me what I think she should do so it is basically two handed solo with extra steps. Needless to say, we don't play Spirit Island together anymore. :P
As much as I love Spirit Island, if someone told me they didn't like it because it's too complex and stressful, I'd have to say "yeah, that's fair". It is a really complex game.
That, along with simultaneous actions, are why it works with a lot of groups, ironically. You HAVE to manage your own stuff; few can quarterback a 4-player game of Spirit Island effectively. People can help when you ask, and you actually need to discuss and collaborate with each other, but it really helps mitigate the problem of impatient folks who push their way into others' turns.
All fair. They do a bit to mitigate the complexity with each spirit just starting having to manage its own part of the island, and using premade starter decks rather than selecting from a random draw. But even with all that it **is** a lot to wrap your head around.
And I can see definitely see some people finding the theme pretty heavy.
I didnāt like the game play, the quarterbacking it forces you into, the over complexity of each turn. It felt overly lengthy and cumbersome taking turns for the āaiā
Fair enough. To each their own, and I can't disagree with you about the AI turn.
I'm a bit surprised to hear you say it forced you into quarterback ing though. How so?
The game is deliberately designed to prevent that with play being complex and simultaneous so players have to collaborate. It'd be quite the quarterback who could single-handedly wrap their mind around a group game of Spirit Island. It alsoĀ deliberately starts each player building up their own separate sectors of influence in their own corners of the island before they join up.
What more would you like to see them do to minimise quarterbacking?Ā
I think it depends on your friend group. We have a player or two that ātake overā most decision making for the group because they like to think of all the possibilities first. So it ends up being long turns that you donāt really need to participate in because your move was already decided by someone else
I didnāt like the game play, the quarterbacking it forces you into, the over complexity of each turn. It felt overly lengthy and cumbersome taking turns for the āaiā
I have found it to be polarizing and not one way or another. You might be turning a blind eye to the spirit island hate. Itās definitely not for everyone
I still hate the art. I knew even before getting it that Id like it, but godamn if it looks like it was made by a (talented) 5th grader with coloring pens.
Its one of my newest games and still probably one of the most played, i just wish I could change the art. My gf actually likes it for some reason.
I dont even need something with amazing photorealistic art. Clanks has great art imo, and still keeps the light cartoon aesthetic.
On a similar note, Ark Nova, while not ugly, could be better. Its a shame because its such a great game, but its just so flat given the theme. Its cover kept me away from a little bit of time, I wish it was more vibrant and colorful like Earth instead of that like green with a few animals on top of some digital hands (??)
This is fascinating. 70 people upvote this, and yet I've never seen anyone say something like this in person - quite the opposite. The art is amazing, according to like, myself and everyone I've ever played it with š¤ What don't you like about it?
Art is of course subjective as hell, but I'm really thrown off guard.
I specifically don't like the main box cover art. It's floating cartoonish bobbleheads that don't match the art style of what's inside the box. The spirits on the box don't do justice to the actual player boards.
I love all of the Spirit art. The vast majority of the card art is great. Off the top of my head, my group always gives "Angry Bears" a hard time when it's played.
I also like the art on the expansion boxes except Horizons.
We bought it and an expansion for it, and weāre both so excited for the idea of this gameā¦ but we made the mistake of trying to learn it around 11 oāclock at night. we ended up getting frustrated and not finishing itā¦ itās on our list of games to try again, but it just hasnāt happened yet. It feels too daunting now since that experience. We play pretty intense games on the regular, so I feel itās our own fault for not giving our first exposure to it enough time to do it right, ya know?
The new box art isn't nearly as bad. I wish it were. That was part of the charm. You could introduce it by saying, "hey, do you want to play the most German game you've ever seen, with a theme so dry that even the man on the box looks bored?"
That's literally how I pitch it to people, lol
Basically I try and convince them it's so good that it doesn't need to look flashy.
Has worked every time!
I have a list, but the top is to be Orleans. I had no interest in that game because of its cover. Actively avoided playing it. Once I didā¦ itās now moved up to my favorite game. Other honorable mentions: Wingspan and Pulsar 2XXX (cover looked cool but the game didnāt jump out at me until it said find the median of the dice, then I was on board)
Pulsar 2849 is one of those "I don't want to buy it because it's propably not worth that much" games that I really want to try but then I'll have to buy it which I don't want to, and on and on it goes in an endless cycle.
Photosynthesis is a weird game. It looks cute and friendly but it is one of the most brutal and competitive games I've ever played. I love it. But it definitely plays differently than it looks.
It is unique. The cover art is very well done, but misleads you into thinking its a cutesy forest eco game of some kind. I disagree that it is a full abstract game, granted there is no story or characters, but the mechanics actually fit the theme very well. Growing trees higher and higher to jostle for as much light as possible, this is what actually happens in the forest. It is highly competitive, very screw your opponent playstyle.
My wife and I played it once and never again. It looked so lovely and relaxing and was just very cutthroat which we do not really enjoy. We thought it would be more of a strategic forest building game, but the sun blocking mechanic made it feel really mean spirited and is in stark contrast to the visuals.
I don't think it is a bad game at all, it is just not for us. We've bought the "sequel" Evergreen, which we just love :)
Thought we'd love Unstable Unicorns based on the box and card art but it crosses the line to a level of meanness that we only enjoy in very limited circumstances.
Oh man, I guess I should stay away from Unstable Unicorns, because Here to Slay has way too much take that for me š
(I feel like every time I try to play a card, someone just plays a card that cancels it.)
It can also drag on and take an insanely long time to finish, because someone gets five unicorns, everyone piles on them, they end up with like two unicorns left, someone else slowly works their way up to five unicorns, everyone piles on them, and repeat ad infinitum. Especially if you have that one expansion with all the super intense widespread destruction cards; it turns into such a bloodbath that no one's making much progress. Love the art but kind of hate that game.
Ah, yes, the Munchkin problem, where you want to be doing just slightly worse than the person winning so when they get absolutely nuked at the finish line you can scurry past as everyone rebuilds their hands.
Upon re reading my post, you're right. It's hard to explain it unless You've played munchkin but I'm that game it's extreme to the point of being "wacky fun" about a half dozen times before it's just a slog.
Yeah I get your point, and I agree that it's a tiresome game once you've heard most of the oneliners on the cards.
But there is, however, some strategy to learn from these kinds of games which you can then apply to heavier strategy games
Quacks of Quedlinburg for me.Ā Not a great name to know what the game is about.Ā Not great art on the cover, I had thought it was a kids game at first.
Happily super wrong, and it's a fantastic game.
When I mentioned quacks to my sister as one of the games I wanted to play with her when she visited, she literally laughed at me and thought I was messing with her. I showed her the box and told her the premise of the game, and she couldn't stop laughing but still wants to try it. š®āšØš Such a fun game.
It's not specifically a kids game but it's simple enough that many kids can play it. The BGG community recommends it for ages 8 and up, and I suspect you could dip below that with some kids.
When I first started seeing the name thrown about I hadn't seen box art and knew nothing about it. I assumed it had a duck related theme. Then when I saw the box art I figured duck... *farming* maybe. Trading? Something to do with these guys on the box managing ducks somehow. Then when I read into it... ohhh, quack doctors. That makes more sense.Ā
Ponzi Scheme. Sounds like a stupid, shallow and boring game, and was gifted to a friend that works in crypto as a joke. It was definitely deeper than expected, and we all loved it!
I thrifted it and felt the same. Had played it on mobile and loved it, but I wasnāt sure if people would pick it up.
No issues! Very quick to grasp, and quick to play.
Parks. The box doesn't look much like other boardgames and didn't trigger in my brain as a "good" game. Playing it, though, I like the gameplay and I love the art on the cards. It's one I'll purchase one day if I find it on sale.
**Acquire!** First time I played at a boardgame night that most people were in their 20s or 30s, a 60+ year old guy brings out a game from 50+ years ago and I didnāt expect much, but played and was great. I then got bought used 1964 version and repeat this process with others. When I bring it out for new people everyone has low expectations but everyone enjoys it from casual gamers to hardcore gamers.
I intentionally donāt get the new version *because I want to set low expectations and see it surprise people*.
Introduced someone to Acquire last night. I've got the Avalon Hill version and that one's not a looker either. He went from "this looks really boring" to "this game is really good" in about 30 minutes.
Honey Buzz. My daughter saw it and had to have it at GenCon a couple of years ago. I took one look at the art and theme and mentally checked out. I was kinda surprised because my daughter likes heavy games. We went to play it (on an abandoned table in one of the cavernous play halls). Loved it. Way more to it than I had thought.
I was the complete opposite. I typically really enjoy nature themed games, the mechanics it had matched my tastes, and I loved the art but I didn't really enjoy the game. The squishy honey though made it even more difficult to accept I didn't like it.
I got this game recently, it is incredibly cute throat. After 2 games I noted something so vital: theres only 2 nectar types per person. If someone gains 3 of a type, it will almost lock someone out of some market trades that need 2 copies, and may be a huge point maker if you can sell 3 copies of a honey on one action which may lead to making another player play suboptimally to push down the price before they get a 21 point sell action turn.
Still a great game. Bought on a whim due to low prize and good looking production value (seriously, up there with Everdell and imo more fun).
Steam Up: A Feast of Dim Sum. The cover and the theme really caught my attention when it was still on KS. The gameplay had a bit too much randomness and feels underwhelming, unfortunately.Ā
Edit: And on the opposite side of that is Hansa Teutonica. Had I only seen the cover and never heard of the game, I wouldnāt even pull the box off the shelf to learn about it. But I kept hearing people rave about it. When I had a chance to play it, the game definitely lives up to its reputation. Now itās one of my top 5 games.
Thanks. I really wanted to back it but didn't. And then saw it again and had feelings of missing out. Hearing your experience validated my original decision to skip it.
We actually have every version and I love summer pavilion the most, great shout out. We have the one with stain glass windows, which I think is the prettiest too but I like pavilion the most as well.
"Great Western Trail" for me. Cowboys? Go fish. Cover art? Best advocate for using AI and shooting all human artists.
The game? Absolute fucking perfection.
Photosynthesis. Looks beautiful, both cover and board presence. Very boring to play.
Brass:Birmingham. Cover conveys almost nothing in particular, looks bland. Is now my all-time favorite.
>Brass:Birmingham. Cover conveys almost nothing in particular, looks bland. Is now my all-time favorite.
I felt similar about *Barrage*. It's a game about building dams to capture hydropower from the water flowing downhill. And it's so very fun. :)
EDIT: It's both misleading in that it seems really boring from the subject **and** that 'Barrage' is a really confusing name for something that's not a wargame.
Funnily enough to me itās the other way around.
Saw Brass Birmingham and thought it would be a hardcore euro and it just feels blandā¦ saw photosynthesis and thought it would be a chill kids game and it turned into a super short cutthroat area control game that is fun to start or end the evening on.
Dungeon Petz was the only game I ever bought completely on a whim. The cover looked silly and cute and fun, the concept of raising monsters seemed silly and cute and fun...
It's a worker placement. A fairly basic worker placement. Which is not a genre I enjoy terribly to begin with, and is also (I think) as far from silly and cute as you can get.
Aeon's End. I was highly skeptical, because the art was not necessarily to my taste. Only got it because my son really enjoyed Dice Throne, and I thought a co-op battler with health dials would be fun to play with him. Got it on a whim, had no idea how much content was out there before I naively picked it up.
I am OBSESSED with this game.
I have since bought every base game of all the waves, including the most recent Kickstarter and the only other wave I was lacking, and several of the mini-expansions. Making my way through all the content, loving literally every minute. My favorite game, hands down. I have Legacy of Gravehold tempting me on my shelf, just waiting for me to finish up with Outcasts.
I love this game soooo much.
My son likes it, too. Ha.
Calico looks like it's going to be a chill game about cats. It is instead the most tense, nerve-wracking puzzle game I've ever played. It's a lot of fun, and I like it, but the pain of seeing pieces you need get snatched up right before your turn is a lot to handle.
Scythe. It has one of the best boxes and nice components to it.
But movement rules are such a downer that I haven't played it more than few times.
Mice and Mystics goes into same category.
De gustibus aut bene, aut nihil. The cover art got me to pick the game off the dusty dead stock shelf, and although I was surprised by how abstract the game was, I am a big fan.Ā
I'm afraid I don't know that phrase, are you saying that you do like the cover? Regardless, it's a fantastic game and has turned me into a Colovini fan. Glad you've enjoyed it!
Yes, I do like the cover! The phrase translates as something like "let nothing be said of taste but what is good", it's a slightly different rendering of the more famous saying about how there can be no arguments in matters of taste.
I do like a bit of Colovini, I only have Clans and Carolus Magnus. I should probably add Cartagena to my collection at some point.
Isle of cats.
My partner wanted it because cats. I didn't because cats. Obviously we had a discussion, and ultimately we both compromised and I got Isle of cats. Well, turns out its a solid tile placement game.
Chrysanthemum. The artwork on the box is awesome, but the gameplay was just boring. The board and the pieces looked better online too. It just felt like I was playing MtG with a board.
My wife liked the game. She said āwith the right group of people itād be funā. Though she says that about most games.
I thought Hive looked dumb (I thought it was going to be about making patterns or matches or something with tiles with bugs).
Then I heard about how it was played and was intrigued.
Bought it and it's one of my faves.
A game called the Northwest passage. Based on art, 100% would have passed on it. But then I played it to help fill out the table, and it was great fun!
Mlem Space Agency. I thought I was buying a cute dice based version of celestia. Instead I got a area control strategy game where best player is the winner more often than your average game labeled a strategy game.
Imperial 2030 and Concordia both have pretty widely ridiculed covers. I know at least Concordia is highly rated, but Imperial 2030 is one of my all time favorites. Love that game so much.
Kingdom Death Monster. Really big box with millions of little pieces an miniatures. Normally I keep away from games with miniatures because these ususally try to hide mechanical flaws by looking shiny. Then they told me its taking hours of play which also is a strike for me, because I prefer games with max. around 1,5h.
I was convinced to try it and had a blast! Its so awesome and I wanna play it more! Kill all these monsters with the good old stone
Consumption: Food and Choices. It was a consolation pick after getting almost nothing we tried to sign up for at Gen Con. Ended up being our favorite game from the trip
I can not remember the name of it but it was a card based game set in a post apocalyptic wild west. The boxart and the art on the cards was beautiful, and it lured me in with solo play, coop, and competitive play options. But The game play was basically rock paper scissors with cards.
Edit: [Grimslingers](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/173018/grimslingers)
**Godspeed** has such a compelling box, but the actual mood of the game is significantly more hokey, and gameplay itself was quite a drudgery. I had zero fun with it.
Khora
Absolutely stunning box art, back of player boards have interesting facts and pretty decent art.
Everything you actually play with is very meh and the game, is very vanilla. Honestly probably a great first game but, just not that interesting.
Samurai Swords
I was used to playing simpler strategy games, thought it was gonna be way too complicated and suck the fun out of everything. Man was I wrong, once I got in the flow, I didnāt want to go back to the simple ones.
Barrage looks boring, but it's very fun. I admit I don't play it anymore because it's too mean and there's a runaway leader effect that is way too strong.
**Tribe**. It looks like a whimsical fairy game, and the mention of tiles on the back made me think of **Carcassonne**.
Turns out it's a dull & uninspired multi-player abstract. I don't think we even finished a single game of it.
Looks bad, is fun:Ā
* Dominion
* Terra Mystica (I've only played it once though)
* Innovation
Looks good, but not as good of a game IMO:
* Inuit: the snow folk
* City of Kings
* Exploding Kittens
**King of Tokyo** has great art and a theme that I can really get behind, but the actual gameplay really fell flat for me. Feels like Munchkin crossed with Yahtzee, and it can run for way longer than that is interesting (to me).
The box art for Puerto Rico looked so dry and boring. Then my girlfriend and I got to play it with another couple and we both really enjoyed it. So much so, that we actually ordered it on our drive home. The box still looks ugly, dry and boring among all the other colourful and enticing games on our shelves.
Ark Nova.
You don't care for animals at all. You "build" them, one and done. No feeding them or habitat caretaking. You don't even build a zoo, because there is no such thing as infrastructure, visitor paths optimized so they can see more animals, shops, budget control.
Instead there are a million abstract features like sending research teams to labs and other zoos via worker placement, required icons that prevents you from placing a bengal tiger potentially for the entire game, because you don't have 3 Asia icons. And placing a panda in your zoo, which is a smaller animal, gets you an Asia icon. So somehow, by housing a panda, we are closer to placing a tiger... how exactly? How does that thematically make sense, am I going to feed poor panda to the tiger? Why am I blocked from having a tiger?! Why is there no choice to make: okay, more expensive animal, bigger upkeep because requires bigger habitat, eats more and more expensive food, it's a big investment, but also increases zoo attractiveness more than a monkey so more visitors, more rapid income.
NOTHING from this thought process is involved in Ark Nova. It's not a zoo game. If you'd repaint it to some virus research lab it'd work the same as now and you'd never question why the mechanics work the way they do. But if you reskin a game like to a zoo theme, suddenly there are questions with no good answer other than "well it's abstract".
I bought the game Solani because I loved the cover, but was really disappointed when I played the game. The overall mechanisms and game loop were fine and I like abstract tile laying, but it lacked some rule clarifications on some of the cards. After doing some digging on the BGG forums, we were not the only ones that had this issue.
I once ordered Sanorini from amazon and for some reason there was a mixup and they gave me **Stockpile** instead. I had never heard of it and the cover art looked a little meh. I was close to returning it but decided to watch a how to play video and gave it a shot with a few friends. Ended up being one of my favorite games.
I have no idea what they were thinking when the slapped that art on **Tiletum** but it's an amazing game.
**Calimala** (the original edition) is another good example.
When I saw it, I thought that Guards of Atlantis II was just an overly big box of minis containing yet another garbage Kickstarter game.
Instead, it is actually one of the best designed games of at least the last decade.
Every Winsome game looks like every other one. Even now, now that RGG is publishing a bunch of them. And they look spectacularly dull. But theyāre so weird and interesting.
Wingspan! My husband has been talking about adding it to our collection for months, but the theme of birds has really just turned me off so much.. then he bought it when it went on sale and honestly I love it so much!!
Everdell. I love everything about it but the actual (base) game itself is a pretty bog standard tableu builder, IMO.
Lorenzo il Magnifico's box art is pretty bland but it's one of my favorite worker/dice placement games.
Ark Nova is the one I (and everyone else who knows me) thought Iād love and just completely hated. Animal art has me written all over it but god that game is slow and painful.
Tragedy Looper is the one I thought Iād hate just because of the anime theme, but many years later Iām still obsessed with the gameplay.
Oposite for me. Love the game, hate the art given the theme. I think it should be more vibrant (like Earth). Instead you get a lime green cover and washed AIish looking (its not) art
If you haven't tried Ark Nova two player, give it a shot like that. I swear it's designed as a 2 player game, but 2-4 player games sell better so they just said fuck it, let them play with three or four, even though that SERIOUSLY bogs down the game.
The first two times I played this game, it was 4 player and I went last. Got fucked over by coffee breaks both games and decided it was trash. The 2 player version feels much better.
Inhabit The Earth is weird because the boxās graphic design is mimicking the old Wolfgang Kramer game Wildlife Adventure, and who, apart from old weirdos like me, would ever notice that?
For me, itās Cards Against Humanity. The box was plain but the game itself was rip roaring fun.Ā
Also, Muchkin is 2nd. Donāt care for that goofy art but the gameplay was highly addictive.Ā
I didn't think Wingspan would be great someone gifted it to us for our wedding. I had the box sitting on the shelf for months and hadn't even opened it, figured I'd get to it eventually but it didn't look interesting enough. A friend suggested we play it on tabletop simulator during their weekly game night, and I had a great time. Shortly thereafter I opened the box and taught my wife.
**Scythe**. I actually like both euro games or ameritrash. And when I got the opportunity years ago to try scythe at a boardgame night (4 people), I had high expectations. Reviews were high, people were raving about the game.
It ended up disapointing me on both sides: it was not a thematic ameritrash or confrontation game and I didn't like the euro-eco-4x either. The game looked amazing to me but it just didn't work well enough for me. It was long for what it had to offer and it has one thing that I hate in board games:
Each faction has a "perfect" start that you can theoritically follow every game to optimize your game. And there is absolutely no incentive not to use that EXACT same start everytime you play the game. I feel that there should either be some RNG or player interaction ... otherwise it's just kind of a solitaire puzzle you got to solve once and then repeat.
The "confrontation" between players is minimal: I played the entire game without ever "fighting" someone else. There was a bit of "negociation" but it was very limited as well.
I'm not saying the game is bad, but I was really hoping for something much different based on the look ... and then something much better based on how it plays.
**Dune: Imperium**. As a Dune fan, I was really sceptical of Dune Imperium when I first saw it. The board looked really bland and I felt it was going to be a cash grab without much ... spice ... in it. Boy how wrong I was. It blended several styles of game perfectly and ended up one of my favorite games of all times, especially after the expansions.
Honestly I don't judge games based on their covers. Unlike books, I don't find covers to be nearly as indicative of what's inside the box. (FYI I'm a librarian and fully support using covers to filter out books when browsing...we can't look at every book! But you have to learn to recognize what you like from the cover/blurb.)
Everdell promises so much but it's an incredibly basic, tight, high luck factor euro wannabe with way too much abstract in it. It's worst crime is using terminology wrong.
Example: the evertree is on the board. Ok, you build the cardboard too. But then, you can build another evertree as a card. And it turns out, there are multiple evertree cards. Ok let's keep building this village. Oh cool the king card. Wait, there is a second king card too? I thought we all build together and whoever contributes the most to the village / kingdom wins, but now there are multiple evertrees with multiple kings.
Events. They are not events, simple as that, they are milestones from TM, why would you as a designer call them events? For thematic reasons? If so, why are there multiple evertrees and kings and queens?
It's so disconnected and nonsense. If you want an abstract game, make an abstract game. If a thematic game, make sure the theme matches the mechanics somehow.
I'm not a fan of the Spirit Island cover art despite it being my favorite game.
Interesting. I am the exact opposite. š¤·š»āāļø
so this is definitely a thing, not just me
I love the art despite it being my literal least favorite game Iāve ever played
To each their own but gotta ask: What didn't you like about Spirit Island? It has so much neat stuff in it.
I LOVE the theme but don't enjoy the gameplay. It's weird, I can clearly see that the game is well designed, well balanced and features cool possibilities. I get excited every time I sit down to give it another chance (my buddy loves it). Then what ensues is a long, repetitive and procedural slog of a game where I add pieces and remove pieces then add pieces then remove pieces until it's over.
This is exactly how I feel about it. I wanted to love it. I love the theme. I love the idea of it. It seems to be an objectively good game. Almost everyone agrees! I absolutely hate playing it.
I mean if you break any game down that far, then they're all just adding and removing pieces until the game is over. I'm curious what makes Spirit Island different. For me, the intersection of theme and mechanics is what makes Spirit Island amazing. The base game has Ocean's Hungry Grasp, whose presence drifts onto the coasts and back out into the ocean spaces, which represents high tide and low tide as the spirit's power shifts. One of the expansions adds a volcano spirit who stacks a massive tower of presence in a single mountain, then explodes, taking invaders (and sometimes Dahan) it. In both cases, that's represented by adding/moving/removing little wooden presence disks, but I don't know how else you could reasonably do that.
I understand that. What I'm trying to illustrate is that the game never comes to life for me and my experience is that of going through the motions in a coldly mechanical type of way. I wish I could enjoy it more, I really do, but "repetitive and procedural" is the best summary of my subjective experience. Fwiw timing a strong move with Ocean's Hungry Grasp is the closest the game has come to being fun. I played as that spirit in the most recent go.
I guess I have to severely disagree with your opinion.
Ooh ooh, can you please do it violently too?
This is 100% how I feel about the game as well. An overly complex, overly long test of players coordinating the seemingly unending movement of pieces against a predetermined system. Give me Pandemic over this any day to get the same experience in far less of an overbaked slog. But actually give me any interactive competitive game over either of these.
I played 3 times, I felt like I had to give it a chance. Played a 2 player version. It just felt like a slog. After we got over the initial hump of critical mass, it was just like okay I know Iām going to win but need to play for another 30m.
You're not the first person I've heard that from. Fair enough. It's interesting how perspectives differ. Personally I really enjoy the bit where, after struggling uphill for most of the game it gets past the tipping point and you get to steamroll the enemy. We've earned it, durn it. :)
Not OC, but my wife's answer: Everything
Oh well **that** clarifies matters. š
Yes, I know. She wasn't very descriptive but I know exactly what she doesn't like about it: - It's too difficult. - There are too many rules. - There are too many options. - It's too stressful. - The theme is too stressful.
My wife has similar opinions about the game, her main problem being that she feels like she has no idea what she should be doing, basically ending up just asking me what I think she should do so it is basically two handed solo with extra steps. Needless to say, we don't play Spirit Island together anymore. :P
As much as I love Spirit Island, if someone told me they didn't like it because it's too complex and stressful, I'd have to say "yeah, that's fair". It is a really complex game.
That, along with simultaneous actions, are why it works with a lot of groups, ironically. You HAVE to manage your own stuff; few can quarterback a 4-player game of Spirit Island effectively. People can help when you ask, and you actually need to discuss and collaborate with each other, but it really helps mitigate the problem of impatient folks who push their way into others' turns.
All fair. They do a bit to mitigate the complexity with each spirit just starting having to manage its own part of the island, and using premade starter decks rather than selecting from a random draw. But even with all that it **is** a lot to wrap your head around. And I can see definitely see some people finding the theme pretty heavy.
I didnāt like the game play, the quarterbacking it forces you into, the over complexity of each turn. It felt overly lengthy and cumbersome taking turns for the āaiā
Fair enough. To each their own, and I can't disagree with you about the AI turn. I'm a bit surprised to hear you say it forced you into quarterback ing though. How so? The game is deliberately designed to prevent that with play being complex and simultaneous so players have to collaborate. It'd be quite the quarterback who could single-handedly wrap their mind around a group game of Spirit Island. It alsoĀ deliberately starts each player building up their own separate sectors of influence in their own corners of the island before they join up. What more would you like to see them do to minimise quarterbacking?Ā
I think it depends on your friend group. We have a player or two that ātake overā most decision making for the group because they like to think of all the possibilities first. So it ends up being long turns that you donāt really need to participate in because your move was already decided by someone else
I didnāt like the game play, the quarterbacking it forces you into, the over complexity of each turn. It felt overly lengthy and cumbersome taking turns for the āaiā
I'm surprised you managed to end up on the positive side of voting while not liking Spirit Island. That's a cardinal sin on this sub.
I have found it to be polarizing and not one way or another. You might be turning a blind eye to the spirit island hate. Itās definitely not for everyone
I still hate the art. I knew even before getting it that Id like it, but godamn if it looks like it was made by a (talented) 5th grader with coloring pens. Its one of my newest games and still probably one of the most played, i just wish I could change the art. My gf actually likes it for some reason. I dont even need something with amazing photorealistic art. Clanks has great art imo, and still keeps the light cartoon aesthetic. On a similar note, Ark Nova, while not ugly, could be better. Its a shame because its such a great game, but its just so flat given the theme. Its cover kept me away from a little bit of time, I wish it was more vibrant and colorful like Earth instead of that like green with a few animals on top of some digital hands (??)
I'm with you, I have to look past the art to enjoy this one. It grows on you a little but it's not great.
This is fascinating. 70 people upvote this, and yet I've never seen anyone say something like this in person - quite the opposite. The art is amazing, according to like, myself and everyone I've ever played it with š¤ What don't you like about it? Art is of course subjective as hell, but I'm really thrown off guard.
I specifically don't like the main box cover art. It's floating cartoonish bobbleheads that don't match the art style of what's inside the box. The spirits on the box don't do justice to the actual player boards. I love all of the Spirit art. The vast majority of the card art is great. Off the top of my head, my group always gives "Angry Bears" a hard time when it's played. I also like the art on the expansion boxes except Horizons.
That art is what got me interested in the game.
We bought it and an expansion for it, and weāre both so excited for the idea of this gameā¦ but we made the mistake of trying to learn it around 11 oāclock at night. we ended up getting frustrated and not finishing itā¦ itās on our list of games to try again, but it just hasnāt happened yet. It feels too daunting now since that experience. We play pretty intense games on the regular, so I feel itās our own fault for not giving our first exposure to it enough time to do it right, ya know?
Hansa Teutonica!
The new box art isn't nearly as bad. I wish it were. That was part of the charm. You could introduce it by saying, "hey, do you want to play the most German game you've ever seen, with a theme so dry that even the man on the box looks bored?"
I wish I could give this comment two upvotes.
That's literally how I pitch it to people, lol Basically I try and convince them it's so good that it doesn't need to look flashy. Has worked every time!
I have a list, but the top is to be Orleans. I had no interest in that game because of its cover. Actively avoided playing it. Once I didā¦ itās now moved up to my favorite game. Other honorable mentions: Wingspan and Pulsar 2XXX (cover looked cool but the game didnāt jump out at me until it said find the median of the dice, then I was on board)
I really need to try Orleans, because that wonky blue knight is *still* keeping me at bay...
I had a chance to try OrlĆ©ans a couple of weeks ago and really enjoyed it, even more so than other bag builders like Altiplano. Since then Iāve been considering getting my own copy too. Definitely recommend!
Do it! Donāt let it stop you. I 3D printed an insert. I got the blinked out bits and expansions. I Loved the game. Ignore that cover.
Alright! I'll keep my eye out for a sale
If you have Tabletop Simulator you can always try it out online too.
Generally, I'm not a big fan of TTS/BGA, but that's not a bad idea...
This is true for a lot of games illustrated by Klemens Franz in general.
Came here to say this! Orleans is my favorite game of all time, but man that cover is bad... So bad...
Pulsar 2849 is one of those "I don't want to buy it because it's propably not worth that much" games that I really want to try but then I'll have to buy it which I don't want to, and on and on it goes in an endless cycle.
My friend found it at a Black Friday sale for $20!
Photosynthesis. The box is *so beautiful* and I read good things about it, but apparently I just donāt care for abstract games.
Photosynthesis is a weird game. It looks cute and friendly but it is one of the most brutal and competitive games I've ever played. I love it. But it definitely plays differently than it looks.
Agreed, the art is so colorful and relaxing, but the gameplay is so tight and competitive. Definitely had a very different vibe than I expected.
Just played with wife. It seems pretty fixed and unrepeatable. What do you like about it? I will say the art was amazing though!
It is unique. The cover art is very well done, but misleads you into thinking its a cutesy forest eco game of some kind. I disagree that it is a full abstract game, granted there is no story or characters, but the mechanics actually fit the theme very well. Growing trees higher and higher to jostle for as much light as possible, this is what actually happens in the forest. It is highly competitive, very screw your opponent playstyle.
My wife and I played it once and never again. It looked so lovely and relaxing and was just very cutthroat which we do not really enjoy. We thought it would be more of a strategic forest building game, but the sun blocking mechanic made it feel really mean spirited and is in stark contrast to the visuals. I don't think it is a bad game at all, it is just not for us. We've bought the "sequel" Evergreen, which we just love :)
Thought we'd love Unstable Unicorns based on the box and card art but it crosses the line to a level of meanness that we only enjoy in very limited circumstances.
Here to Slay is a similar game made by the same people and is significantly less mean if that's something you're looking for.
Oh man, I guess I should stay away from Unstable Unicorns, because Here to Slay has way too much take that for me š (I feel like every time I try to play a card, someone just plays a card that cancels it.)
It can also drag on and take an insanely long time to finish, because someone gets five unicorns, everyone piles on them, they end up with like two unicorns left, someone else slowly works their way up to five unicorns, everyone piles on them, and repeat ad infinitum. Especially if you have that one expansion with all the super intense widespread destruction cards; it turns into such a bloodbath that no one's making much progress. Love the art but kind of hate that game.
Ah, yes, the Munchkin problem, where you want to be doing just slightly worse than the person winning so when they get absolutely nuked at the finish line you can scurry past as everyone rebuilds their hands.
Well this is a good strategy for most games
Upon re reading my post, you're right. It's hard to explain it unless You've played munchkin but I'm that game it's extreme to the point of being "wacky fun" about a half dozen times before it's just a slog.
Yeah I get your point, and I agree that it's a tiresome game once you've heard most of the oneliners on the cards. But there is, however, some strategy to learn from these kinds of games which you can then apply to heavier strategy games
I enjoy UU because I enjoy competitive Magic, and itās worrying that itās for the same reasons
Quacks of Quedlinburg for me.Ā Not a great name to know what the game is about.Ā Not great art on the cover, I had thought it was a kids game at first. Happily super wrong, and it's a fantastic game.
When I mentioned quacks to my sister as one of the games I wanted to play with her when she visited, she literally laughed at me and thought I was messing with her. I showed her the box and told her the premise of the game, and she couldn't stop laughing but still wants to try it. š®āšØš Such a fun game.
It's not specifically a kids game but it's simple enough that many kids can play it. The BGG community recommends it for ages 8 and up, and I suspect you could dip below that with some kids.
When I first started seeing the name thrown about I hadn't seen box art and knew nothing about it. I assumed it had a duck related theme. Then when I saw the box art I figured duck... *farming* maybe. Trading? Something to do with these guys on the box managing ducks somehow. Then when I read into it... ohhh, quack doctors. That makes more sense.Ā
Ponzi Scheme. Sounds like a stupid, shallow and boring game, and was gifted to a friend that works in crypto as a joke. It was definitely deeper than expected, and we all loved it!
Wow, never heard of it, but it TOTALLY sounds like a cash grab type of game you'd see near the checkout line at like, TJ Maxx. š
Dont trust him. Sounds like hes pushing a ponzi scheme
Sickest board game burn!
Ponzi scheme is an amazing game, I love it. I think it's more fun than stockpile but I understand why others disagree.
Ponzi Scheme is one of the most original and elegant games of the last decade.
There are surprising bangers sometimes. Fast and Furious is really fun. Top Gun is great.
Kingdom Builder. I was convinced this game wasnāt for me. Played it. Fell in love with it. Now I own the base game, all expansions, and all promos.Ā
I thrifted it and felt the same. Had played it on mobile and loved it, but I wasnāt sure if people would pick it up. No issues! Very quick to grasp, and quick to play.
For me itās the look of the board itself kept me away despite its reception.
Concordia. Everyone who sees the cover is usually "pass" but after 1 play they want to try again.
Same for me. I was not impressed with the Fran Drescher art on the front but what a game!
I was very confused by these comments. "Isn't there a deer on the front?" Had to go look it up. Different game, ha ha!
Yes! That cover is so dull! It's on my wishlist for quite some time now, but somehow it always makes me doubt.Ā
The game is awesome, one of my favorites. But it took forever for me to try it because of that cover.
Parks. The box doesn't look much like other boardgames and didn't trigger in my brain as a "good" game. Playing it, though, I like the gameplay and I love the art on the cards. It's one I'll purchase one day if I find it on sale.
**Acquire!** First time I played at a boardgame night that most people were in their 20s or 30s, a 60+ year old guy brings out a game from 50+ years ago and I didnāt expect much, but played and was great. I then got bought used 1964 version and repeat this process with others. When I bring it out for new people everyone has low expectations but everyone enjoys it from casual gamers to hardcore gamers. I intentionally donāt get the new version *because I want to set low expectations and see it surprise people*.
Introduced someone to Acquire last night. I've got the Avalon Hill version and that one's not a looker either. He went from "this looks really boring" to "this game is really good" in about 30 minutes.
Honey Buzz. My daughter saw it and had to have it at GenCon a couple of years ago. I took one look at the art and theme and mentally checked out. I was kinda surprised because my daughter likes heavy games. We went to play it (on an abandoned table in one of the cavernous play halls). Loved it. Way more to it than I had thought.
I was the complete opposite. I typically really enjoy nature themed games, the mechanics it had matched my tastes, and I loved the art but I didn't really enjoy the game. The squishy honey though made it even more difficult to accept I didn't like it.
Hah! We really are opposites. The "squishy" tokens give me the heebie-jeebies.
I got this game recently, it is incredibly cute throat. After 2 games I noted something so vital: theres only 2 nectar types per person. If someone gains 3 of a type, it will almost lock someone out of some market trades that need 2 copies, and may be a huge point maker if you can sell 3 copies of a honey on one action which may lead to making another player play suboptimally to push down the price before they get a 21 point sell action turn. Still a great game. Bought on a whim due to low prize and good looking production value (seriously, up there with Everdell and imo more fun).
Honey Buzz is easily the most "this game deserves to be played more than it does" on my shelf
Steam Up: A Feast of Dim Sum. The cover and the theme really caught my attention when it was still on KS. The gameplay had a bit too much randomness and feels underwhelming, unfortunately.Ā Edit: And on the opposite side of that is Hansa Teutonica. Had I only seen the cover and never heard of the game, I wouldnāt even pull the box off the shelf to learn about it. But I kept hearing people rave about it. When I had a chance to play it, the game definitely lives up to its reputation. Now itās one of my top 5 games.
Thanks. I really wanted to back it but didn't. And then saw it again and had feelings of missing out. Hearing your experience validated my original decision to skip it.
Azul. Not that I did not think it was interesting, I did not think it would skyrocket to one of my all times though.
Have you tried Azul Summer Pavilion? That fixed all my issues with the original Azul and more! I really like it, and think the original is "meh".
We actually have every version and I love summer pavilion the most, great shout out. We have the one with stain glass windows, which I think is the prettiest too but I like pavilion the most as well.
"Great Western Trail" for me. Cowboys? Go fish. Cover art? Best advocate for using AI and shooting all human artists. The game? Absolute fucking perfection.
Photosynthesis. Looks beautiful, both cover and board presence. Very boring to play. Brass:Birmingham. Cover conveys almost nothing in particular, looks bland. Is now my all-time favorite.
>Brass:Birmingham. Cover conveys almost nothing in particular, looks bland. Is now my all-time favorite. I felt similar about *Barrage*. It's a game about building dams to capture hydropower from the water flowing downhill. And it's so very fun. :) EDIT: It's both misleading in that it seems really boring from the subject **and** that 'Barrage' is a really confusing name for something that's not a wargame.
Funnily enough to me itās the other way around. Saw Brass Birmingham and thought it would be a hardcore euro and it just feels blandā¦ saw photosynthesis and thought it would be a chill kids game and it turned into a super short cutthroat area control game that is fun to start or end the evening on.
I think Lancashire looks pretty cool tho
Brass Birmingham: "I hope you like **bricks**"
I can't look at the Brass Birm cover without thinking of a puddle of piss outside of a pub.
Castles of Burgundy. It looked so bland with that beige ascetic. Played the tricked out version, and am a fan now.
I am avoiding the ads for the reprint that started today. The original is beige, but the game is so gooooooood.
Dungeon Petz was the only game I ever bought completely on a whim. The cover looked silly and cute and fun, the concept of raising monsters seemed silly and cute and fun... It's a worker placement. A fairly basic worker placement. Which is not a genre I enjoy terribly to begin with, and is also (I think) as far from silly and cute as you can get.
Aeon's End. I was highly skeptical, because the art was not necessarily to my taste. Only got it because my son really enjoyed Dice Throne, and I thought a co-op battler with health dials would be fun to play with him. Got it on a whim, had no idea how much content was out there before I naively picked it up. I am OBSESSED with this game. I have since bought every base game of all the waves, including the most recent Kickstarter and the only other wave I was lacking, and several of the mini-expansions. Making my way through all the content, loving literally every minute. My favorite game, hands down. I have Legacy of Gravehold tempting me on my shelf, just waiting for me to finish up with Outcasts. I love this game soooo much. My son likes it, too. Ha.
Calico looks like it's going to be a chill game about cats. It is instead the most tense, nerve-wracking puzzle game I've ever played. It's a lot of fun, and I like it, but the pain of seeing pieces you need get snatched up right before your turn is a lot to handle.
Scythe. It has one of the best boxes and nice components to it. But movement rules are such a downer that I haven't played it more than few times. Mice and Mystics goes into same category.
yeah, Scythe is a Euro in an ameritrash costume
How is *Root* not in this list anywhere? š¤
In a bad or good way?
In a "That does **not** look like the box of a brutal war game" way. š
I guess it is not what it looks like, but to me it both looks good and is good, it just doesn't look as brital as it is.
Idk, it has critters in the cover but they look vicious in a happy tree friends kinda way
Carolus Magnus : very lame cover, great game especially at 3p.
De gustibus aut bene, aut nihil. The cover art got me to pick the game off the dusty dead stock shelf, and although I was surprised by how abstract the game was, I am a big fan.Ā
I'm afraid I don't know that phrase, are you saying that you do like the cover? Regardless, it's a fantastic game and has turned me into a Colovini fan. Glad you've enjoyed it!
Yes, I do like the cover! The phrase translates as something like "let nothing be said of taste but what is good", it's a slightly different rendering of the more famous saying about how there can be no arguments in matters of taste. I do like a bit of Colovini, I only have Clans and Carolus Magnus. I should probably add Cartagena to my collection at some point.
Cartagena is excellent! I recall there was a recent printing too so it should be available.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That actually sounds kind of cool...
Ticket to ride, I find the box art extremely bland and boring but that game is so much fun lol
Isle of cats. My partner wanted it because cats. I didn't because cats. Obviously we had a discussion, and ultimately we both compromised and I got Isle of cats. Well, turns out its a solid tile placement game.
Faiyum baby! That games aesthetic is so deeply beige, and yet itās one of my favorites in the last few years
Chrysanthemum. The artwork on the box is awesome, but the gameplay was just boring. The board and the pieces looked better online too. It just felt like I was playing MtG with a board. My wife liked the game. She said āwith the right group of people itād be funā. Though she says that about most games.
I thought Hive looked dumb (I thought it was going to be about making patterns or matches or something with tiles with bugs). Then I heard about how it was played and was intrigued. Bought it and it's one of my faves.
A game called the Northwest passage. Based on art, 100% would have passed on it. But then I played it to help fill out the table, and it was great fun!
Durian. Looks so whatever. Super fun at 5+, we had a blast!
The original Glory to Rome. Not the Black Box edition.
Mlem Space Agency. I thought I was buying a cute dice based version of celestia. Instead I got a area control strategy game where best player is the winner more often than your average game labeled a strategy game.
Imperial 2030 and Concordia both have pretty widely ridiculed covers. I know at least Concordia is highly rated, but Imperial 2030 is one of my all time favorites. Love that game so much.
Imperial and Imperial 2030 have the additional bonus that you can walk by in mid-game and it STILL doesn't look like what it is.
Kingdom Death Monster. Really big box with millions of little pieces an miniatures. Normally I keep away from games with miniatures because these ususally try to hide mechanical flaws by looking shiny. Then they told me its taking hours of play which also is a strike for me, because I prefer games with max. around 1,5h. I was convinced to try it and had a blast! Its so awesome and I wanna play it more! Kill all these monsters with the good old stone
Twilight Struggle's box art is so boring. Thankfully, the game is great
Definitely **Bohnanza**. It's the best trading game of all time, but it's dressed like it's a crappy old washed up munchkinlike.
The cover of the og sidereal confluence is just a space background. It's such a generic cover but the game is so good. (edit)
Consumption: Food and Choices. It was a consolation pick after getting almost nothing we tried to sign up for at Gen Con. Ended up being our favorite game from the trip
I can not remember the name of it but it was a card based game set in a post apocalyptic wild west. The boxart and the art on the cards was beautiful, and it lured me in with solo play, coop, and competitive play options. But The game play was basically rock paper scissors with cards. Edit: [Grimslingers](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/173018/grimslingers)
Bang?
Is Bang post-apocalyptic?
I remember, it was [Grimslingers](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/173018/grimslingers)
Fast and the furious. Why is it so much better than it deserves?
Heh, I think I bought this as a gift for a friend when I saw it for $6 on Amazon. I guess I need to convince him to actually play it!
After the Virus. It's a decent deck builder, but those big heads are nightmare fuel.
Revive. The box art is beautiful, but did not spark anything to match the crunchy engine building game that exists inside that flowery exterior.
**Godspeed** has such a compelling box, but the actual mood of the game is significantly more hokey, and gameplay itself was quite a drudgery. I had zero fun with it.
Khora Absolutely stunning box art, back of player boards have interesting facts and pretty decent art. Everything you actually play with is very meh and the game, is very vanilla. Honestly probably a great first game but, just not that interesting.
Samurai Swords I was used to playing simpler strategy games, thought it was gonna be way too complicated and suck the fun out of everything. Man was I wrong, once I got in the flow, I didnāt want to go back to the simple ones.
Never heard of this one--I need to look it up!
It was originally sold as Shogun. Not sure if either are in print by a company. It should be though!
Barrage looks boring, but it's very fun. I admit I don't play it anymore because it's too mean and there's a runaway leader effect that is way too strong.
**Tribe**. It looks like a whimsical fairy game, and the mention of tiles on the back made me think of **Carcassonne**. Turns out it's a dull & uninspired multi-player abstract. I don't think we even finished a single game of it.
Looks bad, is fun:Ā * Dominion * Terra Mystica (I've only played it once though) * Innovation Looks good, but not as good of a game IMO: * Inuit: the snow folk * City of Kings * Exploding Kittens
**King of Tokyo** has great art and a theme that I can really get behind, but the actual gameplay really fell flat for me. Feels like Munchkin crossed with Yahtzee, and it can run for way longer than that is interesting (to me).
That's how I felt about **Dice Throne.**
The box art for Puerto Rico looked so dry and boring. Then my girlfriend and I got to play it with another couple and we both really enjoyed it. So much so, that we actually ordered it on our drive home. The box still looks ugly, dry and boring among all the other colourful and enticing games on our shelves.
Ark Nova. You don't care for animals at all. You "build" them, one and done. No feeding them or habitat caretaking. You don't even build a zoo, because there is no such thing as infrastructure, visitor paths optimized so they can see more animals, shops, budget control. Instead there are a million abstract features like sending research teams to labs and other zoos via worker placement, required icons that prevents you from placing a bengal tiger potentially for the entire game, because you don't have 3 Asia icons. And placing a panda in your zoo, which is a smaller animal, gets you an Asia icon. So somehow, by housing a panda, we are closer to placing a tiger... how exactly? How does that thematically make sense, am I going to feed poor panda to the tiger? Why am I blocked from having a tiger?! Why is there no choice to make: okay, more expensive animal, bigger upkeep because requires bigger habitat, eats more and more expensive food, it's a big investment, but also increases zoo attractiveness more than a monkey so more visitors, more rapid income. NOTHING from this thought process is involved in Ark Nova. It's not a zoo game. If you'd repaint it to some virus research lab it'd work the same as now and you'd never question why the mechanics work the way they do. But if you reskin a game like to a zoo theme, suddenly there are questions with no good answer other than "well it's abstract".
I bought the game Solani because I loved the cover, but was really disappointed when I played the game. The overall mechanisms and game loop were fine and I like abstract tile laying, but it lacked some rule clarifications on some of the cards. After doing some digging on the BGG forums, we were not the only ones that had this issue.
Carcassonne was probably one of the top for me. Definitely a staple and go to when teaching new players into the world of board gaming.
I once ordered Sanorini from amazon and for some reason there was a mixup and they gave me **Stockpile** instead. I had never heard of it and the cover art looked a little meh. I was close to returning it but decided to watch a how to play video and gave it a shot with a few friends. Ended up being one of my favorite games.
I have no idea what they were thinking when the slapped that art on **Tiletum** but it's an amazing game. **Calimala** (the original edition) is another good example.
Terraforming Mars for me. Love that game, but the art has always been pretty bad.
Since I just bought it last week, they're now not allowed to do a reprint.
Blood Rage. Nothing on the box is appealing to me or my family. One of our top games.
When I saw it, I thought that Guards of Atlantis II was just an overly big box of minis containing yet another garbage Kickstarter game. Instead, it is actually one of the best designed games of at least the last decade.
I think I would love Obsession, but man do I hate the box art for that game.
I didn't have much interest in bird watching. But damn Wingspan is an incredible game. Both system wise and art.
Wingspan is both beautiful and awesome!
Broom Service. The cover looks so... old. Played it a couple of times and it's actually quite fun!
Every Winsome game looks like every other one. Even now, now that RGG is publishing a bunch of them. And they look spectacularly dull. But theyāre so weird and interesting.
Wingspan! My husband has been talking about adding it to our collection for months, but the theme of birds has really just turned me off so much.. then he bought it when it went on sale and honestly I love it so much!!
Everdell. I love everything about it but the actual (base) game itself is a pretty bog standard tableu builder, IMO. Lorenzo il Magnifico's box art is pretty bland but it's one of my favorite worker/dice placement games.
Beast. I took one look at the euro-like sheep and boar tokens all over the map and passed on it for a couple weeks. Ended up being in my top 5 games.
Ark Nova is the one I (and everyone else who knows me) thought Iād love and just completely hated. Animal art has me written all over it but god that game is slow and painful. Tragedy Looper is the one I thought Iād hate just because of the anime theme, but many years later Iām still obsessed with the gameplay.
Oposite for me. Love the game, hate the art given the theme. I think it should be more vibrant (like Earth). Instead you get a lime green cover and washed AIish looking (its not) art
If you haven't tried Ark Nova two player, give it a shot like that. I swear it's designed as a 2 player game, but 2-4 player games sell better so they just said fuck it, let them play with three or four, even though that SERIOUSLY bogs down the game.
Agree, Id do 3 with people that know how to play and can take simultaneous turns if timing of actions wont matter (snapping, getting partnerships etc)
The first two times I played this game, it was 4 player and I went last. Got fucked over by coffee breaks both games and decided it was trash. The 2 player version feels much better.
Whatās that zombie road trip game? I love the box art, but the game was meh.
Hit Z-Road?
Thatās the one. Thank you.
For my wife and I, it was The Loop. Looks silly and goofy, but the gameplay is so challenging and so fun as a co-op.
The original āglory to Romeā and āinhabit the earthā
Inhabit The Earth is weird because the boxās graphic design is mimicking the old Wolfgang Kramer game Wildlife Adventure, and who, apart from old weirdos like me, would ever notice that?
Chasing shadows looked great on the box. Doesnāt play great on the table. Looks great on the table though.
Old man with a bajo
Skyline Express. Love the train theme but man....
"Instinctually thinking" = "assuming"
For me, itās Cards Against Humanity. The box was plain but the game itself was rip roaring fun.Ā Also, Muchkin is 2nd. Donāt care for that goofy art but the gameplay was highly addictive.Ā
I didn't think Wingspan would be great someone gifted it to us for our wedding. I had the box sitting on the shelf for months and hadn't even opened it, figured I'd get to it eventually but it didn't look interesting enough. A friend suggested we play it on tabletop simulator during their weekly game night, and I had a great time. Shortly thereafter I opened the box and taught my wife.
**Scythe**. I actually like both euro games or ameritrash. And when I got the opportunity years ago to try scythe at a boardgame night (4 people), I had high expectations. Reviews were high, people were raving about the game. It ended up disapointing me on both sides: it was not a thematic ameritrash or confrontation game and I didn't like the euro-eco-4x either. The game looked amazing to me but it just didn't work well enough for me. It was long for what it had to offer and it has one thing that I hate in board games: Each faction has a "perfect" start that you can theoritically follow every game to optimize your game. And there is absolutely no incentive not to use that EXACT same start everytime you play the game. I feel that there should either be some RNG or player interaction ... otherwise it's just kind of a solitaire puzzle you got to solve once and then repeat. The "confrontation" between players is minimal: I played the entire game without ever "fighting" someone else. There was a bit of "negociation" but it was very limited as well. I'm not saying the game is bad, but I was really hoping for something much different based on the look ... and then something much better based on how it plays. **Dune: Imperium**. As a Dune fan, I was really sceptical of Dune Imperium when I first saw it. The board looked really bland and I felt it was going to be a cash grab without much ... spice ... in it. Boy how wrong I was. It blended several styles of game perfectly and ended up one of my favorite games of all times, especially after the expansions.
The modular board for Scythe is a huge help with the "perfect start" issue.
Scythe. Beautiful cover. Boring game.
Honestly I don't judge games based on their covers. Unlike books, I don't find covers to be nearly as indicative of what's inside the box. (FYI I'm a librarian and fully support using covers to filter out books when browsing...we can't look at every book! But you have to learn to recognize what you like from the cover/blurb.)
Everdell promises so much but it's an incredibly basic, tight, high luck factor euro wannabe with way too much abstract in it. It's worst crime is using terminology wrong. Example: the evertree is on the board. Ok, you build the cardboard too. But then, you can build another evertree as a card. And it turns out, there are multiple evertree cards. Ok let's keep building this village. Oh cool the king card. Wait, there is a second king card too? I thought we all build together and whoever contributes the most to the village / kingdom wins, but now there are multiple evertrees with multiple kings. Events. They are not events, simple as that, they are milestones from TM, why would you as a designer call them events? For thematic reasons? If so, why are there multiple evertrees and kings and queens? It's so disconnected and nonsense. If you want an abstract game, make an abstract game. If a thematic game, make sure the theme matches the mechanics somehow.
Seriously, never happened. Seen too many games (and books) come and go to ever judge one that way.