TOP 10 Board Games RUINED by ONE thing!!!

[@Diceonahill]

1K views!!! Thanks guys you are awesome!

[@benjaminl429]

Cosmic Encounter shines with the right players. We had a game a month or two back where one guy could have one with others, but decided to sabotage them at the last minute so he could taste victory alone... which then led to another guy almost winning, and me being slingshot from last place to winning the game due to a combination of my powers and others seeing my position as no threat. It's a great game with selfish people.

[@BlueTorchWeddings]

I have a few but I'll mention one: Ready Set Bet. I love Ready Set Bet but the calculation of points after each round, slows the pacing down to a crawl. A ton of calculations and the distributing money to all the players was just way too slow with 6+ players

[@earthling-ad]

I often think about what ruins traditional board games and quite often it is down to one mechanism. For instance, Cluedo (or Clue for anyone in the US) is actually a great game at its core but the roll and move mechanism just ruined it for me as a child. The very fact that you could miss a turn to start a rumour just because you rolled poorly is such poor design. I know a lot of people house-ruled it out but it really shouldn't have been there to begin with. Don't know whether it has changed in subsequent printings but my fix was that you don't use dice at all but could just move to adjacent rooms or use secret passageways.

[@earthling-ad]

Nemesis allows a player who is eliminated to take control of the aliens, so I dont think its particularly a problem that there is player elimination. Its very rare that more than one player would be eliminated early on. From my experience, players are mindful that if other players are eliminated too early, nobody will survive, but I get that if you are playing with a particular crowd it could end up that way.

[@Diceonahill]

Yes, it is true that there is a variant that tackles that. So they at least have tried to address the problem.

[@stenolebrretzen675]

From my experience, if someone dies, the game's pace accelerates greatly and it won't take long for the game to finish. I think its greatest problem is if you have "that guy" who always picks the murder objective in the group. There's no tension if you know from the very start that "Oswald" is going to try to kill someone.

[@robertthurman9866]

I think having one overpowered faction in a game like this is a good thing. It can be given to a new player to even things out. It can be an AI player to compete alongside other players. Or it can just not be used for a group that is experienced. Having varied strengths in a game serves as a handicapping system. The better players get the weakest factions the newer weaker players get the stronger factions.

[@Diceonahill]

That's an interesting perspective. Personally I would prefer a way to handicap a player in some way if thats the case. The ability as it is now is static and can't be adjusted, unless house-ruling. What you are saying is valid though.

[@stenolebrretzen675]

Competitive players seem to have adopted a negative point bidding system at the start of the game to address the imbalance problem. Factions and player boards are randomly selected, and then players will have an auction where point values of those factions are adjusted. It's a functional fix if everyone knows the game well enough to appropriately put a value on the imbalance. I think playing in that environment makes it obviously clear how solved the game is. The game lacks an element of chaos.

[@TheHEAVYDAN]

I love the Combat in Dwellings, my only issue is buying cards is the best strategy by a lot.

[@markchamberlain7715]

Great discussion. Apologies for the late post, but I'm going to say Root has been ruined by bad teaching every time for me - even though I've watched all sorts of teaches and playthroughs prior.

[@nickmaldonado59]

This is exactly why I couldn’t keep it… and I already have another “assymetrical factions on a map with an emphasis on ASSYMETRICAL” so I couldn’t justify a game that took that to the Nth degree. I wasn’t into the game enough to WANT to find a dedicated group to keep coming back to it.

[@jasonc2784]

You can play cosmic encounter without shared victories unless an alien power requires it.

[@earthling-ad]

Tile tearing is real. I hate it and that's why i use a hobby knife when unboxing new games. Live and learn!

[@Diceonahill]

Yeah, this one is a bit on me. Although I do think the game would be overall better with plastic tiles or something. As over time, the wear and tear would create the same problem.

[@tmcd5049]

​@@Diceonahill Frankly, you should have either taken it back to the shop or complained/ asked for replacements from the publisher.

[@brianthomson3095]

Great idea for a list and a good list (thanks for the warnings). It would be nice if you could recommend a house rule to potentially fix each issue, or perhaps it's broken beyond any hope. Thanks. The "Skull" entry is not limited to that game. Any game with punch boards can suffer from this. But, not all tokens are hidden in the game, and therefore not as much of a concern. Two things I do to mitigate the tearing is: punch them out back-to-front, and punch them out slowly. I have torn a few tokens, and as long as the torn piece is in good shape, you can carefully glue it on. Might not work perfectly for a hidden token though, such as in "Skull".

[@Diceonahill]

Yeah that is a good idea! If I revisit the topic I'll consider that.

[@Diceonahill]

And yes, the tokens with skull. I bought it to play with my niece and nephew. They were keen so we unboxed it together. So arguably my fault haha. Though, cardboard wears over time so eventually there are going to be nicks. I guess I felt plastic would have been a better choice.

[@Ayeshteni]

The Turnover rule in GW Bloodbowl. Makes the game completely unplayable.

[@jimalexander687]

I really enjoy "Smash Up", but I agree that constantly counting damage on each base was annoying -- which I why I use cubes. Each player has cubes in his/her own color to signify how many of the damage points are theirs on each base. I also have base boards (which came with one of the expansions, I don't remember which -- perhaps one of the "big boxes"), on which you place your bases in play, each which has a number track around the edge on which to place a counter. Either is an easy fix to this problem if you otherwise enjoy the game.

[@sirguy6678]

Fun video! It’s interesting to see a “truthful opinion” about some of these games which the fan boys are constantly foaming over! Too many people don’t want to admit they just spent $100 on a game they will only play once..

[@pujaemuss]

I hated the Time Stories games, because of the mechanism where the punishment for running out of time is to go back to the beginning again and redo all the stuff you already did, only more efficiently. It's an interesting idea to use the time-loop trope of a character who gets their day optimised because they've been through it so many times already, but it's not actually an enjoyable experience to have.

[@Diceonahill]

Agreed! There's no fun to be had in going through the motions and trying to catch up to where you were earlier. Just a waste of time.

[@stenolebrretzen675]

The point of the game is that you run out of time and then you go in again with all the information you found the first time. Ideally you don't need to do any of the exploring you did before because you already know what you would find. The problem with the game in my opinion is that you expend the game when playing it. It effectively has no replayability. With the cost of expansions, it ends up giving you very little game for your money. If you approach the game with the wrong attitude, you will just end up failing, not having fun and also spoiling the story. So, that's another strike against the game.

[@arekkrolak6320]

Nemesis is a horror game. In horrors people die. What do you want from designers? To hand over participation trophies? :)

[@Grigeral]

Way to completely miss the point though. The issue there is the game lasts 1.5-3 hours, according to the box which let's be honest, is rarely all that accurate and often goes on longer. But let's presume 2-2.5 hours for an average game to be generous. If you invite friends over and one of them dies in the first 15 minutes, then they have to sit there for 2+ hours doing jack dick. Are you telling me if that happened to you, you'd be happy that you wasted your entire night for 15 minutes of game time and then absolutely nothing?

[@ryanrawn7049]

The one game that is above all others on the frustration scale is Hostage Negotiator. Ugh, what a drag.

[@Diceonahill]

Yeah man, I feel you.

[@earthling-ad]

My play group are in the middle of a gloomhaven campaign and we just did a scenario in which there are a lot of monsters and allies. Much of the game was spent going through the motions of the automated monster turns and it absolutely killed the experience for us. Each round was taking 45+mins and everyone was completely switched off by the time it came to their turn. Hasn't quite ruined it for us but definitely playing some shorter games at our next game night!

[@Diceonahill]

That sounds awful! Haha. Someone might have to cook up a house rule or something for that scenario.

[@JonathonV]

Completely agree with what you said about Scythe, Dwellings of Eldervale, Paperback, and Cosmic Encounter (I haven’t played the others). I also dislike player elimination and dice combat. I like Scythe more than the others in your list, but I’ve noticed that faction imbalance is a common thread in Stegmeier’s games (Tapestry, e.g.). Here are some of mine: BREW. You wouldn’t expect a game with this many Euro mechanisms and pretty art to be this mean. BROOM SERVICE, REVOLUTION, etc. Almost as bad as the “random dice luck determines everything” is the “players make choices in secret, reveal, then cancel each other out if they match” kind of luck. SEPTIMA does this too, but that’s not the only thing I disliked about that game (I also didn’t like how the action loop was too predictable). CINQUE TERRE: Why do unfulfilled contracts take negative points? Their ability to be fulfilled is determined by a dice roll at the beginning of the game. You start with a contract, and if the dice are unfavourable it’s not worth as many negative points, but it’s not worth as many positive points either, and as soon as you complete a contract you get another one. HUES AND CUES. The hues on the cards don’t match the hues on the board due to bad component quality, so you have to look it up on the board, surrounded by other colours. Huge fail! KLUSTER: This game is beautifully elegant in its simplicity. But I’m easily startled, and don’t enjoy being startled, so this game is just torturous. (Similarly, I also don’t like READY SET BET because of all the sudden yelling.) MERCHANTS OF THE DARK ROAD: Why are there extra hardships for the person who starts a quest when anyone can follow a quest and get almost as much benefits and no risk (they just miss out on the track placement)? For us it turned quickly into a game of chicken because no one wanted to start their own quest. OCEANS: Those predators can get so swingy. You can literally get ones that are so strong that you are passively killing all your neighbours’ species and they have no way to catch up. PULSAR 2849: I’m not convinced that structures are ever worth going for. They require so much of an investment and you have to dig so deep into the pile to get decent ones that if you’re the only one going for structures you’ll definitely lose. That’s all I can think of at the moment!

[@Diceonahill]

That's a solid list! Hopefully, some of them you can still enjoy. Although, we are very lucky to have so much variety in games that if something bugs us we can move on to another game.

[@JonathonV]

@@DiceonahillVery true! 😀 In going through my game stats to think of examples of this phenomenon, I realised there weren’t as many as I thought. It turns out that I actually like a lot more games proportionally than I thought I did, and the games I didn’t like were usually the wrong genre for me entirely. I’m fortunate to have three game groups per week, so I have the opportunity to try a lot of new, great games. There are many bad games, but also so many good ones!

[@dago6410]

Skull is in my top 10, but... Yes I agree, i can play it 6 player really cause of the same component issue. I need to buy second copy....

[@88slow]

Great video and fellow Australian content. Subscribed 😀 disagree though with 2 of your choices. Scythe - Stonemarier even notes in green in rulebook that the Rusviet may seem broken but under normal circumstances their repeat action can't be chosen (or not the best). You can't say a game is ruined in this sense because you could just not play with it (why play Scythe at 5). Your play of it may have been ruined by it cause the other player seems Op but you are too. It's actually not the factions that are broken..it's actually your chances of winning playing optimally with their faction + player boards. Some combinations are worse than others. Bgg has some posts. It's essentially solved. Still a great game though. Skull - Yeh it was ruined by you. It's not the game so abit unfair to be on the list cause you didn't mention it's not the game's fault. If it was a list of funny circumstances that ruin a play. Sure. Maybe buy a cheap 2nd hand 😂 just dont buy the pink version cause some tiles are miscentred (so yeh producrion fault). Anyways keep it up!

[@Diceonahill]

Thanks for the support dude. I still enjoy scythe from time to time but the imbalance is glaring to me and feels like a problem with an otherwise great game. The imbalance doesnt just stop at Rusviet I'm afraid, they're just the worst offender. Crimea is also a very powerful faction and there are others like Nordic that make me scratch my head as their faction ability has no real application in the game at all. It's still fun but I hesitate to sit down for a 1-3 hr game when I can't unsee the problems. Yeah I see your point about skull but if the tokens are supposed to be secret cardboard is a poor design choice in my opinions, especially considering the price of the game...

[@88slow]

​ @Diceonahill True that on skull totally get your point. Ruins the game. Could be cards for a way cheaper price point (could make it ourselves with any card game now that I think about it, like 3 same numbers and 1 random). Sleeved. Cause I have nothing else to think abt but games - will use Arboretum cards. Pick 4 colours and 3 cards each then chuck in a different tree card, and call the game Tree Imposters.

[@AdamWhitehead111]

In Nemesis, I rarely see someone die early. It usually happens very near the end of the game. If it happens early, let them come back in with a new character. I don't find Smash Up all that difficult to keep track of. I didn't find paperback all that slow.

[@Diceonahill]

'Rarely' implies that it still happens 😉 Yeah, that's fine. Opinions are subjective after all.

[@AdamWhitehead111]

@Diceonahill yes, but I've also seen a game of pandemic end in the first round... and that didn't involve a player choosing to bare knuckle fight an adult alien.

[@Diceonahill]

Haha that is true can't say I've seen that!

[@yogibbear]

Hostage Negotiator is really good, but yeah if you ignore the mitigation and live on RNG dice rolls then sure it'd be frustrating.

[@Diceonahill]

What midigation are you referring to? The 4 side allows you to discard for a success but you still have to roll it? Apart from rolling a 4, how else can i change the result? If I am missing something do let me know.

[@interstellardave]

Final Girl is leaps and bounds better, IMO. They made it so both 3 and 4 can be changed to successes but, also, I think there are a lot of other things that let you mitigate the luck factor. At least I feel much less at the mercy of the dice in FG than Hostage Negotiator. Now, some of the things I’ve learned from playing FG might help me do better if I play HN again, that’s possible, but I think the system is more refined as well.

[@ropearoni4]

Go west and Alexandros by colovini: scoring was visible and shouldn't have been. When you score, you score for everyone in that area, so you can see it will help your opponent more than you, but by how much more? Is it worth it? Oh, yes, I can see it will not be worth it, and we'll give the lead to them. So, why would I score the area? You can clearly see who is in the lead at all times, even before you try to score. Scoring only for you, sure, or to take it out of the picture for the opponent to score, but nope, they score it as well. Scoring, knowing you will not gain on your opponent needs to be hidden scores, and the incentive to not let them score that area needs to be more along the lines, player who initiates the scoring gets double points, so if you let them score, they gain much more; but if you score it, you take away points from them in a way.

[@Diceonahill]

I'm sorry, what game are you talking about?

[@jamesmorgan1967]

What an original topic. Just subbed!

[@robertthurman9866]

A very fun video.

[@Diceonahill]

Thanks man! I appreciate it!

[@diamondmeeple]

My first thought: Why Skull? And then it was the cardboard, puh! 🙂

[@Diceonahill]

Yeah, this one is more of production problem rather than mechanical. When making the video it was originally titled 'Games ruined by one thing'. So I may have to revert back due to this entry.

[@powertothemeeple1410]

nice video, interesting topic, i don't believe there is a perfect game, even after many play testing, there will always be flaws; i guess it is how much the game appeals to you and if you are weighting the fun over the flaws; and i just subscribed to your channel :)

[@Diceonahill]

Thanks for the support :)

[@allthingshalo9388]

Sweet video, dude!

[@Diceonahill]

Thanks friend!

[@nickmaldonado59]

For me, it’s ANKH… that mechanic where one team has to merge with another ruined an otherwise great game. I couldn’t find any sort of house rule that would circumvent this terrible catchup mechanic, it ticked off so many players.

[@Diceonahill]

Yeah, I imagine many people feel as you do. If you're interested, I have a vid on my channel discussing this very topic.

[@eriklindqvist9923]

It is easy, just don't use the merge mechanic. There is even a scenario that doesn't use it in the rules.

[@nickmaldonado59]

@@eriklindqvist9923 I have brought out and played that! Only thing is, then it felt to me like there would be runaway players if they got a great head start before the merge. The people that were in last seemed to not catch a break, at least with my groups. It felt like a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”… don’t use merge and have my players stay back, or have the merge and have those players usually climb to mid-pack but feel like they’ve lost a lot of their agency because somebody lost all of their progress they’ve made during the game. I tried so many different ways and wanted to love it, I even bought expansions knowing I just haven’t “cracked the game yet”, but for me I couldn’t justify all of the experiences I had with several different groups as soon as we hit that point of the game (both with and without merge).

[@nickmaldonado59]

@@Diceonahill I’m going to check it out now, glad to see I’m not alone :)

[@Noahineer]

TOP 10 Board Games RUINED by a experience or my own perception. Not by a Mechanism

[@Diceonahill]

I hear you, but the games mechanics lead to my misenjoyment. There is only one that'd I'd argue isnt really about a mechanism. But hey, this is just my opinion, doesnt mean these games are objectively bad.

[@PMMagro]

That is way more common yes. But when the mechanism is the issue it is harder to workaround...

[@Domineas]

I would encourage you going forward to separate objective truth from your opinion. A game is rarely "ruined" by a mechanic. Declaring that a game mechanic "ruins" a game is simply invalid. You have no idea what that designer intended, the playtesting involving to arrive at the design decision, or why that design decision was made. It is valid to say, "This mechanic ruined my play experience, and here is why," which is what I think you're attempting to do here. As they say, there is no accounting for taste. You are entitled to your subjective opinions. However declaring that a game is "ruined" as an objective truth due to something that you disagree with, I find to be a bit arrogant. Also, full disclaimer I am a game designer and this popped up on my feed. I've only watched the first minute or so, so in the event my game is on your list I absolutely do not take offense and am not commenting on my game specifically. Designers spend hundred and sometimes thousands of hours playtesting games with hundreds of different people over the course of years. Most of us do it out of love. Please have respect for that process.

[@Diceonahill]

Thanks for that feedback. I'll keep that in mind for future.

[@simonanderson4858]

I think it's implied it's just his opinion. He appeals to personal experience at the very beginning of the video and says so explicitly in the first minute.

[@earthling-ad]

@domineas Only watched a minute or so? So you would have seen the disclaimer that this is an opinion video. I don't think he could have been clearer that these were his own experiences. I get that a lot of time and effort goes into making a game but that doesn't mean individuals aren't going to have bad experiences from time to time from a rare set of circumstances and that can 'ruin' a game for them. I think you need to revisit the meaning of the word objectivity. Objectively, he played these games and had a bad experience and has relayed to us what ruined it for him. His experiences may have been influenced by his own subjective biases, but objectively he has a bad time because of these things. It might not be what the designer intended or even came up in playtesting but it doesn't stop the fact that it is what he experienced. I don't think that's arrogant at all, how is he supposed to know what the designer intended by a certain mechanic if that's not what it did for him?

[@steveholmes11]

I nominate the "gatekeeper" mechanic in KZbin as worst mechanic.