4 ms·

One problem I have with the rankings here is they seem really prone to grade inflation and band-wagoning. Even more-so when the game is expensive.

eru 3y ago
Yes. And they are also just aggregates of what people think. They aren't God given absolute quality judgements. Yet, even with all the caveats, it's still remarkable how much better boardgames have gotten.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > They aren't God given absolute quality judgements. This seems a bit of a high bar to make only one review site have to clear.
bombcar 3y ago
The BGG rankings are a particular viewpoint into a general take on board games; the way I look at it - anything high ranked is going to be "good" even if I don't particular like the play style, theme, or execution. Many are "good but not for me". The problem with the rankings is that some very playable games are ranked low. It's a meme on BGG but CandyLand is famously shit on: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5048/candy-land https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5048/candy-land - but it's a perfectly acceptable "game" for very young children, and if you've ever dealt with said children you know that getting them to successfully complete a CandyLand session without going backwards on the track, randomly wandering off, taking multiple cards, etc is a serious feat. It's not a great game but it's certainly still playable in the niche it occupies.
- eru 3y ago
  Candyland might be an ok game for young children, but there are certainly better games for that niche, too. Just like Risk can be an entertaining game, but it's far from the most entertaining game you could play during that time.
- hot_gril 3y ago
  Yeah, I've heard of very few of the top ones, and they look like the super complex kind of games I don't play. I did play Pandemic Legacy and didn't like it. Then I cmd+F'd for Diplomacy, Catan, and chess on the top list, didn't see them, and said nah.
  - eru 3y ago
    Catan isn't actually all that great (and I say that as someone who bought his set back in 1995). We have much better games these days. Stripped of its cultural significance, chess isn't that great either for a general audience. It suffers from analysis paralysis. I would only recommend it to a niche audience. I love Diplomacy; I played many games over email, in person and even participated in the German Diplomacy championship (face-to-face) back in the 2000s. Yet, it's also a very niche game, and I can see why some people would rate it low. I actually prefer the game over email, because it gives you more time to think, sending emails resembles the telegraphs of the early 20th century and I am less likely to burn out from a months long game with one move every few days than one very intense day of face-to-face play. Btw, if you like Diplomacy, I recommend playing on the 1900 map variant. It's basically an improved version of the standard map. See http://uk.diplom.org/pouch/Online/variants/1900-GG.pdf http://uk.diplom.org/pouch/Online/variants/1900-GG.pdf Or for further reading https://diplomacygames.com/baron-von-powell-creator-of-1900/ https://diplomacygames.com/baron-von-powell-creator-of-1900/ or http://uk.diplom.org/pouch/Zine/F2007M/Roburn/1900.htm http://uk.diplom.org/pouch/Zine/F2007M/Roburn/1900.htm
    - hot_gril 3y ago
      Catan is merely ok from a serious gaming perspective, but for most people sitting around having fun, it's a go-to. There's value in it looking nice and being easy to understand, and I can see it staying popular 20 years from now. The top listed modern games have only ever come up in niche board game group settings for me, while even chess and Diplomacy have been much more popular. This is only my experience, but I'm probably not alone in thinking the top games are all very uncommon. I've actually only ever played Diplomacy over Backstabbr.com with friends, so analogous to email/postal play (if you still count that as a board game). Completed several games now, and I've been wanting to do it in-person. That 1900 variant has more detailed notes than any other variant I've seen, and I'd like to give it a try!

eru 3y ago

Yes. And they are also just aggregates of what people think. They aren't God given absolute quality judgements. Yet, even with all the caveats, it's still remarkable how much better boardgames have gotten.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> They aren't God given absolute quality judgements. This seems a bit of a high bar to make only one review site have to clear.

bombcar 3y ago

The BGG rankings are a particular viewpoint into a general take on board games; the way I look at it - anything high ranked is going to be "good" even if I don't particular like the play style, theme, or execution. Many are "good but not for me". The problem with the rankings is that some very playable games are ranked low. It's a meme on BGG but CandyLand is famously shit on: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5048/candy-land https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5048/candy-land - but it's a perfectly acceptable "game" for very young children, and if you've ever dealt with said children you know that getting them to successfully complete a CandyLand session without going backwards on the track, randomly wandering off, taking multiple cards, etc is a serious feat. It's not a great game but it's certainly still playable in the niche it occupies.

eru 3y ago
Candyland might be an ok game for young children, but there are certainly better games for that niche, too. Just like Risk can be an entertaining game, but it's far from the most entertaining game you could play during that time.
hot_gril 3y ago
Yeah, I've heard of very few of the top ones, and they look like the super complex kind of games I don't play. I did play Pandemic Legacy and didn't like it. Then I cmd+F'd for Diplomacy, Catan, and chess on the top list, didn't see them, and said nah.
- eru 3y ago
  Catan isn't actually all that great (and I say that as someone who bought his set back in 1995). We have much better games these days. Stripped of its cultural significance, chess isn't that great either for a general audience. It suffers from analysis paralysis. I would only recommend it to a niche audience. I love Diplomacy; I played many games over email, in person and even participated in the German Diplomacy championship (face-to-face) back in the 2000s. Yet, it's also a very niche game, and I can see why some people would rate it low. I actually prefer the game over email, because it gives you more time to think, sending emails resembles the telegraphs of the early 20th century and I am less likely to burn out from a months long game with one move every few days than one very intense day of face-to-face play. Btw, if you like Diplomacy, I recommend playing on the 1900 map variant. It's basically an improved version of the standard map. See http://uk.diplom.org/pouch/Online/variants/1900-GG.pdf http://uk.diplom.org/pouch/Online/variants/1900-GG.pdf Or for further reading https://diplomacygames.com/baron-von-powell-creator-of-1900/ https://diplomacygames.com/baron-von-powell-creator-of-1900/ or http://uk.diplom.org/pouch/Zine/F2007M/Roburn/1900.htm http://uk.diplom.org/pouch/Zine/F2007M/Roburn/1900.htm
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    Catan is merely ok from a serious gaming perspective, but for most people sitting around having fun, it's a go-to. There's value in it looking nice and being easy to understand, and I can see it staying popular 20 years from now. The top listed modern games have only ever come up in niche board game group settings for me, while even chess and Diplomacy have been much more popular. This is only my experience, but I'm probably not alone in thinking the top games are all very uncommon. I've actually only ever played Diplomacy over Backstabbr.com with friends, so analogous to email/postal play (if you still count that as a board game). Completed several games now, and I've been wanting to do it in-person. That 1900 variant has more detailed notes than any other variant I've seen, and I'd like to give it a try!