Curb Your Enthusiasm since they're both created by Larry David.[/quote]Samtemdo8 said:
Eeeeh...I wouldn't count that since its literally made by the same guy.
Is Risk the worst board game ever made?
- Thread starter Drathnoxis
- Start date
Eeeeh...I wouldn't count that since its literally made by the same guy.
Yeah, risk is awful unless you have 3-4 people. First of all, it forces you to think around multiple people and also causes deck of matching cards to expire much much faster, which means the endgame where you can get like 100 armies in one turn and basically chain-clear the board comes much faster.
But even then, it's not that great and really does rely too much on just endlessly rolling dice over and over.
If I WANT to spend 8 hours playing a board game, I'd rather play Arkham/Eldritch horror and at least have a an entertaining time going mad and dying, or maybe somehow eking out a win.
Still, back to Risk...I feel like monopoly is even less interesting, even more drawn out and-
I used to love the game as a little kid, but the moment I started becoming "Strategically aware" and realized that the entire game is just plain luck, I rapidly lost interest in it.
Literally the only real player input is the Share The Wealth cards, and those are doled out enough that they typically even out in the end.
It's actually a pretty well designed game. It's not really super entertaining, but it's not actually bad.
Me and a few other people had to try to make a virtual version of it for a final project for C++ class, and one of the players bought it for us to play it and test it out...And oh my god the entire game is just plain RIFE with trolling potential.
"Oh ho, you're literally on the cusp of victory? ...WELP, I'm using this spell that lets me steal an item, and I'm stealing your Talisman, so you literally can't enter the final space and win the game. And you're about to die, so there's no way in hell you will even manage to get back out of the center of the map alive, ha ha!" is one of the most dick moves I've seen anyone pull in ANY kind of game. XD
Anyway, I'm pesonally way more of a fan of deckbuilding games like Dominion and Thunderstone and (sorta) Boss Monster.
Those are a total blast to play, because you're weighing your strategy against your opponent's strategy and trying to adjust as best as possible. They're great.
But even then, it's not that great and really does rely too much on just endlessly rolling dice over and over.
If I WANT to spend 8 hours playing a board game, I'd rather play Arkham/Eldritch horror and at least have a an entertaining time going mad and dying, or maybe somehow eking out a win.
Still, back to Risk...I feel like monopoly is even less interesting, even more drawn out and-
THIS.Johnny Novgorod said:
I used to love the game as a little kid, but the moment I started becoming "Strategically aware" and realized that the entire game is just plain luck, I rapidly lost interest in it.
Literally the only real player input is the Share The Wealth cards, and those are doled out enough that they typically even out in the end.
But what's even the point of the game, when it's not even a game, it's just a scripted sequence with a bit of RNG and incredibly minuscule player input.Drathnoxis said:
DONCHU DARE BE DISSIN' CLUE!CritialGaming said:
It's actually a pretty well designed game. It's not really super entertaining, but it's not actually bad.
I can vouch for Coup. It ultimately boils down to "2 life poker", but hot DAMN does calling someone's bluff rock.SckizoBoy said:
Ahhhhh, Trollisman.Phoenixmgs said:
Me and a few other people had to try to make a virtual version of it for a final project for C++ class, and one of the players bought it for us to play it and test it out...And oh my god the entire game is just plain RIFE with trolling potential.
"Oh ho, you're literally on the cusp of victory? ...WELP, I'm using this spell that lets me steal an item, and I'm stealing your Talisman, so you literally can't enter the final space and win the game. And you're about to die, so there's no way in hell you will even manage to get back out of the center of the map alive, ha ha!" is one of the most dick moves I've seen anyone pull in ANY kind of game. XD
Anyway, I'm pesonally way more of a fan of deckbuilding games like Dominion and Thunderstone and (sorta) Boss Monster.
Those are a total blast to play, because you're weighing your strategy against your opponent's strategy and trying to adjust as best as possible. They're great.
I get into it a little when the game finally gets going. But actually getting me to be part of the game in the first place takes effort. Might just be my competitive side blinding me from the fact it's probably not that fun
Risk is like a wonderful textbook on how not to design a fun strategy game.Drathnoxis said:
It's extremely symmetrical, you roll so many dice that there's no tension on any individual dice roll. The map is absurdly unbalanced to the point where nine times out of ten the eventual winner is decided by who gains control of Australia (usually within the first few turns). Outside of that, it also has one of the things I hate most in games where it's very hard to actually win unless the other players let you. Noone is going to let you control a continent (other than Australia, which is why Australia usually decides the winner) and because of symmetrical resources two players can easily prevent one from achieving their goals. Heck, the more players there are the worse it gets because all players are incentivised to take down whoever is winning. It's just awful.
There are so many good wargames about moving plastic dudes and rolling dice. Heck, I don't think the Game of Thrones board game is very good, but it's like someone took Risk and tried really hard to make a good game out of it, and at least in game of thrones the fact that it's really all about negotiation and shifting alliances kind of makes sense. You can even make it a fun thematic thing if you want and have players sign written agreements and stuff, then laugh as they break them.
Personally, my absolute favourite plastic dudes game is 878 Vikings. It's so tightly balanced, and it lasts a maximum of 7 turns, at which point the result is probably going to be ludicrously tight and leave everyone feeling good and speculating about how they won or didn't. It's the complete opposite of Risks's slow grinding down of its player's spirits.
Monopoly might be worse though. I mean, it's literally a game designed to be bad and unfair.
Another thing about Risk is that it requires a lot of people to play; two people can't really play Risk. But two people can play Twilight Struggle, which is much better designed and does some interesting things that I can't think of in any other world conquest type board games. For instance, that rather than commanding an army, you exert political influence on various countries/regions. Also most of the game is card-based rather than dice-based, though dice are still involved.
Well it came out in 1957 so maybe it became popular because it was released in a time where we still didn't have endless sources of entertainment and modern video-games that can do all the rolls for you.
CoCage said:
Neither was I, but ironically I?m anxiously awaiting the new season of Curb next month.
Exactly. As a kid it's fun enough to pretend you're an adult, get (forcibly) married and face all of these adult choices and responsibilities, but really you're just spinning the wheel. Choosing a career always gives you better odds, every career has the same perks, and all you can really do about anything is just buy the cheapest house available to you.aegix drakan said:
Being created by the same guy doesn?t always equate to being ?copied?. Curb is almost a night and day difference from Seinfeld.Phoenixmgs said:
And fucking TALISMAN.
But seriously, just about any board game made before this century is pretty bad (there's a few good ones but not many). Board games seriously didn't "git gud" until the last 10-15 years and they've been amazing over that period. There's so many generally known games like aforementioned Risk, Monopoly, Catan, Cards Against Humanity, Munchkin and more that are just plain bad games.
Most good board games don't have you rolling dice for combat.
Curb Your Enthusiasm since they're both created by Larry David.Samtemdo8 said:
I find them really similar, same structure and stories. Of course, Curb has the improv dialogue (and stuff you can't do on network TV) that Seinfeld doesn't but the stories are scripted, which is the glue of both shows. All that matters is they're both hilarious because Larry David is hilarious.hanselthecaretaker said:
Couldn't really say as I've never actually finished a game of Risk in my life; it always broke down into fights between my brothers and I long before that point. By the time I was 12 or so, it was completely banned from the house by my mother =/
What makes them very different for me is:Phoenixmgs said:
A. Seinfeld is a traditional sitcom with a laugh track.
B. Curb pretty much kicked off the ?serial season? [https://www.vulture.com/2016/06/how-curb-your-enthusiasm-perfected-the-comedy-structure-thats-taken-over-streaming.html] craze in a sitcom format. It also doesn?t even feel like a sitcom as any before it. Really it only is one in-name.
C. Seinfeld doesn?t revolve around its title character the way Curb does with Larry. To a random viewer peeking in, Seinfeld could be mistaken for a supporting actor in an ensemble cast, whereas with Curb it?s quickly known to be about Larry and his shenanigans.
D. Seinfeld was on cable, whereas Curb is essentially uncensored and unfiltered (and unscripted as you mentioned).
E. The title itself [https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/69413/15-pretty-pretty-good-facts-about-curb-your-enthusiasm] means to allude to the fact it isn?t like Seinfeld.