"Sucky Games" - A Response to The Messy Game Room
I just listened to the first episode of a new podcast, The Messy Game Room, and while I'm going to reserve judgement on the podcast as a whole until after a few more episodes, their main topic for discussion got me thinking. They were talking about what exactly makes a game suck, and discussed the question of whether or not they had ever in fact played a game that sucked. In general, their opinions were that while they had experienced some sucky game sessions, they could not truly say that any game itself actually sucked. Most of the discussion focused on things that could ruin a game session, such as jerky other players, bad (and poorly understood) rules, the game taking too long, and other stuff like that.
In general, I'd have to agree with them. By and large, pretty much all the games I play are really solid designs. Since I'm only going to buy games that sound good to me and have at least decent reviews on BGG, and most of my boardgaming friends are doing the same, I rarely encounter a game that truly sucks. Even if a particular game doesn't really float my boat personally, I'm usually still willing to play it occasionally if others in my group really want to. But, on the other hand, I have indeed played a few games that I would say most certainly sucked, and those are the few that I will never play again.
My list is a short one, but here we go:
- Phase 10 - My Mom and Dad have played various card games on a weekly basis since before I was born. Mainly, they play Canasta or Rook, but from time to time they've broadened their horizons to some other games. One such game was Phase 10, and for a while there they played it a lot. Especially when I was in middle and high school, I would play with them from time to time, and unfortunately, this game was their main "alternative" game during that time. At first, it seemed like there was a lot to do in the game, forming all the runs and sets and such, but I quickly came to the realization that the winner was completely determined by the randomness of the card draw. These days, I'd say that the game "plays you" rather than you playing the game. Add that to the fact that it can drag on forever, and you'll find me avoiding this like the plague. With all the really great card games out there, it's a real tragedy that this sucky game is so popular.
- Nuclear War - I've owned this forever (I think that my brother gave it to me back when I was in high school or college), and only gotten it to the table a few times. But each time, I was left wondering "what was the point"? It's crazily random, and the fact that going to war invalidates a good chunk of the cards (the propaganda cards) screws the idea that hand management might be a "skill" that could redeem the game at all. Yeah, it may have been all timely and poignant in '65 when it was designed, but it hasn't aged well, so now it just sucks.
- High School Drama! - I've been a big fan of Illuminati since I was in middle school, and in hearing descriptions of High School Drama I was really hoping that it could be a similar game that would be more attractive to non-gamers. Unfortunately, it's length (and boring-ness) ruin any chance that it could be a gateway game, which just leaves it as a less-funny, less-interesting, less-balanced cousin to my beloved Illuminati, and its dramatic failure to meet my expectations makes it suck.
Starring Chip as the "lovable dork"!
- Tikal - You might think that, as much as I've talked about my dislike of it before, Power Grid would make this list. But I merely found PG to be repetitive and boring, and while I'd never suggest it on any gaming opportunity, I'd give it another shot if others really wanted to play it. On the other hand, Tikal has got to be the most excrutiating "popular" game that I've ever played. Other than how it looks, there's just not much reedeming about it for me at all. The action points breed analysis paralysis (in fact, I'm pretty sure that the term was coined or at least gained popularity in regards to this game), you've got to be a jerk to win(some might call it being "opportunistic" to jump onto other people's excavations, but I just call it being a big, fat weasel), it drags on and on and on, and, most importantly, I just don't find any part of gameplay to actually be what I'd call fun! I played it a number of times on SpielByWeb, and thought that my lack of enjoyment was due to the interface and the erratic nature of play-by-web. When I got the chance to actually play it in person, however, I found that those very things (which handled the fiddlyness of working with the bits and cancelled out the sitting around waiting for people to get over their AP) were the only factors keeping me from absolutely detesting the game. So, now, I can definitely say that Tikal sucks!
So, there you have it. But please, especially if I don't really know you well, don't ever ask me to play these games. Because I'm afraid that my politeness and desire to support the hobby might over whelm my sense of all-that-is-right-in-gaming and I'd have to suffer through another play of one of these stinkers. Instead, ask me to play Ghost Stories or 1960 or Ra or Chicago Express (because I really need to get it to the table) or some other really good game. There's just too many great games out there to waste time on suck!
Any other ideas out there about which games really suck?
I suffered through 2 hours of Tikal and all I got was this crappy photo!
I haven't played as many games as you to be sure, but here are ones I've tried that I really thought sucked. It's not that they weren't for me...they just don't seem to have merit at all:
I Drank What?
Munchkin (any)
Any attempt to combine B-movie decks
Killer Bunnies
Frag
Reply to this
"Any attempt to combine B-movie decks"
Are you referring to the "Showdown on Giant Samurai Robot Island"-type decks? (I think that's the name of the one we own... or at least something to that effect). I'd never really been all that impressed with the game on its own; I can't imagine that combining it with one of the others would help.
Reply to this
I've never played Frag, Killer Bunnies, or any of the B-Movies series, but I have some opinions on the other two.
Munchkin almost made my list, but I really do think that it has a place where it does pretty well. Its target audience is clearly the RPG crowd (of which I was a part for most of my life), and those people absolutely love it. The main problem is that there isn't a lot of replayability once the jokes start to get old (hence the 47 different versions and expansions). But still, I could see myself pulling it out and having a good time with the right group of gamers.
And while I didn't care too much for our play of I Drank What?, I could again see that with the right crowd in the right mood, it might be a lot of fun (most likely where the players were drinking a bit of something for real as well as in the game). Those Empire Games guys are at MACE and mini-mace all the time, and the people playing with them seem to have a great time. Of course, if I played it a couple of more times, I might well see that it does, in fact, completely suck.
Reply to this
Here's the problem with Munchkin: it's not that interesting until everyone is a level away from winning, and then everybody teams up to stop people. Whoever's lucky enough to have a turn after everyone is out of stuff wins. Without the special victory conditions, Illuminati would have the same problem.
I Drank What? can be enjoyable, sure, but it sucks as a game. It could be suitable with a group that is having a good time, but...well, everything is. being an okay social framework doesn't keep it from being a sucky game, just like my Cosmic Coasters' ability to protect tables from moisture doesn't make the game any better.
Vy, I am talking about those decks. The idiots up here like putting as many as they can find together into one deck. While that is supported by the game, the problem is that the game doesn't end until somebody plays Roll the Credits...and all of a sudden the deck becomes a lot harder to sift through. That, and the whole point is really to make up stereotypical bad movies, not impossible ones.
Reply to this
I hear ya, and I totally agree. I guess that, as I see it, Munchkin and I Drank What? are not really trying to be great games (which is good, because they both suck at doing that). Munchkin is an excuse for Steve Jackson to sell inside jokes to gamers and let them have fun with it, and I assume that I Drank What is a silly, take-that way to blow off steam, especially at the end an evening of gaming. While both suck at being being finely-tuned, well-balanced game designs, they are reasonably better enough at being the bigger definition of games as "social constructs" that I would probably play them again some time in the future. It's not a lot, but I do find it redeeming enough to keep them off my list of sucky games (for right now, anyway).
Reply to this
I forgot all about Munchkin. I didn't like this game. Does it suck? Hmmm. Maybe.
Like I said (I think) in the podcast, I haven't played a lot of games, so I'm sure there are some really lousy ones out there. I've just been lucky so far.
Reply to this
Hey Mike! Welcome to the site!
I've played quite a few games (of all different types), and in general I'm really easy. Of course, over the last couple of years in having a regular, weekly game night, I've gotten a lot more discerning about what I consider to be a "good" game. But I still tend to give games the benefit of the doubt and am able to find whatever level of enjoyment they offer. So for me to say that a game sucks, it's got to really piss me off in some way.
Anyway, I'm halfway through your third episode as I'm writing, and someone who listens to a * lot * of podcasts, I think that you're definitely starting to hit your stride. Keep up the good work!
Reply to this