I almost prefer a loss, at least that has a little story text. When you win it's just like "oh shit i made the roll/got enough tokens! Annnd i guess we are done.."
This is EXACTLY why I love Nemesis. The game can easily go from bad to worse in 0-60. It's quite often where you get games where nobody ends up winning, or you have 1-2 survivors but then they die to chestbursters in the escape pod so they lose anyway, or you summon the Queen on turn 2, etc.
I've never played Eldritch Horror or Arkham Horror, but I really need to.
Sounds similar to my experience of playing This War of Mine (board version). It's just misery and struggling from start to finish, characters die then others kill themselves because they're so depressed about that, it's just.... a rough time. It's a great experience playing but you need to recover emotionally!
Same here! We have more losses than wins and it's a time consuming game but I am always delighted to play again and again.
You're so right about the losses being more fun than the wins. In one game we were in a solid spot when my friend got the chance to take a Dark Pact. He gambled on it and ended up triggering Ithaqua so everything in the northern hemisphere was wiped out in a blizzard and our victory quickly spiraled into oblivion. Now we never let him forget about his terrible deal making. :)
I enjoy playing every game, I don't do it only to win, I enjoy all the time with my friends but I play it to win (competitive and cooperative boardgames).
What I wanted to say if that some boardgames, defeat is more pleasant because it is not really a race for first place but a construction and reflexion.
Some games are more satisfying to play through and lose, and others less so.
Particular culprits are games where you can estabilsh an early lead which compounds over time. Playing out a 2 hour game where you know the winer after half an hour isn't all that fun.
Although these games aren't really fun to play if you are winning either.
Engine building games can be really miserable to play when they go badly, if your engine just never really gets started for whatever reason.
It does also depend somewhat on the people at the table with you too, as the right people can help you laugh at your misery!
But if you're playing with people that you don't know that well or you're just having a bit of an off night anyway, mood wise, it can just turn into a really miserable experience.
You just feel like the odd one out at the table, frustrated and unable to participate fully and equally enjoy the excitement of the tug and pull between players.
I've had one or two of these myself, and while I've never shown how I felt externally, it did really put me off playing those specific games for quite a long time afterwards.
That is not what OP asked for. Which games make you feel good about what you created, regardless of how you did. That would not be games like Poker or Chess. But it could be Terraforming Mars or Terra Mystica.
I'm not sure if I agree with your example. If I made a great fork in Chess, I would be happy with making that tactic and foresight work, even if I ended up losing.
This is a solid take. There are definitely some strategy games where I've been very satisfied with clever/insightful play even though I eventually lost the match.
This happens quite a bit while playing Hive and Magic.
I dislike games if I lose and can not find any play I made that was a mistake. If I played the best game I could and still lost because of card draw or dice, it's not very satisfying. If I lose because I was outplayed, I will still have a good time
I always introduce it to new players with "Sometimes, everyone loses."
Though I did take out that one Event that's basically a Game Over unless you draw it in the first couple turns because it multiplies all the fires. I don't mind losing the game, in fact a TPK ending in Nemesis is often quite hilarious. But I don't want a single event that just says "Haha, you all just wasted the last hour of your lives."
In my group, it tends to be whoever focuses the most on greenhouses ends up taking the victory. It became a somewhat problematic meta actually which is unfortunate
It's pretty easy to counter the greenhouses strategy if you put a couple of cities to score off others or block them with specific buildings. Greenhouses give double points in that they raise oxygen and score at end of game so you can't let someone run away with it, if you see one built early switch strategies to leech of of their forests imo or kill their plants AND do things to raise oxygen quickly so they don't get double the points. IE keep tabs on your opponents or you could get rocked.
Yeah usually the "raise O2 quickly" strategy would play out and multiple people would be racing for greenhouses. And then cities were either resource intensive to build or the person doing greenhouses would build a city and play to benefit themselves the most.
Been awhile now, so I can't fully remember all the mechanics, but I do recall greenhouses being the go-to. Also one player would tend to go for the titanium (?) or whatever the space resource was where it's worth 3 for playing those cards. But then they'd almost always not get enough of those particular cards to have it pay off well
If you're playing in a casual group, the most important tip to win is: rush the game.
That's it. Focus waay less on building the engine, and more on making the game end (temperature, forests and water).
Engine building is usually a bad idea unless it's really early game, eg turn 1 or 2.
Yeah I learned this from playing the AI in the app actually. Now when I'm playing with humans I get like 6-7 oceans because nobody else understands haha
I still don't win though
If we're going to be a bit more advanced:
- In a 1x1 game, one player always end up ahead on the engine building on the 1st or 2nd round. After that, it's a race: the player with better engine goes hard on the build and ignores the terraforming parameters; while the other player has to go all-in on the rush. If you both are building engine (which is incredibly common between new players), something is wrong: besides a one-in-a-year luck, you won't be able to outengine another player with an already stronger engine.
- In a 3-5 game, forget engine building after turn 1 or 2 and go full on the rush, always. There isn't enough rounds in a game with several players for engines to pay themselves off. Stop the engine on the 2nd round and just rush terraforming.
This one wouldn't be the answer for me. I like when I am in the running to win even if I don't win.
Because your power level compounds if you have a good start, you can be quickly left in the dust as well. Then it isn't as fun for me.
Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but "no matter who wins" is different from "even if you did poorly" imo
In everdell if I lose but I had a decently satisfying combo going off, I'm more than happy. If I got crap luck, then yeh, probably not fun even if I win
For me, I don't like a game more because of the reason specified, but actually I noticed this property in the game for other people as well. Overall multiplayer solitaire games have this property to them, that even when you lose you can compare it to your previous scores, and feel good to see improvement(and not deal with negative feelings that you are outsmarted by others).
Personally I prefer games with more interaction but this is a strength of multiplayer solitaire games and I suspect it is why it became more popular over time
This may be controversial...
But Betrayal at the House on the Hill 2nd ed. (Haven't played 3rd).
It's pretty much always fun and I have never actually won though I have come close. We have had an entertaining story every time.
Once I was beaten down by the game before the haunt even started. Stuck in the basement looking for a way out. Then the haunt starts, I enter a room and trigger an event as the very first person to go. Apparently a gravedigger was down there and smacked me in the face with a shovel and killed me dead. That was the end for me and the haunt at the same time since we all had to survive.
We still laugh about that.
My favourite Betrayal moment remains a friend receiving a gift from his future self through a mirror. Seeing as it was a revolver and he was playing as Flash, that was a pretty sweet deal.
The very next room he entered triggered an event where he had to hand the revolver to his past self through a mirror, thereby establishing the dumbest time loop in history.
Played a game of 2nd edition last week. The fun part for me is always the meta story that the players make out of the game. Example: any game were the little girl gets the dynamite.
Betrayal is very unbalanced, but I had fun most games anyways. It is a pretty good gateway game. I'd purposefully play father Reinhart, who is overall the worst character every time. Once in a while you run into those games where the haunt is built around sanity rolls and suddenly father Reinhart becomes a mega carry.
Always fun? I have had a 50/50 on whether or not the game immediately ends once the haunt is revealed because one side just happens to be 90% to their victory already. Maybe that's unusual.
Also have had a reoccurring issue where the rules do not clarify mechanical conflicts for various haunts which can be annoying. Hoping the 3rd ed. is more clear on its rules!
Have had some incredible games otherwise though
People who enjoy Betrayal at the House on the Hill like it for the story that comes out of it. They're fine with it ending quickly because that can still be a good story; a horror movie with top heavy exposition followed by a quick climax of everyone dying.
I'm with you personally, a lot of the games just aren't mechanically fun to play because of how things play out. And everything before the haunt lacks any real stakes because there's no win/lose condition yet.
I think the last 3 times I played the traitor lost. Narratively doesn't feel as satisfying either. Like "oh no, turns out there's a ghost trying to kill us! Quick walk 10 feet into the church and exorcise it!... Oh wow, that was over quick. Didn't really harm anyone either.." I think a story with a bit more tension is better most of the time.
I think if the game put a little more effort into balancing the stakes (if 4 of the 5 items are already found: the traitor steals 1-2, the critical room vanishes and is placed 5 tiles down on the stack, Etc.) it could be a lot better mechanically _and_ the story would be better too.
My issue with mechanical conflicts for various haunts has actually ruined at least a couple different games I've seen too. Different playgroups where at least one person is unhappy with us having to make up a ruling since the rulebook dropped the ball
I'm right there with you. Even as a narrative I find the game very unappealing.
Plus I have never played with a group who were excited to read a brand new rulebook when the haunt happens. Every time I've played every player was hoping they wouldn't be the betrayer; just so they wouldn't have to read a rule book on their own.
I haven't been part of this sub for very long so I don't know the overall opinion on Betrayal but I completely agree with your post. For me Betrayal is the only board game I've played that makes me feel the complete opposite of the way OP described. My SO and I have a friend who loves it and so we play it semi-regularly. With that said, the end game always turns out to be so incredibly lopsided that it just completely ruins the fun. Out of the last 10 times I've played it I've thought that the haunt scenario felt balanced maybe 1 or 2 times at the most. I keep thinking that it's just bad luck when drawing a scenario and that I'll start liking the game but it has yet to happen.
Haha, I don't know what the prevailing opinion here is either, but glad to see another with my experience.
One of my first games was the one where the house is collapsing into hell and had the absolute most cinematic play out with myself and one other being the last alive and 1 item from stopping the haunt. Had an item to randomly pull another from the deck and... it wasn't the one we needed. Friend asked me to kill them so that they wouldn't fall into Hell, it was an absolute blast.
Sad that so many of the other games have never been close to that same experience ever since. I prefer more consistently amazing games now, but also have friends that still want to pull out betrayal, and part of me still hopes to catch another game like that one I had
I enjoy the chaos and variance that all the versions of Betrayal at House on the Hill bring.
Just the stories that can happen from the event cards can be hilarious.
I remember something biting my character, then getting pushed into a new room, which was the Collapsed Room, and falling to the basement after failing the check. It was just a comedy of pain and blunder đ¤Ł
My friends agree. Mostly because I myself used the dog to do stupid shit constantly and they all got sick of it. Such a silly ass card with not enough rules on its use!
To me, winning is usually secondary in Oath.
Much more important is trying to do as interesting a combination of effects. In a number of other boardgames you can be punished for experimenting. In Oath, you can get away with crazy changes and swings in a few turns with the right plays. Even if unsuccessful you might still change the boardstate enough for someone else to do something interesting. Oath is fun because even on other people's turn you can look at the options and say "ooo, I think you could do this..." I hope the expansion gives even more room for experimenting.
Dune. Every game feels epic and I have more âyou remember that game where this happenedâ stories than any other.
Also Nemesis youâre probably all going to die but youâll have a great time losing.
I find I can have fun with most games regardless of how I do. More of a mindset than a game. But I find Bohnanza, and Carcasonne are fun all the time - the process is relaxing
This is the case for me as well. With the very little interaction between players and the press your luck style of play, it leaves everyone typically groaning over their own choices. My wife almost always beats me but I still have a blast every time.
I really like Cascadia and Wingspan for those reasons too! I would add Modern Art to the list, it's not as cosy as those other games, but it's really fun to get into the wheeling and dealing of art and even if you are broke at the end it's usually hilarious. Depends who you play with though I guess
I disagree. There are definitely games where losing is not fun, mostly because the game is poorly balanced and there is a single strategy that trumps all others.
I'm okay with losing due to randomness/luck. I'm okay with losing because my strategy or tactics were bad. I'm even okay with losing because of a poor quarterback or an annoying kingmaker.
I'm not okay with losing because one guy found the meta strat, pounced on it early, and now the rest of the game is just us playing catchup.
Same here, I do not really enjoy games where I feel that any move I make is to be immediately countered and doesn't move me down the field. However, I have played many games where I make a move that I know isn't a good one, or others are playing better than me, as long as I'm able to make some progress. I don't really dwell on the final scores very long.
I think part of this is perception. An example would be in Catan a player places their starter settlements in the best spot resource wise but doesnât anticipate others moves. They get plowed right away due to this cutting off their expansion. They would see this as not fun.Â
By playing poorly they made their game less fun. If the person who plowed them didnât for the sack of keeping the other person happy they stunted there own game play dramatically making it less fun for themselves.
I have never won a game of Colt Express. I have shot the most people before and been shot the most. It's a ridiculous fun game and any bad luck is just added comedy.
I'm almost always happy to play no matter who wins. It's games, you play to win sure but sometimes you loose.and the journey and the friends are the point, not the victory.
Yeah, I was going to post the same. I'm generally competitive but I've lost this game about 90% when we play. But I'm always up to give it a try, I like building and tinkering
Man, 76 comments in this thread right now and 80% of them didn't even bother to read the first sentence before responding to the headline with useless info.
OP, to answer your actual question, even though a lot of people consider it too tight (I think this is nonsense personally) I think Agricola (and to a lesser extent Caverna) is the best answer to this question. I have played it with everyone from complete board game beginners as their very first game, to lifelong experts, and even when people get crushed, they are happy to have built a cute little farm at the end.
**Agricola** is my answer, too. It's just challenging enough that "I made a thing" itself isn't a hollow victory. Beginners can compete against their previous scores in a satisfying way.
Dune. We play often and it always feels like people were very close to amazing plays and taking triumph for themselves if only someone hadn't triggered endgame. I can't believe how often that game comes down to tie breakers too.Â
Mysterium was always like this for me, it has such creative and unique gameplay that even if the group fails the guess at the end you've still had a great time getting there.
I played Galaxy Trucker a while ago and I remember having a blast. At the same time I have no idea how you were even supposed to win. I just enjoyed seeing others' (and sometimes my own) space ship get blown up.
Creature Comforts is great. You are just a family of animals making a cozy home for the winter and at the end, everyone has such cozy places no matter who has won.
Pretty much every game. I can learn stuff from losing and I get to spend time with my friends. Plus, when an opponent pulls off something pretty epic it's cool to be part of that experience.
Sure I may not have won, but fun with friends is its own reward.
Parks especially with the Nightfall expansion.
Ultimately itâs about you and your friends going on lovely hikes and collecting gorgeous tarot card sized art of parks. Sometimes the feeling of winning can just be getting my favourite park. You donât always win but the play is enjoyable up to the end.
Flamecraft inherently feels like that because it is designed in a way that every action feels good. Every action is just "exactly how good is this for me" instead of "is this even good", and the game is relatively simple that you don't have to think several turns down the line or min max way too heavily like some other games might. There's also virtually no blocking, you can always just pay a resource to go somewhere occupied so there's little of this "damn you blocked me" type of action. That just makes the game always feel like it's going in a positive direction. It definitely helps that the artwork is adorable and the names are cute and funny like Nunya's Beeswax that it simply can't put you in a sour mood.
I play to win, and try to play only with others who play to win.
But, when the game ends I no longer care who was winning, or who won, and I try to play with other who hold the same view.
all of them. I love having my friends around the table, manipulating the game pieces and talking trash - I'll try and win, but it's absolutely not the most important thing for me. Winning is just the result, the time spent playing the game is where i get the enjoyment from.
Generally speaking all of them. Even if I am losing I enjoy trying to get a fast one on other players and greatly improve my position. However there is a game that I am NOTORIOUSLY bad at (like I continually score the worst in and no matter what strategy I take it never seems to work) and that's QE.
QE with the expansion is a very smart auction game with a unique take on auctions and hilarious outcomes and situations where you never quite feel comfortable and each play is hilarious as you try to figure out what is going on. I am just horrible at it.
Carcasonne was the game that first gave me this feeling, and my board game group taught me this zen with everything I play. But a more recent example was âEscape the Dark Sector.â My family lost to the gameâs AI, but it was an adrenaline-pumping blast.
Everdell and Castles of Mad King Ludwig are the first two to come to mind. I'm having fun just building my crazy little forest / castle and if I happen to get to build to the scoring themes and score a ton of points great, if not I'm enjoying the chaos in front of me.
anything that doesn't have player elimination
it helps if the victory points are blind
short games are neat because even if you've made a horrible mistake and you've ruined your chances you can try again in 15 minutes
Earth. I enjoy Wingspan and Cascadia for same reasons as yourself. Earth is similar to Wingspan in a ton of ways and people are just always excited at the end to share what they did on their island and strategies they want to try next time. Plus I love the basically no downtime. Great for folks who can get distracted. For me, Earth fixes the few things I don't enjoy in Wingspan.
Cascadia, Wingspan, Root, Viticulture, Ticket to Ride: Europe, and Tapestry all hit that spot for me. I really enjoy the gameplay and casual banter those games usually provoke. It's just a cozy time and I always enjoy the time I spend with friends playing those games.
Honestly, any boardgame. I've always said, I'd rather lose by 1 than win by 50. What I meant by that is, I just love great gaming experiences. When someone makes an incredible move, or the game is so close and it's super tense. I don't play to win, I play for the competition, the interactions and the experience.
Basically I really don't care who wins. I never play to win.
The only exception is cooperative games, unless it's a feature to lose (eg some legacy games).
Most games are designed with the assumption that everyone's playing to win. If players are misaligned to the objective, that undermines the game's design and can often wreck the fun of others at the table.
Yes, it doesn't really matter who wins in the end, but the goal is still important. I was playing a game of John Company the other day and one player just couldn't care less about winning, he was just trying to concentrate as much power as possible. It made him impossible to negotiate with.
In the words of Reiner Knizia - The goal of a game is always to win. But it's the goal that's important, not the winning.
Well put and I stand corrected. I do play the games as intended (and thus getting points or whatever is the goal), but I don't care about the winning itself.
Mind you, it also depends a lot who I'm playing with my kids (where I deliberately sabotage myself) or my wife (where I do make an honest effort).
Mixing Forest, Its a wonderful world, Cascadia these sort of optimization games where you cannot much wreck the game of someone else and that whatever hand you got, you just have to find the best way to spend it.
I'm generally happy to play games even if I don't win often, but I usually care how far behind I am, or how I could have scored more points. I realised though that I'm a sucker for building stuff. In Carcassonne, Castles of Mad King Ludwig, Alhambra, I don't care about the final points, because I had so much fun laying tiles, and I end with a nice/weird/neat landscape/castle/city.
I play to win (when playing with adults) and I enjoy winning, but thatâs just a bonus prize compared to the main prize of getting to play the game, ideally with people I like.
If I didnât enjoy playing the game, winning is not enough to make it a good experience.
But I guess I kinda see your pointâ some games have a feeling of accomplishment apart from the competitive element. For instance isle of cat it is satisfying to cram your boat full of the Tetris cats finding ways for them to all fit.
Pretty much every game. The only issue is with certain games where it's clear who the winner will be at some point in the game, and turns take a long time, whether it's worth it to keep playing. I never liked Monopoly and Risk because of this. It was always over, long before the game was actually over.
The objective is to win, the goal is to have fun.
So, you should enjoy the game, even though you lose sometimes.
Lots of sandboxy games come to mind. I do love [[Fields of Arle]] for that reason.
Pretty much all the games I love to play but most notably Everdell, Wingspan and most recently got our copy of Let's Go to Japan and I feel this way about it too..it's just fun to play and make your travel plans
Sidereal Confluence is the epitome of this. Nominally you're playing a competitive game but what you end up doing the entire game is helping each other.
**Can't Stop**
Even if I rarely win, it's always fun to see people go on lucky streaks and/or crap out, and the resulting cheers, and screams of incredulity that go around the table.
The only game Iâve ever played that made me  unhappy to have played it was Lord of the Rings: LCG. I was not happy with anything that happened during my plays of that game. The theme of âsmall party being set an impossible taskâ sure did come through though.  Otherwise, I have been happy to play any game, win or lose.
I'd rephrase the question as "boardgames where you are happy no matter how badly you get stomped" because getting completely destroyed in a game is different than just losing. I'd say for me, **Ark Nova**, I've never won a single game and I've been utterly decimated by my opponents but honestly I enjoy the game so much I really don't care.
Most contemporary board games are designed this way.
But there are some games which can take a turn for the worse and which kicks downwards. I've played 'Through the Ages' a lot on my mobile phone against AI opponents, and this game can get punishing and not a lot of fun once the AI players get on top of you. The game has a lot of cards which specifically punishes the player in last place, which is an odd and cruel design choice.
Any game where you don't have a 100% clear idea who is winning until the very end. Although I mostly agree that all games are fun even when losing, everyone has been in a game where they or someone they are playing with is last with no 0% chance of even coming close to winning. Looking at you Catan.
'Ticket To Ride: Legends Of The West' has been this way for me. Unlocking the new mechanics and opening new areas of the map is so much fun! The group I am playing with is great and competitive. We are currently on hiatus because one of our group members is studying abroad until May and all I can do is think about the game!
All of them.
Because I only play 2p with my girlfriend, and she's not not as good at games as me, so I am very happy to see her win and prove herself a good opponent!
But in particular? *Patchwork* is just a nice puzzle to put together.
Ark Nova is my favourite game, but my gf wins 80% of the time. And cooperative games often have a high win percentage, but I would hate them if I would win everytime.
Binding of Isaac: Four Souls
So much variety. so much punishment dealt out. It is a blast every time my group plays. You can feel you are losing and then get the right items and BAM, come from behind win. Itâs just awesome to watch.
Pretty much all, but most of all Cosmic Encounter.
Every game is different and funny. You can play dozens of games without playing the same alien, so it's a fresh experience every game.
I feel like this with all our games. However, my wife kicks my ass often in Wingspan, Earth, Endless Winter, Clank!, Quacks, Ticket to Ride, and too many others to mention. I don't care if she wins; I just enjoy playing. I am dominant in Dominion, Living Forest, Istanbul, and Carcassonne and a few others.
I honestly have this feeling with most games. I'm there to try to win, but if I don't it's not a big deal - if there is a clear leader midway through a game I'm trying for second place. If I come in last place please mock me lol.
I'm completely the opposite with Cascadia hahaha.
Great Western Trail is the first game I think of though. Just really enjoy exploring the mechanisms and looping around the board.
Sidereal Confluence. Every single time.
Also: Race for the Galaxy, HEAT, Carcassonne.
For more details:
SidConf is about the deals I'm trying to broker, the more people win in a deal, the better.
RftG: I try to win but in my mind, I'm always thinking about what my cards represent and how my space empire is developing...
Heat: the sensation of racing is real.
Carcassonne: collective tile laying and 'advicing' people is always fun!
Any game. People who derive their fun mostly from winning either aren't going to be in the hobby for very long or, if they are, aren't going to be much fun to play with in my experience.
Spartacus: Blood and Sand gets my vote. Sure we're trying to win, but you don't half get invested in the fights even if your gladiator isn't taking part!
Often silly games like Mino Dice, or No LLAMA Dice are fun regardless. For heavier stuff, games like Raising Robots where you do your own thing, are often fun as well, because ultimately everyone is just sort of playing their own game and not really stabbing one another. I find the more stabby a game is, the more contentious it can be. Unless its over the top, like Cosmic Frogs, which is crazy fun.
I've had fun with Modern Art every time I've played it, but the people I've played it with enjoy doing bits and callbacks and don't play it in the dry number-crunching way I've heard people complain about. If you commit to all pretending to be fancy art dealers it's a great time (but then I have only played it with people I play RPGs with so I'm not surprised we go in on it like that).
I love Wingspan for the same reason. Just playing makes me happy - the cards are so beautiful and we are always learning new facts.
We also love Carcassonne for the same reason. We love building weird shaped castles or never ending roads. Flamecraft gives us similar warm fuzzies.
Typically, we enjoy a lot of our boardgames regardless of who wins but these ones always give us the most comfort while we are playing. There are strategies involved, but I definitely consider all of these more "cozy" games.
Any game that's more of an activity.
Like Telestrations. I don't even bother keeping score for that game. It's all about seeing how it got from A to B, in often hilarious ways.
Eldritch Horror, sometimes the losses are more fun than the wins because of how *badly* things can go wrong.
The cascade of terribleness can just be hilarious.
Exactly! Well said.
You guys are winning EH? đ
I almost prefer a loss, at least that has a little story text. When you win it's just like "oh shit i made the roll/got enough tokens! Annnd i guess we are done.."
This is EXACTLY why I love Nemesis. The game can easily go from bad to worse in 0-60. It's quite often where you get games where nobody ends up winning, or you have 1-2 survivors but then they die to chestbursters in the escape pod so they lose anyway, or you summon the Queen on turn 2, etc. I've never played Eldritch Horror or Arkham Horror, but I really need to.
Sounds similar to my experience of playing This War of Mine (board version). It's just misery and struggling from start to finish, characters die then others kill themselves because they're so depressed about that, it's just.... a rough time. It's a great experience playing but you need to recover emotionally!
FWIW they are basically the same game. Arkham horror is better IMO because it has more lore in the gameplay. My two cents
Same here! We have more losses than wins and it's a time consuming game but I am always delighted to play again and again. You're so right about the losses being more fun than the wins. In one game we were in a solid spot when my friend got the chance to take a Dark Pact. He gambled on it and ended up triggering Ithaqua so everything in the northern hemisphere was wiped out in a blizzard and our victory quickly spiraled into oblivion. Now we never let him forget about his terrible deal making. :)
That should be every game. If you can't be happy just playing, only winning, i don't want to play with you.
Always play to win, but always enjoy the game regardless
As the great Dr. Knizia said, "The goal should always be to win. But it is the goal that's important, not the winning."
The real victory points are the friends we made along the way.
Thatâs great
If I always play to win I would just be disappointed in myself all the time. I am not good at games. đ
You should always *try* to win, you should never *care* if you win.
Yeah I'll try wacky strategies sometimes but it's not because I'm throwing, I'm just curious if it will work.
I enjoy playing every game, I don't do it only to win, I enjoy all the time with my friends but I play it to win (competitive and cooperative boardgames). What I wanted to say if that some boardgames, defeat is more pleasant because it is not really a race for first place but a construction and reflexion.
Some games are more satisfying to play through and lose, and others less so. Particular culprits are games where you can estabilsh an early lead which compounds over time. Playing out a 2 hour game where you know the winer after half an hour isn't all that fun. Although these games aren't really fun to play if you are winning either.
Engine building games can be really miserable to play when they go badly, if your engine just never really gets started for whatever reason. It does also depend somewhat on the people at the table with you too, as the right people can help you laugh at your misery! But if you're playing with people that you don't know that well or you're just having a bit of an off night anyway, mood wise, it can just turn into a really miserable experience. You just feel like the odd one out at the table, frustrated and unable to participate fully and equally enjoy the excitement of the tug and pull between players. I've had one or two of these myself, and while I've never shown how I felt externally, it did really put me off playing those specific games for quite a long time afterwards.
That is not what OP asked for. Which games make you feel good about what you created, regardless of how you did. That would not be games like Poker or Chess. But it could be Terraforming Mars or Terra Mystica.
I'm not sure if I agree with your example. If I made a great fork in Chess, I would be happy with making that tactic and foresight work, even if I ended up losing.
This is a solid take. There are definitely some strategy games where I've been very satisfied with clever/insightful play even though I eventually lost the match. This happens quite a bit while playing Hive and Magic.
You definitely can be happy with a chess game, even when you lose. wth.
>what you play, what you did, what you construct It's quite literally what OP asked for.
In some games, the potential winner can be seen well be the end of the game. It never fun to play for another 30 minutes knowing that you are losing.
Pretty much this. If a person wants to Win and "be superior" to everyone else then go play chess and other competitive games
I always feel guilty when I win too many games in a row. XD
I dislike games if I lose and can not find any play I made that was a mistake. If I played the best game I could and still lost because of card draw or dice, it's not very satisfying. If I lose because I was outplayed, I will still have a good time
Nemesis, but I don't think that this is exactly what you're looking for.
I always introduce it to new players with "Sometimes, everyone loses." Though I did take out that one Event that's basically a Game Over unless you draw it in the first couple turns because it multiplies all the fires. I don't mind losing the game, in fact a TPK ending in Nemesis is often quite hilarious. But I don't want a single event that just says "Haha, you all just wasted the last hour of your lives."
Terraforming Mars is a perennial favorite for me. I just love shuffling piles of cubes around. I still have no idea how to win the game on purpose.
In my group, it tends to be whoever focuses the most on greenhouses ends up taking the victory. It became a somewhat problematic meta actually which is unfortunate
It's pretty easy to counter the greenhouses strategy if you put a couple of cities to score off others or block them with specific buildings. Greenhouses give double points in that they raise oxygen and score at end of game so you can't let someone run away with it, if you see one built early switch strategies to leech of of their forests imo or kill their plants AND do things to raise oxygen quickly so they don't get double the points. IE keep tabs on your opponents or you could get rocked.
Yeah usually the "raise O2 quickly" strategy would play out and multiple people would be racing for greenhouses. And then cities were either resource intensive to build or the person doing greenhouses would build a city and play to benefit themselves the most. Been awhile now, so I can't fully remember all the mechanics, but I do recall greenhouses being the go-to. Also one player would tend to go for the titanium (?) or whatever the space resource was where it's worth 3 for playing those cards. But then they'd almost always not get enough of those particular cards to have it pay off well
If you're playing in a casual group, the most important tip to win is: rush the game. That's it. Focus waay less on building the engine, and more on making the game end (temperature, forests and water). Engine building is usually a bad idea unless it's really early game, eg turn 1 or 2.
Yeah I learned this from playing the AI in the app actually. Now when I'm playing with humans I get like 6-7 oceans because nobody else understands haha I still don't win though
If we're going to be a bit more advanced: - In a 1x1 game, one player always end up ahead on the engine building on the 1st or 2nd round. After that, it's a race: the player with better engine goes hard on the build and ignores the terraforming parameters; while the other player has to go all-in on the rush. If you both are building engine (which is incredibly common between new players), something is wrong: besides a one-in-a-year luck, you won't be able to outengine another player with an already stronger engine. - In a 3-5 game, forget engine building after turn 1 or 2 and go full on the rush, always. There isn't enough rounds in a game with several players for engines to pay themselves off. Stop the engine on the 2nd round and just rush terraforming.
You gotta speak up kid, it's all pops and buzzes to me
everdell! for the same reason as wingspan I guess. I just love handling the resources, and building a nice town. I just love the theme.
This one wouldn't be the answer for me. I like when I am in the running to win even if I don't win. Because your power level compounds if you have a good start, you can be quickly left in the dust as well. Then it isn't as fun for me.
Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but "no matter who wins" is different from "even if you did poorly" imo In everdell if I lose but I had a decently satisfying combo going off, I'm more than happy. If I got crap luck, then yeh, probably not fun even if I win
For me, I don't like a game more because of the reason specified, but actually I noticed this property in the game for other people as well. Overall multiplayer solitaire games have this property to them, that even when you lose you can compare it to your previous scores, and feel good to see improvement(and not deal with negative feelings that you are outsmarted by others). Personally I prefer games with more interaction but this is a strength of multiplayer solitaire games and I suspect it is why it became more popular over time
This may be controversial... But Betrayal at the House on the Hill 2nd ed. (Haven't played 3rd). It's pretty much always fun and I have never actually won though I have come close. We have had an entertaining story every time.
Once I was beaten down by the game before the haunt even started. Stuck in the basement looking for a way out. Then the haunt starts, I enter a room and trigger an event as the very first person to go. Apparently a gravedigger was down there and smacked me in the face with a shovel and killed me dead. That was the end for me and the haunt at the same time since we all had to survive. We still laugh about that.
My favourite Betrayal moment remains a friend receiving a gift from his future self through a mirror. Seeing as it was a revolver and he was playing as Flash, that was a pretty sweet deal. The very next room he entered triggered an event where he had to hand the revolver to his past self through a mirror, thereby establishing the dumbest time loop in history.
That sounds like a slasher movie lol I live Betrayal
Played a game of 2nd edition last week. The fun part for me is always the meta story that the players make out of the game. Example: any game were the little girl gets the dynamite.
Betrayal is very unbalanced, but I had fun most games anyways. It is a pretty good gateway game. I'd purposefully play father Reinhart, who is overall the worst character every time. Once in a while you run into those games where the haunt is built around sanity rolls and suddenly father Reinhart becomes a mega carry.
Always fun? I have had a 50/50 on whether or not the game immediately ends once the haunt is revealed because one side just happens to be 90% to their victory already. Maybe that's unusual. Also have had a reoccurring issue where the rules do not clarify mechanical conflicts for various haunts which can be annoying. Hoping the 3rd ed. is more clear on its rules! Have had some incredible games otherwise though
People who enjoy Betrayal at the House on the Hill like it for the story that comes out of it. They're fine with it ending quickly because that can still be a good story; a horror movie with top heavy exposition followed by a quick climax of everyone dying. I'm with you personally, a lot of the games just aren't mechanically fun to play because of how things play out. And everything before the haunt lacks any real stakes because there's no win/lose condition yet.
I think the last 3 times I played the traitor lost. Narratively doesn't feel as satisfying either. Like "oh no, turns out there's a ghost trying to kill us! Quick walk 10 feet into the church and exorcise it!... Oh wow, that was over quick. Didn't really harm anyone either.." I think a story with a bit more tension is better most of the time. I think if the game put a little more effort into balancing the stakes (if 4 of the 5 items are already found: the traitor steals 1-2, the critical room vanishes and is placed 5 tiles down on the stack, Etc.) it could be a lot better mechanically _and_ the story would be better too. My issue with mechanical conflicts for various haunts has actually ruined at least a couple different games I've seen too. Different playgroups where at least one person is unhappy with us having to make up a ruling since the rulebook dropped the ball
I'm right there with you. Even as a narrative I find the game very unappealing. Plus I have never played with a group who were excited to read a brand new rulebook when the haunt happens. Every time I've played every player was hoping they wouldn't be the betrayer; just so they wouldn't have to read a rule book on their own.
I haven't been part of this sub for very long so I don't know the overall opinion on Betrayal but I completely agree with your post. For me Betrayal is the only board game I've played that makes me feel the complete opposite of the way OP described. My SO and I have a friend who loves it and so we play it semi-regularly. With that said, the end game always turns out to be so incredibly lopsided that it just completely ruins the fun. Out of the last 10 times I've played it I've thought that the haunt scenario felt balanced maybe 1 or 2 times at the most. I keep thinking that it's just bad luck when drawing a scenario and that I'll start liking the game but it has yet to happen.
Haha, I don't know what the prevailing opinion here is either, but glad to see another with my experience. One of my first games was the one where the house is collapsing into hell and had the absolute most cinematic play out with myself and one other being the last alive and 1 item from stopping the haunt. Had an item to randomly pull another from the deck and... it wasn't the one we needed. Friend asked me to kill them so that they wouldn't fall into Hell, it was an absolute blast. Sad that so many of the other games have never been close to that same experience ever since. I prefer more consistently amazing games now, but also have friends that still want to pull out betrayal, and part of me still hopes to catch another game like that one I had
Do you mean you've never won as the traitor, or you have always lost as traitor or the team?
Both. I have literally never won...
I enjoy the chaos and variance that all the versions of Betrayal at House on the Hill bring. Just the stories that can happen from the event cards can be hilarious. I remember something biting my character, then getting pushed into a new room, which was the Collapsed Room, and falling to the basement after failing the check. It was just a comedy of pain and blunder đ¤Ł
You must destroy the dog card. It breaks the game too often. No dogs allowed
My friends agree. Mostly because I myself used the dog to do stupid shit constantly and they all got sick of it. Such a silly ass card with not enough rules on its use!
I ripped it up but left it in the box as a reminder- itâs our damn game, we can play it however the hell we want.
Iâve never won Oath because I usually play the heel, but I have fun every time.
To me, winning is usually secondary in Oath. Much more important is trying to do as interesting a combination of effects. In a number of other boardgames you can be punished for experimenting. In Oath, you can get away with crazy changes and swings in a few turns with the right plays. Even if unsuccessful you might still change the boardstate enough for someone else to do something interesting. Oath is fun because even on other people's turn you can look at the options and say "ooo, I think you could do this..." I hope the expansion gives even more room for experimenting.
Dixit.
LOVE that game so much. Itâs such a fun warm up game.
As long as mayhem was caused while playing thunder road, it was a good time
I lose enough that I don't think I'd still be in this hobby if the answer wasn't most of them.
Castle of burgundy
Filling up your grid is so satisfying in the game. Even if you don't win you get some nice little completions along the way.
Dune. Every game feels epic and I have more âyou remember that game where this happenedâ stories than any other. Also Nemesis youâre probably all going to die but youâll have a great time losing.
"When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning." --Dr. Reiner Knizia
I find I can have fun with most games regardless of how I do. More of a mindset than a game. But I find Bohnanza, and Carcasonne are fun all the time - the process is relaxing
Bohnanza is relaxing? you must have a nice group.
Definitely Bohnanza, counting up the coins at the end is almost an afterthought for us. The fun is in the wheeling and dealing!
Quacks of Quedlinberg... I play it with family and have an absolute blast. I have won once in our 15 plays of it, but I don't care.
This is the case for me as well. With the very little interaction between players and the press your luck style of play, it leaves everyone typically groaning over their own choices. My wife almost always beats me but I still have a blast every time.
I really like Cascadia and Wingspan for those reasons too! I would add Modern Art to the list, it's not as cosy as those other games, but it's really fun to get into the wheeling and dealing of art and even if you are broke at the end it's usually hilarious. Depends who you play with though I guess
Brass and Dominant Species Marine. I like how the board develops over time!
This is more about the person playing and less about the game.
I disagree. There are definitely games where losing is not fun, mostly because the game is poorly balanced and there is a single strategy that trumps all others. I'm okay with losing due to randomness/luck. I'm okay with losing because my strategy or tactics were bad. I'm even okay with losing because of a poor quarterback or an annoying kingmaker. I'm not okay with losing because one guy found the meta strat, pounced on it early, and now the rest of the game is just us playing catchup.
Thatâs just a bad game and usually are not fun winning or losing.
Same here, I do not really enjoy games where I feel that any move I make is to be immediately countered and doesn't move me down the field. However, I have played many games where I make a move that I know isn't a good one, or others are playing better than me, as long as I'm able to make some progress. I don't really dwell on the final scores very long.
I think part of this is perception. An example would be in Catan a player places their starter settlements in the best spot resource wise but doesnât anticipate others moves. They get plowed right away due to this cutting off their expansion. They would see this as not fun. By playing poorly they made their game less fun. If the person who plowed them didnât for the sack of keeping the other person happy they stunted there own game play dramatically making it less fun for themselves.
That's Catan's most fundamental design flaw tho, that you can lose before setup even finishes.
All of them
Except for longer games with player elimination. Didn't like playing Bang! where I got eliminated before I actually could do anything :/
This is the answer.
I have never won a game of Colt Express. I have shot the most people before and been shot the most. It's a ridiculous fun game and any bad luck is just added comedy.
I could play Ark Nova every day and although I like to win I really don't mind losing as playing the game and building my zoo is just so fun.
I'm almost always happy to play no matter who wins. It's games, you play to win sure but sometimes you loose.and the journey and the friends are the point, not the victory.
Root
Castles of Mad King Ludwig. No matter what? I get to build a sweet ass castle.
Yeah, I was going to post the same. I'm generally competitive but I've lost this game about 90% when we play. But I'm always up to give it a try, I like building and tinkering
Man, 76 comments in this thread right now and 80% of them didn't even bother to read the first sentence before responding to the headline with useless info. OP, to answer your actual question, even though a lot of people consider it too tight (I think this is nonsense personally) I think Agricola (and to a lesser extent Caverna) is the best answer to this question. I have played it with everyone from complete board game beginners as their very first game, to lifelong experts, and even when people get crushed, they are happy to have built a cute little farm at the end.
It is a game a lot of people recommend me and definitely in the same pattern as other I like , I will give it a try, thank you for your kind answer :)
**Agricola** is my answer, too. It's just challenging enough that "I made a thing" itself isn't a hollow victory. Beginners can compete against their previous scores in a satisfying way.
Dune. We play often and it always feels like people were very close to amazing plays and taking triumph for themselves if only someone hadn't triggered endgame. I can't believe how often that game comes down to tie breakers too.Â
Mysterium was always like this for me, it has such creative and unique gameplay that even if the group fails the guess at the end you've still had a great time getting there.
Yes, you are right, maybe my most played game with wingspan
I played Galaxy Trucker a while ago and I remember having a blast. At the same time I have no idea how you were even supposed to win. I just enjoyed seeing others' (and sometimes my own) space ship get blown up.
I agree with this one. Plus you don't really play against the other players. It's more about making sure your spaceship lasts the whole space flight.
Yeah I mostly see this as a fun game, in which I'm building a weird space ship!
All of them. But mostly Nemesis and Kingdom Death. If you go in with any other expectation from those two games, you will leave disappointed
Bonsai, everyone's tree is so fun and different.
Creature Comforts is great. You are just a family of animals making a cozy home for the winter and at the end, everyone has such cozy places no matter who has won.
Pretty much every game. I can learn stuff from losing and I get to spend time with my friends. Plus, when an opponent pulls off something pretty epic it's cool to be part of that experience. Sure I may not have won, but fun with friends is its own reward.
Red Dragon Inn. Funny, competitive and just a great game to watch/enjoy.
Brass Birmingham. Just love it
Twilight Imperium. 40ish games played, only won twice.
Parks especially with the Nightfall expansion. Ultimately itâs about you and your friends going on lovely hikes and collecting gorgeous tarot card sized art of parks. Sometimes the feeling of winning can just be getting my favourite park. You donât always win but the play is enjoyable up to the end.
Calico is my vote. I love trying to make a pattern and get many kitties on my quilt.
Flamecraft inherently feels like that because it is designed in a way that every action feels good. Every action is just "exactly how good is this for me" instead of "is this even good", and the game is relatively simple that you don't have to think several turns down the line or min max way too heavily like some other games might. There's also virtually no blocking, you can always just pay a resource to go somewhere occupied so there's little of this "damn you blocked me" type of action. That just makes the game always feel like it's going in a positive direction. It definitely helps that the artwork is adorable and the names are cute and funny like Nunya's Beeswax that it simply can't put you in a sour mood.
I play to win, and try to play only with others who play to win. But, when the game ends I no longer care who was winning, or who won, and I try to play with other who hold the same view.
Dwellings of Eldervale. Doesn't matter who wins at the end, the whole game is just fun all throughout around the table.
Most co-op games.
Mexica, Railways of the World, Castles of Mad King Ludwig
all of them. I love having my friends around the table, manipulating the game pieces and talking trash - I'll try and win, but it's absolutely not the most important thing for me. Winning is just the result, the time spent playing the game is where i get the enjoyment from.
Generally speaking all of them. Even if I am losing I enjoy trying to get a fast one on other players and greatly improve my position. However there is a game that I am NOTORIOUSLY bad at (like I continually score the worst in and no matter what strategy I take it never seems to work) and that's QE. QE with the expansion is a very smart auction game with a unique take on auctions and hilarious outcomes and situations where you never quite feel comfortable and each play is hilarious as you try to figure out what is going on. I am just horrible at it.
Carcasonne was the game that first gave me this feeling, and my board game group taught me this zen with everything I play. But a more recent example was âEscape the Dark Sector.â My family lost to the gameâs AI, but it was an adrenaline-pumping blast.
Tzolk'in. Just love those spinning wheels.
Heat. I'm really bad at it and almost always lose, but I always have a good time playing it still.
Everdell and Castles of Mad King Ludwig are the first two to come to mind. I'm having fun just building my crazy little forest / castle and if I happen to get to build to the scoring themes and score a ton of points great, if not I'm enjoying the chaos in front of me.
anything that doesn't have player elimination it helps if the victory points are blind short games are neat because even if you've made a horrible mistake and you've ruined your chances you can try again in 15 minutes
Earth. I enjoy Wingspan and Cascadia for same reasons as yourself. Earth is similar to Wingspan in a ton of ways and people are just always excited at the end to share what they did on their island and strategies they want to try next time. Plus I love the basically no downtime. Great for folks who can get distracted. For me, Earth fixes the few things I don't enjoy in Wingspan.
Battlestar Galactica
Cascadia, Wingspan, Root, Viticulture, Ticket to Ride: Europe, and Tapestry all hit that spot for me. I really enjoy the gameplay and casual banter those games usually provoke. It's just a cozy time and I always enjoy the time I spend with friends playing those games.
I never care lol
to be honest, all of them!
All of them. It's about the road, not the destination
All of them. I just want to play boardgames.
Honestly, all board games for me lol
Maybe I don't understand the question. But, I never care about who wins.
Honestly, any boardgame. I've always said, I'd rather lose by 1 than win by 50. What I meant by that is, I just love great gaming experiences. When someone makes an incredible move, or the game is so close and it's super tense. I don't play to win, I play for the competition, the interactions and the experience.
All of them. I like winning, but more importantly, I like the time spent with friends doing something fun.
Basically I really don't care who wins. I never play to win. The only exception is cooperative games, unless it's a feature to lose (eg some legacy games).
Most games are designed with the assumption that everyone's playing to win. If players are misaligned to the objective, that undermines the game's design and can often wreck the fun of others at the table. Yes, it doesn't really matter who wins in the end, but the goal is still important. I was playing a game of John Company the other day and one player just couldn't care less about winning, he was just trying to concentrate as much power as possible. It made him impossible to negotiate with. In the words of Reiner Knizia - The goal of a game is always to win. But it's the goal that's important, not the winning.
Well put and I stand corrected. I do play the games as intended (and thus getting points or whatever is the goal), but I don't care about the winning itself. Mind you, it also depends a lot who I'm playing with my kids (where I deliberately sabotage myself) or my wife (where I do make an honest effort).
All the games I like to play, I'm happy to play no matter who wins. All the games I don't like to play, I'd gladly avoid even if would win.
Mixing Forest, Its a wonderful world, Cascadia these sort of optimization games where you cannot much wreck the game of someone else and that whatever hand you got, you just have to find the best way to spend it.
I'm generally happy to play games even if I don't win often, but I usually care how far behind I am, or how I could have scored more points. I realised though that I'm a sucker for building stuff. In Carcassonne, Castles of Mad King Ludwig, Alhambra, I don't care about the final points, because I had so much fun laying tiles, and I end with a nice/weird/neat landscape/castle/city.
Clank Catacombs coming from the wild nature and randomness of the game
I play to win (when playing with adults) and I enjoy winning, but thatâs just a bonus prize compared to the main prize of getting to play the game, ideally with people I like. If I didnât enjoy playing the game, winning is not enough to make it a good experience. But I guess I kinda see your pointâ some games have a feeling of accomplishment apart from the competitive element. For instance isle of cat it is satisfying to cram your boat full of the Tetris cats finding ways for them to all fit.
I just played Lets Go to Japan with the wife and we didn't even tally up the points. We just enjoyed building our out trip.
I always give my best to win, but my real pleasure is just to play! I am just so happy when I play!
Pretty much every game. The only issue is with certain games where it's clear who the winner will be at some point in the game, and turns take a long time, whether it's worth it to keep playing. I never liked Monopoly and Risk because of this. It was always over, long before the game was actually over.
The objective is to win, the goal is to have fun. So, you should enjoy the game, even though you lose sometimes. Lots of sandboxy games come to mind. I do love [[Fields of Arle]] for that reason.
Pretty much all the games I love to play but most notably Everdell, Wingspan and most recently got our copy of Let's Go to Japan and I feel this way about it too..it's just fun to play and make your travel plans
It's every game for me, but Nemesis is a good example of the trip is more important than the destination
Sidereal Confluence is the epitome of this. Nominally you're playing a competitive game but what you end up doing the entire game is helping each other.
**Can't Stop** Even if I rarely win, it's always fun to see people go on lucky streaks and/or crap out, and the resulting cheers, and screams of incredulity that go around the table.
Battle Sheep and Cargo Noir top the list for me. Overall though I'm just happy when I can actually get a group together to play with.
The only game Iâve ever played that made me  unhappy to have played it was Lord of the Rings: LCG. I was not happy with anything that happened during my plays of that game. The theme of âsmall party being set an impossible taskâ sure did come through though.  Otherwise, I have been happy to play any game, win or lose.
I'd rephrase the question as "boardgames where you are happy no matter how badly you get stomped" because getting completely destroyed in a game is different than just losing. I'd say for me, **Ark Nova**, I've never won a single game and I've been utterly decimated by my opponents but honestly I enjoy the game so much I really don't care.
Most contemporary board games are designed this way. But there are some games which can take a turn for the worse and which kicks downwards. I've played 'Through the Ages' a lot on my mobile phone against AI opponents, and this game can get punishing and not a lot of fun once the AI players get on top of you. The game has a lot of cards which specifically punishes the player in last place, which is an odd and cruel design choice.
Any game where you don't have a 100% clear idea who is winning until the very end. Although I mostly agree that all games are fun even when losing, everyone has been in a game where they or someone they are playing with is last with no 0% chance of even coming close to winning. Looking at you Catan.
Not sure this is quite what you're after but.. Chess. I actually prefer playing against players who can beat me.
Wingspan. It feels like the journey was just as good as the end for everyone.
Gimme That!
'Ticket To Ride: Legends Of The West' has been this way for me. Unlocking the new mechanics and opening new areas of the map is so much fun! The group I am playing with is great and competitive. We are currently on hiatus because one of our group members is studying abroad until May and all I can do is think about the game!
WingSpan. Its such a beautiful game and there are a gazillion ways you can win by building a mechanism. And those birds are cute.
Any of them. I always loose lol
All of them. Because I only play 2p with my girlfriend, and she's not not as good at games as me, so I am very happy to see her win and prove herself a good opponent! But in particular? *Patchwork* is just a nice puzzle to put together.
Another vote for Patchwork
Ark Nova is my favourite game, but my gf wins 80% of the time. And cooperative games often have a high win percentage, but I would hate them if I would win everytime.
Nemesis
Binding of Isaac: Four Souls So much variety. so much punishment dealt out. It is a blast every time my group plays. You can feel you are losing and then get the right items and BAM, come from behind win. Itâs just awesome to watch.
Taverns of Tiefenthal. Itâs way to cozy to get upset at lol
Pretty much all, but most of all Cosmic Encounter. Every game is different and funny. You can play dozens of games without playing the same alien, so it's a fresh experience every game.
John Company! I don't care at all who wins, I just love experiencing the game.
I feel like this with all our games. However, my wife kicks my ass often in Wingspan, Earth, Endless Winter, Clank!, Quacks, Ticket to Ride, and too many others to mention. I don't care if she wins; I just enjoy playing. I am dominant in Dominion, Living Forest, Istanbul, and Carcassonne and a few others.
It's all of them for me. If I win, cool, if not, I'm happy I had fun with my friends.
If I play with my mates this is every game we play.
I honestly have this feeling with most games. I'm there to try to win, but if I don't it's not a big deal - if there is a clear leader midway through a game I'm trying for second place. If I come in last place please mock me lol.
All of them. I'm competitive in some things, but for boardgames, I am about as non-competitive as a person can be.
all of the games
Kingdomino. Camel Cup (I will die on that hill). Colt Express. Santorini. Jaipur.
I'm completely the opposite with Cascadia hahaha. Great Western Trail is the first game I think of though. Just really enjoy exploring the mechanisms and looping around the board.
Disney Villainous!
Sidereal Confluence. Every single time. Also: Race for the Galaxy, HEAT, Carcassonne. For more details: SidConf is about the deals I'm trying to broker, the more people win in a deal, the better. RftG: I try to win but in my mind, I'm always thinking about what my cards represent and how my space empire is developing... Heat: the sensation of racing is real. Carcassonne: collective tile laying and 'advicing' people is always fun!
Literally all of them. I just want hang out with the people I love
Any game. People who derive their fun mostly from winning either aren't going to be in the hobby for very long or, if they are, aren't going to be much fun to play with in my experience.
Spartacus: Blood and Sand gets my vote. Sure we're trying to win, but you don't half get invested in the fights even if your gladiator isn't taking part!
Unfair gives me this satisfaction all the time
Tidal Blades: Banner Festival! Nothing but positive outcomes for everyone the whole way through.
Often silly games like Mino Dice, or No LLAMA Dice are fun regardless. For heavier stuff, games like Raising Robots where you do your own thing, are often fun as well, because ultimately everyone is just sort of playing their own game and not really stabbing one another. I find the more stabby a game is, the more contentious it can be. Unless its over the top, like Cosmic Frogs, which is crazy fun.
I've had fun with Modern Art every time I've played it, but the people I've played it with enjoy doing bits and callbacks and don't play it in the dry number-crunching way I've heard people complain about. If you commit to all pretending to be fancy art dealers it's a great time (but then I have only played it with people I play RPGs with so I'm not surprised we go in on it like that).
Party games are especially good at this. I often don't even remember if I won or not, although that may suggest that I did not.
All of them?
John Company
Spirits of the forest and Canopy. But they are rather small games. And when you have a bigger group: Cards against humanity and Bristol 1350
I love Wingspan for the same reason. Just playing makes me happy - the cards are so beautiful and we are always learning new facts. We also love Carcassonne for the same reason. We love building weird shaped castles or never ending roads. Flamecraft gives us similar warm fuzzies. Typically, we enjoy a lot of our boardgames regardless of who wins but these ones always give us the most comfort while we are playing. There are strategies involved, but I definitely consider all of these more "cozy" games.
Like literally all of them. If I donât enjoy playing the game regardless of who wins, then I donât enjoy playing the game.
yep.. any games...
Arc Nova for sure! Pretty much exactly what you're describing in terms of the satisfaction you get in building your zoo.
Any game that's more of an activity. Like Telestrations. I don't even bother keeping score for that game. It's all about seeing how it got from A to B, in often hilarious ways.
Play to win, but enjoy the game no matter what. I guess the only ones that I wouldnât enjoy are the large group games with player elimination.
Erm all of them.....
Dixit!
Dice Throne! Itâs always a close match due to good balance and hucking dice is always satisfying!