Board Game Arena

As someone who has played 85 of the 90 games on BGA (and as someone who is currently bored at work), I have decided to rank all of the games on BGA that I have played based on what I personally find to be most fun to play.

1. Through the Ages
2. Hanabi
3. Saboteur
4. Armadora
5. Tokaido
6. The Boss
7. Caylus
8. In the Year of the Dragon
9. Assyria
10. Race for the Galaxy

11. Can't Stop
12. Takenoko
13. The Palaces of Carrara
14. Stone Age
15. Hearts
16. Lost Cities
17. Quantum
18. Quoridor
19. Puerto Rico
20. Haggis

21. Cinco
22. Tzolk'in
23. Chess
24. Koi-koi
25. Le Deneir Peuple
26. Quatro
27. Lords of Xidit
28. Hex
29. Bombay
30. Yahtzee

31. Koryo
32. Pylos
33. Jaipur
34. Nile
35. K2
36. Gomoku
37. Dark Agent
38. 6 nimmt!
39. Backgammon
40. Reversi

41. Color Pop
42. Sobek
43. Noir: Killer versus Inspector
44. Coloretto
45. Seasons
46. Battle Sheep
47. Kahuna
48. Kalah
49. Nautilus
50. Florenza: The Card Game

51. United Square
52. Amyitis
53. Perudo
54. Neutreeko
55. Thermopyles
56. Senet
57. Dragonheart
58. Gosu
59. Niagra
60. Targi

61. Evo: The game no name
62. Expedition: Northwest Passage
63. Gyges
64. Battle of LITS
65. Dungeon Twister
66. Hawaii
67. Keyflower
68. 8 Masters' Revenge
69. Metromania
70. Hive

71. Machiavelli
72. Uncle Chestnut's Table Gype
73. Checkers
74. Tournay
75. Tash-Kalar
76. Syprium
77. Libertalia
78. Elfenland
79. Tobago
80. Jelly Monster Lab

81. Polis: Fight for Hegemony
82. Gear & Piston
83. Xiangqui
84. Colt Express
85. Troyes

Great effort and kudos up front just for the swath of coverage you've been able to achieve...my loose estimation of what I have been able to sample from the BGA smorgasboard is only about ~40 (darn time doing other things) so it's very useful to get lists like yours as props for creating interest in sampling new games.

Knowing everyone has their own 'flavor' of what makes a game fun, would be interested to know your top 3-4 criteria you've internalized to assess your list. For me, some divisions exist (best solo'/play by self, best group games/cooperative, easiest to understand, great mechanic that remains fair througout the play, good balance of tactical/strategic, etc) that come out after a play or two with any game that might be fun to codify for enhancing your list and teasing others to contribute theirs.

On a game level, I have to give a shout out for a game I discovered here (Libertalia) which varies from frustrating (too much card luck) to very enjoyable (3 person play, good balance of cards/treasures) at any time I've played. Another is Elfenland which (depending on the players - have to be lighthearted to enjoy tromping about the countryside in a giant elf boot taking various forms of transportation such as ' old man with cart') can be a great resource management game or an agonizing fury of unicorn hooves when unable to get 2 needed cards to complete a decent route plan lol.

Again, great effort - more insights of interest to see.

I've played around half of the games. I generally prefer deep games with little randomness. Here are my top 5 so far:

1. In The Year of the Dragon - lots of different strategies with no randomness, and fun to play with any number of players.

2. Troyes - some randomness, but generally decision-making is more important - and I love the setting

3. Puerto Rico - many different strategies with no randomness. A bit more repetitive than ITYOTD, because every game starts exactly the same.

4. Through the Ages - just extremely fun with 3 or more players

5. Battle of LITS - a simple, quick to play, 2 player puzzle-type game

Other games I love: Chess, Gyges, Evo, Quoridor, Checkers, Metromania.

Ranif88 wrote:Great effort and kudos up front just for the swath of coverage you've been able to achieve...my loose estimation of what I have been able to sample from the BGA smorgasboard is only about ~40 (darn time doing other things) so it's very useful to get lists like yours as props for creating interest in sampling new games.

Knowing everyone has their own 'flavor' of what makes a game fun, would be interested to know your top 3-4 criteria you've internalized to assess your list. For me, some divisions exist (best solo'/play by self, best group games/cooperative, easiest to understand, great mechanic that remains fair througout the play, good balance of tactical/strategic, etc) that come out after a play or two with any game that might be fun to codify for enhancing your list and teasing others to contribute theirs.

On a game level, I have to give a shout out for a game I discovered here (Libertalia) which varies from frustrating (too much card luck) to very enjoyable (3 person play, good balance of cards/treasures) at any time I've played. Another is Elfenland which (depending on the players - have to be lighthearted to enjoy tromping about the countryside in a giant elf boot taking various forms of transportation such as ' old man with cart') can be a great resource management game or an agonizing fury of unicorn hooves when unable to get 2 needed cards to complete a decent route plan lol.

Again, great effort - more insights of interest to see.

In general terms this is what I look for in a game (in no particular order).

Intuitive game play
I try to play every game without reading the rulebook. I only reference the rulebook if I have played 10-20 games without a win, or if I can't figure out a specific game mechanic.

I have a strong preference towards what I call "cloud of war" games.
Meaning it is not obvious what my opponent's next turn will be either because the game has designed his/her moves to be hidden or there is enough randomness to the game that my opponent doesn't even know what they will do.

Random luck vs. skill balance
I really enjoy games that have a high degree of luck that skilled players can still master. This allows for skilled players to win a majority of their matches, but allows everyone to feel like the have a chance. For me, poker is the perfect model of this balance.

Replayability
Does the game naturally allow for infinite strategies and situations to emerge, or does it get repetitive after time.

Balance
If there are multiple paths to victory each much be a feasible choice. Having one overpowered strategy can kill the game. (Tzolkin comes to mind as an example of one path being overpowered)

Good attributes - some notes and adds:

To yours:
Intuititve play - Agree, synthesis of "well written, easily understood rules and game mechanic(s)" - Would note that some very complex (read: play options and capability selections) games requiring extensive supporting rules can be great to play as well with the key being whether the information can be processed and presented succinctly. Too often a great game premise and mechanic of play die a slow adoption death with simply poor writing or lack of systemic thinking about the game play. This is probably my largest point with most games (even here) in that the ability to get into games quickly with sufficient minimal rules while being able to learn additional strategies through experience/replays is often not achieved.

Random luck vs. skill balance - Like the take and difficult to achieve in most games. One observation to add is that games that build skill over time of play (through exposure of more options of play, choices/results, experience) create a great "hook" to engage and retain players. Another is that 'complexity' (for complexity's sake) via huge lists of options, gazillions of cards, and miles of attributes or matricies of tradeoffs in dense rule and overlaying various mechanics within a single game do not make for a 'high skill' game - rather, think of the simplicity of most abstract games (Go, Chess) that result in numerous tactical and strategic short and long term opportunities to test/try/replay/etc.

Replayability - See above regarding building skill. Would note that many games with simple mechanics and what might infer higher luck than skill seem to incurr very high replayability, often exploiting the 'beat the luck' factor through chance vs. adoption of skill (e.g. slots). This is often the secret sauce of any game (or even retail/commercial entity desiring 'repeat customers') and relates in many ways to 'balance' and 'integration' as well as 'fun' (below) and thus the true metric for most games to strive for (my take).

My adds:
Novelty (of premise or mechanic) - Always an enticement, any game providing a unique story, exploration, goal, or method of play gets at least a first look and (if well integrated, see next) good engagement and play by the audience. 'New' by itself doesnt cut it however. There is a balance point here too with too many story points creating more confusion or challenges to make relevant in the game play, while too little leaves a game feeling not yet complete or skimping on the fun. 'Should make sense' is a good rule of thumb even for silly or outrageous premises, while lacking this is relatively evident quickly from the rules.

Integration - An extension of 'balance' but is intended to address premise, story, mechanic, time of play, player match/number of players creating a useful gameplay, and even quality of component and approach to presenting the game. There should be a feeling of 'makes sense' as well as luck/skill, risk/reward, and worth time of play to a game to have a chance at replays. Ever play a game that looks interesting, starts to play well, then has an odd piece of the mechanic or part of the story flow supporting the goal of the game that seems to hurt the game like a flat tire, rendering the car to a flapping noisy trip to its destination? Not integrated well. The finding of a new game ('novelty') that also presents a potential for learning to improve play ('integration') are two key elements of replayability, but so is...

Fun - Most subjective element. For solo, pair, 3/4/5+, group, and other game types, any number of attributes may be applied but would offer some that appear to occur often regardless in addition to the above: mood, player experience balance, payoff, and whimsy. Mood includes whether I may be up for competitive play but the game supports cooperative, lending a mismatch to me and a possible negative feeling. This often may not be the fault of the game itself. Player balance feeds into this often with everyone learning or everyone at roughly a similar experience level to allow skill to engage strategies somewhat fairly. This fits with Mood in that many experienced players often may not have patience to engage and aid new players (sometimes issue here), rendering lower engagement for the new player and certainly not fun. Payoff is the end result that often is "win" or in absence of that being enough, a goal related to the premise that makes sense and leaves one with a sense of journey taken. Sometimes this is just learning the game in an atmosphere that was supporting, causing replay and engagement to occur. Lastly, while traditional strategic and many abstract games with little or no real premise (aside from "win using mechanic") have good play value, often a hint of less seriousness from a novel story or premise can increase the feeling of fun when playing - a feature I enjoy along with competition.

Good notes again - others welcome.