The 'Boardgame Golden Age' keeps going ... and a couple of thoughts why that may be...

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

[HEADING=3]Preface[/HEADING]

So at the close of 2017 the board gaming scene recorded its best sales yet and projections look good ... numbers of people playing keep on increasing. Board game cafes are a 'thing' now all over the place, and there doesn't seem to be anything mitigating the flood of quality games at prices that are actually affordable compared with pre-inflation adjusted figures of the pre-2010s and prior.

In fact the board game scene, despite requiring groups of players to get the most fun out of it, is aging faster than videogames. In an era where Skyrim keeps getting released to record sales on a bajillion different platforms, board games seem to grow older faster.

Which seems like a shock to me, but now that I think about the playing habits with my gaming group it starts to make a hell of a lot of sense. Games from only 5 or 6 years ago are considered 'ancient' and the rate of evolution in the scene leads to an ever fewer handful of board games, compared to the mountains of relatively new games coming out, that routinely get broken out that we play in comparison to the monumentally stupid consumption cycle of what are in truth incredibly large products for how often they get playedfor the most part.

Seriously... board games are big business and require a shit load of space. Unlike Steam where you can have literally thousands of games at a fingertip and with a simple internet connection, you can't really do that with board games... and when you throw on expansions to increase their life cycle it's kind of silly. I have a storage rental agreement, and then I legitimately thought about and realized just how scary it is how packed they are with board games in comparison to other stuff I have in it.

That I will only break out maybe 1 or 2 more times if I'm lucky.

I can't think of anything more bourgeois...

So why the hell is this trend growing?

I mean so many of them are bigger than your standard ATX computer case in contents ...

Gloomhaven ... brilliant game. Weighs 10 kilograms--of cardboard and plastic. And it's got an expansion coming up soon! That'll be great. I mean my board gaming group are currently only 20 scenarios in, still haven't discovered what's in most of the boxes ...even though I've played the campaign before half way through with another group. In fact I was thinking about writing a review for it on the forums and kind of analyzing why the hell such a combat system that is so elegant, and its systems so nuanced, not in any computer game!? It is a ridiculously good combat system, with a ridiculous amount of player customization, with a ridiculously big campaign, with a ridiculous amount of content.

Why aren't computer games like that?

Seriously ... you can go through the campaign, and discover stuff that other players will never find or they will have found within the first couple of scenarios. Entire 'lost' scenarios, entire classes ... and all of them are mysterious because they come in their own little envelopes full of cards and tidbits that you don't know exactly what you're getting until you complete certain things and get to unlock them!

It's great-- okay, look ... when I get some free time I'll have to write up a one part review-2 parts why the hell do computer games not have this level of sheer fun and mystery and complexity and nuance and yet actually ixnay the all too frequent insane amounts of randomness in computer games or tabletop RPGs?

Why can't computer games be this smart!? Gloomhaven retails for a pretty figure, but how much stuff you actually get it beats any computer game on the market when you include all of its things its gives you, and its ideas, and its gameplay... Oooh!

But regardless, if you're skeptical go check out a review. People love it. And you'll either get why or won't, but you will see my point when you check out its components, and game rules, and little nuances, and its gameplay mechanics, how initiative works, how it handles its own self-contained timer system of how long you can be someplace... Seriously, why aren't computer games this good?

That's neither here nor there, but it does lead me to the actual thrust of my point and why board games aren't losing any steam.

I live in a studio apartment and frankly it is unhealthy the fact that I have a pallet of games here that I could possibly hurt myself if they collapsed on me while digging out that trusty Mage Knight because I'm kind of bored and want a solo RPG with partial deckbuilder mechanics as you play, and exploration, to wile away three hours of my life because ... I have nothing better to do, kind of sad right?

So what is it about this hobby that seems to have dug its claws into people's minds over the past 10 years and seemingly won't be able to be removed without possibly doing some psychological damage?

Seriously, are we mad? Like the economy of space alone is -- shut up! Don't think like that.

I'm going to tell you why you shouldn't from a person with literally nothing better to do than tell you my thoughts about this hobby and why I think board gaming will continue this pace for as many years as humanity has still on the clock before total societal collapse.

---------

[h4]Because it's actually cheap... for what you physically get ...[/h4]

Now it took me a while to figure out precisely why I felt this way, but at the same time all the other thoughts that I had written above should tell you it's not, right?

But it is actually surprisingly cheap.

A brilliantly simple game, costs next to nothing for a table of up to 8 good friends (best played with 4/5) to just ... play and play and play. It's unfair, only mildly cerebral, with a persistent puzzle of how to manage emergent gameplay thrown in. Straddles the cute, macabre and the devious. And it's easy to tell who's winning, and who to focus on and be a colossal, unrepentant bastard to.

And I guarantee you, simply because it's still on the table when you're done with it that you'll be smiling and either you or one of your friends will say; "Okay, okay ... I know what I'm doing now... I'm comfortable with another round if anyone's game?"

And you'll all agree...

Over some mugs of warm tea and coffee. And biscuits ...

Okay, you can see my avatar. It was me. I bought it. I was that person. But legitimately we played it as just a game night 'opener game' three times before getting into something meatier. And that's not much of a price tag when you consider that we've played it some more since then. And we plan to play it again sometime.

Think of it as clothing. A beautiful chiffon number that you might pay 20 times as much for, wear twice maybe, and then just sort of have it sitting around? It's not that bad and it's possibly the cheapest socializing event you can have. You spend just as much not even on a handful of drinks at a club. And that's not including the taxi ride.

And how many social activities can you think of where everyone is comfortable you kicking off your shoes, in denim shorts and a tee, laughing and getting to know (or remember) just how big an arsehole your friends can be in a game of Archipelago or Gloomhaven?

Unstable Unicorns ... pretty darn fun and frenetic game night 'opener' game ... Retails for about AU$28. There's a kickstarter currently on for its big release of the Controland Chaos base games coming out soonish, check it out if you're interested.

You'll have fun. It's not a fantastic game by any stretch, but it's low investment yet still strategic fun, you get a fair amount of stuff, rules are dead easy, and you get murderous, magical unicorns in a box.

Perfect way to get those minds warmed up for more weightier, heavylifting board games.

[h4]Because it's actually cheap ... for what you physically get ...[/h4]

Now this isn't a universal, cover all type of critique by any measure because you do have the type of board gamer that just wants to win. And fair enough, winning is important ... but if you're like me you're most an extrovert. You like hanging out with other people. The problem is that you want an intimate night with people that doesn't involve make up, doesn't involve expensive drinks, doesn't involve a taxi ride at 3AM, doesn't ... starting to see the picture here?

If you slide towards the extroverted spectrum like me--and 70% of humanity--board games can offer that in amazing degrees of variation that rely on wit, and cunning, and duplicity, and channeling your inner sociopath. Everybody has one.

Board games will give you a licence for you to exercise all the worst aspects of human nature beyond physically hurting someone ... and you all have a licence to do so.

There are board games out there where you will win not because you're better with numbers or strategy, but simply because you are a phenomenal liar and able to laugh when you have crushed all the little fevered dreams of the person sitting right next to you that have invested all their brain power to claw their way back into the game.

You will learn things about your friends you never knew about them until you play a board game. Like how they can look you in the eye, lie to your face, and then smile as they tear you apart. And these are people you thought you knew for years.

And what other environment, and what other past time, would this be socially acceptable? Never-hopefully.

You will discover that there are CIA super spy material in your gaming group as soon as you whip out a copy of Resistance-Avalon. They will have won not because they're the smartest with numbers, merely because they're brilliant manipulators and stony-faced liars, that will worm their deceptions into your brain and destroy every hopes of winning as a team that you had.

And none of this sounds appealing because in a way, it's not. But at the same time it is because it's a licence to channel your worst impulses. You only think you know these people. You don't. You learn that incredibly quickly, and it's all in an environment of prosocial bonding.

How many times in your life do you know where a person can manipulate, cheat, lie, steal, and outright play on your emotions--and all of it can be considered prosocial engagement?

It is phenomenally therapeutic ... and if you're interested...

Retails for about AU$28 ... best played with about 7-8 people, playable up to 10. Games last about 2-3 hours depending on how much you quarrel and bicker and manipulative and chatty your group is and how many people.

This is actually one of the board games I would suggest to somewhat new board gamers, because it just amazingly highlights everything that this hobby can be in terms of beyond simply cardboard, beyond simply arithmetic, and related purely on the basis of human cunning, duplicity, and interrogation.

-------

[h4]Because it's actually cheap ... for what you physically get... and amazingly socialist...[/h4]

The thing is, boardgames inherently bring people together. And they get people invested. And that investment is paid for often in the smallest of boxes and pricetags. The playstate is almost always shared. Even in local co-op or lan videogaming you tend to have dividers that totally separate you from your friends. Now sure you have hands of cards that are secret. Sure you have some mysteriesin hidden rolegames. Sure you have dividing screens in Captain Sonar... but the playstate is still entirely open in a way that you can't really get when you're staring at a monitor.

Moreover ... everyone contributes stuff to its total enjoyment. The more everyone invests, the more the entire group gets out of it.

See I was the person that bought our group's copy of Gloomhaven. I'm the one that keeps everybody's sheets, and envelopes, and our collective journey's changes to the city and event decks, and the items we've unlocked ... all of that. I willingly paid for the investment of time we put into it is what makes it special and beautiful and like a big box of memories. Some of which that we haven't even unlocked yet.

Certainly there are games that, oddly, I 'bought for myself' ... like the phenomenal Mage Knight.

Trust me, the best solo board game in existence, and proof that board games need not have to have other people.

If you do get it, definitely get The Lost Legion expansion ... and only after that if you've played it to bits get the Tezla and Krang expansions.

It says 1-4 (5 with Lost Legion) player but ... look, this game is fucking hard to learn, to memorize, and to keep on your toes with. And it's incredibly hard to teach, and it requires two to three playthroughs to get good at it, and turns take forever. Look ... 2 players at most, and only ever co-operative, and only if you seriously want to have a heavy number-crunching, heavy RPG/persistent deckbuilder/exploration game.

But I will say this game is amazing. There's supposedly a brand new 'Ultimate Edition' version of the game that has everything, but it will retail for AU$183 ... and for that price you can buy Gloomhaven. Which is a tough sell given that Gloomhaven is best playable with 3-4 players, and you can even play it solo (unrecommended, but you can).

It is a masterful solo-playable board game, however. It's Vlaada Chvatil, of course it's going to be good. Well ... you know ... I actually hate Through the Ages, but you can't always be expected to make a great board game, can you?

There are games in board gaming that can just be your guilty secret(ish) pleasure that you can break out.

The thing is, boardgaming to me is more than that.

Boardgaming is that beautiful feeling that you get with you and a group of good friends, or perhaps only one friend who feels like some Android: Netrunner (the best head-to-head game out there), break out a new game that you bought. And you can share it. It's a mysterious or familiar toy chest that the true value is you're all kids playing with it, together.

With board games you have to consider that all of us contribute these games. When all of us bring all these weird and wacky games to the table .... suddenly that economy of space isn't too bad.

The one person that bought it and brought it over will be happy, because it's like a gift they bought for the group and everybody is having fun and you're all bonding over colourful unicorns ... and murdering them ... while protecting your own colourful unicorns ... and who can say 'no' to that?

It is precisely like a gift. That everybody brings something eventually. Even if it's them simply being a GM for a couple of sessions of a tabletop RPG that people already own (not technically board games, but whatever).

It's like everybody sharing a gift that might not cost much ... but you will all be able to play with it, and build experiences. Whether you're well off or you're not. No one will mind and they're simply happy that you can share in the moment of unwrapping something new, and colourful, and shiny, and all of it you can share in. And probably doesn't cost as much as the mid-game snacks you bought for the night.

And that's pretty magical on its own. Unicorns or not.

------------

So breaking that down. What do you reckon about my three thoughts for why boardgaming is still growing and why it's even outpacing the individual game longevity of its videogame counterparts? Let us know what sort of board games your groups like to play every weekend or fortnight. What's your 'bread and butter' games that bring all your friends to the table?

 

[Saelune]

Well, I think part of it is due to piggybacking off DnD's current success. While not solely due to it, I'd wager a lot of groups that got into DnD recently are more inclined to try out these other various tabletop games. Certainly it is my DnD group that bring up board games to play.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I think going by this and your other spiels that you need to learn to make more succinct posts.
And I love board games but I don't consider them to be in any kind of competition with videogames.

 

[CaitSeith]

Several years ago, the boardgame industry passed a similar phase that games are still lingering in. The idea that games as complex as before don't sell, and if a well known game from long ago (like Monopoly) was released today, it would flop. Time eventually proved them wrong: there is enough different people out there to make completely different games successful; regardless of complexity, theme or price.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

Honestly I think its just because we like socialising, and boardgames offer a way to do that in a manner better than chatting over screens with each other. And since a lot of board games these days are allowing themselves to be a lot more customisable to let you tailor them to your group of friends' personal preference (I'm fairly sure I've played Unstable Unicorns with the friend that owned it having thrown in a couple of booster packs she'd liked) they're easier for people to bond over because you're all going to have that preference in common

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Well, I think part of it is due to piggybacking off DnD's current success. While not solely due to it, I'd wager a lot of groups that got into DnD recently are more inclined to try out these other various tabletop games. Certainly it is my DnD group that bring up board games to play.

Is there that much of an overlap between these two groups though? I love my tabletop rpgs as much as thenext .... person who likes tabletop rpgs. But the thing is that I also know people who were big into board games while always being leery about D&D and nWoD. It also doesn't help that tabletop rpgs are kind of co-operative. And not everyone is into that.

Gloomhaven breaks the mold of that because there is game mechanics in every scenario with things battle goal cards that guarantee everyone will be a little bit noisome or downright dangerous to be with during the scenario.

Also the fact that you don't get loot or treasure unless you play a loot card within so many hexes, or you don't end your turn on a space containing it. If you finish a scenario without picking up loot or treasure, you lose it. And the big thing is you're not allowed to actually share gold. Specifically in the rules, cannot share gold or items. It turns out self-interested high-fantasy mercenaries are self-interested ...

And that's great. While everyone will be a bit naughty given how XP works and how treasure and loot mechanics function, in tandem with the secret battle goal cards, that you basically kick open the door to the scenario, act like a bunch of jerks who are fairly selfish and greedy and skirting around the edge of disaster, but when it gets down to the wire you suddenly gel together, and you function like a team... otherwise you lose the scenario and have to leave (which can be beneficial, but most likely won't be)...

And the thing is I've found players more attracted to that than the kind of tone of level adjusted party encounters that sort of constantly necessitate a certain degree of mutual aid and co-operation all the time.

Like just because one of my 'teammates' had the 'Aggressor' battle goal card demanding every start of round there be monsters in play otherwise he won't get bonus perk ticks at the end of the scenario and had selected the lowest initiative value card he had ... meant that instead of helping me finish off an enemy in melee before it hit me ... he wandered over to a door, opened it, allowed a whole lot of monsters to trigger, and then looted a bunch of coins on the ground with the remainder of his move and loot action card ability.

So I lost 3HP for 'no reason', a whole lot of new monsters rolled in, and all the rest of us were staring daggers at him.

And the thing is they prefer that type of gameplay and 'co-operation'. It kind of elevates the stakes, and nobody is 100% of what anybody else is going to do. There's no pattern, and the game itself bakes into its core an unpredictability where the players simply won't act as 'efficiently' as they can given they have other agendas. But at the same time, when there is literally no more time to spare, no more reasons to be greedy, no more room for error, everybody suddenly starts acting like a well-oiled adventuring machine.

It's an amazing feeling, because every scenario feels tense if only because through player greed or the desire for advancement leads away from being a 'good party member' ... right up until the moment it really counts.

And that's kind of the big problem I have with a lot of tabletop rpgs like D&D is they lack that idea that players can be self-interested jerks. Like an actual self-interested jerk.

"Please don't blame me, but I am kind of really broke ... so I'll just go over here and pick up these bits of loot..."

And you know what? That might be one of your secret battle goals to begin with. Just collect enough loot in the scenario. Are you honestly going to sacrifice a chance at getting those perk points? The party can deal with you being a *bit* greedy, surely? Besides, they'll likely do it to you...

And to solidify this chaos, everybody puts down what 2 cards they elect to use in secret, with only vague commentary allowed of what they're actually planning. Like at best all you can say; "Well, I'll probably move a bit fairly late in the initiative and attack an enemy." You can't say; "At initiative 57, I'll move 4 hexes, and use an attack 4 ability against this enemy." Which is another step up on D&D ... you don't take turns so much in truth you decide one big turn and merely partly wing it as you go through initiative orders on cards.

So even games that are 'dungeon crawlers' in terms of board games don't really have a D&D equivalent so many times.

D&D has been around for generations ... the board game 'golden age' not so long, and there isn't a big overlap between them. People have their very definite preferences. Even in games that are nominally dungeon crawlers, they are world's apart.

Several years ago, the boardgame industry passed a similar phase that games are still lingering in. The idea that games as complex as before don't sell, and if a well known game from long ago (like Monopoly) was released today, it would flop. Time eventually proved them wrong: there is enough different people out there to make completely different games successful; regardless of complexity, theme or price.

Monopoly is kind of ... the thing is that board games have actually grown in complexity. Monopoly isn't exactly rated that well by people who play a lot of board games. Basically everything coming out is better designed, smarter, and simply more fun. Board gaming as a whole now is better than ever before.

The one thing that I'm fairly certain all board gamers will agree on is that this is the best time to be a board gamer ever.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

But regardless, if you're skeptical go check out a review. People love it. And you'll either get why or won't, but you will see my point when you check out its components, and game rules, and little nuances, and its gameplay mechanics, how initiative works, how it handles its own self-contained timer system of how long you can be someplace... Seriously, why aren't computer games this good?

I actually hate Through the Ages...

What do you reckon about my three thoughts for why boardgaming is still growing and why it's even outpacing the individual game longevity of its videogame counterparts? Let us know what sort of board games your groups like to play every weekend or fortnight. What's your 'bread and butter' games that bring all your friends to the table?

The problem with video games is that their designs and mechanics are very poorly thought out. Video games aren't designed in the sense of every element being there to prop up the core game. Just about every video game is basically Frankensteined together with mechanics just because they are in popular games vs the mechanics being there because it fits the singular game. Or mechanics just being there for the sheer reason of it's just how we've always done things (like how random battles lasted so long in JRPGs). Whether you look at God of War and it's dumb RPG mechanics or Witcher 3 and it's pointless loot system and open world, you see some much stuff there just for the sake of being there. Hell, video games can't even make fucking MONEY be important to the game. Seriously, what video games ever have money be a legitimately important resource (outside of something like a SimCity)? Why does Witcher 3 have a haggle mechanic when you never need to buy anything anyway? Whereas pretty much every board game that has money, money becomes really important to get stuff done whether we are talking Puerto Rico or Terraforming Mars. It's really mind-boggling the things standard video game design fail at.

What?!?! Through the Ages (at least the new edition) is an amazing game, it's such a great worker placement game that also happens to be an engine builder with like 6 small engines you have to equally build. The first time I played it, I played so poorly because you can't min/max it.

Boardgaming I feel is something people don't really know about because it's, in a sense, very new. I was really surprised when I started playing board games like 5+ years ago that just about every game I was learning was released rather recently. All the games you listed came out this decade for example. You'd think with boardgaming not requiring technology advancements like video games, you'd have a full library of classic games that are pretty old (like Mario, Zelda, Metal Gear, etc.). But you really only have the likes of Power Grid, Tigris & Euphrates, El Grande, Twilight Imperium, Puerto Rico, Ticket to Ride, Railways of the World that are at best basically just 20 years old and not even older than Space Invaders or Mario. You have a few older games like Risk, Monopoly, Axis & Allies, and Talisman but most older games are really bad games like 3 of those 4. Of course, you have really old classics like Chess and Poker. Even something like Stone Age is only 10 years old, the horrible Cards Against Humanity is not even 10 years old. Why did it take so long for basically a DnD themed worker placement game like Lords of Waterdeep to be a thing? Why is a basically picture version of Chinese Telephone (Telestrations) less than 10 years old? Why is such a simple party game as Codenames so new? Games like that just didn't exist so people never got into boardgames because there wasn't much there before super recently.

As to why boardgames sorta have short lives is because they are, again, so new. Dominion basically created deck-builders, which seems like such a standard and well-known mechanic but it's only 10 years old. Thus, of course, new games will advance the mechanic and make said game basically obsolete. I'm not at all a fan of just straight deck-builders, but I love a few games with a deck-building mechanic like Clank! In! Space! and Tyrants of the Underdark. I even like Mystic Vale a lot (a card-building game) but I feel like it's a prototype for something much better in the future. A Feast for Odin makes Uwe Rosenberg's other games, Agricola and Caverna, sorta obsolete because Odin does what those other games do but much better. Even something like Yokohama is just a better Istanbul. Century: Spice Road is a better Splendor. I have a feeling Hail Hydra may replace Battlestar Galactica because it's basically a much shorter version of Battlestar. There's so many hidden role games that are so much better than Werewolf that I totally don't get why Werewolf is ever played honestly.

As for what gets played a lot in my groups would be Terraforming Mars, Ethnos, Pandemic Legacy (though I haven't played it myself), Seafall, Scythe, Through the Ages, Trajan, Battlestar Galactica, Codenames, Telestrations, War of the Ring, Viticulture, Nippon, Puerto Rico, Twilight Imperium, Power Grid, A Feast for Odin, Sentinels of the Multiverse, Quartermaster General, Memoir 44, Tzolk'in: The Mayan Calendar, Azul, Keyflower, 7 Wonders, Lords of Waterdeep, Rising Sun, Dominant Species, Five Tribes, El Grande, Clank!, Mombasa, Railways, Tigris & Euphrates, Ticket to Ride, Castles of Mad King Ludwig, Imperial 2030, Captain Sonar, Champions of Midgard, Raiders of the North Sea, Century: Spice Road, Mare Nostrum, Age of Discovery, Steam Time, Galaxy Trucker, Tyrants of the Underdark, Mysterium, Pitch Car, and plenty more.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

The problem with video games is that their designs and mechanics are very poorly thought out. Video games aren't designed in the sense of every element being there to prop up the core game. Just about every video game is basically Frankensteined together with mechanics just because they are in popular games vs the mechanics being there because it fits the singular game. Or mechanics just being there for the sheer reason of it's just how we've always done things (like how random battles lasted so long in JRPGs). Whether you look at God of War and it's dumb RPG mechanics or Witcher 3 and it's pointless loot system and open world, you see some much stuff there just for the sake of being there. Hell, video games can't even make fucking MONEY be important to the game. Seriously, what video games ever have money be a legitimately important resource (outside of something like a SimCity)? Why does Witcher 3 have a haggle mechanic when you never need to buy anything anyway? Whereas pretty much every board game that has money, money becomes a really important to get stuff done whether we are talking Puerto Rico or Terraforming Mars. It's really mind-boggling the things standard video game design fail at.

I agree. I've sincerely thought to myself that videogame makers should learn how to make a half decent board game,actually internalize the idea of gameplay and mechanics, before pretending like they should try their hand at anything with progressive stat adjustments and the like. Could you imagine what would happen if the majority of board games needed the constantlevel of patches and 'nerfing'? You know ... beyond Fallout tBG. At least they captured the true spirit of the Bethesda games. Being a somewhat buggy mess of ill-conceived dimensions and perhaps biting off far more than they can properly chew.

If board games were treated like videogames in terms of quality control, it would probably cause a board game crash.

What?!?! Through the Ages (at least the new edition) is an amazing game, it's such a great worker placement game that also happens to be an engine builder with like 6 small engines you have to equally build. The first time I played it, I played so poorly because you can't min/max it.

There's a new edition?

Look--I don't like staring at the same board for 3-4 hours, okay? Terra Mystica is about my cognitive shutdown limit. I'll play Twilight Imperium ... it's mainly I'll play because a lot of our group likes to plan a *long* game night often centering it. But TtA? Archipelago and Instanbul is my worker placement jam, and while Archipelago can be incredibly long;

A: The map and the charts are prettier.

B: At least it has mammoth level bickering fests, and simmering feuds and disputes.

I'm more in love with either quicker civ builders in general, or with a lot more bickering. Archipelago is my jam precisely because of the degree of bickering. I like the capacity to be utterly sophist.

Boardgaming I feel is something people don't really know about because it's, in a sense, very new. I was really surprised when I started playing board games like 5+ years ago that just about every game I was learning was released rather recently. All the games you listed came out this decade for example. You'd think with boardgaming not requiring technology advancements like video games, you'd have a full library of classic games that are pretty old (like Mario, Zelda, Metal Gear, etc.). But you really only have the likes of Power Grid, Tigris & Euphrates, El Grande, Twilight Imperium, Puerto Rico, Ticket to Ride, Railways of the World that are at best basically just 20 years old and not even older than Space Invaders or Mario. You have a few older games like Risk, Monopoly, Axis & Allies, and Talisman but most older games are really bad games like 3 of those 4. Of course, you have really old classics like Chess and Poker. Even something like Stone Age is only 10 years old, the horrible Cards Against Humanity is not even 10 years old. Why did it take so long for basically a DnD themed worker placement game like Lords of Waterdeep to be a thing? Why is a basically picture version of Chinese Telephone (Telestrations) less than 10 years old? Why is such a simple party game as Codenames so new? Games like that just didn't exist so people never got into boardgames because there wasn't much there before super recently.

Well, yeah ... but it sort of makes sense in a way? Like as a kid I used to play a lot of Filipino Mahjong. Which is basically where a good 10-20% of my after school job money went to one of my mother's friends each week because of it. She was suspiciously good now that I think about it. Memory is a bit hazy, but I do remember she used to bleed me. But games like that were 'grown up' games. Or things like 500s were 'grown up games'.

Regardless, I think it's primarily because of the internet that accelerated the videogame consumption market of young and old. It's even weirder when you consider so many people are extroverts, so may people desire social contact, and yet what? Going out for a drink? Clubbing? Concert? The ballet? Theatre in the Domain? Sports? It's not like you're starved for options if you live in the city, but it's a different story in rural and subrural places unless you feel like travelling.

I think board games require that certain confluence of likely extroverts with a desire for competition. And now it's becoming mainstream. There'sgamesfor all strokes of people, and often games that manage to transgress certain types of people.

The fact that youcan regularly get 30-somethings playing a game about unicorns for 20 or so minutes represents thefact that people are less beholden to concepts of 'adulthood'. Board games are kind of a cheap way for that massive wave of millenials and post-millenials to connect over. Also a combination of production costs.

The mass industrialization of China has made so much of this stuff so incredibly cheaper to consume.

As to why boardgames sorta have short lives is because they are, again, so new. Dominion basically created deck-builders, which seems like such a standard and well-known mechanic but it's only 10 years old. Thus, of course, new games will advance the mechanic and make said game basically obsolete. I'm not at all a fan of just straight deck-builders, but I love a few games with a deck-building mechanic like Clank! In! Space! and Tyrants of the Underdark. I even like Mystic Vale a lot (a card-building game) but I feel like it's a prototype for something much better in the future. A Feast for Odin makes Uwe Rosenberg's other games, Agricola and Caverna, sorta obsolete because Odin does what those other games do but much better. Even something like Yokohama is just a better Istanbul. Century: Spice Road is a better Splendor. I have a feeling Hail Hydra may replace Battlestar Galactica because it's basically a much shorter version of Battlestar. There's so many hidden role games that are so much better than Werewolf that I totally don't get why Werewolf is ever played honestly.

Oh ... I've only played the base set of Mystic Vale, but I loved it .... refreshing take on the deck builder. Pain in the arse to put back in the box. Also, I still think Splendor is better. Splendor is simply somewhat easier to set up, and it's easier to calculate your machine in your head. That being said, I've played Splendor more. So the simple fact that I'm pretty good at it might be colouuring my perception of why I'm not so taken with Century: Spice Road.

Also, if you like deck builders, have you played Arctic Scavengers? That game is cutthroat with three or more players. So much easier to setup and tear down than Mystic Vale, as well. It also creates a situation, unlike in Mystic Vale, where you're actually invested in what other players pick up ... in tandem with bluffing tactics that can be absolutely ruthless.

As for what gets played a lot in my groups would be Terraforming Mars, Ethnos, Pandemic Legacy (though I haven't played it myself), Seafall, Scythe, Through the Ages, Trajan, Battlestar Galactica, Codenames, Telestrations, War of the Ring, Viticulture, Nippon, Puerto Rico, Twilight Imperium, Power Grid, A Feast for Odin, Sentinels of the Multiverse, Quartermaster General, Memoir 44, Tzolk'in: The Mayan Calendar, Azul, Keyflower, 7 Wonders, Lords of Waterdeep, Rising Sun, Dominant Species, Five Tribes, El Grande, Clank!, Mombasa, Railways, Tigris & Euphrates, Ticket to Ride, Castles of Mad King Ludwig, Imperial 2030, Captain Sonar, Champions of Midgard, Raiders of the North Sea, Century: Spice Road, Mare Nostrum, Age of Discovery, Steam Time, Galaxy Trucker, Tyrants of the Underdark, Mysterium, Pitch Car, and plenty more.

Argh .... you guys regularly play Trajan ...? Now I can see why you like TtA. I am awful at both games. Though I do somewhat want to be good at Trajan. I feel like I should. I won't be though. Oh, What's Champions of Midgard like? It looks fascinating, but it also looks really busy. Sentinels of the Multiverse... our group loved it the first time we played, but the allure didn't really hold on that long. Captain Sonar is always a crowd pleaser. Like new or old gamer, you can't go wrong with Captain Sonar.

 

[Saelune]

Well, I think part of it is due to piggybacking off DnD's current success. While not solely due to it, I'd wager a lot of groups that got into DnD recently are more inclined to try out these other various tabletop games. Certainly it is my DnD group that bring up board games to play.

Is there that much of an overlap between these two groups though? I love my tabletop rpgs as much as thenext .... person who likes tabletop rpgs. But the thing is that I also know people who were big into board games while always being leery about D&D and nWoD. It also doesn't help that tabletop rpgs are kind of co-operative. And not everyone is into that.

So even games that are 'dungeon crawlers' in terms of board games don't really have a D&D equivalent so many times.

D&D has been around for generations ... the board game 'golden age' not so long, and there isn't a big overlap between them. People have their very definite preferences. Even in games that are nominally dungeon crawlers, they are world's apart.

Several years ago, the boardgame industry passed a similar phase that games are still lingering in. The idea that games as complex as before don't sell, and if a well known game from long ago (like Monopoly) was released today, it would flop. Time eventually proved them wrong: there is enough different people out there to make completely different games successful; regardless of complexity, theme or price.

Monopoly is kind of ... the thing is that board games have actually grown in complexity. Monopoly isn't exactly rated that well by people who play a lot of board games. Basically everything coming out is better designed, smarter, and simply more fun. Board gaming as a whole now is better than ever before.

The one thing that I'm fairly certain all board gamers will agree on is that this is the best time to be a board gamer ever.

Now more than ever people who have been leery of DnD have begun to embrace it en masse. DnD is more mainstream now than ever before! And board games are older than DnD by...centuries! Boardgames are not a new phenomenon, they are having their own resurgence, but there have been multiple periods of major interest in board games. Many iconic games today came from the early 90's or were reworks of older ones.

 

[Elijin]

I came in ready to be enthusiastic about learning some interesting boardgames to look at and somehow ended up less interested.

This topic shows one of the problems I've encountered every time I go near any tabletop or board games: it's proponents are rabid fan boys that feel the need to prop one thing up through directly attacking alternate leisure activities.

It's not pretty and alienates many newcomers.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I came in ready to be enthusiastic about learning some interesting boardgames to look at and somehow ended up less interested.

This topic shows one of the problems I've encountered every time I go near any tabletop or board games: it's proponents are rabid fan boys that feel the need to prop one thing up through directly attacking alternate leisure activities.

It's not pretty and alienates many newcomers.

Are you telling me that you came here to comment about something you've never done, and you got turned off because I used an example of dungeon crawlers? About how smart board games are as an example of what board gamers might recognize is a pretty smart game, as an excuse not to try it because you perceive that as 'attacking' your leisure?

Good luck with that life strategy. Clearly it's faultless.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Now more than ever people who have been leery of DnD have begun to embrace it en masse. DnD is more mainstream now than ever before! And board games are older than DnD by...centuries! Boardgames are not a new phenomenon, they are having their own resurgence, but there have been multiple periods of major interest in board games. Many iconic games today came from the early 90's or were reworks of older ones.

Um, yeah ... maybe? The thing is that there's kind of a big disconnect between them though. Like let's break down D&D's components. Exploration, dungeon crawling, legacy role-playing game? The thing is that even in those categories that board games tick off, there's not anything really D&D-like. Descent 2E comes to mind as closest in terms of D&D and even then not really.

I mean, sure board games are older than D&D by centuries ... but that's kind of the point? The BG 'Golden Age' isn't really connected to what D&D players want. Like mostly it's connected to a large enough market within exclusively what board gamers would want. And they are completely different products.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Honestly I think its just because we like socialising, and boardgames offer a way to do that in a manner better than chatting over screens with each other. And since a lot of board games these days are allowing themselves to be a lot more customisable to let you tailor them to your group of friends' personal preference (I'm fairly sure I've played Unstable Unicorns with the friend that owned it having thrown in a couple of booster packs she'd liked) they're easier for people to bond over because you're all going to have that preference in common

Kind of? I do think all board games can attractin some way an avid board gamer. Like I was being uncharitable to Through The Ages, but at the same time I still sat down and played it even if it's not entirely your thing ... I will play it and still have fun? Mainly because my friends are having fun ... and because some of them are annoyingly good at these games so you at least want to watch them to get better yourself? Maybe? I don't know.

It's not really my cup of tea, but that doesn't necessarily mean I can't live with coffee. Even black coffee. And no sugar. And I'll still drink it and get some warmth out of it. Like basically everything that expansions are is following that concept of bolting something on to the existing product. But that being said most games have a pretty focussed vision of what they want to be right out of the barn.

I think you can attest it to 'Kickstarter culture' the massive trend of Day 1 expansion pack.

Which I think is a terrible idea. The best expansion packs are ones that breathe new life into an old game. One that has been played for years and has had time to truly understand all its flaws. And then boom. Expansion pack. One that either increases the number of people who will like it, or fixes and expands the gameplay of those that already do.

This is principally why many expansion packs also increase the number of gamers you can have at the table. This idea that diehard fans will say; "Oh, but you gotta try this game again ... they've fixed up some things you didn't like."

That's a good expansion pack.

Releasing an expansion pack as per Day 1 Kickstarter Expansions .... it's ... weird.

Like Champions of Hara Kickstarter increases the numbers of players onthe board with its expansion pack. But it came out with the base game. And that to me sounds like a bad idea. Because you've already released a major product necessitating the base game's existence, but you haven't actually done that year of public playtesting to listen to enough people.

Champions of Hara is a fun, fairly quick, interesting adventure game. But the Day 1 Expansion pack is kind of... it takes the player count from 4 to 6, and I've only played it with four players because I'm not sure it would do 5/6 well just with the stuff they gave me in the Day 1 expansion.

And I'm not sure that's an entirely healthy direction to go down for creative, new projects by young and upcoming games makers.

Like a really good game that follows what you wrote is Arctic Scavengers. It actually when first released had built in modules that would radically change how you play, what you can do, shake things up completely. But the thing is the game was thoroughly playstested as a base set, and then these modules were added as if to extend breadth of play. But a lot of Kickstarter like Day 1 expansions ... I feel as if it's missing the point ofwhat expansions are supposed to be...

I'm not sure if that was your point about 'more customisable' as if prepackaged or bolting stuff on?

 

[Elijin]

I came in ready to be enthusiastic about learning some interesting boardgames to look at and somehow ended up less interested.

This topic shows one of the problems I've encountered every time I go near any tabletop or board games: it's proponents are rabid fan boys that feel the need to prop one thing up through directly attacking alternate leisure activities.

It's not pretty and alienates many newcomers.

Are you telling me that you came here to comment about something you've never done, and you got turned off because I used an example of dungeon crawlers? About how smart board games are as an example of what board gamers might recognize is a pretty smart game, as an excuse not to try it because you perceive that as 'attacking' your leisure?

Good luck with that life strategy. Clearly it's faultless.

5 shots at videogames in your opening spiel. However many more by our resident hater of things, phoenix. If board games are so great why do you need to prop them up by shitting on other hobbies?

Then doubling down on the unpleasant fanboy examples by ignoring the made point to be snide in your reply.

I've played the occasional board or card game with friends, it was fun. However, without fail, every time I've tried to explore the communities to find more I run into these combinations of elitist attitudes and "put other down to build board games up". It's gross. Dont be an example of it.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

Snip

If you're really looking for a lovely, friendly introduction to a whole bunch of board games I suggest a Google of Table Top - it's a web show by Wil Wheaton and company and I've used it with most all my friends to show them how much fun we might have with some cardboard and a bit of imagination on a number of occasions. Sorry the community hasn't been all sunny for you - good spots and bad like anything really. Best part of board games is who they are played with if you ask me - but being fun in themselves sure does help the experience to get on with itself too!

 

[Elijin]

Snip

If you're really looking for a lovely, friendly introduction to a whole bunch of board games I suggest a Google of Table Top - it's a web show by Wil Wheaton and company and I've used it with most all my friends to show them how much fun we might have with some cardboard and a bit of imagination on a number of occasions. Sorry the community hasn't been all sunny for you - good spots and bad like anything really. Best part of board games is who they are played with if you ask me - but being fun in themselves sure does help the experience to get on with itself too!

I have watched an erratic collection of Tabletop, its a good ideal of what they can be. Kind of wish they were a bit more obvious as to which games were co-op vs adversarial in the titles though.

I have found with true newcomers, we really need the co-op games. Until you're sold on the idea that it will be worth the time, all the setup time and reading and re-reading rules (when the whole group are newbs) is a lot more bearable when the players are working towards a collaborative goal, rather than antagonising each other.

So far we've played some Elder Sign, Zombiecide and an unfortunate generic alien vs marine corridor crawler that we didnt realise was 1 player vs group when we picked it up.

There was a neat Star Trek game I saw on Tabletop, and that new Power Rangers board game that are both on my radar as fun looking co-ops.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

5 shots at videogames in your opening spiel. However many more by our resident hater of things, phoenix. If board games are so great why do you need to prop them up by shitting on other hobbies?

I like them more. And the topic is why board gaming has been exploding over the last ten years. Why it's not slowing down.

And if you're confusing 'shots' with criticism, are you this defensive with everything? Has it ever occurred to you that Gloomhaven is actually that great a game? I mean it's been topping people's charts for ages. It's amazing. Like legitimately why don't computer games have some of its eminently doable mechanics? Like how it handles turn-based initiative for combat ... easy ... and it would make any solo or co-op turn-based combat more tactical.

Or simply how it handles rpgcharacter progression of abilities.

Or how it it manages to straddle random chance with actual player control. Like legitimately, compare how character progression and the attack modifer deck works ... then compare it to X-COM. And I love X-COM but, Jesus Christ. If you were to apply a handful of mechanical choices in Gloomhaven to X-COM? Infinitely better and more tactical game that gives players more control, but also elevates the challenge enough that they'll need to use it.

All eminently programmable. Why is it computer games want to simulate merely rolling dice when they have endless options to use other mechanical systems that offer more individual customization, individual control to tweak, and less openly random chance. And that is an important discussion.

See, I'm going to assume you're on the level and you're legitimately aggrieved about my comments but take this example;

In Gloomhaven when you achieve a certain number of perks points or whenyou level up you get to select abonus from a list of things that permanently alter your 'Attack modifier deck'. Now your attack modifier starts off with a fixed number of cards, including a x2 card which as it suggests doubles damages, and acritical fail card ... there's other ways to temporarily slot in new cards but that's neither here nor there.

So far a whole bunch of -2(1), -1s(5), 0(6), +1(5), +2(1), x2(1), CF(1).

So you start with an attack modifier deck of 20 cards.

Now what this system does is if you draw either a x2 or a CF is when you reshuffle your attack modifier deck with all the other cards that may be in your discard pile for it.

With character progression you can add or subtract cards from this. Add special ability cards that might empower elements to allow greater card utility on future turns that theyconsume tobolster their abilities, it might give you piercing on your attack, it might inflict curses on your enemy.

Starting to see the genius of this 'random chance' system? It's not as random as you think. You can almost plan around it. The native x2 card in your deck and the native CF in your deck ... that's just there to give you a shot at doing the next to impossible ... or utterly failing when youshould have succeededand won. It's just there to add suspense, but not at the cost of general planning.

Rather than a dice roll, if you've been drawing fairly porly ... you can sort of think in your head; "Well I can probably chance it a bit more because I'm bound to get more good draws from now on until I reshuffle." Or you can at levelling up or completing perk packages create a more streamline deck to increase consistency of better than otherwise attacks. You can create advanced strategies and combos with items that you have...

For example an option to eliminate 4 0 cards out of your attack modifier deck? Why would you do that? Because you might have a means to be blessed adding additional x2 cards that are one use. Or you might have with other perks been adding in additional special conditions cards that you want to draw more often over a scenario...

It's not merely shifting the odds of hitting (which is pretty much everytime barring a CF) and how much damage you do, you're playing with character consistency of action itself.

Infinitely better than just rolling a d100; "You hit/you don't hit. Roll damage."

Something so elegant and beautiful a way to increase your options and customizability of your characters. It's a brand new way to open up class customization and character abilities.

Utterly ignored in computer games.

As I was saying; "Why aren't computer games this smart?" I don't know a single computer game that does it, and why don't they do it? As I was saying if you are skeptical, check it out yourself. Just so much Gloomhaven does is smarter than videogame conventions. That's just one small part of what I'm talking about. This game is smart.

And it's admittedly not just Gloomhaven that plays with draw consistency as a mechanic itself.

In Netrunner, one of my favourite runners is Chaos Theory.

Her special runner ability is merely she gives you +1 MU to work with. Which is pretty good, but the primary draw is that she has a 40 card deck minimum with still a stock standard 15 influence rating for using non-faction cards/restricted use cards. As opposed to the standard 45 card deck minimum of your usual runner. And that is huge. It's great. It's smart. It's a smart mechanic and inbuilt deck requirement rule to have in a game.

Once again, that kind of understanding of using draw consistency itself as a mechanic is weirdly absent in computer games. And there's no reason for it to be that way.

Then doubling down on the unpleasant fanboy examples by ignoring the made point to be snide in your reply.

As opposed to ignoring the fact that this is literally a discussion about board games and why as a person who loves them why I think they're gaining steam still?

I've played the occasional board or card game with friends, it was fun. However, without fail, every time I've tried to explore the communities to find more I run into these combinations of elitist attitudes and "put other down to build board games up". It's gross. Dont be an example of it.

Once again, I feel like you're blowing it out of proportion. I'm planning tobuild my next gaming rig, I own a PS4 Pro anda Switch.I'm not saying videogamers are dumb.

 

[Elijin]

Your behaviour is just another notch in the belt of tearing down sports/social gatherings (drinking)/gaming in order to build up board, card and tabletop games. The community is sadly often very ugly. Often prompted by years of being treated poorly for having those interests before they surged in popularity.

Board games are fun (in good correct company), build on that instead of using tearing down other hobbies as your foundation.

EDIT: Amusingly, this whole conversation is serving as time filler while I install a bunch of digital board games, since you know I 'came into the topic not wanting to like it, then found a reason to not like it'.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Fallout tBG. At least they captured the true spirit of the Bethesda games. Being a somewhat buggy mess of ill-conceived dimensions and perhaps biting off far more than they can properly chew.

If board games were treated like videogames in terms of quality control, it would probably cause a board game crash.

Through the Ages (at least the new edition)

There's a new edition?

Look--I don't like staring at the same board for 3-4 hours, okay? Terra Mystica is about my cognitive shutdown limit. I'll play Twilight Imperium ... it's mainly I'll play because a lot of our group likes to plan a *long* game night often centering it.

Boardgaming I feel is something people don't really know about because it's, in a sense, very new.

Regardless, I think it's primarily because of the internet that accelerated the videogame consumption market of young and old. It's even weirder when you consider so many people are extroverts, so may people desire social contact, and yet what? Going out for a drink? Clubbing? Concert? The ballet? Theatre in the Domain? Sports? It's not like you're starved for options if you live in the city, but it's a different story in rural and subrural places unless you feel like travelling.

---

Also, if you like deck builders, have you played Arctic Scavengers? That game is cutthroat with three or more players. So much easier to setup and tear down than Mystic Vale, as well. It also creates a situation, unlike in Mystic Vale, where you're actually invested in what other players pick up ... in tandem with bluffing tactics that can be absolutely ruthless.

---

Argh .... you guys regularly play Trajan ...? Now I can see why you like TtA. I am awful at both games. Though I do somewhat want to be good at Trajan. I feel like I should. I won't be though. Oh, What's Champions of Midgard like? It looks fascinating, but it also looks really busy.

Fallout is such a horrible board game, I've played it twice and it's so horribly meandering. You can't even shop in the game without getting the right card. The way combat and skill checks work is such a crap shoot and leveling up doesn't even feel like you got any better even if you got the right letter(s) in SPECIAL for your stuff. Your right that it feels like a Bethesda made game.

Through the Ages has a new edition that's a couple years old now vs the 2006 edition (which I never played). I know they definitely tweaked some military aspects via a friend but that's really all I know about the original. I just played Terra Mystica twice for the first time within a couple weeks. I like it but I feel like it'll play too similar over many repeated plays where I basically did the same thing both plays with taking advantage of my race's ability was the only difference. The new 4th edition of Twilight Imperium is so much better than 3rd edition with the streamlining of the skill trees and the much better politics.

The Internet and crowd funding probably helped boardgaming a lot due to companies probably not seeing that there's a market much like AAA video game companies with horror games and indies bringing them back.

I actually don't really like standalone deck-builders much at all. I hate Dominion and I haven't liked any of those Legendary games either. When it's just one mechanic in a bigger game, I can dig it but the only standalone deck-builder I like is Baseball Highlights 2045.

We have one guy in the group that really loves Trajan and he roped a couple people into playing just yesterday in fact. It's an alright game, the movement mechanic is the one interesting thing about the game. It's just overly bland and I still don't even know what the theme is really. The guy that likes is a retired detective named Bonesteel (no joke). Champions of Midgard is basically viking Waterdeep with PvE combat. The expansion for it is really good because you collect warriors (dice) and bad rolls can obviously have you lose said warriors and the expansion gives you stuff for dead warriors so the game is less roll dependent, and there's actually times when you want to lose warriors to get specific things.

5 shots at videogames in your opening spiel. However many more by our resident hater of things, phoenix. If board games are so great why do you need to prop them up by shitting on other hobbies?

Then doubling down on the unpleasant fanboy examples by ignoring the made point to be snide in your reply.

I've played the occasional board or card game with friends, it was fun. However, without fail, every time I've tried to explore the communities to find more I run into these combinations of elitist attitudes and "put other down to build board games up". It's gross. Dont be an example of it.

---

I have found with true newcomers, we really need the co-op games. Until you're sold on the idea that it will be worth the time, all the setup time and reading and re-reading rules (when the whole group are newbs) is a lot more bearable when the players are working towards a collaborative goal, rather than antagonising each other.

Video games are in a rut IMO, and I'm not at all trying to say board games are great because they are better than video games. They just so happen to be right now like how TV is better than movies right now. It doesn't make one inherently better than the other. I also said how boardgaming has just recently gotten good so that means video games have been better most of the time. I've never met any board gamers proclaiming that they are the more sophisticated games looking down on other forms of gaming, and I've been to GenCon with 60,000+ of them 4 years straight now. And just about everyone in my group play video games as well. I can see tabletop RPGers looking down on video game RPGs because the inherent nature of video games makes role-playing really hard to translate over but that's really all I can think of.

Quite a lot of board games are "Eurogames" and that style of game doesn't have much aggressive. Most board games basically play like a multiplayer solitaire where you're just trying to play more efficiently than everyone else with rather limited player interactivity/aggression. There's a game called Scythe whose theme is steampunk WWII where you have mechs moving around the game board and there's only a few battles in a game, just yesterday I played a game that had literally not a single combat. The worst thing that happens in most games is someone goes to an action space that you want to go to because you need wood or something. A really good and simple co-op game is Pandemic Legacy, legacy games are kinda the new hotness; you're basically playing one long campaign where stuff gets added in over every session, you do need a dedicated group though. That would sorta be perfect for new players because base Pandemic is a really simple game plus the legacy aspect of it will add in new things one-at-a-time so you wouldn't be overwhelmed with rules and mechanics. I've never personally been able to get into a Pandemic Legacy game (as only 4 can play) but everyone that has played really loves it.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Your behaviour is just another notch in the belt of tearing down sports/social gatherings (drinking)/gaming in order to build up board, card and tabletop games. The community is sadly often very ugly. Often prompted by years of being treated poorly for having those interests before they surged in popularity.

Board games are fun (in good correct company), build on that instead of using tearing down other hobbies as your foundation.

EDIT: Amusingly, this whole conversation is serving as time filler while I install a bunch of digital board games, since you know I 'came into the topic not wanting to like it, then found a reason to not like it'.

So effectively you came here to troll and fling some ad hominems? What were you saying about gross before?