They can't lose but they can tie, just like tic tac toe. Which yeah isn't fun.

@@vexienroe No, there's a forced win. First player wins going first if they play "Perfectly".

being a solved game is hardly a problem if there is no feasible way to memorize it for a human, which as far as I know is the case for connect 4. the problem with tic tac toe isn't that it's solved, it's that the solution is extremely easy to learn for anyone.

​@@penguinvader7057 Nobody can memorize every possible position in Connect 4, but I think you could learn the patterns to always winning.

The Best of the Hack Frauds ;)

Very glad to know this venn diagram exists and isn’t just me

Did you watch their VHS review?

Same

They've done it in the past, and it's pretty boring to watch.

Cause they suck

@@andrethannhauser6302 - You proved Tom's point. 😉

I wonder what Mike would pick?

@@terry3733H - Mike? Among these games? He mentioned on the live chat Yahtzee as his pick.

@@andrethannhauser6302 - The real question is, are they fun? Once again, going back to Tom's point, snobbery can get in the way of that.

That is without a doubt the worst game I have ever played

I played it in the 80s and hated it. My dislike of the game has nothing to do with new design and mechanisms. Monopoly has always been crap.

Sometimes all that matters is that the players have fun. Who cares whether a game teaches people "important" game mechanics?

Then how does that explain the high rated children's games on BGG? Is it possible that War is just a bad game? Is there any reason a Boolean generator needs to take that long? A coin flip would expedite the process and have the same result. If you're playing hundreds if not thousands of games (including children's games), you're going to be able to better separate the wheat from the chaff. - Loopin' Louie is the better Hungry, Hungry Hippos - Monza is the better Candy Land Also, what you're seeing (in general) aren't games that are panned by BGG. They're games that are ranked as "average". The reason they're clustered at the bottom is because a lot of people have played them. The truly bad game likely aren't played by enough BGG users to even get them ranked.

Ok. I apologize.

Phase 10 has a significant design flaw with the catch-up mechanisms. This design flaw takes what would typically be a 7 round game (Contract Rummy), and turns it into a plodding experience. Unlike Contract Rummy where all players proceed to the next contract, Phase 10 requires each player to complete every phase in order to compete for a win. The phases progressing in difficulty mean there's already a catch-up mechanism in place for the game. The 7 round game gets bumped to 10 and then tacks on 5-10 more rounds. But, the game doesn't stop there... The game uses Skip cards to further drag down the leading player(s) and inevitably increasing the length of the game. Phase 10 is setup so that it's possible to Skip-bash a leader so that they do not get a turn. You can have a 5-6 turn hand where a player simply gets to watch. Depending on the "catch-up" needed, this can repeat for multiple hands. So, what we're looking at is a style of game that typically averages around a 6.5 (Contract Rummy, Rummikub), but with problematic design. A drop of little more than 1 point in the average rating is fair. There are simply too many other, better Rummy games for anyone to waste their time on Phase 10.

Toms biggest gripe with phase 10 is that it takes to long which I don’t agree with.

The hobbiest board gamers tend to be against doing silly things for laughs.