I think Innovation is a great example for me. Kellen from Board Game Barrage raves about it all the time. I found a secondhand copy of it and we played it a few times with 4 players, but a) the kids were too young (they love take that chaos now) and b) it’s not a good 4 player game.
However, on BGA my wife and I play it a ton (nearing 200 plays). I like that there is no set up and that it tells you how many symbols there are. I’m not a deck memorizer, so I still see cards I don’t know. Most importantly, every game feels different to me with different cards being the game winner.
I think if I could only play one game for the rest of my life, this would be it.
Another game I used to really enjoy, but have now sold. It’s going to sound a bit daft, but like with Air, Land and Sea it’s the theme that puts me off. Something about WW2 doesn’t appeal to me in games. Although we sail into the part of Normandy where a lot of Memoir 44 is set so I do like recognising the places.
I find this to be the mainstream thought, but I find it terribly incomplete. But they use the phrase “The only decisions in this game is A and B” instead. So, yours is more subjective, instead of incomplete.
I found that player positioning and gauging the relative delta matters - fancy words for “who do I screw over?” and “how much are they winning?”. So, the best move isn’t really the “most efficient way”. It’s like that Power Grid question on whether the best way to win is to be a cheapskate. Granted, a lot of people don’t find those questions interesting. Neither do a lot of board games today ask these kinds of questions.
Not that SW is a ~deep game~. Intrigue is much simpler and executes those concepts better.
I think the inflection point in play was when you see, maybe four turns off, that you are in a bad place. “I need to get after their points” crosses your mind. Some players know that there is a card they need in Age 6, so they start advancing and drawing to get there. Other players see the problem but don’t know where to look for the solution. Playing with an opponent on the other side of that knowledge divide feels rough.
This crystallized when I was assessing why I didn’t like A Brief History of the World, which is very similar. Your ability to target players is so constrained by where you are on the board and who is next to you. I definitely agree that what you say is the game, when playing Smallworld, but I also found that I made this decision primarily when entering the board. Once I’m on, the game doesn’t give you much ability to pivot and “change” the decision that you already made on that first placement. It does however, lead to another interesting pivot which is the when to decline question.
A Brief History of the World was worse as you often didn’t even have the option of where to enter the board. So yes, who do I screw over and how much are they winning, but the game won’t even let me reach them for two rounds…
While I’m here, here are the more “rags to riches” games in my esteem:
Barenpark: Was stunned at the complete absence of a “game” my first couple of plays. Later learned two things: a) the game does NOT scale well down to 2. Still distilling why that is and trying to houserule around it. b) the “optional” goals module is essential. When I finally played it 4p with goals, how it sang. I really love it. I do wish games would always put their best foot forward and then make “family variants” (like Oceans does) for those who can’t handle it, rather than serving up a watered down game as “the version” and leaving it to you to discover the better game waiting in the box.
Dominion:
tl:dr - After 10 years of doodling around with a mindlessly pleasant game, it clicked
I was hot off Tigris & Euphrates and Risk 2210 and a whole host of fighty games when Dominion dropped on my doorstep. Never really played such an isolated “race” game before. First game left me silent, again, as I wondered what the game was. A lot of plays later, seeking that “what does everyone see in this game” left me with a mildly, passively pleasant time that I never needed to indulge in. But there used to be an excellent, free IOS app that was just right when taking care of your morning necessaries.
Years later - I missed the War of the Ring 1e upgrade stock. I saw that Dominion had an upgrade pack. In a panic I bought it. I wondered why the Woodcutter had been axed, which led me to some forums where people discussed cantrips and terminals and comparative advantage and all this jazz. I went back to that free app and tried the pre-set markets which, for the base game, actually do an excellent job at guiding you into the different deck archetypes. I was interested.
Got Androminion to try the expansions and became much more interested. I think the crystallization point was Witch and Militia. I always hated those cards as they were punishing. Maybe there’s a Moat, maybe there isn’t. Maybe it’s in your hand, maybe it isn’t. Later I realized that there is a whole host of strategies around the Witch. Buy them first and give curses faster than you get. Cellar or Chapel to trash or cycle post-hoc. Remodel to turn them into points, late game. With Militia, you can actually buy Laboratories and then your opponent is just cycling your deck for you. On and on.
It took me maybe a decade to grok it but this is one that finally clicked with persistence.
Great Western Trail: This was another epiphany. I am categorically geared toward “do everything” games, like Agricola, and categorically struggle with “focus” games like GWT that reward you for focusing on one of a few paths to victory. So I liked GWT but felt it always went to fast and ended too soon. I had to lose to @mr.ister and @Captbnut to finally see the game as it was intended. I spent a game or two trying to copy what they did, and when it clicked, wow. What a game.
Red Cathedral: This went from meh to ok. Chalk it up to a bad solo mode (along with Empyreal, Planet Unknown, etc). After two solos I was ready to sell. After playing with people, I’ll keep it because it’s small. Designer beware - bad solo may be worse than no solo, if you can’t capture the spirit of the game.
Nations: Another one that left me speechless and confused after one play, felt like absolutely nothing was happening. Reputation, confusion, and some hook in there kept me coming back and by game 5 it was one of my favorites. Happy to evangelize this one to anyone also confused by what it is supposed to be!
Scythe: Same story. Completely inert first play. Committed to the usual 5 plays which is where I try to wait before committing to an opinion. By the end I understood it and had a good enough time. But I still think this would be at home ~300 on BGG, can’t see why it was ever top 10.
Samurai: Another player count story. I didn’t fall in love with this until I played it at 2. Also after learning a bit of Go and a lot of Neuroshima Hex and getting an instinct for soft power and board presence. Now I can play it at any player count, but 2p was the doorway in.
Istanbul: I think I told this story. Got bored with this until I lost, HARD (see: GWT) and had my eyes opened to lots of things going on here. The neutral assistant variant is also boss if the game has lost luster.
This was a portion of my argument on BGG some time ago in a thread complaining that there was no excuse for a game not to have a solo mode included in this day and age.
In my mind it is just wildly different. I’ve noticed people tend to stick with whatever they learned. Lots of 3-4 player Inno players can’t stand the 2p experience.
I’m a 2p person, myself, and therefore stick with teams at 4. 3 is… a diversion.