I’ve played 48, and own 18. There’s a few on there that I probably would have played by now if conventions were still a thing (Barrage, Underwater Cities), but also a couple that I’ve only played because we’ve been gaming online mostly (Russian Railroads, Concordia).
I’ve played 36 and own 22. I’ve sold or traded 4 or 5 this year.
I own at least 2 (Imperial Assault and Puerto Rico) that I’ve not played
Played 26. Own 34 (+1 that I owned but sold on).
Proud member of Team @pillbox ! Do not try to understand us, we cannot be stymied.
Currently own 25 (previously owned 40).
That’s pretty impressive.
What haven’t you played?
I think of myself as fairly aware of what’s happening in the boardgaming world, but particularly in the last couple of years my enthusiasm for new-shiny has collapsed; most of the Kickstarters I’ve backed recently are for games I already know to some extent (e.g. Riftforce which I demoed at Expo last year, Railroad Ink that I’ve played several times, Rallyman Dirt, Steampunk Rally Fusion) rather than new-to-me things (Sakura Arms, Hornet Leader). Combine that with not being a great fan of low-theme games or dungeon bashing, and many of the favourite games aren’t really in my headspace.
I’d heard of all of them except Caylus which I had to look up.
Own: 6 (I sold 2!)
Am going to buy very soon: 4
Interesting. That top 100 doesn’t coincide with mine much at all. A LOT of people seem to like Concordia though.
I’ve played something like 34 of the top 100. Own maybe 14. It sort of depends how you count some of them, like a version of Through the Ages that I only have in App form, and ‘Brass: Lancashire’ that I only have in the original form without ‘Lancashire’ on the end.
Games released after about 2016 have a significantly higher chance of being unknown to me than those released between 2000 and 2015.
The way the BGG ratings are weighted makes some interesting quirks. Here I Stand is at 255 overall, with an average rating of 7.9. The improved version Here I Stand: 500th Anniversary Edition is at 1476 with an average rating of 8.6. Feels to me like it belongs in the top 100 on aggregate somehow, but I guess the updated version mainly gets votes from already dyed-in-the-wool fans.
I have played 7 out of the top 100!
If you ordered the top 100 by weight I feel like all of them would be in the lightest 20 or so. I just haven’t got much experience with heavier games.
There’s a lot of (natural) bias in the Top 100 rankings. Just further proof that they should only be taken with a grain of salt. I noticed that Agricola and Agricola (Revised) are both listed… suggests to me that Yokohama (101) should then count… but… I went strictly by the numbers on the first page (except I included that I owned El Grande, despite actually owning El Grande Caja Grande)
There are loads of issues with editions. Through the Ages is also in the top 100 twice, and there are several pages for Viticulture, Brass, Vinhos etc. There are even starting to be deluxe and standard edition pages for kickstarters. For the most part it probably harms ratings more than help them, but it is frustrating that the database doesn’t allow aggregation of editions. Even the Gloomhavens and Pandemics are a bit too close to validate so many occurrences in the top 100s IMO.
The top 100 will always be a mix of the old classic euros and flavour of the month lighter games. To an extent it’s a numbers game, so games like Codenames are naturally advantaged by the sheer number who play them.
All in all, it’s a terrible reflection on what the best games may be. I don’t think there is a perfect solution, but this is one of the worst.
I recently was notified that the BGG admins pulled their… … … Well… let’s say: saw the light and allowed the 2016 edition of Troyes to be merged with the original edition, despite containing
Maybe they’ll allow more of the entries to be merged as disparate versions rather than database noise.
This interests me. I think that despite the oddities created by multiple versions* the algorithm/voting system works quite well, so I’m surprised that it’s described as ‘one of the worst’. Looking down the top 100, I see a lot of really great games that have stood the test of time. Also some modern classics that might well stand the test of time. The fact that the likes of Chess, Scrabble, Poker, Bridge and Go don’t make it into the top 100 is perhaps proof that it isn’t a completely objective view, but probably explained by the fact that most people voting don’t tend to make a career out of just one game.
Maybe it just seems decent to me because my prejudices align quite well with the voters on BGG.
*it’s hard to know how to solve the problem of people’s votes for one game being carried over to a different edition of the same game, when sometimes the new edition has material changes that could affect the vote.
Isn’t the only difference in components between Troyes editions is that the new edition has 4 extra cards, solo rules and slightly different sized coins? It’s not a redesign in the slightest.
Should editions with promos included (Underwater Cities springs to mind) be given different entries if 4 cards make a difference on the grounds of “different components”? I think Modern Art CMON edition has changed its contents without being a new edition too. It’s such a murky line.
That’d be another one I’ve played and currently own… lovely game that! 101 though, so close…
Yeah, it was the inclusion of, essentially, a promo pack that forced it to a separate entry. I know there are those who fiercely defend both positions… but… ultimately for me it just underlines the inadequacies of how the BGG database is built. Surely, then, “Versions” of games should be able to “contain” things that other versions don’t?
At the end of the day, if I want to log a play of Troyes and lodge my rating, I’m going to do it against the original game entry and not the 2016 edition. Thankfully, this has now been resolved.
On the other hand, I was happy to see The King is Dead (Second Edition) get its own entry because it has gameplay differences that fundamentally make it a different experience.
The BGG database is trying to do two incompatible jobs:
- What’s in my collection? What games do I want? (My Ogre 6e box is not the same as an original microgame version.)
- How good do people think this game is? (…but it has basically a later edition of the same rules.)
To some extent this can be reconciled with “editions” within a single DB entry, but the process for adding those appears to be much more arcane than for new “boardgames”.
Recently I saw some game’s kickstarter edition listed, with all the add-ons that distinguish the KS from the base game separately listed…
I don’t remember which game, but I saw that some game had a “Kickstarter” version in addition to the KSE’s being listed as an accessory (because they replaced components rather than adding content). An odd choice by itself, in my opinion, because the BGG method of tracking accessories is awful.
On the other hand it’s better than anyone else’s database.
This sounds right. I personally don’t use it for job one at all, and I take a bit of an interest in job two, but I can see that there’s incompatibility between them. I can also see that there’s no way to please everyone when trying to decide what is a distinct game and what just a new edition.
This I agree with too.