What are some games that have been misjudged or overlooked and deserve a second chance? What are your examples? Here are some factors to consider: Was the game mishandled in a Kickstarter causing it to take on a stink? Did the game have rules errors upon initial release that were later corrected or home ruled correcting the problem(s)? Was the game just too expensive until it hit the clearance or junk bin? Did the game fall within the shadow of another game(s) released at the same time causing it to be unfairly ignored? Did the game enter an already crowded category? Did the game have too many component issues or typos. Insert whatever else you can think of that might have caused a good game to fail unjustly.

I have more in mind, but, I'll start with what I think is a good example of a game that was misjudged: I think that Dark, Darker, Darkest received an unfairly bad rep because of its initial price, its origins as one of the first expensive Kickstarted vanity board games, its failure to deliver product to its backers, and a troubled/confusing rule set included in the box. There were also errors in some of the components. All of those factors created a stink that enraged its backers, especially since it was a very expensive game that was one of the first to push the pricing envelope for board games sprung from Kickstarter.

However, it's starting to see a resurgence and it's making a minor comeback now that folks are revisiting it--solo gamers and others are starting to embrace it. It's selling for $16-$19 NIB, shipped, has a game designer revised rule set, a FAQ pdf, fan produced player aids, a healthy rules Q&A, and a component errata pdf to print out and sticker over any component errors. Doesn't Dark, Darker, Darkest deserve a second-chance?

Good thread idea. I have some, I've talked about them before but not in this context.

I think Gears of War came out at the wrong time, with the wrong license, without much push at all. With the right license I think the game would still be going. Several of us have said it, but attach this to the Star Wars license for Imperial Assault and be creative with a campaign system... endless possibilities and easy pick up and play.

I tend to not purchase games unless I see either a lot of people talking about it or a few trusted voices here talking about it, but one that I like that sort flew under the radar is Revolution! which was published by Steve Jackson Games but feels like a Rio Grande German import from 1998. Can be taught in 5 minutes and played in an hour. It looks like a pretty basic area control game, and it is, but it's a delightfully nasty one that can be really punishing... meaning it can have a bit of 'runaway leader' problem. I first found out about it because David Sirlin mentioned it on his blog. Because it has sort of a simultaneous selection Yomi thing, he was all over it.

It can be about as polarizing as RoboRally.

Gary Sax wrote:




That's a very good example of an overlooked game. I would have never purchased it but for your praise of GoW here on F:AT. I paid $20 for it in the FFG holiday sale. After playing it a few times, I immediately bought the print-on-demand expansion when it was briefly available. It's a great game! The combat, weapons choices, card driven AI for the Locust baddies, and the player order card attrition representing your health are brilliant. And, I didn't really know what the Gears of War license was all about. Since playing the game and since purchasing an Xbox that came with Gears of War, I now know all about it, but, it was a total unknown to me, and, likely, GoW was an unknown to the majority of board gamers. This is why the game fell flat. That's a shame. Rebooted to Star Wars, Warhammer, or D&D, this would be a hit!

NEVER buy a David Ausloos game unless it's been completely revamped by someone else. David's a good guy. He cannot write a rulebook.

Jexik wrote:




Funny you should mention Revolution!. I cleaned out my closet and found a thrifted copy of it and was asking here whether it was worth playing before I gave it away. It's on my to play list now.

Panic Station, Dark Darker Darkest are good games that seem to have been rushed by the publisher. Great games that, after revision, were fixed and became epic.

My game (don’t laugh) is Five Fingered Severance. That is so fun and so underrated. Epic shit. Meh rules that leave a lot of holes to fill with imagination are the downside, but the upside is a game that is hilarious and truly something worth owning. I still have my original copy and it’s on my Forever Shelf.

An adventure game we like is Exalted: Legacy of the Unconquered Sun. There is a great movement planning mechanic which can allow one person to potentially steal objectives from another. The game has a built in countdown to completion mechanic so the game does not run over long. Between gathering the necessary tokens to start an epic objective that can win the game and defeating your rivals that can cost you token if you lose to them, you are constantly trying to balance your movement planning. I would have liked more rivals and not all the heroes feel equal in effectiveness, but those are minor quibbles. It is a solid dice-chucking adventure game that is saddled with a shit rulebook.

I agree with the topic but no Darker Darker Darkest. But then I don't really like coop games.

I have two from GF9:

Sons of Anarchy: Men of Mayhem

and

WWE Superstar Showdown

SoA is a great four player game. Solid production, Theme is unique, balanced factions. I think the game got a short glance because the TV show had already jumped the shark. GF9's weird-o expansion plans for it didn't help. I now own both expansions (factions), but have not played them. I've only played 3 and 4 player games.

WWE had such promise. Rock, paper, scissors in a card deck plus a miniature component. I suspect it didn't have legs because the initial set of wrestlers were from WWE's 2013 stable. Had they initially released a "legacy" box of 1980s icons? It would have sold like hot cakes. If memory serves, GF9 made a convention exclusive of Hulk Hogan. Then, the Hulk Hogan controversy blew up and GF9 couldn't release the product. They destroyed all of it. WWE SS died on the vine. I sold my copy.

From the top of my head:

Gearworld: The Borderlands bombed fairly hard, there are barely any posts at Boardgamegeek and very little talk about it. It seems many took the game as a "resource-gathering game", perhaps because it was a big influence on Settlers of Catan. This lead to a flurry of bad reviews by people who didn't notice it's a game of conquest.

I was very impressed by March of the Ants. I think it's one of the best 4X games and the one with less "waste". That is, there are no uninteresting nor scripted actions to follow, combat is deterministic (!) and Civ-like (Ant heads are like Metallurgy), the cards shake things up but don't ruin your moves. I think it's a very smart game. I think it got a fair amount of underserved slack. For example, Vasel's review was more indicative of his poor play than the actual game design (That is, if you are losing half of your forces in a big battle, perhaps you should avoid big battles). You should also have no problem finding Colony Goal cards or other ways of gaining VP (Draw+Filtering means we always see the whole deck in a 3P game), nor are they as determinant as it might seem.

On the most obscure side, I think Michael Schacht's Interurban/Gondoliere is very good. It's a game that could be more popular if it had actual components and an actual distribution instead of being initially published by Winsome.

I never had any interest in WWE SS due to the wrestlers. Now that I can get it for pretty cheap it seems, how easy to convert/make my own wrestlers (something I have experience doing with other wrestling games...)?

DukeofChutney wrote: Hoist another game up the mast then...let's hear your thoughts. What do you think is a misjudged or overlooked game worth mentioning?

Erik Twice wrote:




Gearworld: The Borderlands is an excellent example. Its release was a total flop. The muted color choices of the chits that faded into the absolutely beautiful island map were awful. I can't figure out why FFG chose the once trendy steampunk setting instead of using the original barbarian setting of Eon Borderlands. The rulebook was also absolute crap. And, this acted as the real barrier to its reintroduction and potential to gain new players on its release. You'd never know that this was a very simple game. I had to download the old Eon Borderlands rule book to figure it out. However, there's now a good how-to-play video that helps ( link ). Gearworld: The Borderlands is a really neat, area control, supply-chain management, and trading game. It absolutely demands (and expects) that its players are able to quickly calculate simple maths to make decisions for the combat and supply chains. It also thrives on the assumption that everyone in the game will trade, make deals and alliances, and, of course, engage in backstabbing. The two player game sucks and it's best with 3-4 to get the alliances and trading going. Trading is the most efficient and quickest way to get and move the resources where you need them. This is where you need players that like to wheel-and-deal otherwise the game falls flat. Finally, if you use the game's luck based dynamic turn phases, where some of the game's phases might not happen, that disrupts plans so much that you have to have players that are flexible and like chaos. We don't use that and it makes the game better. I'm glad that I own this one. And, it's really cheap to get because it's misunderstood and under appreciated.

Da Bid Dabid wrote:
It’s super easy. There’s about 15-20 guys on BGG (90s attitude era to current. No 80s due to the guy making the cards not having images for them). And there’s a bunch of threads about how to get some cheap minis too.