J Rzasa wrote:But to contrast that same point, neither Monopoly or Munchkin are bad games. Sure, they may not be good (I disagree on Munchkin, it's good but not great), but just because they aren't good doesn't mean they are bad.
Generally speaking if a game isn't good, it's probably bad! There's gray areas, certainly, but both the games I listed are pretty bad; they focus almost entirely on luck, with no real strategy involved, and in the case of Munchkin you hold on to the "screw you" cards and use them when someone is about to win to artificially extend the length of the game. Monopoly is 100% luck-based and if you land on the right properties you basically win, and the rest of the game is just the slow walk towards that as you drain people's money.
J Rzasa wrote:Warmachine/Hordes is a game that is considered well balanced and assembled by a company that doesn't have a rancid contempt for it's player base. I don't have fun playing it. Is that a good game?
I don't have fun playing Warmahordes either, and it's why I stopped playing a long time ago, but I also recognize that its tight ruleset and focus on competitive play is examples of a well-made game--the sheer popularity of it in both casual and competitive play is proof of that. It's the same thing with X-Wing--that's a very good game, but I have no desire to play it because I don't like Star Wars.
I can recognize when a game is well-made even when I don't want to play it; conversely, I know when a game is bad even when I do want to play it.
J Rzasa wrote:PS: If you don't enjoy pushing giant blobs of dudes to the center of the table and rolling 3+ 4+ 3+ 4+ all day, I don't know how you ever got into Warhammer in the first place. That is pretty much the description of Warhammer 40k and Fantasy. Except sometimes your dudes sit back and shot at things in the center of the table rolling 3+'s and 4+'s. And sometimes a 5+.
That's disingenuous and you know it.