updated 11 days ago
4 | 45 comments | report | Confirm you want to report this post.| subscribe
HooperGirl 12 months ago
I would rather play a couple less than hour-long games versus one longer gaming session
JamesReid860 Supporter12 months ago
Totally makes sense. I had a game night recently where I had planned one longer game and we ended up playing a few shorter games. It was great!
I like variety! I also prefer to play several different games and not the same game twice in a row. Whereas I have some friends and family members who would rather play the same game multiple times. So I have to compromise if I want to play. :-)
Skurvy5 Supporter12 months ago
I would prefer to play a board game. I don’t really mind the length. Just play one with me! I voted for 90-120 minutes because that typically means it’s a little bit deeper of a game, which I enjoy.
Agreed on all fronts for me!
theDL 12 months ago
I said 30-60 minutes, but anything under 2 hours is good for me. Ideal is probably right around an hour. It's enough time to have a great, possibly deep experience, but not long enough to wear on anyone. It's also short enough to be able to get another round in, or possible a different game, if that's the plan for the evening.
Well thought out. I'm right there with you. All things considered, I like the 2 hour time but we just played Ethnos for the first time and that one was great and had some strategy to it even though it was a quick game.
BenjaminK 12 months ago
All oof the above! That said, I selected 90-120 minutes, although I will usually always opt for games even longer if time permits. Still, I love games of all time ranges. FUSE is a strict 10-minute game, and it's one of my favorites. B-17 Flying Fortress Leader can take 3+ hours, and it's one of my favorite solo games. The length, unfortunately, keeps me from playing it as often as I'd like.
90-120 is mine as well. Those real time games usually go 10 minutes and those are great fun!
Marshwiggle92 Supporter12 months ago
The deeper a game is the more OK I am with it being long. I really don't like a light 2.5 hour game
Nope nope nope. If the game is light and lengthy, then I'm straight out. I need to be able to use my thinker if it's going to take that long.
Ugh light and lengthy is an awful combination
Definitely no to light and long. My days of monopoly and life are over lol.
That is a complaint I hear leveled at tapestry. I haven't played it yet, but it has me slightly worried.
I didn't think Tapestry was that light of a game. I've only played it once, but I felt it moved along at a good pace.
I am happy to defer to you. I haven't played it. That is merely a complaint I have heard, especially at the higher player counts.
We played with 4 or 5. My group didn't feel it dragged either. If they did, they would certainly have said something haha
Great, do you like the game? I think I would, but when I heard reports of it out staying its welcome, I got a little more hesitant.
Yeah, I liked it a lot. Thought it played really well. I really didn't have any complaints, but of course, that was my learning game, so I was also focused on figuring out a strategy. That said, I can't see myself not liking it on subsequent plays, either.
Glad to get your take on Tapestry. I'm finding that it seems like expectations for some of these new games are just way too high and Stonemeier games and others seem to be victims of their own success. I think some people are unduly disappointing through no fault of the game and more from their own expectation. Tapestry seems to be this kind of game.
Irate 12 months ago
I say 60-90. But that's only because I can fit more games in at that length. Meanwhile, I'll pick Great Western Trail, Food Chain Magnate, & Millennium Blades most game nights. And we only play that game.
But the ideal time is 60-90 for most games. It has to be exceptional to make it worth a longer time investment.
This is for ideal game length so I can see the split opinion. I agree, its always tough deciding if its best to get more games in or one long game. I've found that sometimes a standard 60-90 minute games turns into almost a 2 hour game between extra rules explanation or talking around the game and then we never get to another game. Maybe I should just go with the longer game to begin with?
philryuh Supporter12 months ago
I'd never heard about Millennium Blades until interviewing Eric Yurko @ What's Eric Playing (board game reviewer), who seems to really love the game. I guess it's one of your top games as well? Sure looking interesting!
I remember hearing a lot about Millennium Blades when it came out but not much since at all.
Food Chain and Great Western Trail on both on my list to acquire some time. Great examples.
Generally I prefer 60-90. But I love many games that don't fit in that time limit.
The problem for me is that there are a number I have that would. We just need to play them 3ish times to get the rules and flow down to be able to get it in that timeframe. With how often we play, as much as I want to get down a game better with the group, I also want to try something new!
This is a good point. Longer than the 2 hours then it would seem that there's more pressure to win or perform well since you're investing that much more time.
It also depends on whom I'm playing with. I have a friend that plays extremely methodically. He plays well, and generally wins. But I find I prefer to play shorter games with him just because watching him move soooo slooowly makes the game feel longer than it is. It isn't even that the game takes that much longer, though sometimes it can, it just feels longer.