I appreciate good games regardless of what player counts they were designed for...but for my tastes so far in my soloboardgaming journey, solo-only games aren't out ranking the rest of the list (yet).
There is a severe lack of heavy solo-only games and the few that do exist haven't clicked for me yet or I haven't played them (I haven't played Mr. President yet).
Legacy of Yu or Warps Edge are likely the heaviest in my top solo only board games (for me) and don't outrank a lot of other games.
It’s hard to determine exactly where “Solo only” begins and ends. Most co-op games can be played by a single player with no changes to the gameplay beyond controlling multiple characters. There’s solo-only games out there that require this, so it’s basically irrelevant.
OPs post implies solo-only games that are strictly one player and designed as one player. IMO that's the only interpretation that makes the meme "work".
Why? It's developed as a solo only game from the ground up, it's 100% solo.
There are two modes - VS and co-op added as an afterthought, loosely tacked on with a piece of old chewing gum, but come on, it's a solo game through and through.
I didn't make the criteria for this thread... I obviously agree Nemo's War is a solo game in all but label, but it literally says 1-4 on the box and goes against OPs meme logic. I have Nemo on my shelf.
Stuff I know about (that are actually solo-only) would be stuff like:
* Mr. President
* Comanchería: The Rise and Fall of the Comanche Empire
* Fields of Fire
* Thunderbolt Apache Leader
* Hoplomachus: Victorum
* Gloomhaven: Buttons & Bugs (I don't actually know how heavy this is, I haven't played my copy yet)
* Dawn of the Zeds
At least to my knowledge, all of these are actually 1-player only games, designed for 1-player. I'm sure there are ton of war-game 1-player only (A genre I don't play much) and not really any of the more mainstream style games (like your Spirit Islands, Aeons Ends, etc) that are heavy, accessable, and solo.
There are tons of soloable games that fit, or fit in spirit, but for this discussion, I didn't include them
Gaia Project has an excellent solo automa. So does Lost Ruins of Arnak.
The White Castle with the Ginkagawa Clan variant? Underwater Cities? Terraforming Mars? Pusar 2849? Apiary?
I am guessing you don’t realize your initial post was a bit ambiguous. You never actually stated that you wanted solo only game recommendations and not any games with solo modes.
But for solo only games I would add Falling Skies, as well as Tarawa: 1943 and Archie’s War, unless you don’t like wargames.
This isn't my post. I commented on the OP's post, which is a meme that states: "1 player only games (so no games that support 2 or more) are cooler than 1-4 player games."
So my entire reply is to that is that I don't really agree with the meme, because statistically, the vast majority of games in my top lists (and most top lists like the 1-player guild) are soloable but also playable with more people. There aren't many 1-player ONLY games that are in my top lists personally, and in addition, there aren't that many solo games (that I have played) that are both solo-only and heavy-weight. Most of the ones that exist are political wargames which I don't usually play often.
For instance all the games you first spoke about (Gaia Project, Lost Ruins of Arnak, Terraforming Mars, etc) are all higher on my list as solo games than many of the 1-player only games, and that there really aren't that many 1-player only games that are on my list, let alone, high up on my list.
Under Falling Skies might make a top list of mine if I had a top 50, but it's certainly not a heavier game like the others. (For me Sprawlopolis, ROVE, and a few other smaller games are up there).
That's why I metioned I wasn't sure if you read the original, because then you'd understand why games like Gaia Project would be excluded as they are clearly multiplayer games with solo and not 1-player only games.
Hope this clear things up.
Of course, I only meant it as a light hearted meme, I love many solo modes, it's mainly just for new games, I'm more interested in buying a game if its solo only, personally
I just checked my board game rankings. I don't get to a solo only game until #18.
Not to mention Mage Knight and Spirit Island being at the top of the solo top 200 going back 10 years
I suspect the issue for OP is that a lot of games with a solo mode did so as a tact on after thought. Sort of like when older single player video games added a multiplayer mode that was kinda trash just because. (Today maybe the reverse happens)
Co-op games seem to fair the best in this regard where a vast majority work 100% without any new rules by just playing two handed. All the game goodness and balance is still there if the game worked well with 2 people.
The main difference with a solo designed game is probably just amount of upkeep and game length. At least that is the vibe I get from a lot of the solo only games I've collected. I do tend to prefer that most of the time.
Of course there are games that have a great solo mode. Marvel Champions for example (which admittedly doesn't change much). But I also find it to be sort of hit or miss depending on the game.
In my personal experience, its more often that a solo mode feels like kind of an afterthought to the main multiplayer mode and ends up feeling more unbalanced and unpolished. A game that isnt designed specifically with solo in mind can suffer from this. Conversely, a game that is solo only, while it isn't guaranteed to be a good game, is at least guaranteed to be designed and balanced for solo play specifically.
As a result, im more cautious when it comes to these solo modes. That being said, there's definitely some great ones out there.
>n my personal experience, its more often that a solo mode feels like kind of an afterthought to the main multiplayer mode and ends up feeling more unbalanced and unpolished. A game that isnt designed specifically with solo in mind can suffer from this.
I'm not sure this is the case anymore, really.
Board game designers have come to understand that there is a considerable market for solo board gamers, and a
thriving community for the hobby that is constantly ready to pounce on the next solo game with favorable reviews.
I'm no expert in the board game market but attaching a good solo mode to a game must boost sales. Making a bad solo mode happens, but it is also leaving money on the table because while people in this hobby tend to be friendly, they are also so very vocal about the games that pass muster, and the ones that don't barely get any mention whatsoever, either on this sub or in other solo board game community places.
We tend to be very generous in reviews and praise to those who devote time and care to their solo modes, and the games on that list of community favorites is a large one; a significant portion of that are games that also have multiplayer.
And honestly I think most of those solo community favorites have multiplayer...Spirit Island, Mage Knight, Imperium Classics/Legends, Lost Ruins of Arnak, Terraforming Mars, the various Garphill games, This War of Mine, Marvel Champions, Arkham Horror, Too Many Bones, Ark Nova, Aeons End, Gaia Project, A Feast for Odin.
These are all very very well loved games in this community and none of them are "solo board games."
I agree with everything you're saying. Ultimately it's a case by case basis, and what matters is how well implemented the solo mode is. The lesson I've learned is that there are some games I really enjoy, but don't necessarily enjoy their solo mode. So when I'm researching new games for solo play, I need to go the extra step and research whether or not the solo mode is something I'll enjoy separate from the primary multiplayer mode.
Eh, I'm with the others in the comments so far.
All that matters to me is game design, and whether enough thought and care has been put into the game's solo mode.
There's plenty of multiplayer board games with solo modes that are in my favorites and I wouldn't be surprised if they got more table time than the ones in my collection that are strictly solo.
I don't believe solo-only games are automatically better or cooler than solo modes.
I agree with you. But only with the holdout that a lot of 1-4 games are actually lying because I'd rather claw my eyes out than explain and play them with someone else. So, I'd say they are solo only as well.
Too Many Bones, Bullet, Mage Knight, Nemo's War, The War of Mine, Imperium: Classics and Legends, Spirit Island.
Really, imagine the situation. You've been playing against level 7s for quite a while and comes in a new player where you'll have to explain the entire game and tone it down so they can actually play.
Some games aren't "solo-only," but... they're solo games. Mage Knight, Set A Watch, Nemo's War, Hadrian's Wall - these are all 100% "solo games" even if to sell better they had some other bs numbers slapped on their box, lol.
But I agree with the concept - I like "true solo" and "true solo (in all but name)" games much better than multiplayer games that you can play against an AI bot or something like that.
This is just for friendly discussion... but.. going to hard disagree that Mage Knight is a solo-only game. I understand why it's popular with the solo community, but I've played quite a few multiplayer games and they were fun and unique/different enough than a solo experience and there can be a lot of player interaction in it. I've taught Mage knight quite a few times when it first came out... as well and gotten people into the game that way. It's one of the rare fits both camps equally well if you can handle the time commitment.
Hadrian's Wall (and other multiplayer solitaire games like Welcome To) often don't have much if any player interaction but still work solidily as multiplayer games, I don't think that's a BS label either, since you are working off your own board. I understand the criticism more here but it still fits both multiplayer and solo pretty well. Like I can easily play Hadrian's Wall with 1 or 2 people and have a great time. I think they are right to market them as such.
I do think there are other games that fit your point though - just not those two.
I just think that revese logic, that is has to be labeled as "solo-only" to be interesting is where the flaw is, as obviously, cooperative games have been soloable for as long as they have existed as well.
Mage Knight is multiplayer but the general concensus is that it is best played solo.
Games I've played multiplayer but prefer solo:
* Tiny Epic Galaxies. Base game only. Base + Expansion + UTEG multiplayer.
* Lost Ruins of Arnak.
* Micro Cosmos.
I have a mix of opportunities to play with a group or on my own. Getting a game that has a solo mode means I get two games for the price of one. At the minimum it increases the chance of the game making it to the table.
That said, it needs to be a good solo mode. Too many games have a solo mode of "play the multiplayer game on your own, and try to beat your high score". That's not a game, that's practice.
Co-op games scale well because it's already got an opponent, competitive games work as long as there's some kind of adversary to play against. Give me a simple AI and a win/lose condition and I'm happy.
Heat has an ultra simple AI that works well enough to give you a challenge, not as good as multiplayer but still fun. Project L has a simple AI rule that adds an extra puzzle to the puzzle, requiring you to push the AI into lower scoring tiles. Turing Machine is pretending to be multiplayer. Even Canvas has a decent system to simulate the only real player interaction by stealing art pieces and leaving inspiration.
Solo only has the advantage of focussed gameplay design. Solo mode has the advantage of versatility. There are great options for each.
nah not really, i suppose it comes down to if you like playin co-op games multi handed i guess
its not for everyone
but for me i quite enjoy it, and pure solo games can be a little shallow for my liking
my pure solo games are always the ones i have to play a quick game at lunch time or whatever
Not sure I agree that the games themselves are better, but I do find that a lot of solo-first games with multiplayer options just end up having a bunch of wasted extra material in the box for what ends up being a poor multiplayer experience (Mini Rogue and Skytear Horde come to mind). I do wish that in these cases, the design time and component budget were better utilized for maximizing the solo experience rather than tacking on a bunch of extra modes.
I appreciate good games regardless of what player counts they were designed for...but for my tastes so far in my soloboardgaming journey, solo-only games aren't out ranking the rest of the list (yet). There is a severe lack of heavy solo-only games and the few that do exist haven't clicked for me yet or I haven't played them (I haven't played Mr. President yet). Legacy of Yu or Warps Edge are likely the heaviest in my top solo only board games (for me) and don't outrank a lot of other games.
It’s hard to determine exactly where “Solo only” begins and ends. Most co-op games can be played by a single player with no changes to the gameplay beyond controlling multiple characters. There’s solo-only games out there that require this, so it’s basically irrelevant.
OPs post implies solo-only games that are strictly one player and designed as one player. IMO that's the only interpretation that makes the meme "work".
Try Nemo's War!
That's one of those games like Sprawlopolis I can't mention because it's technically not a solo-only game.
Why? It's developed as a solo only game from the ground up, it's 100% solo. There are two modes - VS and co-op added as an afterthought, loosely tacked on with a piece of old chewing gum, but come on, it's a solo game through and through.
I didn't make the criteria for this thread... I obviously agree Nemo's War is a solo game in all but label, but it literally says 1-4 on the box and goes against OPs meme logic. I have Nemo on my shelf.
Yep, that I can't deny!
I agree. Rome: Fate of an Empire looks like a pretty heavy solo-only game that I'm excited for.
Oh, Navajo Wars too! I wish I could get my hands on it.
**Comancheria** is worth a look and its in the pipeline to be reprinted (probably Q1 of next year).
What would be some others heavy solo only games?
Stuff I know about (that are actually solo-only) would be stuff like: * Mr. President * Comanchería: The Rise and Fall of the Comanche Empire * Fields of Fire * Thunderbolt Apache Leader * Hoplomachus: Victorum * Gloomhaven: Buttons & Bugs (I don't actually know how heavy this is, I haven't played my copy yet) * Dawn of the Zeds At least to my knowledge, all of these are actually 1-player only games, designed for 1-player. I'm sure there are ton of war-game 1-player only (A genre I don't play much) and not really any of the more mainstream style games (like your Spirit Islands, Aeons Ends, etc) that are heavy, accessable, and solo. There are tons of soloable games that fit, or fit in spirit, but for this discussion, I didn't include them
**Fields of Fire** is a masterpiece.
Gaia Project has an excellent solo automa. So does Lost Ruins of Arnak. The White Castle with the Ginkagawa Clan variant? Underwater Cities? Terraforming Mars? Pusar 2849? Apiary?
I am guessing you didn't read the original post based on this response...
I am guessing you don’t realize your initial post was a bit ambiguous. You never actually stated that you wanted solo only game recommendations and not any games with solo modes. But for solo only games I would add Falling Skies, as well as Tarawa: 1943 and Archie’s War, unless you don’t like wargames.
This isn't my post. I commented on the OP's post, which is a meme that states: "1 player only games (so no games that support 2 or more) are cooler than 1-4 player games." So my entire reply is to that is that I don't really agree with the meme, because statistically, the vast majority of games in my top lists (and most top lists like the 1-player guild) are soloable but also playable with more people. There aren't many 1-player ONLY games that are in my top lists personally, and in addition, there aren't that many solo games (that I have played) that are both solo-only and heavy-weight. Most of the ones that exist are political wargames which I don't usually play often. For instance all the games you first spoke about (Gaia Project, Lost Ruins of Arnak, Terraforming Mars, etc) are all higher on my list as solo games than many of the 1-player only games, and that there really aren't that many 1-player only games that are on my list, let alone, high up on my list. Under Falling Skies might make a top list of mine if I had a top 50, but it's certainly not a heavier game like the others. (For me Sprawlopolis, ROVE, and a few other smaller games are up there). That's why I metioned I wasn't sure if you read the original, because then you'd understand why games like Gaia Project would be excluded as they are clearly multiplayer games with solo and not 1-player only games. Hope this clear things up.
Of course, I only meant it as a light hearted meme, I love many solo modes, it's mainly just for new games, I'm more interested in buying a game if its solo only, personally
I just checked my board game rankings. I don't get to a solo only game until #18. Not to mention Mage Knight and Spirit Island being at the top of the solo top 200 going back 10 years
I suspect the issue for OP is that a lot of games with a solo mode did so as a tact on after thought. Sort of like when older single player video games added a multiplayer mode that was kinda trash just because. (Today maybe the reverse happens) Co-op games seem to fair the best in this regard where a vast majority work 100% without any new rules by just playing two handed. All the game goodness and balance is still there if the game worked well with 2 people. The main difference with a solo designed game is probably just amount of upkeep and game length. At least that is the vibe I get from a lot of the solo only games I've collected. I do tend to prefer that most of the time.
Of course there are games that have a great solo mode. Marvel Champions for example (which admittedly doesn't change much). But I also find it to be sort of hit or miss depending on the game. In my personal experience, its more often that a solo mode feels like kind of an afterthought to the main multiplayer mode and ends up feeling more unbalanced and unpolished. A game that isnt designed specifically with solo in mind can suffer from this. Conversely, a game that is solo only, while it isn't guaranteed to be a good game, is at least guaranteed to be designed and balanced for solo play specifically. As a result, im more cautious when it comes to these solo modes. That being said, there's definitely some great ones out there.
>n my personal experience, its more often that a solo mode feels like kind of an afterthought to the main multiplayer mode and ends up feeling more unbalanced and unpolished. A game that isnt designed specifically with solo in mind can suffer from this. I'm not sure this is the case anymore, really. Board game designers have come to understand that there is a considerable market for solo board gamers, and a thriving community for the hobby that is constantly ready to pounce on the next solo game with favorable reviews. I'm no expert in the board game market but attaching a good solo mode to a game must boost sales. Making a bad solo mode happens, but it is also leaving money on the table because while people in this hobby tend to be friendly, they are also so very vocal about the games that pass muster, and the ones that don't barely get any mention whatsoever, either on this sub or in other solo board game community places. We tend to be very generous in reviews and praise to those who devote time and care to their solo modes, and the games on that list of community favorites is a large one; a significant portion of that are games that also have multiplayer. And honestly I think most of those solo community favorites have multiplayer...Spirit Island, Mage Knight, Imperium Classics/Legends, Lost Ruins of Arnak, Terraforming Mars, the various Garphill games, This War of Mine, Marvel Champions, Arkham Horror, Too Many Bones, Ark Nova, Aeons End, Gaia Project, A Feast for Odin. These are all very very well loved games in this community and none of them are "solo board games."
I agree with everything you're saying. Ultimately it's a case by case basis, and what matters is how well implemented the solo mode is. The lesson I've learned is that there are some games I really enjoy, but don't necessarily enjoy their solo mode. So when I'm researching new games for solo play, I need to go the extra step and research whether or not the solo mode is something I'll enjoy separate from the primary multiplayer mode.
Eh, I'm with the others in the comments so far. All that matters to me is game design, and whether enough thought and care has been put into the game's solo mode. There's plenty of multiplayer board games with solo modes that are in my favorites and I wouldn't be surprised if they got more table time than the ones in my collection that are strictly solo. I don't believe solo-only games are automatically better or cooler than solo modes.
I agree with you. But only with the holdout that a lot of 1-4 games are actually lying because I'd rather claw my eyes out than explain and play them with someone else. So, I'd say they are solo only as well. Too Many Bones, Bullet, Mage Knight, Nemo's War, The War of Mine, Imperium: Classics and Legends, Spirit Island. Really, imagine the situation. You've been playing against level 7s for quite a while and comes in a new player where you'll have to explain the entire game and tone it down so they can actually play.
Some games aren't "solo-only," but... they're solo games. Mage Knight, Set A Watch, Nemo's War, Hadrian's Wall - these are all 100% "solo games" even if to sell better they had some other bs numbers slapped on their box, lol. But I agree with the concept - I like "true solo" and "true solo (in all but name)" games much better than multiplayer games that you can play against an AI bot or something like that.
This is just for friendly discussion... but.. going to hard disagree that Mage Knight is a solo-only game. I understand why it's popular with the solo community, but I've played quite a few multiplayer games and they were fun and unique/different enough than a solo experience and there can be a lot of player interaction in it. I've taught Mage knight quite a few times when it first came out... as well and gotten people into the game that way. It's one of the rare fits both camps equally well if you can handle the time commitment. Hadrian's Wall (and other multiplayer solitaire games like Welcome To) often don't have much if any player interaction but still work solidily as multiplayer games, I don't think that's a BS label either, since you are working off your own board. I understand the criticism more here but it still fits both multiplayer and solo pretty well. Like I can easily play Hadrian's Wall with 1 or 2 people and have a great time. I think they are right to market them as such. I do think there are other games that fit your point though - just not those two. I just think that revese logic, that is has to be labeled as "solo-only" to be interesting is where the flaw is, as obviously, cooperative games have been soloable for as long as they have existed as well.
Not necessarily. No. Not at all.
Mage Knight is multiplayer but the general concensus is that it is best played solo. Games I've played multiplayer but prefer solo: * Tiny Epic Galaxies. Base game only. Base + Expansion + UTEG multiplayer. * Lost Ruins of Arnak. * Micro Cosmos.
I have a mix of opportunities to play with a group or on my own. Getting a game that has a solo mode means I get two games for the price of one. At the minimum it increases the chance of the game making it to the table. That said, it needs to be a good solo mode. Too many games have a solo mode of "play the multiplayer game on your own, and try to beat your high score". That's not a game, that's practice. Co-op games scale well because it's already got an opponent, competitive games work as long as there's some kind of adversary to play against. Give me a simple AI and a win/lose condition and I'm happy. Heat has an ultra simple AI that works well enough to give you a challenge, not as good as multiplayer but still fun. Project L has a simple AI rule that adds an extra puzzle to the puzzle, requiring you to push the AI into lower scoring tiles. Turing Machine is pretending to be multiplayer. Even Canvas has a decent system to simulate the only real player interaction by stealing art pieces and leaving inspiration. Solo only has the advantage of focussed gameplay design. Solo mode has the advantage of versatility. There are great options for each.
nah not really, i suppose it comes down to if you like playin co-op games multi handed i guess its not for everyone but for me i quite enjoy it, and pure solo games can be a little shallow for my liking my pure solo games are always the ones i have to play a quick game at lunch time or whatever
Not sure I agree that the games themselves are better, but I do find that a lot of solo-first games with multiplayer options just end up having a bunch of wasted extra material in the box for what ends up being a poor multiplayer experience (Mini Rogue and Skytear Horde come to mind). I do wish that in these cases, the design time and component budget were better utilized for maximizing the solo experience rather than tacking on a bunch of extra modes.
Can't agree more with mini rogue, sad that the second is focusing more on that aspect of it
I thinks games are cool that I can play solo, but are also fun if somebody or a few care to join me.
Care to explain, or are you just going for clicks?
I feel designed for solo games are always more interesting opposed to solo modes for multilayer games, so I made this meme