4 player

Attention over time

7-day rolling share of analyzed posts/comments mentioning this entity · 90 daily points ending 2026-10-04

Final complete day: 2026-10-04. Attention was 0.2% — this entity appeared in 21 of 9,434 analyzed posts/comments in the seven days ending that day (21 mentions).

Each point is a seven-day rolling window of complete UTC days; a point is comparable only when at least 100 analyzed posts or comments fall inside it. A day with no analyzed records counts as zero; missing coverage is marked and never shown as zero. The series ends at the latest complete analyzed day — it never extends into the current incomplete day. How attention is measured.

Recent mentions

1. 2026-10-04 23:00 UTCComment

   Best with 3, fine with 4, don't bother with 5 player or more. I think it's fine. Many paths to victory as the world burns around them sorta thing. Coop but you are all trying to be first. Someone can just throw away their hard work and push the npc faction to win. Brutal in 4 player but it seems to be the sweet spot in allowing that. In a 3rd player game someone helping the npc faction is too much to overcome or the players don't have enough power to get ahead in points in a 5 player game. Just blends alot of game designs and I honestly don't mind it. There is an aspect it is just too send doods to fix the problems for me but I am quite picky with board games. I own it and am planning to get the expansions for it expecting good game nights in the future.

2. 2026-10-04 17:20 UTCComment

   In a 4 player game, 3 people are going to lose, so the most important part of game design is making a game that's fun to lose. Obviously in hyper competitive games there's space for focusing solely on the thrill of the win, but I think modern board games shy away from that for a reason. The answer isn't "play coop," although of everyone wants to play coop that's an acceptable solution. If there's a disparity in strategic ability, the problem will likely switch from not enjoying losing, to not enjoying being constantly quarterbacked. I lose quite often playing terraforming mars(like 80-90%, my brother is much better than me), but it's still my favorite game. I still get to build an engine, see it work, make interesting choices. People hate on "multiplayer solitaire" but I think that's part of what makes it possible to enjoy repeatedly losing a game. Dominion, ark nova, steampunk rally, etc - it's fun to win but it's also fun to build "something" and see how it works. I will sometimes lose dominion games somewhat on purpose because I'd rather make my deck stronger than start diluting it with VP cards. It's more fun to me to be able to get a +5 action +4 buy turn and have a pyramid/tree of cards on one turn than it is to win the game. Similarly, for OP talking about mtg, I enjoy playing(whether I win or lose) less than building decks. I think when people say "learn to enjoy losing," it's more "find a game you enjoy losing"

3. 2026-10-04 14:39 UTCComment

   My kid at the time didn't have an issue with Horizons of Spirit Island. But I guess a 4 player version isn't recommended if teaching 3 new players.

4. 2026-10-04 00:13 UTCComment

   I've had OKC, but I ended up selling it. Actually I enjoyed my plays with it, but I realized that I didn't see the art of the game on my games as I was more focused on the type of card and strength. The reasons I've sold it was because I wanted an area control game but this was more a lane card game, something more like Gwent or smash up. I've felt that I didn't enjoy that much the asymmetry, it was just barely, each faction have 3 expendable uses aprox of a skill in combat, and 2 unique cards that they could buy in the future and some passive powers. The other powers weren't that interesting normally to use. Still those uses and unique cards kind of made each faction specialize in one keyword, but the game had a long version with more rounds and I thought I prefered to play more the short version so I could use my unique skills without being scared of needing them later. The engine building part wasn't bad, but usually the cards best used were the ones that gave free victory points. Me not being that impressed by the asymmetry, and some feel bad moments some players had at 4 players where the game punished their mistakes in a death spiral kind of way made me sell it in the end. And actually, I didn't feel the game had much chaos or luck, at 2 player it was very predictable a lot of times. The game just give a very big advantage being last player

5. 2026-10-03 15:33 UTCComment

   My group was similar. I think it's brilliant, and it's one of the few (only?) I'll play solo. It's probably not great at 4 players - lot of downtime, cards to build your deck are split quite a bit... I dunno.