First | Prev || Next | Last
¿Question #2631?
puffinge: I've played Around the World in 80 Days twice and I loathe, loathe, loathe it. Both times there were 6 players. Is it better with a smaller number?

Woelf: Maybe it's better with fewer days?
Leo-T: I've played it with 3 & 4 and though it was ok
jeffrhind: No
Jbrady: Havent played it
Spirit of 70: I have yet to play it.
MichaelB: No
Hendal: no clue, sorry
ahoodedfigure: Yes, perhaps 40 days at most.
Wes Hope: dont know, sorry
Velshen: It can be if your smaller numbers is people you get along with.
Dane: perhaps a bigger world would make a difference
MotUfan: I haven't played it yet, so I could only guess.
apecage: No. But we like it for six.
DHEK: Hah! I played it once and I didn't like it either! It was too simple, and I didn't really get what was so great about it at all. I played that one time with 3 players and it sucked. I thought it was supposed to be better with more players... but since you said no, I guess not. I guess the game just plain sucks.
POvidiusNaso: I like it best with 5.
ZiggyZambo: i could be
duLac956: No.
HScottBuck: Don't know, try it.
vampywife: i've not played it, but some games are better with a certain number of players; that may be one of them.
Zen Postman: Yes, Around the World in 40 Days takes half as long to play.
Mordachai: Don't know.
Freejack: Yes... then it takes only 40 days!
CortexBomb: I thought it was dull with 4...
Chris Page: Yes. Each removed player makes it better, reaching the optimum play experience with zero players.
Android: dunno
brainrob: I've played with 5 and it was tedious ...
SteveK2: yes: it finishes quicker
rawdawg: sure
skrutsch: Don't know. I've never played.
Gialmere: Did you win?
bigbadsteve: Its entirely possible
Loquutus: yeah, zero
Jim_P: No... best with more
Belash: no, it is much better with the variant that allows 8 players though
KnobDoctor: With two players it'll take 240 days to get around the world. Have you got that kind of time?
Cavedog_pdx: The "better with fewer" argument is designed to just rope you into one more game. Avoid!
CharlieWonka: I need to try it to answer your question
Lord_Prussian: I have no idea
mrbeankc: Not really
ssmooth: yes, it's better if the people who don't like it don't play it
2amp: never played
Skipthis86: If I say yes. will you play it again?
heli: probably about 4 is best
The Unbeliever: 42
scriptorum: Um, have you considered posting this in the Around the World forum, instead of forcing it on everyone?
CapAp: I dont know
r2mites: I would assume 5 players would only take 75-76 days since you would have one less person to bring along.
Randy Cox: Well, Bill, based on your statement, I can't imagine it getting worse, now could it? Personally, I'm looking forward to playing. I think it'll be great to play with my cousin, uncle, and nephew.
MisterCranky: No. It will never be better for you. Even if you play it solitaire as Around the block in a Week, it just won't be fun.
skelebone: Perhaps. Or just limit the game to 40 days, halfway around the world.
dakarp: I know I'm not going to find out. Ugh!
erli: You'd play again? Are you on crack?
chaddyboy_2000: I liked it with 4.
djlg: Yes, but possibly not by much.
jttm: Try and see?
snoozefest: i've played with 3, and didn't think it was very much fun
CDRodeffer: Probably.
Spielfreak: meh. I'm not too thrilled with the game, either.
puffinge: I've heard it is, but it's gonna have to improve alot to please me.