Boardgamegeek uses a minimum number of ratings to calculate the overall Top 100/200/300. Board games start with a weighted average rating of five and, thus, they can’t break the Top 100 with only a handful of ratings.

You still get the ‘early adopters rate everything 10’ phenomenon, but it has less of an impact and it requires a larger number of people to get excited about the new ‘hotness’. By the time a game has received a lot of ratings, it means a lot of people have bought and played it, which generally means it is - at least - quite good.

Personally, I find the ‘overrating of new releases’ to be a problem. I wouldn’t have a clue how to choose a recent Stern machine because there are only a couple of places anywhere nearby to play them ‘in the wild’, and I’m not comfortable paying $6-9k in the UK for something I haven’t played to death first. If I can’t trust the ratings systems not to be dominated by ‘the new hotness’ either, I’m pretty screwed at that point.

[NB: I am new to owning a physical pinball machine. We bought a Fish Tales during lockdown after we’d both played it to death on the Williams iOS app].

You are aware that I recently rated MM and AFM, right? I've played them both on the computer and in real life.

I've also played TZ, CC, A:IQ, Batman '66, Metallica, AC-DC, Total Nuclear Annihilation, Space Station (online), Space Shuttle (real life), ST:TNG, No Good Gofers (RL and online), TAF, Alien Poker, Black Hole (online only), Stern Star Trek (online only) and GB (online only) and Embryon. I own Fish Tales.

MM and AFM are very good shooters with relatively easy to understand rules - as, actually, is Fish Tales.

I personally find TZ and TAF overrated because mechanical pop-up gizmos aren't nearly as impressive in 2021.

The top-rated new Sterns have great lighting OOTB and incredible rules complexity but, if you actually want to shoot targets, they're no better (or worse) than the best Golden Age machines. I can definitely see the appeal if you're not especially interested in high score chasing, are interested in seeing new stuff constantly, and don't want the hassle of maintenance. Also, if you're a fan of licensed themes.

It's not an age thing. I'm 41 and my son, aged four, loves online FH (no idea why).

Mando. Very likely Rick and Morty too.

I haven't played either game, but I have played Medieval Madness and I've watched a Stern promo video for both Mando and JP.

From the trailer, and watching a Keith Elwin explanatory video, I'd say that JP looks like the better game. There's an obvious goal and direction to JP (i.e. progress through the paddocks by making specific shots). The playfield is clearly arranged and the toys seem to have a specific purpose.

The Mando video is... all over the place. I'm also unimpressed by the static Child figure and the weird mini-playfield (those are rarely done well), especially on the Premium model where it seems to move around for no obvious purpose.

I'm aware I have very specific preferences in games - I prefer shooters - but I don't see why Mando is *that good*. I mean, it *might* be as good as Twilight Zone, which also always seems to me unnecessarily complex and cluttered, but that's at No. 10.

I'm open to being convinced, but I think a *lot* more than 88 people need to rate it (myself included) before I'll believe it.