|
quote:How is XCOM? I was debating on picking that up this week but I've heard mixed things about it, like it's OK but not actually worth a pick up unless you're a big fan of XCOM (which I kinda am but not all my friends and partner are). I've played it a few times with my main group, and a couple random times with other sets of people. It's always gone over well, but I think my main group is probably done with it; I'll probably end up playing it a couple more times with new people then sell it. It's a good novelty game, but there isn't much there for long term appeal. For me, that was good enough for the price, but in general I'd say try to play someone else's copy, or at least find it on sale.
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:16 |
|
|
Texibus posted:It's poo poo. The only enjoyment to be had is fooling around with the Ipad on your first play through and then you realize you're playing a really boring push your luck mechanic under a X-com theme annnnd you say fuuuuuccccckkkk they got me again, then you just sit in your room alone listening to X-com theme on replay for an hour. I've actually enjoyed playing it, although it definitely isn't super deep or anything. You could almost consider it Space Alert lite, and with the right crowd that goes to pieces and fights with each other under pressures, it is a lot of fun. Where XCom is lacking is in giving everyone enough to do. Basically everything should have been just a little more complicated. As is, there's usually an optimum play and as long as you're looking at your options before it's time for you to activate, you'll probably do okay. It does give you more time to bicker, which is fun, but I can't imagine anyone is going to be putting in a ton of effort the third time they play the dude who assigns soldiers. What I actually really like about Xcom is the app. It has a ton of potential for Co-op game design. The problem with Co-ops is that its easy for the difficulty to get skewed and players to get into cakewalk or impossible situations and there isn't much fun about either. I think (but this is only a guess based on a few play throughs) that the app actually tries to push the difficulty into a middle ground. Do too well and it seems to throw more at you. Get brutalized and it will pull a punch. It's actually a really good idea, since by obfuscating the difficulty adjustment players can't game the system. There's probably some magic number of alien ships you want on the board to get an easier time of it, but since no one knows what it is you're never doing weird metagame stuff to reach it. It's a great idea tied to something that is almost but not quite as cool as space alert.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Corbeau posted:After seeing Argent: The Consortium at the store yesterday, I'm very interested in it. It looks like what I wanted Waterdeep to be: thematic worker placement with a ton of game-to-game variation and asymmetrical powers for the players. Sounds nastier, more cutthroat, and less generally relaxed than Lords of Waterdeep, but I guess that's the tradeoff. You could make it way less nasty if you wanted I suppose? Just swapping a red mage over to side B would make it way less cuthroat, because instead of letting you knock people out and steal their places, you just get mana from other mages in the room. There's a lot going on in Argent, is what. e: while we're on the subject, does anyone have a link to the massive rear end galaxy trucker thing some guy did? AMooseDoesStuff fucked around with this message at 17:43 on May 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Ohthehugemanatee posted:What I actually really like about Xcom is the app. It has a ton of potential for Co-op game design. The problem with Co-ops is that its easy for the difficulty to get skewed and players to get into cakewalk or impossible situations and there isn't much fun about either. I think (but this is only a guess based on a few play throughs) that the app actually tries to push the difficulty into a middle ground. Do too well and it seems to throw more at you. Get brutalized and it will pull a punch. It's actually a really good idea, since by obfuscating the difficulty adjustment players can't game the system. There's probably some magic number of alien ships you want on the board to get an easier time of it, but since no one knows what it is you're never doing weird metagame stuff to reach it. The real problem is that the app doesn't have enough information to actually do this. It can look at panic results, mission success, and UFOs in orbit, but that's it. It has no idea how many UFOs are out or aliens are hammering on your base or how many units you've got left or how your technology is doing. This is why I can't help but think that the whole game would have been better as, well, a computer game. It ain't no Left 4 Dead, that's for sure.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:The other caveat about Argent is that it requires a pretty sizeable table to play. Also, some people may get lost in the game (in that they won't know what to do) because it's easier to economize "get as many victory points" than "get more stuff than other people that may or may not be relevant, and also victory points." It's not a race to the top of one track, it's getting to the top of more tracks than other players (I would love to see a VP track that somehow works for this), and some people may find that difficult to grasp. One of the scenarios from the expansion actually does this iirc, no clue how well it works though.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:Also anyone got much to say on The Witcher board game?  tldr: Looks like a hack and slash but is actually a game about fighting to keep your head just above water. It will happily let you dig your own hole and drown in it. I actually do like the game but I wouldn't categorically recommend it to just anyone. Not even someone who's biased in favor of swords and spells and stuff. I'll explain why in a bit. I like many, many elements of the design - the wound and action system is really good, the combat is fast to resolve, the way you 'level up' is slick. The different characters all play very differently and this is achieved within the core rules design, not due to different rulesets or special cases for different players. The game structure brings with it a certain atmosphere. The players all know each other and while you are competing with each other you are not enemies. It all takes place in a chaotic, monster-infested countryside on the brink of war where life is one big grey area and even daily life is a process of attrition and choosing the lesser evil. There are three big places I think the game risks slipping and falling and breaking a hip or flat-out alienating player(s). If you are OK with these then you'll probably enjoy The Witcher:
The Eyes Have It fucked around with this message at 18:19 on May 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Robinson Crusoe has hands down the worst rulebook I've read in boardgaming so far. Is there a recommended video walkthrough or any kind of guide, ala Ricky Royal's Mage Knight videos?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Ricky Royal's Robinson Crusoe videos?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Yeah, I didn't think much of Robinson Crusoe. It felt like it was incredibly quarterbackable and made no effort to solve that issue at all.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
There is an illustrated guide to Robinson Crusoe's rulebook and it's a life saver. Here's a dropbox link but it's elsewhere on the net too.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Gort posted:Yeah, I didn't think much of Robinson Crusoe. It felt like it was incredibly quarterbackable and made no effort to solve that issue at all. Basically this. It didn't feel at all like a team game, rather, like a solo game played by committee. There is literally no hidden information at all in the game; everyone can see everything, so everyone* gets to decide everyone's moves. *The loudest and/or most skilled person.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Gort posted:Yeah, I didn't think much of Robinson Crusoe. It felt like it was incredibly quarterbackable and made no effort to solve that issue at all. I see no problem with this. Robinson Crusoe is a fantastic solo adventure/puzzle in the same vein as something like Barbarian Prince, Magic Realm, or even Tales of the Arabian Nights. Robinson Crusoe isn't as chaotic and difficult as Barbarian Prince, as complex as Magic Realm, or as good a story telling engine as Tales but it manages to be second best in all of these categories, and the combination thereof makes for a fantastic game. It's as random as can be expected from a desert island survival situation, with lots of ways built in to plan and mitigate against it. It gives you the real sense of trying to out wit nature, with the realization that this is sometimes impossible, and the new challenge is picking up the pieces. It admittedly falls flat as a multiplayer experience, but I think that kludging in some mechanic to deal with that as other games do (such as hidden objectives) would have robbed the solo experience of some of its charm. I think there are already an adequate number of suitable cooperative games out there, such that Robinson Crusoe should be allowed to slide on that weakness, based on it's merits as a solo game.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:Also anyone got much to say on The Witcher board game? Let me quote my favourite poster from the last thread, myself: quote:Since one of my many hobbies is mercilessly mocking Ignacy Trzewiczek and I had a long train ride to suffer, I decided to check out the (digital version) Witcher Adventure Game. It was... Better than I've expected, actually. It's surprisingly elegant for an Ignacy game.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Wow, I should really have checked that. Mister Sinewave posted:There is an illustrated guide to Robinson Crusoe's rulebook and it's a life saver. Here's a dropbox link but it's elsewhere on the net too. That's pretty much perfect though. There's a lot in there the rulebook doesn't clearly explain that would have made out first attempt much easier. Cheers!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
e: ^^^^ I think Robinson Crusoe's rules problem is bad translation / not realizing it is a technical document. It's full of phrases like "take the matching counter and put it in the appropriate space" which is really vague when a rulebook needs to be highly specific. I'm going to chime in with a minority report and say I think Robinson Crusoe is a fascinating game that isn't quite like anything else I have tried. Side note: I never even heard of quarterbacking outside this thread. We have no trouble playing games as co-operative puzzle solving, but I guess we all know at least someone who just doesn't swing that way. The Eyes Have It fucked around with this message at 20:43 on May 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
The rulebook also felt really aimless. It tells you the limitations of the explore action numerous pages before actually showing how an exploration action resolves.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:Let me quote my favourite poster from the last thread, myself: Mister Sinewave posted:
Cheers dudes and thanks to other goons for the replies, bit bummed by the result as I do love the Witcher series and would have liked a great game to go with it. Oh well! I own very few boardgames and have only in the past year or two gotten into playing them more, so I was looking for something to expand into it with with a franchise I recognized and liked.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Seems like there's both quarterbacking and playing by committee/consensus. The former is usually seen as undesirable, but the latter is a little bit more subtle. Sometimes the most fun moments in a team game are when your teammate is just kicking rear end and it's their own instinct/agency/talent etc that led to that. Like in BSG when the other cylon is doing some good work but you're not sure exactly who they are yet. In basketball when your teammate is in the perfect spot for a pass. In Tichu when you've called Tichu, lost the lead, and your teammate takes it and bro-dogs it back to you. Etc Co-op games rarely manage to feel like a team game, in my experience, because the open communication typically leads to the game being played by committee. That's not a bad thing, maybe that's actually more desirable if you just want to sit down and solve a puzzle together. But I think that it's worth making a distinction between co-op games that actually rely on individual agency and teamwork as opposed to a sort of HCD committee decision making process. It would be interesting to see more constraints placed on communication in these games to try and mimic the experience of playing vs an opposing team that would gain an advantage if they could hear you. Maybe more simultaneous action planning a la X-Wing, Space Alert, etc with intervals where you can regroup and talk about strategy. That said, a co-op game where you actually vote on the outcome of each round, with a political theme, might be neat. I guess in some ways BSG/Resistance feels a little like this.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
I just stumbled on Joel Eddy's recent review for Combat Commander and he's almost as enthusiastic about it as I am. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7LV890hz2Y
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Seems like there's both quarterbacking and playing by committee/consensus. The former is usually seen as undesirable, but the latter is a little bit more subtle. That is very thoughtful and thought-provoking. I hadn't really thought of it that way.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
incidentally the whole team-vs-team angle's a great way to get that feeling when it's done right (tash-kalar, basically, and I guess games with a traitor element) only it's a niche that next to no-one explores and that I'd love to see done a lot more often
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
quote:incidentally the whole team-vs-team angle's a great way to get that feeling when it's done right (tash-kalar, basically, and I guess games with a traitor element) only it's a niche that next to no-one explores and that I'd love to see done a lot more often If you really commit to doing teams well, you might not be able to write "for 2 to 5 players" on the box; that is to say, I think it might be hard to pitch a game that requires exactly 4 or 6 players (though of course some do exist), and I think many good team game ideas would need to have set player counts. VVV: Naturally it depends on how integral the teams are to the design; sure you can, say, sort of play Resistance with 5, but how do you play Tichu with 3? And no, I don't go remove quotes, I'm just accustomed to old forums without a quote button - so I normally just copy and paste text, then add the quote tags. Not malicious or something, just odd habit. Anyway, to be clear, I'm all for team games - they're great and there's lots of unexplored good design space - I'm just saying I think they can potentially present marketing challenges depending on how well the design scales. jmzero fucked around with this message at 23:07 on May 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
i mean, even if the game works best with a set number of people there's nothing stopping you from coming up with variants that can use weird numbers and throwing them on the box. vanilla BSG lists 2-6 and it's only good with 5, and dungeon lords is a clusterfuck with anything other than exactly four
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
also do you seriously go into everyone you quote and remove the links
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Fungah! posted:also do you seriously go into everyone you quote and remove the links  Hit Ctrl-Q in the text entry box.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:
right but then he has to type out everything he's quoting or c/p it. what i want to know is why he doesn't just leave the names and post links in there
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
ohhh, missed his explanation. didn't think it was just malicious, it was just weird. gomen
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:Cheers dudes and thanks to other goons for the replies, bit bummed by the result as I do love the Witcher series and would have liked a great game to go with it. Oh well! I own very few boardgames and have only in the past year or two gotten into playing them more, so I was looking for something to expand into it with with a franchise I recognized and liked. I believe there's a steam port of The Witcher Board Game that's only  , so if you really want to scratch that itch, I think it has solo/vs computer capability.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Archenteron posted:I believe there's a steam port of The Witcher Board Game that's only
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:Cheers dudes and thanks to other goons for the replies, bit bummed by the result as I do love the Witcher series and would have liked a great game to go with it. Oh well! I own very few boardgames and have only in the past year or two gotten into playing them more, so I was looking for something to expand into it with with a franchise I recognized and liked. what sort of games are you looking for? and how hardcore are you looking to go?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
please don't trick him into paying money for the witcher adventure game
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Yeah I want to see. This is where my bad games go that I can't bear to throw away  
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
signalnoise posted:This is where my bad games go that I can't bear to throw away I'll just assume it's a mistake that the LoTR lcg is in there.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Fungah! posted:what sort of games are you looking for? and how hardcore are you looking to go?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
My copy of Caverna came in today, holy poo poo this is massive and heavy. Took me a good hour to punch everything out and organize it into plano boxes (just barely doesn't close all the way), but I can't wait to play this Wednesday at game night. Any recommendations for player count?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
DonnyTrump posted:I'll just assume it's a mistake that the LoTR lcg is in there. It's also where my games go when I don't play them
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:My copy of Caverna came in today, holy poo poo this is massive and heavy. Took me a good hour to punch everything out and organize it into plano boxes (just barely doesn't close all the way), but I can't wait to play this Wednesday at game night. Any recommendations for player count? Like most games I think four players is probably optimal. Two or three would be fine for the first game to learn it and would be a lot faster. Five or six will probably be hell with all new players and take forever, especially if people also aren't familiar with Agricola and/or have AP. Once you are across it I think 3-5 is best as you really need some competition for the improvement tiles.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:My copy of Caverna came in today, holy poo poo this is massive and heavy. Took me a good hour to punch everything out and organize it into plano boxes (just barely doesn't close all the way), but I can't wait to play this Wednesday at game night. Any recommendations for player count? If you have the bucks, I highly recommend the Broken Token's Caverna set up. Makes setup, play, and take down much much easier.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Oh I already put them in 2 boxes with everything sorted, works great.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:16 |
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:My copy of Caverna came in today, holy poo poo this is massive and heavy. Took me a good hour to punch everything out and organize it into plano boxes (just barely doesn't close all the way), but I can't wait to play this Wednesday at game night. Any recommendations for player count? Please don't play with 5 or more people. I was introduced to this game with 6 and it was a pretty awful experience.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 03:04
|
|
