|
Just put me right in the signup queue.
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 07:25 |
|
|
Funny thing is I didn't like the Volkare game quite as much as I did the competitive game, and definitely don't when in person. Volkare's a neat idea and he works really well in solo, but any higher number of players and the urgency seems to go out of the game a bit. He's distressingly easy to punch down if the players are working together and you lose a lot of the poo poo-talk and 'ha ha I hosed your plan up'. In return you get incredibly huge battles that can slow the table down a lot.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:Magic sized. Thanks. Jedit posted:To save people ever asking about sleeve sizes again, we should link this in the OP. Also thanks for this, never seen this list before but it's a super nice resource.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Jedit posted:To save people ever asking about sleeve sizes again, we should link this in the OP. No one reads the OP though
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Stelas posted:Funny thing is I didn't like the Volkare game quite as much as I did the competitive game, and definitely don't when in person. Volkare's a neat idea and he works really well in solo, but any higher number of players and the urgency seems to go out of the game a bit. He's distressingly easy to punch down if the players are working together and you lose a lot of the poo poo-talk and 'ha ha I hosed your plan up'. In return you get incredibly huge battles that can slow the table down a lot. agreed, but you gotta have a carebear mode for playing with people who like the puzzle aspect of MK but not the competitive monastery racing.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:The problem is that Dead of Winter doesn't have much in the way of actual thematic conveyance. It just has text on its cards and artwork to match. The tone of the subject matter changes wildly, as well, from gruesome and pornographic to cartoony and comedic. See, I don't agree with this at all. The game seems to be brimming with the sorts of fiddly little rules that make games complex and don't necessarily add anything mechanically, but contribute to the general feeling of zombie survival. Some examples: - used cards aren't just discarded, they go to the waste pile which needs to be cleared occasionally in order to stop morale dropping. - the way that zombies crowd outside the entrances of buildings, which means that you need to roll for exposure if you want to kill them (unless you've got a gun.) - the manner in which new survivors are discovered when searching locations... And how they inevitably bring helpless survivors with them that do nothing but force you to find more food. That's three examples that don't even delve into the text on cards. When you add in the missions, abilities of the different survivors, equipment, different crises and those much maligned crossroads cards, I can't see how you "no theme" argument stands up. We played the beginner's scenario where we had to collect dead zombies to study. Naturally, it led to loads of attacking and lots of dead zombies. We had one guy equipped with a lighter and lots of petrol torching zombies everywhere they sprang up. Another player equipped with a sniper rifle picking off zombies anywhere they wanted. At one point, a crossroads card triggered - one of the players had come across her zombified kids at the school. The choices made perfect thematic sense - she either stays there forever to protect them (and thus is removed from the game) or regretfully puts them out of their misery burning down the school (removing every searchable item from the location.) Mechanically, its flaws were so evident. As betrayer, I managed to achieve all of my secret objectives without raising any suspicion whatsoever - all I failed to do was get morale to zero, and I would have just tanked had the main objective not been completed before I had my final turn. I expect that future plays, where everyone has more than the vaguest understanding of how the game plays, will lead to significant frustration and it probably won't get too much play from that point forward. But to suggest that it's theme is nothing more than some pictures and some text seems highly misguided. I don't see how you could re-skin the game to anything other than some sort of survival game without massive mechanical changes.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
There's a difference between "this game has no theme" and "this game's theme is badly executed," and I'm pretty sure Broken Loose is suggesting that Dead of Winter suffers from the latter more than the former.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Mage Knight is kind of weak as a competitive game because of how you get points. You could lose by one point because you drew one of the grey guard enemy tokens in, say, the white city where it's just a damage sponge that only gives you 3 fame while an opponent gets some higher fame monster somewhere else. It's still good and you get to do nifty things like manipulate the pacing of the game which don't really come up in co-op but if the scores close it doesn't feel like the win was earned. I think it would be a good idea if you needed to beat an opponent's score by something like 5% for a decisive victory.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
S.J. posted:No one reads the OP though No, but then we get to yell at them for not reading the OP. This is a game all of its own.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
PROTOSTORM!!! posted:I missed the boat on buying The Village when SUSD talked about it, but It's like 40~ bucks on amazon right now and I'm quite tempted into grabbing it. My main question is, I want Agricola, I want The Village. I've only played Village once, but I didn't really "get" it. It seemed like something that might grow on me, but not to the extent Agricola does. Definitely buy Agricola. Though Village is cool because dying sooner than others is actually a benefit. Also dying in a Euro. However, if you are colourblind or any of your friends are, it is not very playable (source: colourblind friends).
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:There's a difference between "this game has no theme" and "this game's theme is badly executed," and I'm pretty sure Broken Loose is suggesting that Dead of Winter suffers from the latter more than the former. If that's what Broken Loose is arguing, he shouldn't say things like "It has, in fact, very little theme at all."
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
elgarbo posted:If that's what Broken Loose is arguing, he shouldn't say things like "It has, in fact, very little theme at all." What he is trying to say is that the mechanics of the game don't contribute to the theme. Like a deck of nudy playing cards, the fact that the cards have naked women on them doesn't make poker a sexual game.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
You must ask yourself, "Is this rule erotic?" or you are merely drawing dicks on Dominion.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:What he is trying to say is that the mechanics of the game don't contribute to the theme. Like a deck of nudy playing cards, the fact that the cards have naked women on them doesn't make poker a sexual game. Yeah, I understand that. I tend to disagree though. I think the mechanics of the game heavily contribute to theme... Probably so much so that it's detrimental to the actual playability of the game. Anyway this is probably a debate not worth having over a game of questionable quality.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
cenotaph posted:I think it would be a good idea if you needed to beat an opponent's score by something like 5% for a decisive victory. Mage Knight's scoring is pretty weird and generally leads to very breakaway winners and losers rather than close games. I don't tend to honestly put much stock in the final scores, nor has anyone I've played with previously, because they're usually satisfied with the game as a whole at that point and drat the actual final scores provided they got to stomp a city down. I'm hoping the faction scenarios in the expansion change things up a little, either by giving the players a decently hard co-op game or else - pleasepleaseplease - sticking some of the players on one faction, and the rest on the other, and letting them duke it out.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
Stelas posted:Mage Knight's scoring is pretty weird and generally leads to very breakaway winners and losers rather than close games. I don't tend to honestly put much stock in the final scores, nor has anyone I've played with previously, because they're usually satisfied with the game as a whole at that point and drat the actual final scores provided they got to stomp a city down. I never pay an attention to the score, even when playing solo. The game is just to varriable, there is no way for me to reasonably compare my solo score from one game to the next and glean any kind of information from it. I might get a high score in one game vs another, but maybe the tiles came out better, or there was more synergy in the cards, easier monsters, etc. All I care about is beating the final city/Volkaire. If I manage to do that then the game is a success, the score doesn't matter. Unlike Agricola, where I pay super close attention to the score.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Stelas posted:Mage Knight's scoring is pretty weird and generally leads to very breakaway winners and losers rather than close games. I don't tend to honestly put much stock in the final scores, nor has anyone I've played with previously, because they're usually satisfied with the game as a whole at that point and drat the actual final scores provided they got to stomp a city down. I was going to respond to Cenotaph but you hit the nail on the head. MK isn't great for competitive because the scoring is all-over the place. When we play Cenotaph is clearly the better player, but it might as well be a coin-flip to see who won the game. It's one of the reasons we prefer co-op, that way we can just raise the difficulty to the point where it's a challenge, but the luck factor gets toned down with multiple players. That being said, Volkare is a bit easy I agree. New scenarios and monsters will be a welcome addition.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
there were a ton of words here, but really it should just say, "play Galaxy Trucker, Space Alert, Dungeon Petz, and Final Attack! if you want to grasp how theme should truly be represented in a game"
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:there were a ton of words here, but really it should just say, "play Galaxy Trucker, Space Alert, Dungeon Petz, and Final Attack! if you want to grasp how theme should truly be represented in a game"
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
JazzFlight posted:I feel like one of these things is not like the other. True, Galaxy Trucker would work better with a zombie theme
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:True, Galaxy Trucker would work better with a zombie theme Pffft, clearly Zombie Alert would be the superior title.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Stelas posted:Mage Knight's scoring is pretty weird and generally leads to very breakaway winners and losers rather than close games. I don't tend to honestly put much stock in the final scores, nor has anyone I've played with previously, because they're usually satisfied with the game as a whole at that point and drat the actual final scores provided they got to stomp a city down. Ithle01 posted:I was going to respond to Cenotaph but you hit the nail on the head. MK isn't great for competitive because the scoring is all-over the place. When we play Cenotaph is clearly the better player, but it might as well be a coin-flip to see who won the game. It's one of the reasons we prefer co-op, that way we can just raise the difficulty to the point where it's a challenge, but the luck factor gets toned down with multiple players. That being said, Volkare is a bit easy I agree. New scenarios and monsters will be a welcome addition. I know I've mentioned this to you before but for the benefit of others, the race and challenge levels for the Volkare scenarios are completely out of whack since they just multiplied the numbers by player count. Winning Legendary/Thrilling solo requires lots of things to come together right whereas with three players it's the only level that doesn't leave you twiddling your thumbs and waiting for Volkare to show up at the city before you punk him in one round. More players makes the offers churn more quickly meaning you're virtually guaranteed to draw into the powerful attack and multiple target spells. In addition, having more tiles in the draw pile balances out bad luck, like the solo game where I didn't get a single mage tower. That's highly unlikely in solo but it might be literally impossible (I'd have to look) at 3+. At higher levels Volkare should be pumped up a bit more in terms monster count and taking out 2-3 more wounds might be beneficial as well. For other competitive scenarios Dungeon Lords stands out as particularly crappy. It's fun to play around with all the awesome loot but it exacerbates the runaway leader problem.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
quote:there were a ton of words here, but really it should just say, "play Galaxy Trucker, Space Alert, Dungeon Petz, and Final Attack! if you want to grasp how theme should truly be represented in a game" Galaxy Trucker is a good game with a fun theme - but the theme isn't especially well connected to the mechanics nor does it evoke the natural emotions you would expect from the theme. The mechanics don't correspond tightly or well to building a space ship, managing one, or flying one. You could easily re-theme Galaxy Trucker as a zombie game; draw some little fences on the pieces and it might even make more sense (the player order stuff could represent the extent to which you've attracted attention or something? I don't know, but it would probably make as much sense as the flying order does now). The GT rulebook kind of half-heartedly tries to explain game mechanics in worldspace terms; it's fun, and makes some rules easier to remember - but it's essentially adding fingers to the worldspace hand so it fits the game mechanic glove. The rules aren't intuitive or natural to their world space - from the rules, you wouldn't be able to definitively say much about the games threats or other thematic elements. Moreover, the emotive content of the game doesn't fit the game theme. Building is frantic and exciting, while actually dealing with pirates and meteor storms is kind of slow, sometimes fiddly, and sometimes backstabby. Obviously the reverse would make more sense thematically. Again, there's sort of a fig leaf in the rules about the circumstances you're working in and whatever, but again that's just defining a backwards world to fit the game mechanics. I mean, if Catan had a fun story involving a capricious God who dropped sheep from the sky (or whatever) and had some goofy explanation for every other rule, the theme might be more pleasant, and the new worldspace would be more in line with game mechanics, but it wouldn't turn the game into a "great theme" exemplar. And as much as I like GT, it isn't really one either (again, that's not to say it isn't a fun theme - it's just not a perfect fit). Admittedly, this can be hard to tease out; having the "game mechanics" part be so good sort of puts a happy aura over all a game's properties - just as having generally poor player experience makes all the individual parts look bad (eg. the tons of war/zombie/whatever games that fit their theme well, but it's hard to credit them for that when the game is terrible). And naturally any emotive content is magnified by the same general level of player engagement. Or perhaps it's clearer from the other direction. Space Cadets: Dice Duels isn't a good game - not nearly as good of game as GT - but the theme fits great. Like you might expect from a space battle, it's frantic and becomes more frantic the closer you are to the enemy. The game tests the crew's ability to communicate and work efficiently, while also keeping an eye on strategy (and predicting what the other team is doing). There's a division of labor, and some of the jobs are boring and repetitive ones where you contribute best by staying head down and don't even really know who's winning, you're just building missiles or whatever. That sucks for that player, and is one of the many reasons I didn't like the game, but it conveys very fitting emotional content.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
cenotaph posted:Legendary/Thrilling See, I'd be tempted as hell to do this for my next thread, but it's just so much work trying to check through everyone's mathematics when I could instead watch people bitch at each other. e: And I guess there's also the 'awwww...' effect. If I'm running a Mage Knight thread for 2 months I want to be reasonably sure the players can get their super cool moment of glory rather than lose at the final post, or else pick a game mode where that isn't the problem in the first place. Stelas fucked around with this message at 04:13 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
I'm toying with the idea of running a Tragedy Looper PnP, but I don't have any art assets for the game. Does anyone know where I might be able to locate them?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
BL had some pretty cool graphics on his thread.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Stelas posted:See, I'd be tempted as hell to do this for my next thread, but it's just so much work trying to check through everyone's mathematics when I could instead watch people bitch at each other. e: And I guess there's also the 'awwww...' effect. If I'm running a Mage Knight thread for 2 months I want to be reasonably sure the players can get their super cool moment of glory rather than lose at the final post, or else pick a game mode where that isn't the problem in the first place. By the way, I enjoyed reading your last game of MK. I found that thread a few days ago while I was searching for Pax Porfiriania. One suggestion though, if you do run Volkare again don't draw his monsters until the players actually fight him because it makes the game a lot less predictable with all of the dragon and orc tokens sitting in his army.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:I'm toying with the idea of running a Tragedy Looper PnP, but I don't have any art assets for the game. Does anyone know where I might be able to locate them? Somebody did a Persona 4 retheme on BGG. That's your easiest bet.  
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:there were a ton of words here, but really it should just say, "play Galaxy Trucker, Space Alert, Dungeon Petz, and Final Attack! if you want to grasp how theme should truly be represented in a game" A parody of himself.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
JazzFlight posted:I feel like one of these things is not like the other. Yeah, realtime Dungeon Petz would be hell on earth.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
It would very thematically demonstrate how horrible it would be trying to wrangle that many imps.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:Somebody did a Persona 4 retheme on BGG. That's your easiest bet.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
al-azad posted:Polis has been discontinued. Is it a recommended 2-player game for someone who's growing tired of the ol' Twilight Struggle? I'm not looking for a game that's mechanically similar, just a decent balls-kicking 2-player game with relatively little luck involved. I just picked it up last week but I haven't had the chance to play it yet. Based on the BGG impressions and going through the rules I'm quite excited to try it. It's hard to get a sense of what it will feel like to play but the mechanics seem really tight and deep, and like there will be all kinds of things you want to do but need to figure out how to get it done with the very limited resources you have. It seems like a really good 2 player area control/resource management game with a bit of combat and trickier thrown into the mix. I'll post an impression once I'm able to get it played, but the price is pretty decent and the component quality is very nice
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Also in Polis chat, it's on BGA. It seems really neat but you can actually ruin yourself very quickly and early in the game by starving your people by not paying enough attention.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
jmzero posted:There's a division of labor, and some of the jobs are boring and repetitive ones where you contribute best by staying head down and don't even really know who's winning, you're just building missiles or whatever. That sucks for that player, and is one of the many reasons I didn't like the game, but it conveys very fitting emotional content. Winning team has to shuffle non-captain positions after every successful enemy hit. Voila; a balancing and pacing mechanic that prevents boredom or, in many places, competence!
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
Stelas posted:I'm hoping the faction scenarios in the expansion change things up a little, either by giving the players a decently hard co-op game or else - pleasepleaseplease - sticking some of the players on one faction, and the rest on the other, and letting them duke it out. I hope there is a way to do this without enforcing PvP. Is another heap of rules and exceptions on an already rule-heavy game.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
Some games played: Star Realms: There's some good ideas here and some stuff I quite like. There's a good variety of cards, and usually some options in terms of build. There's kind of an RTS-like build balance where you want a better economy, but also enough military that he can't set up too much of an outpost shop. You have to keep adjusting to stay ahead, and you have to be flexible enough to follow what the deck is giving and what your opponent is taking. The rules are very simple and there's nice firm footing for beginning strategy. Then there's the bad... and really it's bad enough I can't actually imagine playing this with people. What percentage of games would you just want to call 3 turns in? I mean, it's very possible for one player to get stuck buying a ton of explorers early while the other player gets a few Freighters and Supply Pods, and the game is over before it starts. Like, one game the computer got a Freighter on his first turn - meaning I was tempted to restart on turn zero when I saw that - but I figured I'd try to come from behind. He got a Brain World on his 3rd turn. I was on the john playing against the Medium AI, which isn't too bright, but there's no way you'd come back against a person with that start - and no way I could have stopped him from getting it. Too many elements of the game point towards big random swings and heavy snowballing. That's OK when you can just start a new game against an AI, but against a person in real life, it seems like it would get old pretty fast. There's also far too many auto-pilot turns, and too little variety of "how the game goes" (ie. there's different cards, but always the same deck, and the game drifts heavily towards certain ruts). All that said, again, there is some good ideas here. With a bit of rebalance, I think a multiplayer (with attacks just hitting "all other players", and removing any targeted stuff), kingdomized version could end up worthwhile. Sherlock Holmes: Consulting Detective: If you haven't bumped into this, this is a group mystery solving game with a set of case books. For each case, you can follow a bunch of leads, which effectively means choosing a person to visit and reading their section of the book. You then score based on whether you solve the case (there's "test" questions at the end of the case which award points based on how well you understand what happened) and how many leads you took (with Holmes providing a par score). My group was excited to try this, and I quite like the overall setup and how simple they kept the "gamey" parts of the game. I much prefer this kind of directed story experience to something like "Tales" (though obviously the games have different goals), and the clearest downside - the limited set of cases - doesn't particularly bother me. The bad: the writing is really hit and miss. Sometimes it's quite well done, other times it rambles around going nowhere, abruptly changes tone, or just generally isn't good. It's a minor point, but the copy editing is terrible. I'm assuming the current edition was based on OCR'ing an older edition, as there's rampant abnormal spelling problems, like "f"s where there should be "t"s; surely they could have at least spell checked this? The worse: the game's "UI" is inconsistent. Like, in one of the cases they mention a building. We wanted to go there, but it wasn't in the directory (the directory is a list of people and buildings matched to "book codes"; the book codes are also on the map so you can see where things are in relation to each other physically) - so we figured it wasn't an option. Surely they didn't want us to search the entire map, with hundreds of streets, for a street name? Surely they would have given us a way to look up a street by name if they intended that? And even if we did find the street, we only had a number and a street name, so how would we know which building's code to use? Turns out I guess we were supposed to just search the map, and there's only one coded building on that street. That felt really cheap. And you can't just assume it always works like that either. In a couple later cases we've had addresses and other location references that looked promising, but that weren't on the map or didn't resolve to anything in the book. This wastes time and generally sucks - it's like clicking all over the screen in an old adventure video game trying to find the interactive bits. (Handy tip: you can use a real map of London - and a Google search - to find the streets quicker). If I was redesigning this game, I'd at least make the lead following more consistent, but probably just switch to a more direct "here's a list of leads" system (where it gives you some options to start, and adds new options directly during the course of reading different sections). The other thing this would allow is "visiting a place with a purpose"; as it stands, sometimes you find something out about someone so you visit them with certain questions in mind... and then the story section goes nowhere (because, of course, the text section doesn't reflect what you might know or suspect.. so it has to be consistent even if that person was the first you'd visited). The worst: some of the mystery answers are terribly unsatisfying. In the last case we did, we were trying to follow a minimum of leads. Collaborating, we built out a narrative that explained things really well, and made for a clever match to the details we had. We were extrapolating from details in a manner consistent to what we'd seen in previous cases, where clues mentioned were pretty much always significant and just needed to be fit together. Turns out this time a bunch of the details were misleading (and one seemed particularly at odds with the correct answer), and one of the outright facts (given by a trustable source, who had no reason to lie under the "correct answer" version of reality) was apparently just wrong, with no explanation (whereas the detail was very important to our version of events). Obviously sometimes you'd get misinformation when solving a case in real life - but it's not fair in a game. It's not like I can go check out the scene for myself, I have to treat what's written in the book as true (with obvious exemptions for potential lies from suspects). None of the cases "correct" explanations could survive the assumption that some random given detail was wrong. In this particular instance, it's bad enough that I legitimately suspect that the ending was re-written by someone who then failed to re-write some of the previous supporting scenes. In a good riddle or mystery, the "right answer" should be undeniably better than other answers. That's the whole appeal of this game - so when they have a weak answer, it really sucks. And, in terms of "playing to win" even in the mysteries with good final answers, too often the shortest path feels kind of cheap. Like, there's a few times where Holmes discounts an entire possible suspect/story chain based on pretty much nothing (ie just the kinds of extrapolations the game sometimes punishes you for) - or where he chooses to follow a hunch that provides a huge shortcut, for little discernable reason (in at least one case, the hunch is complete vapor; you just go to a place the victim randomly visited without incident or relation to the case, and by coincidence you bump into a suspect there). It's a shame, because there's a lot of potential fun here - and sometimes the writing is interesting and rewarding. But getting screwed just once is a killer here - once you lose trust in a game like this it's hard to give it another chance. jmzero fucked around with this message at 08:36 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
On Sherlock Holmes: Jesus Christ - I just looked through some BGG forums, and it turns out we were right about the case in question. In the original version, our theory on the murder was correct - and they half-rear end-changed the culprit for this edition. Just terrible.
jmzero fucked around with this message at 08:37 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
I played Sherlock Holmes one time and know the missing building in the directory that you speak of... pretty much wouldn't bother playing it again if that sort of thing is consistent.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 08:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 07:25 |
|
|
The argument of theme gets so ridiculous that I'm convinced the most contentious games are, as a result, the most thematic. Nobody pretends Smallworld is representative of the struggles of cartoon fantasy races but mentioning Arkham Horror will summon the defenders and naysayers in equal strength in a fight to the death. I'll throw my hat in and say Dungeon Petz is rather weakly themed. Strip away the art and you've got a game about purchasing and improving assets before selling them on the market. It could be about any kind of market from growing weed to selling real estate. But Dungeon Lords is so deeply married to its theme that when the defense phase comes around I don't know how anyone can misconstrue the game as anything other than building/defending a stronghold. As a result Dungeon Petz is easier to teach. Dungeon Lords is so thematic that I've seen people who love the poo poo out of worker placement games being incapable of understanding it. I don't understand how you can honestly say DoW "has no theme." The theme gets in the way of good gameplay, sure, but having no theme? A co-op game intentionally designed to make players perform selfish actions while working towards a common goal in the face of a near-impossible-to-contain threat while resources grow increasingly scarce isn't appropriate to zombie fiction, are you loving kidding me? Don't get hung up on the awkward writing in the crossroads cards, which I've actually heard more disapproval from fans than not (the event cards in Starfarers of Catan accomplish the job far better). EBag posted:I just picked it up last week but I haven't had the chance to play it yet. Based on the BGG impressions and going through the rules I'm quite excited to try it. It's hard to get a sense of what it will feel like to play but the mechanics seem really tight and deep, and like there will be all kinds of things you want to do but need to figure out how to get it done with the very limited resources you have. It seems like a really good 2 player area control/resource management game with a bit of combat and trickier thrown into the mix. I'll post an impression once I'm able to get it played, but the price is pretty decent and the component quality is very nice I look forward to it. Honestly the thing that drew me in was the minimalist aesthetic but I'm also hard pressed to find rewarding 2-player strategy games that aren't card based. elgarbo posted:I played Sherlock Holmes one time and know the missing building in the directory that you speak of... pretty much wouldn't bother playing it again if that sort of thing is consistent. Sherlock Holmes seems like the kind of game I'd enjoy with an app that tracked all the record keeping but then you may as well remake the Consulting Detective video game.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 12:21
|
|
