|
Chill la Chill posted:It’s definitely them whining about lost profits as they do typical private equity poo poo Oh yeah, this is saving face for some sort of underperformance in the market.
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:43 |
|
|
Lorini posted:Stonemaier won't even let people make apps, and yeah there's nothing to see but a blank board unless you want it spoiled. Just because some legacy games can show stuff doesn't mean all of them do. Any 'in action' images would be spoilers, absolutely. Go look it up on BGG if you want more information and even there you won't get much. "Go look it up on BGG" is terrible advice when I'm saying right now that the utter lack of info on the box, when I was holding it in my hands and deciding whether to purchase it, turned me off and made me put it back. Intentional design choice or not, that's a lost sale. And the description above makes it sound less like a board game and more an exercise in opening envelopes and boxes. E: and it's not "some" legacy games that show components on the back, it's "literally every single one other than this one". If you manage to hoist all 22 pounds of Gloomhaven without spilling its contents everywhere you will see a game in action on the back as well as pictures of several components. Rockman Reserve fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Jan 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
It's...a legacy game. Yes a lot of the fun is opening and discovering content.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 16:36
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:It's...a legacy game. Yes a lot of the fun is opening and discovering content. I'm not arguing against that at all? It just seems like Charterstone in particular has literally nothing else to offer, or at least goes out of its way to present itself that way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 16:38
|
|
|
food court bailiff posted:I'm not arguing against that at all? It just seems like Charterstone in particular has literally nothing else to offer, or at least goes out of its way to present itself that way. Some people still defend Seafall because of the opening-stuff part. It's bad, don't buy it even at $20.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
I mean, he's right, no one is going to be browsing the board games and decide to buy the 70 dollar Charterstone based on its packaging alone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
Who's buying $70 board games based on the packaging?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Who's buying $70 board games based on the packaging? Most of the community, probably.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 16:46
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Who's buying $70 board games based on the packaging? Everyone who bought TIME Stories
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Who's buying $70 board games based on the packaging? I do this all the time? Pick something up, check it out, check the overall score on BGG, grab it if it seems decent. Chill la Chill posted:Some people still defend Seafall because of the opening-stuff part. It's bad, don't buy it even at $20. Amazon has it for $30 already haha. I'm glad the thread warned me off that one because at that price it was tempting. I love legacy games, and I don't spoil myself on them, but if you claim you can't even show an initial board state or something without spoiling the sanctity of your game I'm going to be more than a little wary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
tried to buy a canada goose jacket, but they asked me for my chinese state ID, and when i said i didn't have one they refused to sell me the jacket
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 16:51
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Who's buying $70 board games based on the packaging? You should join the BGG or The Boardgame Group fb groups if you want to see people displaying their consumerist-driven sprees and talk about how cool the game looks. They reel back in horror if you talk about reading reviews and watching playthroughs about a game for a few hours before deciding to purchase it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 16:51
|
|
|
Like, that's pretty much the entire reason Legendary, at least the Marvel version, exists. It is a bad, fiddly game that gets by because each hero has a single piece of licensed art for their cards, and that makes us nerds sing with joy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 17:01
|
|
|
Clearly the game is not for you as trust me, Charterstone showing content doesn't get much better, at least not through the first three games. If you think there's no content on the box, wait til you see the mostly non existent rules.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
Forgot to post about this last night but if anyone wants a good board game podcast to listen to, you should look up Rym Decoster on Youtube or check out http://frontrowcrew.com/. My friends and I agree that they're our board game doppelgangers. He and his buddy have panels in conventions and they're pretty amazing to listen to. They have excellent knowledge of game mechanics and they jump back and forth between tabletop/video games. They'll drop truthbombs in there about D&D being a bad roleplaying game, why Go is bad, why player elimination is bad, the nature of balance in games; stuff that people here already know for the most part but it's that kind of show where they speak their minds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
Every board game box should show the game in action, that's just smart. If you don't want poo poo spoiled then blur the names or put cheeky stickers over some of it like "MORE SURPRISES AWAIT INSIDE." Or hell, pull a Kojima and fake some components it's all renders these days anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
al-azad posted:Every board game box should show the game in action, that's just smart. If you don't want poo poo spoiled then blur the names or put cheeky stickers over some of it like "MORE SURPRISES AWAIT INSIDE." Or hell, pull a Kojima and fake some components it's all renders these days anyway. It's a Stonemaier game, he doesn't need to do all that 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 17:23
|
|
|
Another weird thing that puts me off about Charterstone is the weird way you unlock new things. Basically you get a number and you have to cross reference that number on a chart to find which cards to draw out or boxes to open.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
Does anyone know if Charterstone is selling well? This thread has definitely steered me away from it mostly, even though there's a dented copy that's tempting me mostly on the SM brand and Jedit saying he's having an alright time with it. But goddam, how do they have a bad rule book? Viti and Scythe were pretty good imo
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
Gloomhaven is a curious product in that it doesn't care that it spoils the game for you. There are no protections from looking ahead, all of the monsters (that I know of at least) are on the sheets, all of the events, stickers, and items are just there for you to sort them because the game isn't built on its surprises alone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
FulsomFrank posted:Does anyone know if Charterstone is selling well? This thread has definitely steered me away from it mostly, even though there's a dented copy that's tempting me mostly on the SM brand and Jedit saying he's having an alright time with it. I dunno what it is about this particular game. I am really enjoying Charterstone now that me and my partner have a few games under our belt, but the rules written when you first open the box are not really that clear, and the new rules you place as you unlock things are similarly not always as clear as you want them. Sometimes I think it's just me but when I search for the rule clarification I find that many people had the same issue. It may have just been a not so helpful batch of play testers or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
FulsomFrank posted:Does anyone know if Charterstone is selling well? This thread has definitely steered me away from it mostly, even though there's a dented copy that's tempting me mostly on the SM brand and Jedit saying he's having an alright time with it. The game is literally unplayable with the rules as written because it doesn't define turn order, so technically the game can't proceed after the first turn. It desperately needed a technical writer to look over the rules as there are several similar issues both in the base rules and added rules. That said, most of the issues are fairly easy to figure out with some common sense and the biggest issue is just being very careful about picking out the correct cards when unlocking stuff. My recommendation would be solely based on how much you enjoy legacy stuff like unlocking boxes and changing the board - if you really enjoy that the issues with the game won't put you off and unlike Seafall the base game is solid if unspectacular. If you don't get a lot of enjoyment from legacy aspects however, there are many better medium-weight worker placement games out there that you will likely enjoy a lot more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
That reminds me of the other biggest issue with the game (though this is common with legacy games): the first two games you play involve a LOT of pausing while you unlock a crucial rule or something that needs explaining. Not so bad with only two players but I can see juggling that with a player count of 4 becoming aggravating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
The first game of Charterstone is literally watching one player drawing and reading out cards, then adding and interpreting the new rules you just had to add to the book which mentioned earlier could have been a lot more clear. It goes on for a while. I don't think the game is bad or great yet. I'll revise that after a few more games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
blackmongoose posted:The game is literally unplayable with the rules as written because it doesn't define turn order, so technically the game can't proceed after the first turn. This is kind of amazing. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
I also think it should be a requirement that every boardgame include designer notes so I can know wtf was going through their head while making it. This is basically a requirement for wargame designers so it's time for Euro designers to justify their great/awful decisions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
al-azad posted:I also think it should be a requirement that every boardgame include designer notes so I can know wtf was going through their head while making it. This is basically a requirement for wargame designers so it's time for Euro designers to justify their great/awful decisions. It's pretty neat to read the designer notes for Root. Whether or not it turns out to be good, whether or not it's because of Wehrle or Leder, the designer notes are interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
The designer notes for Sekigahara are almost as long as the rules 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
Japanese Dating Sim posted:This is kind of amazing. It actually doesn't matter how you determine turn order in Charterstone. You can play clockwise around or you can re-order each round in reverse score order or use the Viticulture wake-up track with repainted cockerels if you really want. It might get a bit trickier to track certain things and you can make things more complex by allowing opportunity sniping and double-actions, but so long as everyone takes one turn in each round including the final round you won't significantly alter the game. Most people who acquire it, though, will have the sense to assume you play clockwise from the starting player. It really is an incredibly stupid complaint to make and the height of RAW pedantry. E: as people keep going on about it, here's a picture of a Charterstone board before game zero, along with the wooden resource tokens, coins, and the Charterstone die.  I also have a photo of the board after game 9, which I will not put inline but can be found here if you really want to look. Jedit fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Jan 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
On the subject of rule books, GMT ones are like technical manuals and top-notch as far as I can tell but I'm sure someone has some examples of bad ones that I don't have. Also Gloomhaven's is so bloody good. Everyone should take note and copy the back page that links all symbols and other stuff with their relevant sections in the other pages. I also really like when you get little historical books for flavour and context. Mac Gerdts seems fond of doing this or at least he used to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Most people who acquire it, though, will have the sense to assume you play clockwise from the starting player. It really is an incredibly stupid complaint to make and the height of RAW pedantry. There are lots of games where turn order matters, leaving that out is pretty bad and you are wrong, hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
homullus posted:There are lots of games where turn order matters, leaving that out is pretty bad and you are wrong, hope this helps. This isn't one of them. Hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
FulsomFrank posted:On the subject of rule books, GMT ones are like technical manuals and top-notch as far as I can tell but I'm sure someone has some examples of bad ones that I don't have. Also Gloomhaven's is so bloody good. Everyone should take note and copy the back page that links all symbols and other stuff with their relevant sections in the other pages. Yea, Mark Herman is absolutely terrible at manuals, with Churchill's being particularly notorious. Chad Jensen is amazing though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
I think the fact that we played Gloomhaven as our first legacy game and then Charterstone as our second really influenced how we felt about Charterstone. The Gloomhaven experience was so much better. We could read and digest the rules ahead of time. I could even search the rules on my PDF reader on my tablet for questions. Lots of apps for ease of play. Charterstone was the opposite of all of that and left a bad taste in our mouth. I’m glad that others are enjoying it, but I doubt we'll resume our game, there’s so many better games out there for us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:You should join the BGG or The Boardgame Group fb groups if you want to see people displaying their consumerist-driven sprees and talk about how cool the game looks. Yeah, I just left the Facebook group for Boardgame Revolution , due to the weekly "what Kickstarters are you waiting on?" posts. And the fact that someone said they were waiting on 26 separate games and the group's response was to cheer him on, rather than suggest an intervention. I'd love figures on how much of this Kickstarter ballast actually gets played.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
Lorini posted:I think the fact that we played Gloomhaven as our first legacy game and then Charterstone as our second really influenced how we felt about Charterstone. The Gloomhaven experience was so much better. We could read and digest the rules ahead of time. I could even search the rules on my PDF reader on my tablet for questions. Lots of apps for ease of play. Charterstone was the opposite of all of that and left a bad taste in our mouth. I’m glad that others are enjoying it, but I doubt we'll resume our game, there’s so many better games out there for us. That was our experience with PL season 1 and Seafall, actually. The former made the latter seem *so disappointing*. But obviously everyone has different tastes. And, legacy games are a great way to have an excuse to make sure we schedule game nights with specific couples, because otherwise something always comes up, or we go two months without seeing eachother, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
Jedit posted:This isn't one of them. Hope this helps. It doesn't help, no. Nobody should have to play a game just to determine whether its rulebook's lapses are critical to gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
So how is Charterstone as a full game after completing the legacy elements?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
taser rates posted:Yea, Mark Herman is absolutely terrible at manuals, with Churchill's being particularly notorious. Chad Jensen is amazing though. Yeah, Churchill was a nightmare for me to learn. One of the few games that I've ever truly needed a video to learn, and it isn't even that complicated of a game. Herman's manuals are bad because he has no sense of how to denote rules' relative importance. He's a very much "throw the kitchen sink at the reader, and they'll figure it out" writer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 01:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:43 |
|
|
On this topic, here's Ignacy talking about the experience of publishing First Martians: https://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/72563/heaven-through-hell-purgatory I feel for the guy, because usability testing is hard, but I'm absolutely astounded that he learned his lesson on Robinson Crusoe after its disastrous first-edition rulebook by hiring an actual rulebook professional (Paul Grogan) for the second edition, and then proceeded to not get a pro for an even more involved game with a companion app. I'm really not sure what he expected.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 01:38
|
|