Knizia, despite being an undisputed master of the modern two-player card game (amongst a multitude of other accolades), is not infallible. It’s not that Blue Moon, his take on the kind of 1v1 card combat game typically relegated to CCG territory, is bad. Far from it. In fact, when viewed solely as a work of product innovation, this is one of his most groundbreaking achievements. Remember, Fantasy Flight’s LCGs(™) did not exist at this time, so Blue Moon positioning itself as an alternative to Magic: The Gathering that didn’t require the hoop-jumping and wallet-draining of mediocre-by-design starter decks and randomized booster packs was an attractive proposal. Furthermore, the game is easy to understand, fun, and each playable deck is tactically distinct. So what holds it back from greatness? Unfortunately, Knizia’s highly European, minimal approach to game design — which serves him extremely well when designing, say, Euros — does him few favors when working in the high fantasy, direct conflict space. Of course, he’s much too talented to reduce its system to the point of meaninglessness, but Blue Moon is still lacking in the sort of flavor and dynamics you’d want from a game about appeasing powerful dragon lords by proving your worth via magical warfare. Most games of Blue Moon will be played with the prebuilt “People Decks” provided in the base game. Deck customization is allowed, of course, though is quite restrictive unless you really go wild with all the expansions. Besides, the original release only came with two decks: the “Vulca” and the “Hoax”. Thankfully, a more recent…
Arboretum is a really strange game that it is more interesting to think about when you’re not playing it than when you are. Then it’s just kinda annoying. It’s a confusing situation. I mean, I think this is a good game; all signs point to it being one, at least. It has simple rules, a smooth cadence, and a surprising amount of depth for a “filler” (a word best used in quotes). In a lot of ways it’s a difficult game to criticize, or at least to find the right words to do so. Nevertheless, a cursory look through some forum discussions reveals that it’s a surprisingly divisive title with many players passionately opining both for and against it — something quite atypical for lighter weight card games. So why exactly is Arboretum, a colorful game about building relaxing paths through resplendent trees, a game that some love and others revile? Well, seeing as I fall right in the middle of those two categories, perhaps I am the right man to answer that very question. As mentioned before, Arboretum‘s ruleset is quite simple. In fact, the “How To Play” section of the rulebook is a full two pages shorter than the sections on scoring. Shuffle a deck of cards with 6-10 suits of trees on them depending on player count, deal seven to each player, and put what’s left in the center of the table. Cards are ranked 1-8 indicating their value, and there is one card of each rank for every suit. On their turn…
I’d like to acknowledge right off the bat that a middling review of a 50-year old board game is a rather pointless critical venture to undertake (even for me). But seeing as Bazaar has established a reputation for itself over the years as a bit of a minor classic from master designer Sid Sackson, I thought it was worth a paragraph or three to jot down some thoughts on it. Bazaar is a basic set collection game that challenges players to efficiently use ten different equations randomly determined at the game’s outset to convert colored stones into specific combinations. On any given turn, the active player decides to either roll a multi-colored die and collect a stone matching their roll or trade stones they already have in their possession for other stones as directed by one of the aforementioned equations. After taking their action, if they have stones matching the set on an available card for purchase, they may spend those stones to do just that and score some points. Point values are determined by 2 factors: 1) the value of the card and 2) how many stones the player has leftover after making the purchase (with fewer being better, obviously). Players are highly incentivized to make efficient trades and purchases as these point values vary greatly. The same card could be worth up to five times as much for the meticulous player with zero leftover stones as the sloppy player with gosh knows how many. Whatever the methodology behind their acquisition may…
It’s Azul time. Everyone else has reviewed it, so why shouldn’t I? Azul is a light-weight abstract for 2-4 players with an appetizing presentation. Everybody says the same thing when they see its colorful resin tiles seductively radiating from the gaming table for the first time: “They look like Starburst.” This would be annoying if it wasn’t 100% true. I also really like the material used for the cloth bag you draw them from. It’s pleasantly cool to the touch and doesn’t use any of those awful synthetic fabrics found in other games (*cough* Orléans). I’ve put my hands in lots of bags for lots of games — this is one of the best. Really, everything about the game’s production is top-notch — besides an ever so slight warping issue with the player boards (as cardboard tiles of this size and thickness often have). Typically, I don’t even bother mentioning such details in my reviews, as component quality almost never influences my opinion on a game, but I do mention them here for one very simple reason: Azul is a gaming meal that looks much better to me than it tastes. Azul is a basic set collection game with rules that make it seem much more complicated than it actually is. Though some of its elements were hard for me to picture when reading through the rulebook, within two seconds of seeing them in action I understood their how and why. This is a rather unintuitive design that is hard to explain with…
Today on “Decent, But Massively Overrated Cooperative Campaign Games” we have The 7th Continent. Real talk, it seems like all it takes these days to garner universal praise and shoot up the BGG rankings like an express elevator is a couple clever gimmicks and an expensive Kickstarter. It’s by no means terrible, but The 7th Continent is about as mixed a bag as I’ve ever seen. Interesting one minute, groan-worthy the next; constantly building anticipation, then clumsily deflating itself. It’s loaded with creativity and promise, but bloated by repetitive mechanisms, dumb puzzles, egregious admin, and terrible pacing. So many disparate ideas are crammed into the game alongside one another that it seems like whether or not they actually worked well together was secondary to sheer volume. And, like Gloomhaven beside it, the video game wannabe vibes here are off the charts. Alas, though I do agree there is a lot about The 7th Continent to be impressed by, it’s hard for me to be super enthusiastic about a game that every one of my experiences with has been more arduous than fun. In theory, The 7th Continent is a co-operative exploration/survival game. In practice, it feels more like a filing cabinet simulator. Reason being, the players must build the board of The 7th Continent as they play using hundreds and hundreds of numbered-and-color-coordinated cards that they must keep carefully organized with trays and dividers. And not just for the board, these cards are used for practically everything in this game: skills, items, health, experience points, random encounters, puzzles, you name it…
Sheriff Of Nottingham provides a serviceable bluffing experience that sadly fails to excite beyond its initial shallow thrill, which is a real shame because a game about border smuggling has instant classic written all over it. It’s a perfectly functional design insofar as none of its flaws are catastrophic or complete deal-breakers, but most of what the game actually is fails to take advantage of its exciting premise in any meaningful way. Its overall structure and cadence are routine and uninspired and claiming victory amounts to little more than boring set collection. For these reasons, Sheriff Of Nottingham operates in a strange middle-ground between tension and vacuity, struggling to be anything more than uniquely mediocre. Its momentary action can feel quite impactful at times and yet the total package feels dull. Maybe those seeking only a few solid “Gotcha!” moments will find this a fulfilling way to spend an hour or so, but asking for anything more memorable or flavorful than that will likely be answered by disappointment. In Sheriff Of Nottingham, players take turns acting as the titular officer while the others embody merchants attempting to bring goods of all kinds through the city gates to sell at their stands. In the center of the table is a massive face-down draw deck of “Goods Cards” and two face-up discard piles. Goods cards come in two forms: legal and contraband. Legal goods may be declared truthfully at the gates, but the only way to make any money off that sweet, sweet contraband is to…
Above And Below is an inoffensive game that gets by mostly on charm. Its few unique qualities (and they are few) are at best cute and at worst irrelevant. Nevertheless, there is an endearing auteur-like quality to the game due to it being entirely the product of Mr. One-Man Band Ryan Laukat — a game designer, illustrator, publisher, many-hat-wearing ultra-talent. Its whimsical art style, young adult fantasy theme, and storytelling elements are all clear constituents of a broader artistic vision, something rare and highly welcome to see in the board game space. But even so, Above And Below is really nothing special. I can think of no compelling argument in its favor that would elucidate its qualities in a way that gives it an edge against the dozens of equal or better games in its mechanical wheelhouse. In fact, its brief popularity has already been eclipsed by a sequel that came out a mere two years after: Near And Far. However, just because this is a game that may soon be sent adrift amongst the tides of time doesn’t mean it’s not a perfectly pleasant way to spend 60-90 minutes around the dining room table with a friend or two. No one would ever accuse Ryan Laukat of not doing his homework; he is very evidently a diligent student of modern game design. The mechanical net Above And Below casts is wide and varied, encapsulating an action point system, tableau-building, storytelling, and resource collection into a straightforward game about building villages and exploring caves. Each…
7 Wonders Duel is about what you’d expect when you redesign a game that goes up to 7 players to allow only 2. That’s not to say it’s bad, only that its balance between systems to interact with and players to interact with is a bit off. Fortunately, the systems here are enjoyably tight and have been buffed up with a pristine level of polish by veteran game authors Bauza and Cathala. Nevertheless, a game of 7 Wonders Duel feels as much like playing against it as it does your opponent. Co-operative games notwithstanding, that is rarely a good thing. No aspect of the game’s design plays to the strengths of 2-player experiences. You spend more mental energy calculating cost benefit analyses and counting icons than you do on responding to the other player’s actions. Because of this, 7 Wonders Duel, though cleverly built, is a somewhat lifeless game of resource optimization and multi-tasking that falls short of creating a compelling competitive dynamic between its players. The main thing 7 Wonders Duel succeeds at, and much of the praise it has been awarded is due to this, is updating the diverse elements of 7 Wonders to work smoothly in the context of 1v1. It is still a tableau builder played across three rounds called “Ages”, but player-to-player card drafting, 7 Wonders‘ mechanic magnefique, has been significantly retooled into a solitaire-esque spatial puzzle where cards are arranged in overlapping patterns and players take turns selecting from those unencumbered. Thusly, player selections free up cards underneath, creating pathways toward others…
*** Detective: A Modern Crime Board Game (2018) – Przemysław Rymer, Ignacy Trzewiczek, & Jakub Łapot
WARNING: I don’t do spoiler-free reviews. If you want spoiler-free, this is not the blog for you. Detective: A Modern Crime Board Game adds a lot to Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective‘s investigative formula and gains very little. Loaded with unnecessary mechanics, unintuitive gimmicks, and uninteresting text, you’d think the game would be a total failure, but fortunately that is not the case. On the contrary, it’s actually quite immersive! What we have here is a game with a very effective core system needlessly surrounded by a surplus of ideas, many of which don’t really work. Regardless, Detective remains a suspenseful and information-dense investigation game that challenges and excites at least more often than it confuses and disappoints. In Detective, 1-5 players take on the roles of agents for Antares, a nascent criminal investigation organization under the jurisdiction of the FBI. Antares is ostensibly “the most high-tech investigation agency in the world,” but sadly that idea does not mechanically manifest itself in any meaningful way. Yes, a good portion of the game is accessed via a dedicated website. No, that does not make it cutting edge — at least not any more than VHS games were cutting edge in the early 90s. Anyway, like Sherlock before it, the vast majority of playing Detective is choosing what to do from a list of available leads then reading a bunch of text describing what happens. Sometimes the text is on cards and sometimes the text is on the aforementioned website. Either way, I hope you like reading text, because boy does…
Pandemic is widely considered a modern classic and deservedly so. When it emerged on the scene in 2008 there was very little like it. Its triple threat of social puzzle solving, clever mechanisms, and fresh theming were, to forgive the pun, infectious. Melding co-operative hand management, variable player powers, point-to-point movement, and set collection to create a fast-paced game of disaster mitigation was a truly groundbreaking accomplishment. There had been co-operative games before, sure, but none that presented its players with such an immediately accessible and tantalizing scenario to overcome. That an entire game of Pandemic took less than a single hour was but the period at the end of the sentence declaring Pandemic a bona fide smash hit, an achievement that would be foolish to claim it did not deserve. But looking past its reputation, influence, and accessibility, is it truly a great game? A game that immerses its players in its system, that forges an intoxicating social contract around the table that demands to be returned to again and again? No, I regret to say that it is not. For every mechanical innovation or brilliant idea it brings to the table, there is another aspect of it that is overly random, clumsy, or tedious. And though Pandemic is undoubtedly an important work in the pantheon of tabletop games, it is also one that is hard to muster up the desire to play very often due to its multitude of issues. Pandemic is a game about treating and containing the simultaneous outbreaks of 4…