Ratings med brugbare kommentarer på BGG...

Alt hvad der ikke umiddelbart hører ind under de øvrige fora.
Post Reply
User avatar
Stony
5000+ indlæg
5000+ indlæg
Posts: 8254
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:40 am
Location: Taastrup
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Ratings med brugbare kommentarer på BGG...

Post by Stony » Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:53 pm

Det er nu rart når de er der. Jeg er selv slet ikke god nok til at få det gjort, selv om jeg som regel godt kan sætte ord på hvorfor jeg giver et spil en given karakter.

Det vil nok ikke give den store værdi, hvis man igen-igen ligger omkring de 7. Men hvis man kommer højt op eller langt ned, tænker jeg at man egentlig burde sætte ord på det. For karakteren i sig selv, rummer jo ikke den store værdi. Den er nødt til at blive sat ind i en kontekst. Hvilke spil synes du sædvanligvis om? Og selv indenfor den type, er der så specielle karaktertræk ved et spil der vil trække op eller ned? Eller spillede du det bare med nogle røvhuller, der rottede sig sammen og kørte dig midt over selv om du var den eneste der ikke havde prøvet spillet før?

Kommentarer kan være guld værd. Bogstavelig talt. Et konkret eksempel kunne være, at nedenstående kommentar eksempelvis har fået mig til at stryge Black Angel fra min BGG Wishlist, og derved sandsynligvis sparet mig fra at bruge penge på det. Så lad det være et shoutout til os alle, om at prøve at sætte ord på, når vi har et spil vi personligt giver en væsentligt bedre eller dårligere rating end resten af flokken. :)

"There are some neat things here! The dice economy is interesting, most notably in that player actions can very much drive the availability of certain actions and avenues of scoring. The dynamic space board, while not exactly the deepest thing, is fun and charming and the cleanest of the game's systems. And the production is excellent, even if the game will be too big for most tables.

But, honestly, there are just too many ornaments hanging on this Christmas tree. Turns are long and TEDIOUS. The game seems to seriously confuse depth and complexity. A turn might consist of 11 such steps (the game calls it 4 but it doesn't account for the multiple substeps that accompany each primary step) but only 2 of them actually require meaningful decisions to be made. The rest is all icon references, subsystem resolution, and accounting. After two hours, we were still checking our player aides nearly every turn, worried that we were forgetting something (and, often, we were). The theme does little to help you remember or internalize the game processes.

So how do you win? Your points come primarily from playing cards on the space board, activating cards on the space board (which usually requires you get rid of arbitrary resources--let's say, a robot and a piece of debris--to score a number of points per pair) and fulfilling the conditions of technology tiles, which gets you points for things like having a lot of orange technology tiles on your board or for having a lot of red cards at the end of the game. Scoring is powerfully athematic (What are orange tech tiles and what is this special tech that gets you points for them? What do red cards in your hand represent, even?) and speaks to the game’s lack of identity—you can get points for pretty much anything if you snag the right tech tile or draw the right card.

And the theme is, uh, kind of nonsense? Players play as human civilizations who wrecked Earth (TOPICAL) but can’t decide on a way forward so they compete in designing AI systems to forge a path to their new homeworld, with the victor being the AI that performed… best? If players represent AI, how is there no programming at all and why is nearly every decision tactical in nature? Does it even make sense for players to be micromanaging the execution of an AI? It’s no wonder that the scoring criteria lack identity—the theme is nonsensical enough that there’s no way to justify “superior” performance within it.

So, IMO, the good elements here are more or less drowning under the weight of the game’s subsystems and, while further plays will likely reduce their impact, the good stuff is not quite good enough, the thematic experience is not nearly rich enough, and the victory conditions are not tight or interactive enough that I intend to give it those plays.

5/10"
These users thanked the author Stony for the post (total 4):
GunnessTaibiFrouvneKanzler
Sidst spillet:
Image

User avatar
Gunness
2500+ indlæg
2500+ indlæg
Posts: 4502
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:26 am
Location: 2770
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Ratings med brugbare kommentarer på BGG...

Post by Gunness » Fri Aug 09, 2019 3:04 pm

Så lang en kommentar burde næsten have været postet som anmeldelse - men mindre kan selvfølgelig også gøre det. Jeg prøver selv at huske det, ikke mindst fordi det kan være svært at huske, hvad en rating dækker over efter ½-1 år.
Bestilt: Aeon Trespass, Sleeping Gods, Pangea, Etherfields, Dig Your Way Out, Paladins West Kingdom, Tainted Grail, Nanty Narking, Tang Garden, Machina Arcana, Exploriana
Seneste: Parks, Trickerion exp, Vindication, Sabotage, Pirate Republic

Taibi
500+ indlæg
500+ indlæg
Posts: 794
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:50 pm
Favoritspil: Det skifter hele tiden... :)
Location: Ebeltoft
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 0

Re: Ratings med brugbare kommentarer på BGG...

Post by Taibi » Fri Aug 09, 2019 3:44 pm

Tak, du har også lige sparet mig for et indkøb.
Sidst spillet:
Image

Min profil på BGG

Post Reply