May 2006 Archives
I've been rather excited with the concept of math trades. There's loads of math trade activity in the Geek, just check the trade forum (the math trade guide is good if you don't know what this is all about). I haven't been involved in those, as it doesn't make sense from Finland and I've yet to organise a Finnish math trade for games.
However, I've alredy organised two math trades for metal music cds, on the second time we had a list of 369 cds to choose from. That's a nice selection. I've also ran one math trade for console games, which was also a great success. If I was more into collecting dvds, I'd be running one for those as well.
To make things more interesting, I've created a tool for resolving math trades. TradeGenie is good, but I'm such a geek that I just had to make my own. It works on OS X, which is nice. Anybody interested to give it a go can e-mail me, you can also check my geek post for more info. My resolver isn't quite as robust as TradeGenie, but can provide better results in shorter time on some cases.
Spiel des Jahres nominees are up. It's no big surprise my candidate for winner is Thurn und Taxis - it's clearly SdJ material and a good game. Blue Moon City is Knizia's 13th attempt (according to Rick Thornquist) to win SdJ, and my second guess. Haven't played the game, but it seems a possible winner. Still, Thurn und Taxis is my bet.
It was nice they gave Caylus a special award for being a good, complex game. Obviously it would have nothing to do on the nominee list, but this was a good way to show some respect for heavier games. On the Kinderspiel des Jahres side, Nacht der Magier is a very good game, don't know about the rest.
Since I got it, I might as well try it, right - so we cracked open my brand-new copy of Touché. The game is simple enough: play card to place a token on a matching square on board. The goal is to create three formations of your pieces. First player to do that wins.
We didn't like it. The reasons are obvious: a total lack of decision-making. For each card you have two places to play the token, and that's it. With a hand of five cards, you can do ten different things on your turn. Choosing which one to do is not a big decision, particularly since few of the options are pretty much guaranteed to be pointless. See if you can make a formation or get near to getting a formation, if not see if you can prevent your opponent from getting a formation, if not do whatever you want.
Those who don't need any real decisions in their games should enjoy Touché.
I finally got around and played Schloss Schlotterstein with Johanna. We dove straight in for the Ghost Olympics, a spooky five-event competition.
First up was Haunting Balls, where you must collect mysterious metal balls. I won that event, with a six-second margin. It's a tricky event, as the balls react to the ghost very strongly. They can be hard to handle.
Second event was Spooks Slalom, which is an easy speed test. Johanna got that one, no doubt about it. I'm sure we both could do this one faster.
Third event was another speed game, The Spooky Circuit. In that one players must visit every room of the castle. Simple, but you can get stuck on doors or fail to realize there's a dead end. Johanna won that one as well, with just few seconds' difference.
Fourth up was the most interesting event, Haunt One by One. In that players get nine item cards which represents stuff that's on the walls of the castle. You see them for a while, then they're covered and you must remember them. You must also visit the rooms in correct order. This one we tied: we both got six correct on our first attempts and all nine correct on the second round.
Finally the Olympics finished with Spooks Treasure, another very good event, in which the players try to collect as many coins as possible in a limited time. Johanna won by one coin, thus winning the Olympics 4-2. It was fun, and Schloss Schlotterstein is definitely something I'm looking forward to play with a child. I wouldn't mind playing with adults, either...
Is there a solid line between objective and subjective evaluation? Most people don't agree with my particular assessment of Saint Petersburg, and not only due to my subjective criticisms. It's possible that my objective criticisms are more subjective than I am willing to believe. Is it tautological that when people disagree about a criticism that it must be subjective? Or do we just fundamentally disagree on the conclusions? Have I simply not been articulate enough in my objective criticisms?
I think Yehuda's critical assessment of St. Petersburg (see Yehuda's comments on Geek) is pretty much spot-on. He highlights the game's shortcomings well. I agree with most of what he says on the game, thus I think most of what he says is really objective assessment of St. Petersburg.
Where it comes down is that while the flaws the game has are objective, what they mean for enjoying the game is not. I like the game, despite its flaws. The flaws do mean that I rarely play the game anymore, after about 50 games - most of the time I play it in Jyväskylä, where my mother and her gang really love the game, and it's always great fun to play with them. That is, of course, more a function of the gamers and not the game.
The fact that I don't actually enjoy playing the game with just about anybody is telling. Compare that to Puerto Rico, which I think is far superior as a game and which I still enjoy playing in BSW, for example.
Of course, the fact that a game is flawed doesn't have to mean it can't be fun. Many people enjoy games like Monopoly and Betrayal at House on the Hill, despite certain problems those games have.
Here it might be a good idea to separate flaws that lead to subjective assessments of the game. Take Monopoly, for example: I'm not sure it has flaws that cause it to be a bad game. There are flaws that can lead to someone hating the game, but someone else can still have a good time with the game. That's different from a real problem, like a lock-out, a broken strategy or a gratuitous random element.
I understand Betrayal at House on the Hill has some serious problems with the rules and things that seem like they haven't been thought out properly, yet still people can have fun with it. Looking at the comments from people who've given it perfect rating on Geek, it seems they enjoy the game despite its problems - the problems are there, yet they don't ruin the experience.
After this long-winding entry, which is a proof that Yehuda is right about outsider editing for blog entries being a really good thing, here's my answers for Yehuda's questions: there is a line between objective and subjective evaluation, but it's hard to set and easy to muddle. I think some of Yehuda's (or anybody's) objective criticism is actually subjective. It is possible to disagree with some criticism, though some of Yehuda's points on St. Petersburg are very hard to disagree with, and there he has hit the objective criticism. There is definitely fundamental disagreement on the conclusions: some things Yehuda mentions bother me, some don't. I notice those flaws in the game, yet I like it anyway.
39 years of being a loser, now it's over! Lordi came, saw and conquered! A crushing defeat for everybody else! Lordi wins the song contest with the highest score ever! Finland goes crazy - I don't think there's ever been a single moment when this many Finnish blogs have been updated, for example.
To understand this, you must know that losing in ESC is an essential part of Finnish national identity. Finland, zero points is an oft-repeated mantra here. Hell must have frozen, cows are flying, intelligent life has been found on Mars and so on, you catch my drift.
Even though the song contest is relatively unimportant thing in the grand scale of matters, I don't think I've ever been this proud to be Finnish. This is why I have sat through all the obnoxious three-minute pop songs and pathetic power ballads, here's our reward for 39 years of losses.
Victory! With a monster rock song they wanted to ban and send some lousy ballad instead (a sure candidate for Finland, zero points). Up yours, all you religious nuts all over Europe, fretting over for a nice guy in an ugly mask. Up yours, all you people who just don't get that Finnish people really love their metal! Thank you Europe!
If you're into science fiction (with a hard emphasis on science, not just any speculative fiction), you should be aware of Alastair Reynolds' work. Particularly the trilogy of Revolution Space, Redemption Ark and Absolution Gap should be on your reading list; it's a stunning piece of literature.
Turns out the answer is no. I asked him about it, and he replied to my e-mail very promptly. Reynolds doesn't remember where he got the name, but it's not from Andreas Seyfarth. It's a shame, but then again, it was an unlikely idea to start with. They're still good books.
As long as we're talking Puerto Rico I should one thing that bothers me a bit (tiny wee bit, but still): BSW should definitely have better records of player success. The victory percentage is depressing. As my records show, my winning percentage in my 26 games is 23%. A system that would give credit for good placement outside winning would show that many of the games I've lost are nice second-place finishes... There are many games, where I lost by one or two points only. Like yesterday's session: I won one game and lost the second by one measly point.
New review up on the Finnish site: Through the Desert.
Through the Desert is in Reiner Knizia's top ten by any measure. The pastel camel game must be one of his best-recognised games and according to the BoardGameGeek ranking, the game is the seventh best Knizia title. That's a well-deserved ranking, if you ask me.
Multiple scoring options
Through the Desert is about building caravans in the desert. Players advance five caravans of different colour from their startpoints by adding two camels each turn. Caravans try to reach watering holes (few points) and oases (few points) and circle territory (loads of points, if you can make it). The longest caravan of each colour gets some bonus points, too.
There are thus several directions where players can take their game. The biggest limitation is the two camels per turn rule; typically there are several good moves available, and you'll just have to choose. Reiner Knizia has said that of all his games, this one represents his philosophy on life the best. There's always more options than you can choose.
Simple rules
Through the Desert is a very simple game. The rules are easy to learn. The setup takes a while, after which the game is usually over sooner than you'd think. During the whole game players are faced with tough decisions and priority judgments. Which are the important goals to achieve?
The game works well: it's a very elegant system providing lots of deep gameplay. The components are fine, though the light pastel colours tend to mix up if there's not enough light. The camels are cute, though, which compensates well. The game scales well from two to five, though I think five players might be a bit too much chaos.
The missing element
However, something's missing. I don't know why, but Through the Desert doesn't get nearly as much playtime as it would deserve. Many like it, yet I don't see the game played. Several people commented my Finnish review to this extent, so it's not just me. It's curious, and part of the reasons why the game doesn't get full marks from me. The potential is there, it just doesn't happen.
Perhaps it's the dryness? The theme of the game is limited to the cutesy camels, and that's it. It's basically abstract. A little bit of colour and excitement would probably make the game more appealing. I like it as it is, but I sure would like to play it more, too.
Still, despite all this, Through the Desert comes highly recommended for anybody who appreciates a good multi-player abstract strategy game and doesn't mind the dry theme. The rules are certainly easy enough for anybody to learn and the game should offer lots of good brain exercise.
Yesterday we (meaning a group of active Board Game Society members) visited the Tactic head office and factory in Pori. It was an interesting and educational visit; it was nice to see a real board game factory. Too bad it wasn't running at the time we visited it.
They've got a pretty impressive production line there. They can produce games at a speed of 1200 copies per hour. Kimble, the game they've been doing for over 30 years, they can make 1800 copies per hour.
The whole business was actually started to produce Kimble. The family got a copy of Trouble in the 60's from relatives living in the States and they decided to start producing the game. The Finnish version is named, by the way, after Richard Kimble, the main character of The Fugitive. Fugitive is "Takaa-ajettu" in Finnish, that is "Chased-after", which kind of fits the game, I suppose.
One of the cooler bits of the visit was to see their demo game closet. It's a fairly big closet lined with shelves full of games up to the ceiling (and actually they've removed the ceiling to make more room for games). There were many uninteresting games, but also real gems, like Carabande, Ravensburger High Society, old editions of Formula De, stuff like that. I guess you could find some really great games there if you digged through the whole collection, it was quite a mess in that storage room.
We played some games in the minibus, as it was a fairly long trip: Oriente was different and odd, yet actually quite good entertainment. I'd definitely play again, at least with six or seven players. Nicht die Bohne had no control and no fun and Shit! was horrible with six. I won't be playing the last two games again.
Another review from my Finnish site: For Sale.
Stefan Dorra's For Sale is definitely one of the better small auction games. It's a two-part deal that's done in about fifteen minutes.
Two rounds of bidding
In the first round, players use their initial stock of coins to buy houses (cards with values from 1 to 30) in a regular, turn-based open auction. There's one house for each player each round and the players who bid most get the more valuable houses. Everybody but the highest bidder pays half of their bid; highest bidder pays everything.
In the second round, players use the houses to win checks. Once again there's one check (values 0 to 15, twice, except there's no 1's) for each player; this time it's blind bidding. Choosing the right house for the current selection of checks can be quite tricky. That's good, because while playing the first round well is instrumental to winning, good bidding on second round can work wonders even with mediocre houses.
Gorgeous looks
For Sale looks really good. The illustrator Alvin Madden has worked wonders, the game looks really great (except the checks, which are a bit bland, but that's understandable). The only problem is the really oversized box: the 60 cards, bunch of cardboard coins and the rules could probably fit in an Amigo card box.
However, nobody actually forces anybody to use the box, so that's hardly a big deal. The game looks great, the art is funny and makes the theme work and the components serve their purpose well - what more can you want?
Overview
For Sale is one of the best small auction games I know. The decisions are deliciously tough, yet still the game is over in 15 minutes, even though it has two distinct phases that offer different challenges. That's something quite amazing.
Some might be put off by the blind bidding element in the game, but that's not a big deal. I'm not a huge fan of blind bidding, yet I like the second part of the game. It's an integral part of what makes For Sale work. Buy the game: these small card games don't get much better than this.
Here's my Finnish Halli Galli review.
Halli Galli is an entertaining speed game. Each player has a deck of cards. The cards are turned over one by one in turn, so that each player has a discard pile in front of them. Whenever the top cards of the piles show exactly five fruits of a kind, players must race to hit the bell in the middle of the table.
The first player to whack the bell gets all the face-up cards and adds them to his or her stack. Then play continues, until players are eliminated one by one as they lose their cards. When two players remain, the one with most cards wins the game. It's all very simple.
However, while it might be simple and very derivative of certain traditional card games, Halli Galli sure is great fun. It's clear, elegant and entertaining. The mad rush to hit the bell (the most excellent component in itself, the sound and the feel of ringing the bell is just so satisfying), the excitement when your pile is running out, it all comes together in great entertainment.
The rules are very simple and thus the game works well for the whole family. I would be apprehensive of playing this with a mixed group of adults and children, however, as sometimes when several players try to reach the bell at the same time, accidents happen. The bell kind of hurts, when you hit it first and then two or three hands slap on top of yours.
However, for groups of adults or groups of kids, Halli Galli should provide many good laughs and lots of entertainment. The only drawback is the same as with any speed game: some people are simply so much better in these games that the fun is diminished. However, Halli Galli isn't hard, so the skill differences shouldn't be that pronounced.
I spent the weekend in FinDipCon VIII in Helsinki. It was a pleasant event, as they usually are, with lots of games played. The Diplomacy tournament was of course the main event: the Finnish Diplomacy champion in 2006 is Juho Malin. Another big deal was William Attia's presentation (or discussion) about Caylus. Unfortunately I had to miss that, but I hear it was a success.
I did get to play lots of games. Mostly old stuff, but good games none the less. Here's some highlights:
Halli Galli - An impulse buy on Friday, this turned out to be a good move. I ended up playing six games. I won four and placed second twice, how can you not enjoy that? As my readers know, I like speed games and Halli Galli is certainly one of the better. It's kind of like Jungle Speed, but I prefer Halli Galli's clarity. The bell is neat, too.
Hamsterrolle - The other new game. This dexterity game seems almost impossible at first, but eventually comes to an end. We won, so I guess we did something right. I played with my partner so that I made easy placements before him and he tried to make things harder for our opponents, and I suppose the strategy worked pretty well. It's a fun game, and looks quite good, too.
Age of Steam: Scandinavia - Not a new game, but a previously unplayed map. Seems a bit tough, as the connections are hard to make, particularly in Sweden where the distances are long. The move by sea action seems quite powerful. Our game had the worst case of runaway leader I've ever seen; it was obvious from, like, turn three that Stefu would win. I was prepared to give up at that point, but in the end it turned out Ansi got stuck and I managed to wrestle a second place out of the misery. Still - I think I did exactly one four-link move during the whole game, while Stefu did several six-link moves in the end.
Tichu - Played a bit of Tichu. In the first hand I had two straights of six cards (one up to ace), an extra ace and the dragon. Obvious tichu, but the opposition scored 95 points from the cards, so what can you do. In another round, two players had the same 11-card straight. That was unlikely.
Fresh Fish - First game in a long while, did terrible. The game was good fun, though.
Timbuktu - One of the better Essen releases. I like it everytime I play it, the challenges are interesting. The scoring seems quite dependent on the amount of goods you deliver, but of course the scoring system works well for breaking ties between players who deliver an equal amount of goods.
Samurai - First game of the event, played with William Attia, Matias and Ansi. I won, which is rare (both in Samurai and during the FinDipCon excluding Halli Galli).
Farfalia - Played some games with the Kumpula crowd, one of them was Farfalia. I know they like trick-taking games and are quite critical - so, what's better than playing a mediocre trick-taking game? They were a good sport, but I notice Tero gave Farfalia a 3 already...
For Sale - I finally bought the new edition of For Sale. The box is too big, but the game looks great and plays well. I like it, it's one of the better filler games around.
Our PBW Puerto Rico game is over. It took about five months, which is too much. The delays got pretty bad at times. Well, I'm not to blame, even though I had few longer delays: I was still the fastest player to respond according to the end-game statistics.
I lost, but it was close: the final scores ran from 49 to 45 points. I know where my loss came from: I didn't get the Guild Hall, it was snatched right before my eyes. That's life. It would've brought me 10 points, now I got 8 points from my two large buildings. That's four points there... Well, maybe it would've taken more than that, but anyway, I think it was pretty well played from all of us.
