5/23/2023 0 Comments Gaia project bescodsI prefer describing the scale as 'subtle' to 'overt'. The degree of interaction is usually discussed in terms of 'low' to 'high,' although I dislike the use of these terms since the connotation is almost always that 'high' interaction is better (even those who like 'low' interaction games often come across as apologetic for their taste). A game either has significant interaction where a player's actions affect your own enough that you have to change your strategy, or it doesn't. In design, interaction is a binary quality. I hate this criticism of eurogames in general, because it quite simply doesn't make sense unless people are operating under weird, esoteric definitions of "multiplayer solitaire." Not enough player interaction, or "multiplayer solitaire". He argued that asymmetry should expand decision trees, not limit them.Īny thoughts, positive or negative, would be appreciated! I'm a huge mark for asymmetry and both Bigney and I are unabashed fans of Spirit Island. Faction XYZ is really good at this one thing, so if you don't do this one thing you're going to lose. How does this play out in practice?Īsymmetrical powers pigeon-holing you into specific strategies. I've heard that GP exacerbates this issue from TM because the map is larger too. I understand a lot of heavy Euros with various winning strategies are similar (Feast for Odin, Terraforming Mars) but this really is discouraging. Could someone familiar with the games (love and/or hate) provide further analysis on SVWAG's (specifically Mark Bigney's) critiques? In contrast, Cardboard Reality universally gushes about these games despite their quite varied tastes. I've been long intrigued by the TM/GP family of games but there were certain criticisms mentioned by the SVWAG podcast that's held me off thus far. Modular board scales to different player counts betterĪdditional resource (QIC) and wild planet types (gaia/transdim planets) offer competition for colonization regardless of race Research track is just uniformly better than the cult track and is more cohesive with the rest of the game It also means that the races are more balanced because, based on the setup, they each have niches that they fill nicely. Modular board and more dynamic setup avoids a lot of the issues with rote openings that TM had. If you like the theme and a highly asymmetric, perfect information heavy-ish game with a lot of euro mechanics, it's hard to go wrong with GP, and I would definitely recommend it over CoC or TM.Īs for improvements over TM (as this always seems to come up): Its interaction is subtle rather than overt and it has some front-loaded decision making due to the asymmetric race picking and initial board setup (the last player in turn order is supposed to rotate the tiles which creates a lot of important decisions from the start). It's a combination of area control/route building/engine building/economic conversion/worker placement.Īs far as design goes, GP is about as perfect as a design as you can get, with no obvious flaws that aren't purely subjective preference. As said elsewhere, Clans of Caledonia or Terra Mystica are going to be the closest examples of the gameplay.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |