geek
The Hotness
Games|People|Company
Rules | Subscriptions | Bookmarks | Search | Account | Moderators
Recommend
17
27 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 
New Thread | Printer Friendly | Subscribe  sub options | Bookmark
Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Breno Kümmel
Brazil
Brasília
Distrito Federal
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Age of Gods » Forums » Reviews
Bad enough to turn you into an atheist...
Yeah, it's that bad. It could make a person go all the way from Polytheism to horrible godlessness, ignoring the monotheism option altogether.

What a horrible, horrible game. Imagine a game in which you start knowing only 40% of your objectives and not only that, for a long part of the game you can't really act towards your known objectives since all your opponents will see which objective it is and will definitely hurt you.

This is the Age of Gods. There are 24 different creatures on the map (6 kinds of each of the 4 possible sizes for a race, 1-piece, 2-piece, 3-piece and 4-piece). Each player "has" 4 creatures that will score him points in the end of the game depending on how many territories they control. In the beginning of the game, you only know the bigger one, the 4-piece-sized one, in a card that is (very) secret information. You can't really act with it to expand its territory because everyone else will see it's yours and try to hurt you. I don't think there's really a way that a player can stand against even two players that attack him, much less all the opponents.

Well, one could propose that you could always bluff and move with other 4-piece-sized creatures on the map, in other to throw your enemies off. The thing is, the one you choose could end up being another player's creature, so you can actually be HELPING them (since they obviously won't be attacking that creature, and will spend their turn making it stronger).

So it seems that the "safe thing" to do is act with the other, smaller, creatures, that belong to nobody. But, of course, a lot of those creatures (or all of them, in a 6-player game) will be "distributed" for the players in the future turns of the game. So you just used the lizard-man in order to hide the fact that you actually had the humans, in a future turn (when players receive their 3-piece race) that strong lizard-man may have gone to your opponent. Hooray. This goes for the 2-piece and the 1-piece creatures as well.

This, being mainly a battling game, the combat is terribly boring. Roll a die, if you get 3 or more, you win. Wow, what storm and stress! Of course, for added excitement(oh, it's just too much!), if the defending creature is in a fortification (lavishly depicted by a small gray wooden circle), you have to roll a 4. If the creature has been "fortified" (or upgraded, or whatever), then add a +1 modifier (this will probably happen near the end of the game, when each player's races are more obvious).

You have 24 different fantasy races, ranging from giants to centaurs to fairies to pirates to necromancers, but since they have absolutely no specific abilities in combat they might as well be letters of the alphabet (I'd actually find a game like that quite funny, "my G attacks your M, hah, it stands no chance"... what a pun-rich environment that would be!). The map is quite varied in its illustration, with all sorts of terrain, but it makes absolutely no difference. Fighting in the forest is the same as in a desert or a mountain. It could've been a sheet of white paper with lines drawn across to form a sort of grid, as far as actual gameplay is concerned.

The cardplay aspect of the game (which is actually slightly intricate, so I won't try to explain it here) is probably the only salvageable thing in this design. A lot of the powers in the cards, though, are compromised, again, by the bluffing aspect of the match. You can only help your creatures in very discrete ways (unless it's closer to the end of the game) and most of the powers are really strong.

The art of the cards is nice, but I think the board looks ugly. The creatures are too cartoony (unlike the cards) and sometimes hard to tell which is which (since there are so many of them and the small icons don't really stand out from one another). The colors are all oranges-and-greens, quite unsightly, and the insert is absolutely stupid: almost a quarter of it is to hold one regular-sized die (as if it was made of glass, or crystal, and could break), and no different compartments for each one of those 24 races. Because of this, our setup took almost 10 minutes: separating the all-too-similar chips and distributing them in the map according to what the manual thinks is a fair distribution, totally asymmetric with a few 4-piece units being all close together and a few totally isolated from other "numerous" races.

From what little I explained of the rules (specially from combat), one can see this is a fairly light affair. It takes, however, from one hour to 90 minutes, players just doing pretty much the same thing over and over.

Also, did I mention that there are very unbalanced powers? In the beginning of the game each player receives a special power... one fellow player got a +1 in EVERY COMBAT FOR THE ENTIRE GAME. No other power distributed even came close to that... The cards were like that as well, like with a few putting more goblins on the "reserve box" (making it possible for it to go over the original limit) when I can't even imagine a situation where the map would be absolutely run over with goblins with the other players allowing that to happen... Totally useless.

Overall, I really enjoy this game and I give it a B+
(Huh... wait... what? I think I must've gone mad... To actually spend more of my time with this game, even to sit down and write a review, is pure insanity.)

Edit: the B+ is a JOKE, BTW. Some people didn't get it, so I'm adding this little edit. I give this game a 3. And that's not out of 5, it's out of 10, ok?
Last edited on 2008-03-17 12:29:23 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Sean Dooley
United States
Cincinnati
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron070809
mbmbmbmbmb
Curious as to how many times you played the game. From others that I talk to relatively often, the bluffing and hiding who you support is one of the main features of the game, as opposed to the battling like you say.

Just wondering.
Randolph Bookman
United States
Los Angeles
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
how similar is this to colossal arena?
Nattakorn Vuttichaipornkul
Thailand

California
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Colossal Arena? I haven't play age of Gods but I think those two are totally different. I can see why you made that connection though.
Ubergeek
United States
Camas
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
040506070809
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
When I rate games I don't follow BGG's guidelines: I try to be more "objective" about it. If I dislike the game, I will rate it higher if I feel it still has a solid design (and it just didn't click with me). Since I imagine heavier games are harder to design than easier games, my scores tend to be biased in that direction. To me being entirely subjective about it (depending on how much I want to play it again) isn't fair, because that tends to lower the scores of games I've played too much of and raise the scores of games I've only played once or twice.


The above quote is pulled directly off your profile. If this is one of your objective reviews, it seemed to me to instead come across as a subjective one. While the game certainly won't win any "thinkers" award, and it has its share of luck, I feel it's nowhere near the abomination you make it out to be (BTW, that's my subjective opinion).
Alex Martinez
United States
Dallas
Texas
flag msg tools
shieldwolf wrote:
how similar is this to colossal arena?


Not very.

I own both, and while I really like Colossal Arena, I give Age of Gods an OK. Didn't dislike it as much as this reviewer did, but didn't love it. Though, for the record, my group of gaming friends all enjoyed it.

Age of Gods is a good game for what it is. Mostly luck-based. I didn't really see the bluff factor in the game when I've played since there's really no great advantage to hiding the races you back, and it's usually pretty easy to figure out, compared to Colossal Arena where a skilled player can hide his bets easily.

Both Age of Gods and Colossal Arena are abstract games with pasted on themes. Both work well for what they are, but Arena allows for a bit more strategy, I think. It's also easier to teach, though Age of Gods isn't much harder.

In my opinion, Age of God is, at worst, an average game with a nice presentation. I bought it, and didn't feel ripped off or annoyed. But knowing what I know now, I doubt I would've purchased it.
Needle
Australia
Leichhardt
NSW
flag msg tools
patron05060708
mb
I had fun.
Mark Bigney
United States
Cambridge
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron0708
mbmbmbmbmb
To each their own. My plays have been enjoyable ones, where the bluffing and counter-bluffing was interesting and fun.
Breno Kümmel
Brazil
Brasília
Distrito Federal
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't really think it's possible to compare the bluffing and the battling when it comes to "which one is more important". I think they're totally separate. Battling is a mechanic, while bluffing is more of a strategy.

I've only played this once and I can already see somebody saying "you shouldn't review it after only one play". However, I am NOT playing this game again: I'd rather watch TV (and Brazilian TV is a lot worse than American TV). Since the game didn't seem to have reviews from people that disliked this as much as I did, it seemed reasonable that I wrote one.

I decided to write it in a more "hysterical" tone to keep myself entertained through all the writing of the review. I tried a paragraph in a more "objective" tone, but it was too boring for me. It seems that other people like it, I see I got some thumbs for it. The game isn't a total abomination. Monopoly, LCR, Tic Tac Toe and so on are worse than this is. (Of course, they don't have the annoying set up, but whatever).
Breno Kümmel
Brazil
Brasília
Distrito Federal
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Walt Mulder wrote:
The above quote is pulled directly off your profile. If this is one of your objective reviews, it seemed to me to instead come across as a subjective one. While the game certainly won't win any "thinkers" award, and it has its share of luck, I feel it's nowhere near the abomination you make it out to be (BTW, that's my subjective opinion).


What I mean about being "objective" (and the quotes aren't dispensable) is that if the game has some interesting mechanics and allows many different strategies (and so on...), it shouldn't get that really low a score just because I don't see myself ever playing it again (which is the official BGG criteria). Paths of Glory, for an example, is a great design, but I'm really not much of a wargamer. I've played it once, saw it's an interesting game, but it's really, really complicated, I don't see myself ever getting a full hold of all the rules of it. Puerto Rico isn't much fun for me, but I wouldn't think it's fair to give it the same score as No Thanks!, another game that I don't find to be fun at all. I know this may come across as pretentious, but I really appreciate when I can feel how much thought has gone into a game. Age of Gods is neither an interesting design nor a fun game.

Also, to give one more explanation, I've played the original Ticket to Ride almost to death on the Days of Wonder website. I don't see myself playing it again anytime soon, but I don't think it's fair to give it a low score because of that (which I would have). Games that are good in a way that makes you want to play it over and over until you you get sick of it really get shafted with BGG's criteria. Yeah, there are games that don't grow old, but it seems unfair to the good ones that do (that would end up getting lower scores than OK games that you've only played a few times).
Chris Morris
Canada
Kelowna
British Columbia
flag msg tools
patron08
mbmbmbmbmb
I've only played it twice, and both were two player games just to get a feel for the game. I can see what the reviewer is saying about the game, even though I enjoyed it quite a bit. The first game we played, both of us were like, "Uhm, ok, so what do I do now?" By the end of the game, however, we both got a better grip with how the early rounds should have played out and we quickly played as a second game.

I think where it really shines is with the betting mechanism, depending on the cards you get at the beginning. I went out and killed off a couple of rank one races I held cards for to get a chance to roll on the Wrath of God chart, and built up another race I held a card for to keep as a bet. This really helped my final score, although I lost in the end because my opponent figured out my size four race and hammered it to the ground.

I don't think I will end up rating this game really high after a few more plays, but I wouldn't say it is an abomination either.
Breno Kümmel
Brazil
Brasília
Distrito Federal
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
shieldwolf wrote:
how similar is this to colossal arena?


Colossal Arena is a great game with 3 or 4 players. It does have a little bluffing, but it's mostly betting and somewhat intricate cardplay.
Tom Grant
United States
Foster City
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron05070809
mbmbmbmbmb
It's hard to argue with the statement, "This just isn't the game for me." However, your comments go much farther, so I'll say a few words in defense of Age of Gods. I'm one of the few people to have reviewed it, and I gave it a far more positive evaluation.

AoG has a very unfamiliar motif, but it boils down to risk management with limited information. You know which size 4 race you're supporting, and within a couple of turns or less, you'll also know which size 4 races the other players are supporting. (Player positions become easier to figure out after one play, by the way.) On the other extreme, you can figure out some of the smaller races you'll support, based on the cards you were dealt at the beginning, and which of these will form the basis of your "bet" in turn 7. However, you can easily screw yourself by attacking earlier in the game a race that you draw later in the game.

Of course, there's an obvious solution: don't eliminate any races unless you need to. Sure, whittle them down a peg or two, but don't wipe them out. If you're attacking with the high elves, sure, kill one of the wood elves, but go after someone else for your second attack.

Yes, the combat is very simplistic. If it were more complex, though, would it really add much to the core mechanics of the game? The important decision is, Who is the attacker, and who is the target? Adding a battle board or some other extra combat mechanic wouldn't change that decision, and it would probably take significantly longer to play, well past the patience threshold for a relatively light game.

But you still gave it a B+, which makes me wonder if you really will give it another go.
Seth Jaffee
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
patron05060708
mbmbmbmbmb
BrenoK wrote:
Overall, I really enjoy this game and I give it a B+
(Huh... wait... what? I think I must've gone mad... To actually spend more of my time with this game, even to sit down and write a review, is pure insanity.)

This last paragraph is really incongruous with the rest of your review. You seem to really have disliked the game, to the point you would never play it again. You said it was neither fun nor interesting... then you say you really enjoy the game and give it a B+?

It sounds as if maybe that was a joke (the parenthetical), but it doesn't come off well. I have to assume you meant it as a joke.

I just got this game (won it in a raffle :) ) and I'm not sure if I'll like it or not. I've read your review (negative) and I watched 2 video reviews (positive). I'll have to play it myself to draw my own conclusions. I suspected even before reading any reviews that it' probably not "my type of game" - but we'll see.
Breno Kümmel
Brazil
Brasília
Distrito Federal
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sedjtroll wrote:
It sounds as if maybe that was a joke (the parenthetical), but it doesn't come off well. I have to assume you meant it as a joke.


Yeah, it's a joke. I figured that the parenthesis would make it obvious, but apparently it didn't. I've edited it now.
Last edited on 2008-03-17 12:36:58 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Chuck Pierce
United States
Huntsville
Alabama
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron06070809
mbmbmbmbmb
BrenoK wrote:
Yeah, it's that bad. It could make a person go all the way from Polytheism to horrible godlessness, ignoring the monotheism option altogether.

What a horrible, horrible game. Imagine a game in which you start knowing only 40% of your objectives and not only that, for a long part of the game you can't really act towards your known objectives since all your opponents will see which objective it is and will definitely hurt you.

Bah! It's a fun game. It's not a bunch of cubes, meeples, and perfect information, but it's got theme, and it's fun. I wouldn't want to play it everyday. But, it's not nearly as bad as you make it out to be.
Dave Gilligan
United States
Charleston
West Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron0708
mbmbmbmbmb
I posted my thoughts on the game here:

http://www.charcon.org/index.php?pageid=hobbynews
Dane Peacock
United States
Stansbury Park
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
0405060708
mbmbmbmbmb
BrenoK wrote:
Imagine a game in which you start knowing only 40% of your objectives


One important aspect that people miss, which is absolutely critical to gameplay, is planning for the betting round in turn seven. The three bonus points granted from a card wagered in turn seven are huge, and if you manage to achieve the bonus for two cards, the six bonus points quite likely will decide the game.

This feature shapes long term strategies beginning in turn one. Each player actually begins with three races: His or her initial race, plus the choice of two races (and the possibly of alternatives) from the cards in his or her hand. So really, you start the game knowing more than half of your objectives, and you certainly have more meaningful choices in the first few turns than some people seem to realize. When I teach the game, I make sure to explain this clearly.

BrenoK wrote:
You can't really act with it to expand its territory because everyone else will see it's yours and try to hurt you.


KingCroc wrote:
I didn't really see the bluff factor in the game when I've played since there's really no great advantage to hiding the races you back


These two conflicting negatives actually illustrate one reason why I am positive about the strategy of the game. The timing of when to bluff and when to expand is vital. If you give yourself away too soon, your race certainly will get bashed, which can really set you back, but you cannot hide and remain stagnant all game, because you must expand to get points. The timing of when, how, and which races to advance, is a delicious conundrum, and adds plenty of room for unique strategic and tactical choices.

There is luck to the combat die roll, but it is a game where you can manage probabilities. Combat is not like in, say, Vinci, where the outcome is known before hand, yet it is not uncontrollable as in some games. You have a 66% chance to take a territory, there is a good chance at victory for the attacker, yet there is still tension in the outcome. Your percentage drops to 50% to take a city area. Forts, technology, special abilities, and card play add more combat modifiers. So, although combat is quick and simple, you can still manage probabilities and manipulate modifiers throughout the game. Good stuff.
roger cox
United States
Spartanburg
South Carolina
flag msg tools
mb
Thye game only accomodates 3-5 players; you can't have a 6-player games, thus all the races are never "owned".
Mick Mickelsen
United States

Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron0607
mbmbmb
I agree this game is truly terrible.
Jonas Candika
Sweden
Falun
Unspecified
flag msg tools
I think Age of gods is a great game.
A solid theme and very tactical.

I my opinion its a mix of:
poker, quicksand and risk.

You got that breakdown of different probabilities, you got that quicksand mechanic where you have to take action with other players pawns just to disguise your true plans.
And the "risk" feeling comes from the warfare actions througout the game.

Its a chaos, but yet its controlled.
All you pokerplayers outthere know exactly what i mean.

The only bad thing about this game is the setup time.

Some of the gods abilities are abit unbalanced, but hey wo said everythings needs to be balanced ?

Ever heard a chessplayer whining about that his peasant doesnt feel as balanced and good as the opponents queen ?
Just deal with it !


Last edited on 2008-03-26 13:28:12 CST (Total Number of Edits: 2)
Emivaldo Sousa
Brazil

flag msg tools
mbmb
I played this game with Breno (as a matter of fact, I’m the proud owner of the game). We played a four-player match. Breno hated it :angry:, one of our friends thought it was OK :), the other didn’t liked it much :snore: and I found it somewhat interesting :what:, but it is definitely not one of my best games.

I´ve played it twice after that first match. It became clear that it is not a war game and not a strategy game. It is a betting game in which you are trying to manipulate the odds in your favor with more and more information in each passing turn.

With that approach, I found it was a little easier to like the game.

The theme and the presentation is deceiving: it sure looks like some kind of all-time fantasy battle, but it is nothing of the sort. The battle system is simplistic and sometimes pointless (you just attack because you have to, without any valuable tactic behind your move).

Also, I have to agree with Breno that the setup is painful and the tokens are indistinguishable from each other. My non-gamer friends tend to like it better.

But I don’t think it is a terrible game. That said, I got it as gift and, having played it, I can safely say that I wouldn’t have bought it – there are tons of games out there that interests me more.

But if you are in the market for a light betting game with lots of theme and a very unconventional (and sometimes frustrating) mechanism, look no further.
Will
Argentina
Buenos Aires
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
patron07
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi, Emivaldo, would you consider on selling it ? If so at how much ? Since we are in the same continent that would be beneficial for both of us :D
Emivaldo Sousa
Brazil

flag msg tools
mbmb
Hi Will, I've sent you an MP about this selling business :).
Best,

Chris Norwood
United States
Graham
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron070809
mbmbmbmbmb
BrenoK wrote:
I've only played this once and I can already see somebody saying "you shouldn't review it after only one play". However, I am NOT playing this game again: I'd rather watch TV (and Brazilian TV is a lot worse than American TV). Since the game didn't seem to have reviews from people that disliked this as much as I did, it seemed reasonable that I wrote one.
Like you predicted, I'm going to say that "you shouldn't review it after only one play".

I'm not saying that you're aren't entitled to your opinion or that it's wrong for you to make up your mind to never play the game again, but I am saying that reviewing it after only one play makes you very uninformed about the game, especially when others might be reading it in an attempt to inform themselves before buying it.

Personally, I think it's just irresponsible to write a formal review without giving more effort into understanding and playing the game. For simple opinions about a game, use your personal comments or write a session report. And if you're determined to write a review, at least state in the review itself that you've only played it once, so that readers can take what you say with a grain of salt.
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
BoardGameGeek and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.