Puerto Rico is still my favorite game, but I can see why a big Settlers of Catan fan might not be big on it. The very fact that not everyone can gang up on the leader (who is playing the best) appeals to me and many others. I won't try to convince you of why I think PR is a great game though, since I would probably be wasting both your time and mine.

I am curious to know what rating you would give PR. I get the feeling you're not a mindless hater who would give it a 1 out of pure spite (since you say in your closing remarks that it is a good game), but I am still curious to know your rating (I noticed you have rated no games as of yet). It would help others understand your overall impression of the game, when reading your review.

That is one of the comments I've heard frequently regarding this game. For instance, many have said that in a game with one new player, the person sitting to his/her left is at a distinct advantage. This is because the new player will tend to choose the role that benefits him/her the most, without considering how that choice benefits others.

The Craftsman role is the most dangerous in that regard. The person choosing it frequently gets the least benefit, as the next player will often take advantage by choosing the Captain or Trader.

In the example you gave, Player 3 has to look at all his/her options. If the Captain is chosen, consider what's already on the boats, what goods each player has, and what buildings they have (warehouses, wharf, harbor). A rough estimate of goods already shipped by each player is also useful information. Also keep in mind that if you don't choose the Captain and Player 4 does, it's unlikely you'll be able to ship much (if any) without a Wharf.

You are probably right that my gaming history has had alot of impact on my impression of this game. But you also seem to understand that that is my point. Different people will have different impressions and you wont know that if all reviews you read are positive.



Giving ratings is always problematic as everyone has different standards for each rating. Ratings should be objective so even if my experience was a bit meh I must judge the game as it is.
It seems many people on BGG give ratings based on the top (10) by thinking "how not best is this game" but i would do it from the center (as in 5 is average, bad games go below and good games above), in that case i would give Puerto Rico a 6 or 7 (as in better than good) and as reference Settlers of Catan would be an 8 (As in superb). I have yet to figure out what the criteria for 9 is. :P

This is a good critical review. Unlike other negative reviews, you've gotten your facts straight. A minor quibble is there is more strategy than you think, certainly more than Carc or Settlers. But I can't blame you for not wanting to figure it out.

There are plenty of games with direct interaction in the top ten. Actually almost all the games has more direct interaction than PR, except Race for the Galaxy. If I had to rate the level of interaction:

1.) PR: Low
2.) Powergrid: Medium
3.) Twilight Struggle: High
4.) T&E: High
5.) Agricola: ???
6.) El Grande: High
7.) Caylus: High
8.) TtA: High
9.) PoF: Medium
10.) RftG: Low

The thing that made me abandon Puerto Rico as a game of choice was to find out that it wasn't a game you won by making the right choice, but rather a game that you won because someone made the wrong choice. If I win in a game, specially in a game as skill-based as Puerto Rico is, I want it to be because of my own choices.

Don't get me wrong; I still think that Puerto Rico is a very good game, and it plays quite elegantly, but it's the winning/losing factor that lost me.

Well...

Rather than trying to "defend" PR in any way, I think it is more beneficial for all if I just try to clarify, or shed a different light, on some points you make...



Yes. PR is not an easy game to learn to play well. I think it is quite easy to learn to play, as long as you are introduced to it by someone who has played before, as with most games. I was fortunate enough to be taught the game and so I can not evaluate how hard it must be to learn from the rules alone... I suppose it should take some more time, but I still think that, if the basic premises are understood all that remains is to get familiar with the buildings benefits.



I don't know if you are fully aware of the benefits for each person selecting the role, from the way you describe it here. These benefits can be decisive in specific conditions. Just for clarification, these are:

Settler (Can select quarry - Other players can only select a plantation, unless they have a building that changes this.)
Craftsman (Produce one extra good at the end of production round from one of those that this player produced.)
Trader (Gain 1 extra doubloon with sale)
Builder (Pay 1 less doubloon when building)
Captain (extra victory point with shipment)
Mayor (Receive one extra colonist from reserve after colonists in ship have been distributed. If timed correctly this may mean more than one extra colonists when compared to other players)



Hmmm...
There is no defined sequence of play in PR. It all depends on how each player select the role in a round. What you define is a basic strategic approach to the game. I suppose this is what is intended, though. I'll get back on this a bit later...




I don't think PR is passive. Quite the opposite really. You should strive to make the optimal role selection each round and also to make the optimal choices when you are acting on others selections. As an example, if Captain was selected and you see that you may prevent the next player from shipping you have to consider if, in order to do this, you will be wasting an opportunity to score some more points.
Let's say you can send 2 corn for 2 points and prevent another player from gaining those 2 points by filling the boat that has corn. If you also have an opportunity to gain say 4 points by shipping tobacco on another ship this might be a much better option as, at the end of the Captain round you may find yourself wasting 2 tobacco...

So, when it is your turn you have to look after your game, evaluate others and decide how you should act. This is an active role, not passive...

As for the strategies, and this get's back to what I previously said on the sequence of play, I think that there are not so many strategies you can follow. Tactics, yes.
As for strategies I think generally you have two options, Shipping and Building.

Shipping means trying to be the single producer of at least one good, Building wharf and Harbor, maximizing production and cycle between Produce - Ship as often as possible. Try to take advantage of other player's choices of Trader and Builder.

Building means trying to get as many quarries as possible and cycle produce-sell-build as cheap as possible.

Both these strategies have nuances and buildings and the different order in which roles are selected by players will affect the tactical choices made each round.



I only have found the need to consult the rules until I was familiarized with each building. The rest is quite easy to understand.
Usually I explain the game as follows:
On your turn you select a role. This role has one action that ALL players perform and one benefit for the player CHOOSING this role.
The plantation produce goods if they have a colonist and if you have production buildings to work the raw material. Goods can be sold for money or shipped for points. Money allows you to build. Violet buildings give certain abilities to the players as long as there is a colonist there.
Then I generally explain the buildings...



True. It definitely is not a game for beginners. I think it is important for first plays to be relaxed and not too competitive. It is not unusual for me to lose games when I am teaching the game. In those games I am more focused in teaching the game than in maximizing my turns.



This is something that you have to balance against benefiting yourself the most. And since VPs are secret is is not so easy to remember all the time who is leading. Also, the differing strategies that I outlined above have different timings in their VP increase. The Shipping strategy is more apparent early on as being a VP production line. The Building one usually gets most benefits near the end with big Violet buildings. So you may be going after one player that appears to be ahead only to find that a more discreet one wins the game in the final two rounds...



Like I said, you must consider others when playing, but I don't think that solely focusing on the worst play you can make for others is a winning strategy. Of course you have interference with other peoples choices and they with yours, but that is part of the charm in PR and also very lifelike in the way it reflects competition for a specific market share, so to speak...



I think the worst you can do is try to tell others how to play. This is quite annoying.
PR is an individual game. Each one for himself and may the best man win.
Whenever I find someone trying to lead me to play in a certain way I usually do the opposite, even if that means someone else will win.
If I wanted to be told how to play, I would just watch others do it. Much more comfortable.
Let each one play as they will. If that harms your play in some way, too bad. Change seating order and start again. Players will eventually learn the details of the game and play better... soon you'll all be playing better.



What exactly did you expect? You have to see that all games are different (I'll leave aside this absurd Euro-Ameri distinction). In Carcassonne and Settlers the score of each players is know at all times (maybe you must consider if a player has a point card or not in settlers, but that is minor) and so this logic of harming the leader is more present. Still in both these games if you don't take opportunities to score because of it you won't win that many games.



Does any game?



Yes. I don't recommend it for people who are not experienced in other games first.



You should not have to count on others playing a game a specific way. That would mean the game was scripted and what is the fun in that? Part of the fun in gaming is seeing how you are able to cope with different players, good or bad.
If I just want an opponent that makes no mistakes, does not get distracted and is fully focused on the game, I'll play a computer...



And that is what makes it so good...



If you want a serious showdown in strategy the problem is not the game, in this case. It's the opponents...



I don't think I really disagree. I have a different perception of certain aspects of the game, though. I also don't think you really exposed any problems with the game, just an inadequacy of the game to your group, maybe.
As for agreeing with it being Nr. 1, that really is meaningless. What the BGG rank shows is a general assertion of how much it's users enjoy playing the game and how much they would be willing to play it again. It is not a quality certificate or an evaluation of what is the "best game". It would also make no sense as the "best game" is different for many people and in many cases changes according to the group that will be playing it.

I hope I have, if not clarified some aspects, at least showed a different perspective on certain aspects of the game.

I also hope you will have the chance to either enjoy this game more or, if not, to find some others that give you as much pleasure as you expect.

Have fun!

I am well aware. I was just trying to keep it simple.



Hence "Not necessarily in that order." I do know that very well.



Ok. I should have been clearer here. What I mean is that PR is passive agressive. You "attack" each other indirectly.



True for some, not for all. What I'm trying to say is that there are lots of tiny rules that are easy to get wrong unlike many other Eurogames where there are a few basic mechanics and the rest is self-explanatory.



I am one of many people that think memorizing VPs is not a part of the game and the option to keep it a secret is a stupid rule. After all it is still quite easy to remember who is shipping the most and building the most anyways if you just put your mind to it.



This is the approach i have adopted. If i can decide who wins I chose the one that does not try to use me as a puppet.



A lot of this review is about Puerto Rico being nr1 and not deserving it (according to me). I mostly bought it for that reason. And nr1 out of thousands of games and 90% positive reviews means naturally that you get high expectations. Basically i wrote this review because no other review mentions this.



That is exactly what i was trying to do. And in a sense that is a problem with the game. Different groups will not have the same experience and people wont know that until its pointed out.