geek
Recently Viewed
Hot Games
Agricola
Battlestar Galactica
Race for the Galaxy
Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! - Russia 1941-1942
A Touch of Evil, The Supernatural Game
End of the Triumvirate, The
Puerto Rico
Arkham Horror
Settlers of Catan, The
Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
Dominion
Stone Age
Pandemic
Wabash Cannonball
Scepter of Zavandor, The
Age of Conan - The BoardGame
Power Grid
Twilight Struggle
BattleLore
Agricola Z-Deck
Carcassonne
Risk
StarCraft: The Board Game
Tomb
War of the Ring
Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization
Reiner Knizia's Decathlon
Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm
Last Night on Earth: The Zombie Game
Tigris & Euphrates
Descent: Journeys in the Dark
Die Macher
Batavia
Age of Empires III: The Age of Discovery
El Grande
Titan
Twilight Imperium 3rd Edition
Galactic Emperor
Ticket to Ride
Witch's Brew
Kingsburg
Jamaica
Caylus
Descent: Tomb of Ice
New World: A Carcassonne Game
World of Warcraft: the Adventure Game
Memoir '44
Arkham Horror - The Black Goat of the Woods Expansion
Brass
Shogun
Rules | Subscriptions | Bookmarks | Search | Account | Moderators
Recommend
6
8 Posts
New Thread | Printer Friendly | Subscribe | Bookmark
Your Tags: Login to Add Tags | View 
Popular Tags: [View All]
Anton Modig
flag
Intro:
I wrote a Session Report earlier in the initial confusion during learning how to play this game. After several games later, mostly 3 player games, I have come to some conclusions. In this review I will shed light on things I wish would’ve been pointed out for me as well as the usual mumbo jumbo. This is a long review so bare with me.

Mechanics:
Players choose roles in turns and all players get to perform the related action during that turn before the next player chooses his role. This works as a turn within a turn and keeps everyone active during each turn.
The roles are:

Settler (Place a plantation or quarry)
Craftsman (Produce goods from plantations)
Trader (Sell produced goods for doubloons)
Builder (build processing plants and other useful buildings with doubloons)
Captain (Ship goods for victory points)
Mayor (Receive colonists to work buildings and plantations)

The sequence of play is straight forward:
Get a plantation and a plant, man these, produce, ship or trade, build. Not necessarily in that order. It all makes sense and is easy to understand.
Puerto Rico is based on a very delicate system that comes together with surprising balance. The only element of chance is when drawing plantations which leave all game play to tactics and strategies.

Depth:

People on BGG have been helpful with explaining the reasoning behind this game. I now understand that Puerto Rico is a very passive game with many ways to stop your opponents if you only know how. There is no direct conflict or interference with each other but your move will greatly affect you opponents and this must be used to your advantage. This may be a turnoff for players appreciating aggressive game play and rivalry around the table. Many different strategies can be applied, usually involving focusing on shipping or building as both generates victory points.

Components:

The boards are sturdy, nifty barrel shaped wooden pieces represent the goods and they give a nice impression. It always feels better producing something that you can hold in your hand rather than for example a card. The wood goes well with the overall feeling. The tiny colonist ‘chits’ however are hard to handle, easy to lose and their round shape makes them good at escaping the table when not careful and if you have a dark floor or rug under you table be prepares to dedicate an afternoon to find a dropped ‘chit’. I would prefer a square token instead. I must mention that extra ‘chits’ are provided which is very appreciated.

Criticism:

I have heard a few negative opinions of Puerto Rico among mostly overly positive reactions. This game is appreciated by many but that does not mean it works for all. I am about to point out thought that has occurred in my group and most of them are negative. Brace yourself.

Learning curve:

The rulebook is intense but well laid out. All roles and buildings are individually explained. However, still after several sessions situations turn up where we have to consult rules, online references and rule clarifications. The fact that several different Aids and Rule sheets say different things doesn't help. In many cases after playing a game it becomes fairly easy to assume how things work and use the most logic solution, but eventually someone asks to read the rules and then of course it says differently.
Usually reading the rules a couple of times is enough for a game but after this long we still have to consult the rules. The short text on each building invite different interpretations which often lead to debate. I would keep the rules close for clarifications however this slows down game flow. All abilities and events are unique and must be well know by at least one player. However being a newbie in Puerto Rico is hard. Be prepared to read the descriptions for each building and role and learning how your actions affect others takes time. Many people recommend this to non-gamers or for casual gamers in transition to serious gaming. I, however, do not agree. Although watching your colony develop is fun the first few games but soon you will feel a bit isolated, unable to push the game in the right direction.

Two sided mechanics:

(The following section depends on the play style of each group but this is what we encountered)
Many Eurogames focus on passive interaction and Puerto Rico is the best example of this for both good and bad. For example if “Settlers of Catan Syndrome” occur (players focus on slowing down the player with most points) there are no ways to do this but through playing in a way that benefits your opponents the least. The result is a kind of backwards playing. Rather than assuring best outcome for your colony you focus on assuring the least outcome for everyone else. I’m sure different groups play differently but for gamers that are used to making life hard on each other might encounter this problem. So even if you have all the rules down and know how the best strategies work the outcome still depends heavily on how others play. Other players may make life hard on you and easy for someone else even though they are just focusing on their own colony. This may make you feel like you are out of control and everything depends on everyone else.
This also means that one player can make or break a game. Someone that won’t follow others recommendations on how to stop the leader or someone that is too ignorant to realize how others are awarded by his actions. At times you are painted into a corner by the players before you leaving you with no choice what to do.
(Example, player 4 wants to ship all his goods or they will spoil, player 1 and 2 play for example craftsman and builder leaving them with plenty of goods to ship. Player 3 now either has to prevent player 4 from shipping but letting player 1 and 2 ship or player 4 will fill a ship of his choice gaining a massive lead. If player 3 chooses the latter players 1 and 2 will blame player 3 of breaking the game. I can think of several more situations.) I only know how we play the game and the people with positive reactions must have a different approach and I am interested if they ever encounter the same situations.

Conclusion:

Puerto Rico is no doubt interesting and unique and there is fun to be had but as a fan of other Eurogames such as Carcassonne and Settlers of Catan I had high expectations on Puerto Rico which resulted in disappointment. Puerto Rico is good but does not deserve a place on a pedestal. Puerto Rico is not a game for everyone. Simple mechanics does not equal a simple game and many people recommend it for non-gamers. Non-gamers are the last people I would play Puerto Rico with, it takes at least 2 rounds with a player until you know you can count on them playing it properly. But of course the game is still enjoyable with inexperienced or unserious players but I wouldn’t rely much on calculations in that case. If players are willing to learn tactics and play the game enough to make it worth the effort it might be a hit but I would prefer just playing it casually. If you want light pleasant game or a brain busting showdown in superior strategy Puerto Rico can be both. But if you are looking for the latter I personally would look elsewhere.

End note:

I know that most of you disagree and probably play differently but these are problems I have encountered so who can tell me I’m wrong? Puerto Rico is ranked nr1 on BGG and I simply do not agree. Overall I find Puerto Rico to be a good game but in my opinion a review should point out the bad and not just praise a game. I have a feeling I will spend time defending this review.
Ryan
flag
Avatar
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.
Bill Gallagher
flag
El_Scorcho wrote:
This also means that one player can make or break a game. Someone that won’t follow others recommendations on how to stop the leader or someone that is too ignorant to realize how others are awarded by his actions. At times you are painted into a corner by the players before you leaving you with no choice what to do.
(Example, player 4 wants to ship all his goods or they will spoil, player 1 and 2 play for example craftsman and builder leaving them with plenty of goods to ship. Player 3 now either has to prevent player 4 from shipping but letting player 1 and 2 ship or player 4 will fill a ship of his choice gaining a massive lead. If player 3 chooses the latter players 1 and 2 will blame player 3 of breaking the game.

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.
Anton Modig
flag
shroud wrote:
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.


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.

shroud wrote:

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.


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
Ben Foy
flag
Avatar
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
Alberto Casarrubios
flag
Avatar
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.
Pedro Silva
flag
Avatar
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...

El_Scorcho wrote:
Intro:
I wrote a Session Report earlier in the initial confusion during learning how to play this game. After several games later, mostly 3 player games, I have come to some conclusions. In this review I will shed light on things I wish would’ve been pointed out for me as well as the usual mumbo jumbo. This is a long review so bare with me.


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.

Quote:
Mechanics:
Players choose roles in turns and all players get to perform the related action during that turn before the next player chooses his role. This works as a turn within a turn and keeps everyone active during each turn.
The roles are:

Settler (Place a plantation or quarry)
Craftsman (Produce goods from plantations)
Trader (Sell produced goods for doubloons)
Builder (build processing plants and other useful buildings with doubloons)
Captain (Ship goods for victory points)
Mayor (Receive colonists to work buildings and plantations)


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)

Quote:

The sequence of play is straight forward:
Get a plantation and a plant, man these, produce, ship or trade, build. Not necessarily in that order. It all makes sense and is easy to understand.
Puerto Rico is based on a very delicate system that comes together with surprising balance. The only element of chance is when drawing plantations which leave all game play to tactics and strategies.


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...


Quote:
People on BGG have been helpful with explaining the reasoning behind this game. I now understand that Puerto Rico is a very passive game with many ways to stop your opponents if you only know how. There is no direct conflict or interference with each other but your move will greatly affect you opponents and this must be used to your advantage. This may be a turnoff for players appreciating aggressive game play and rivalry around the table. Many different strategies can be applied, usually involving focusing on shipping or building as both generates victory points.


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.

Quote:

The rulebook is intense but well laid out. All roles and buildings are individually explained. However, still after several sessions situations turn up where we have to consult rules, online references and rule clarifications.


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...

Quote:
However being a newbie in Puerto Rico is hard.


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.

Quote:
For example if “Settlers of Catan Syndrome” occur (players focus on slowing down the player with most points) there are no ways to do this but through playing in a way that benefits your opponents the least.


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...

Quote:
Other players may make life hard on you and easy for someone else even though they are just focusing on their own colony. This may make you feel like you are out of control and everything depends on everyone else.


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...

Quote:
This also means that one player can make or break a game. Someone that won’t follow others recommendations on how to stop the leader or someone that is too ignorant to realize how others are awarded by his actions. At times you are painted into a corner by the players before you leaving you with no choice what to do.


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.

Quote:
Puerto Rico is no doubt interesting and unique and there is fun to be had but as a fan of other Eurogames such as Carcassonne and Settlers of Catan I had high expectations on Puerto Rico which resulted in disappointment.


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.

Quote:
Puerto Rico is good but does not deserve a place on a pedestal.


Does any game?

Quote:
Puerto Rico is not a game for everyone. Simple mechanics does not equal a simple game and many people recommend it for non-gamers.


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

Quote:
Non-gamers are the last people I would play Puerto Rico with, it takes at least 2 rounds with a player until you know you can count on them playing it properly.


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...

Quote:
If you want light pleasant game or a brain busting showdown in superior strategy Puerto Rico can be both.


And that is what makes it so good...

Quote:
But if you are looking for the latter I personally would look elsewhere.


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

Quote:

End note:

I know that most of you disagree and probably play differently but these are problems I have encountered so who can tell me I’m wrong? Puerto Rico is ranked nr1 on BGG and I simply do not agree. Overall I find Puerto Rico to be a good game but in my opinion a review should point out the bad and not just praise a game. I have a feeling I will spend time defending this review.


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!
Anton Modig
flag
Mallgur wrote:

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.


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

Mallgur wrote:
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...


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

Mallgur wrote:
I don't think PR is passive.


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

Mallgur wrote:
I only have found the need to consult the rules until I was familiarized with each building. The rest is quite easy to understand.


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.

Mallgur wrote:

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.


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.

Mallgur wrote:

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.


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.

Mallgur wrote:
What exactly did you expect?


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.

Mallgur wrote:
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.


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.
 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
BoardGameGeek and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.