geek
The Hotness
Games|People|Company
Rules | Subscriptions | Bookmarks | Search | Account | Moderators
Recommend
22
43 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 
New Thread | Printer Friendly | Subscribe  sub options | Bookmark
Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: kids_too_young [+] [View All]
Sean Shaw
United States

Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Race for the Galaxy » Forums » Reviews
Daddy, I hate you right now!
This is a review of Race for the Galaxy

What were those words coming out of my 3 year old's mouth. She hated me? Now, my three year old is quite smart. In fact she's an ace at Othello, and quite cruel at Carcassonne. However, Race for the Galaxy is probably a little beyond her comprehension level. In our first game, she selected what she wanted to play, and how she wanted to play it. Occasionally she'd ask for my advice, which I had no idea since I didn't understand the game completely myself. So I didn't give her any. She had 8 Victory points when we ended the game, which albeit was second place (and I came in dead last, so obviously I wasn't that good either).

The next game I actually won, still didn't quite figure out how, and she came in last. At which point she said she wanted to keep one of the cards, and then try to run off with it. She was being a poor sport and ran off upset. From the other room as I grimace towards my friends she shouted..."I hate you Daddy right now!" She didn't win, came in dead last, and my worst crime...I didn't let her keep the card she wanted to keep from the game.

So we figured out a little more about how to play, and hello, here was a little girl. When I questioned how she felt, she said she still hated me...but then she also wanted to play. I told her I thought it was a little beyond her and she should just let the adults play, but then she scooped up the green cards and insisted that we let her play again. Obstinate girl...I wonder who she gets the attitude from.

Anyways, with that intro, it's off to the rest of the review. In summary Race for the Galaxy scores as follows.

Components = 3
Rules Presentation = 3
Gameplay = 6
Personal Tilt= 6
Reuseability = 10
Useability = 8

Final Score = 6

This is noticeably lower than many other scores. Hopefully I'll explain why it rates as an AVERAGE game rather than an above average game below.

Components - This game stinks as a board game...probably because it's a card game. In that light the cards are okay, but certain cards get high usage and will probably wear out rapidly. These are the role cards known as Action cards. Every player has their own, and they get used constantly. However they are not as durable as the hardened cardboard used in other games such as San Juan (for a fair comparison between card games). This means that this particular part of the game will wear rapidly.

The chits are nice thick cardboard chits that represent victory points. These are nice and sturdy as they go, the one VP pieces however, are easily lost as they are very small. Cleanup can be a little painful, but not any worse than many other games.

I did enjoy that the game had round summary sheets on cardstock. This aided greatly when learning the game.

However, the game is going to suffer greatly when those action cards wear out. My copy already has the edges of the action cards looking a tad more rough then the rest of the cards of the game. Maybe it's how we play, maybe we're a little rougher on games, but they seem to be wearing a little faster than cards in other games. I suspect it's because of how much use they get, and hence would think that replacing those cards with maybe something a little thicker or durable would be nice.

Overall, the game is a card game, and hence as durable as cards can be.

It scores a 3.

Rules Presentation - The rules are nice for presenting what phases are played and how they are played, but terrible for explaining how the cards in the game work themselves. Part of this lends to a strength of the game later on, but for those who are trying to learn the game, the rules aren't going to help as much as just plain experience in playing.

The rules have symbols and short explanations of the symbology, but these explanations sometimes are not clear. Luckily we had a player that knew what they were doing, or I think I still would be lost on what half the symbols did. In this, the rules could be much more explicit in their explanations of what each symbol does.

I think the symbology section needs a solid reread and re-edit for people who are more simple minded (like me) in order to have the cards better explained so we aren't quite so lost as to what a particular card does.

The reason this can be difficult is that there are so many different and unique cards in the game. To make a listing of all of them could take a dozen or more pages more. On the otherhand, I've been spoiled by games like Puerto Rico and San Juan which explain in more depth just what different portions of a game do.

This rulebook was almost useless on decyphering some of the card codework. That means the rulebook is below average.

It scores a 3.

Gameplay - Unfortunately, the poor rules presentation relates directly into the gameplay portion. Beginning players may be completely lost on the first game as they have no idea what many of the cards are supposed to do. Based on a first play, it would be easy to rate this game as almost broken, or at a 1.

However, the game is NOT broken...in fact far from it. The game actually can flow quite well. Learning the game can be quite hard, and waiting for beginning players to figure out what to do can be quite aggravating (as my friend would attest). This greatly slows down the game. Once one learns the game, it flows rather quickly and a game that lasted 2 hours for a group of beginners, can last only 30 minutes for the learned.

Once one learns the game, it has a great deal of depth and various strategies one can experience. This is due to the vast number of different cards the game possesses. I really don't have time to go in depth of what all the cards do, however there are various resources here on the RftG page which have nice tables which explain the cards to beginners. I would highly recommend one using that if just beginning.

The game is divided into phases. Each player has 7 cards, with each of the five phases on them (two of the phases have two different card options). Each card grants a special bonus for it's set phase. Each player chooses a card to use. Then they all simultaneously show the cards. Only the phases to which the upturned cards reflect take place. Hence if no one chose to use a card for the Explore phase, the Explore phase would not occur.

Gameplay then goes with each player being able to do that phase (phases being in order, Explore, Develop, Settle, Consume, and Produce).

Explore basically gives the players opportunities to draw cards to add to their hands.

Develop gives them the ability to build industrial cards by placing those cards down and paying a card cost into the discard pile (Industry known as Development is represented by Diamonds).

Settle allows players the ability to place Planet cards on the table (represented by circles on the cards) and pay the cost either with cards being discarded, or if they have military power, by showing that they have the military strength to play that card.

Consume allows players to discard cards that are placed face down on planets. In return they can get more cards for their hands, OR get victory points, or possibly get both. They can only consume if they have a development or planet that has the ability to consume. Without that, the consume ability is useless.

Produce is where players place cards facedown on planets.

The game gets much deeper than that due to each card having special abilities. So each planet and each development has a special ability (though many also have the ability just to produce or consume) that comes into play during a certain phase of the game.

This makes for a LOT of strategy and differing ways to play, since all the various abilities can make for literally hundreds of different combinations of play styles. It makes for a very deep game...dependant of course that you draw the cards you need, as draws are random.

This makes the game more complex than a game of Puerto Rico or San Juan. This will be great for people who like the added complexity. It will be great for those with great memories to be able to learn what the different symbology means quickly. It will be terrible for those who like a more simple fare (such as Puerto Rico or San Juan or other games which are moderately heavy already as far as Euros go) or who can't remember what all the different symbols mean.

The depth and variability of the game makes this game score well in a later category, however it also means that it lowers the gameplay score as well, since this is a game that is very much a love it or leave it type game. If you like heavy card games with a lot of variability, then this is a game for you. If you like games like Magic the Gathering, but without having to buy random packs and such...you'll probably fall in love with this game. If you hate games like Magic, but love games like Poker, you might want to pass. If you love games like Texas Hold em, and are unsure whether you would like heavier card games...this could be a calculated risk.

Overall, the game itself rolls well, but can be rocky at parts due to questions on symbology, and tradeoffs that give it more depth in replacement for smoothness of flow and ease of play.

It scores a 6.

Personal Tilt - This game is an average game for me. It scores in the high averages, but I find that I'd rather play a game of Bridge or San Juan rather than this game. I know friends that are in love with this Race for the Galaxy game, but I find I'm not one of those. It's a nice game, but not one that really captures my fun factor. I think it has a lot of depth, and if I spent the time to learn some of the deeper strategies about it, I could actually enjoy it more. However the tradeoff for what I need to do to get there, as opposed to simply enjoying another game which is a little simpler (and I consider many wargames which are 100 or more pages in rules somewhat simpler if that gives you an idea of what I mean) or more direct in confrontation, I think I'd rather play another game. However, the game IS GOOD. It just doesn't tickle my fancy as the next great thing.

For me my personal tilt is that it's around an average game in my collection that I can enjoy playing now and then, but not one of my favorites.

Hence it scores a 6.

Replayability - This is where the game really shines. In fact, due to the depth and versitality of the cards, as well as variability of strategy, this game scores a perfect in the replayability area. If you like this game, and enjoy it's playstyle, you could probably play this game all night, and still yearn for more. This game has perfected a sense of replayability which I can only imagine is a gamer's dream. I can't really say more than, it has some of the best replayability I've seen. There's no rounding up, no simple it's close so we choose the closest score...it's right up at the perfect 10 level.

It scores a perfect 10.

Useability - This game is great in that it has a two player mode that comes with it. It also can be played with up to 5 players. However, our game didn't seem to have enough Victory chips for the points that went on the table if you so choose to play with 5 players. However, on the box it specifies that it is ONLY FOR 2-4 Players. I just note the 5 players, because it doesn't take much to allow 5 people to play. Once everyone knows how to play the game doesn't take much time either, and as I stated above, it's replayability is great. Hence it is very useable. Even those who don't like it probably could put up with 30 minutes prior to another game to play it for the sake of others. Hence it's a good useability score.

It scores an 8.

Overall the game's strenght lie in it's replayability, which stems from it's huge variety of cards, and hence the different ways to play, and to see it played. There can be a great depth of strategy in it, which makes it fun for those who are into that type of thing with cards.

However, poor presentation, which can lead to confusion at the table can stem it's gameplay at times. For those that love this type of game I expect they would rate it very high on their personal tilt, however those who don't like the game or just can't "Get" it, I expect they would rate it very low. Overall, I find it has it's strengths and weaknesses like any other game. In this instance they sort of balance each other out, to give this game an average score.

It's final score is a 6.

Which brings me back to tonight with the last game I just played, once again where my daughter insisted on playing. She still didn't seem to understand what she was doing and asked many times what she should do. I made suggestions, which she promptly ignored and then did her own thing. She seemed to get a lot of cheap planets which she put on the table, seemingly at random at first...up until she had about 7 of them with production and consume. Then she proceeded to produce and consume for Victory points as her only cards she played...every other round. That's ALL she did. She got upset at her Daddy because whilst she knew exactly what she was going to put down (it took her all of around 2 seconds to play her cards) Daddy would take a minute or so trying to figure out what he was doing.

Eventually, my friend got his 12th card placed (game lasts until all VP are taken or 12th card put on the table) and the game ended. I had focused on a military point type strategy where I had payed 6 points for a development which gave me VP at the end of the game for how much military power I possessed. I got 30 VP. My friend had a combination of several different things, and ended up with 35 VPs. My little daughter, despite her saying she had no idea what to do...got 38 VPs. I still can't believe she won.

On the plus side, before she went to bed tonight, she came up and gave me a hug and said "Daddy, I love you."

Ah well, the confusions in life of being a Dad. And she's only 3. I hear teenager years are a LOT worse. At least she's on track for being a gamer...though at this rate she's going to be trouncing her dad at games by the time she's 16.



(For reference, link to explanation of my game ratings http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/2426690#2426690 )
Last edited on 2008-08-02 22:07:55 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
BT Carpenter
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron0708
mbmbmb
I don't know if the three year old is reality or a metaphor.

If she's real, I'm impressed she can grasp the game enough to play it, and apparently play it well.

If a three-year old can play it, surely the symbology isn't has hard to decipher as you claim.
Sean Shaw
United States

Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, she really is three. I think she's quite smart, and she didn't seem to grasp it, but she did win...which makes me question if she's really good at faking, just really lucky, or what's going on. I blame her change of heart on the fact that she won on though...she was pretty mad after the first few games. Ironic however, she really wanted to play the "space game" that the adults were playing and kept on coming back to play yet another game.

So, no metaphor, how much she really understands, I'm not certain, as she was asking what she should do, but then she was ignoring most of what we said and did her own thing. Once she settled into the produce and consume, that's all she did. I think she won because my friend couldn't lay out the planets/developments fast enough. If he had put it down one turn prior to when he did, I think he would have won, but my daughter played a 6 point special that same turn that put her over the top at the end of the game (I think she got some vp's for every planet with a solid production colored circle) and hence he lost at the same time he may have won if she hadn't put it down.

Smart girl, though I am still wondering how much of the game she really gets or not. Still surprised the heck that not only did she beat me, but that she won the last game.
Last edited on 2008-08-02 22:21:03 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
BT Carpenter
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron0708
mbmbmb
Language is easily learned by the young.

The icons are a language.

Three still seems very young to me, and I'm sure that deeper strategies, such as 'what are other people doing' aren't even occuring to her.

In some ways, everyone who first plays this game plays at a three year old's level... until the language is parsed and learned and you can get beyond 'what do the cards do' and into the strategy space of 'how do I make the most of what my hand is telling me?'

Sean Shaw
United States

Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Oh, I'm pretty certain that she doesn't understand the deeper strategies yet. I know I don't either, but some of what she does seems random enough that I think a lot of it had to be luck on her part.

She really is a sweet girl, but after her little tantrum at losing, and then how sweet she was after winning, I knew I just had to do a review with that element of her in it. It was like night and day. I just hope she learns how to be a good loser as she gets older.

Between the games we did have a nice little discussion on how we like to win, but if we lose, we should be graceful and enjoy the game itself.

I also think she's going to be one of those that dislikes games with a lot of downtime. She always hates it when someone doesn't take their turn immediately, or at least quickly. That was her chief complaint of the game when we were actually playing...which mostly was due to me pondering over my cards to much for her to like.

It was just so wild...she was so irate at me, and yet after winning, she was the sweetest thing in the world. You wouldn't believe how sweet she was (well if you have kids you might actually), it was amazing the difference.
BT Carpenter
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron0708
mbmbmb
Hence why I thought it was a metaphor.

Race can make you feel like a three year old child until you learn to 'speak the language the adults (experienced players) do'.

And when you're the experienced one, you don't understand (or at least acknowledge) how anyone could possibly take that long to choose their play.
Rick Rodrick
United States
La Crosse
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron0708
mbmbmbmb
You have very patient friends. You are lucky.
Jason Spears
United States
Saint Joseph
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
0506070809
mbmbmbmbmb
I've played my copy over 110 times and while the phase selection cards are worn, they are still quite usable and I think this copy could easily last another 100+ plays. I think your rating the components a 3 is very low.
John W
United States
Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Why is all the text about a 3 yr old playing this game relevant?

You may as well take time discussing how you got a cat to play a game of RftG with you.

A 3 year old is simply incapable of comprehending the strategies necessary to play the game by themself.
I can play a game with my 1 1/2 yr old baby son by having a "dialogue" and pushing pieces aroud for him, or moving pieces he points at or touches.... that doesn't mean I am playing that game with him.

I'd advise you to stick with more age-appropriate games, but she's your daughter, and it's your time, so knock yourself out.
But I can request less screentime taking up with digressing a review of RftG with tales of it. Just like you can ignore my request.
Sean Shaw
United States

Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
reapersaurus wrote:
Why is all the text about a 3 yr old playing this game relevant?

You may as well take time discussing how you got a cat to play a game of RftG with you.

A 3 year old is simply incapable of comprehending the strategies necessary to play the game by themself.
I can play a game with my 1 1/2 yr old baby son by having a "dialogue" and pushing pieces aroud for him, or moving pieces he points at or touches.... that doesn't mean I am playing that game with him.

I'd advise you to stick with more age-appropriate games, but she's your daughter, and it's your time, so knock yourself out.
But I can request less screentime taking up with digressing a review of RftG with tales of it. Just like you can ignore my request.


It's relavant because she played her own cards, held her own cards, and won on her own.

I found it neat, cute, and interesting. That's why I found it relavant.

On your post however, your rather rude aren't you.

I would tend to agree that she wouldn't be able to grasp the more complex strategies, but then again, it did leave us stunned when she won. Then again she's been beating adults in Carcassonne for a while so I would imagine she may be more capable then you give her credit for...or I give her credit for.
Noel Mitchell
Ireland
Co. Dublin
flag msg tools
patron08
mbmbmbmb
I think the commentray about your daughter is interesting, relevant and endearing to others who have children. I'm sure she'll be a great games player by the time she's even 6!
Last edited on 2008-08-03 04:19:29 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Henrik Lantz
Sweden
Uppsala
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron070809
mbmbmbmbmb
GreyLord wrote:
reapersaurus wrote:
Why is all the text about a 3 yr old playing this game relevant?

You may as well take time discussing how you got a cat to play a game of RftG with you.

A 3 year old is simply incapable of comprehending the strategies necessary to play the game by themself.
I can play a game with my 1 1/2 yr old baby son by having a "dialogue" and pushing pieces aroud for him, or moving pieces he points at or touches.... that doesn't mean I am playing that game with him.

I'd advise you to stick with more age-appropriate games, but she's your daughter, and it's your time, so knock yourself out.
But I can request less screentime taking up with digressing a review of RftG with tales of it. Just like you can ignore my request.


It's relavant because she played her own cards, held her own cards, and won on her own.

I found it neat, cute, and interesting. That's why I found it relavant.

On your post however, your rather rude aren't you.

I would tend to agree that she wouldn't be able to grasp the more complex strategies, but then again, it did leave us stunned when she won. Then again she's been beating adults in Carcassonne for a while so I would imagine she may be more capable then you give her credit for...or I give her credit for.


I thought it was a nice story and am very happy you chose to submit it. Having had quite some problems with the game myself I am surprised she managed to play the game herself, and even more surpised she wanted to! Great when they show an interest in the hobby though, and great how you encourage it by allowing her to join.

And Reapersaurus, please stop posting your rude comments here and elsewhere. Candidness might be very important to you, but it is perfectly possible to be candid and polite at the same time.
Mark McEvoy
Canada
Ottawa-ish
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In this rare instance I'm inclined to agree with Reapersaurus - because this 3-year-old anecdote seems to so dominate the review one can't help but think it had a real effect on the 'grading' as well. Does it really merit a 3 in component quality, or is it just a 3 when playing with a peanut-butter-and-jelly-handed toddler? I've seen no visible wear on the cards of sets played hundreds of times by responsible adults (what really wears cards is shuffling, and the role cards are never shuffled). Was the rules interpretation score skewed by the fact that, while rules were being explained, the reviewer was not only trying to comprehend them but also bear the distracting task of trying to corral the short attention span of the wee one? Is the gameplay score and personal tilt 'true', or is it influenced by the sour grapes of knowing you were beaten by someone whose play was probably only slightly better than random?
Last edited on 2008-08-03 05:18:13 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
Norway
Oslo
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron06070809
mbmbmbmbmb
thatmarkguy wrote:
In this rare instance I'm inclined to agree with Reapersaurus - because this 3-year-old anecdote seems to so dominate the review

How can you say a few short paragraphs at the start and one at the end "dominates" the review? Did you just skim through all the text in between?

Are you going to write to Ebert and complain whenever he adds an anecdote to a movie review (something he does all the time)? Or maybe you could start writing your own reviews instead of just compaining about people who do?
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
Nr Hemel Hempstead
Hertfordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
0506070809
I don't think the cards will wear out that quickly, which is a good thing as they are going to see a lot of use. Not that it would make much difference if the role cards were utterly destroyed- you could just write down your role selection on a piece of paper.

Jim Nave
United States
Lake Oswego
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Your 3 year old is playing RftG with you? Mine is still playing "match the pooh-bear cards together". Yeesh!
Yan
Canada

flag msg tools
patron08
mbmbmb
GreyLord wrote:
but certain cards get high usage and will probably wear out rapidly....However, the game is going to suffer greatly when those action cards wear out. My copy already has the edges of the action cards looking a tad more rough then the rest of the cards of the game. Maybe it's how we play, maybe we're a little rougher on games, but they seem to be wearing a little faster than cards in other games. I suspect it's because of how much use they get, and hence would think that replacing those cards with maybe something a little thicker or durable would be nice.

Is that so ? How about plastic card shields ? If you ever actualy wear out card shields, you just changed them. arround here, you can get 100 high quality card shields for about 3 $ CAN or 500 lower quality ones for the same price. I would actualy dislike holding 7-9 3 milimeters thick cards in my hand... Also, while they may be less flexible or more resistant to tears, the surface would use at the same speed than their paper thin cousin. Therefor you would still need card shields for extra thick "cards".

You may argue that they should have included a pack or two of cards shield in the box... but I belive that you rated the components way to low if this was your main issue.
Sean Shaw
United States

Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Zhab wrote:
GreyLord wrote:
but certain cards get high usage and will probably wear out rapidly....However, the game is going to suffer greatly when those action cards wear out. My copy already has the edges of the action cards looking a tad more rough then the rest of the cards of the game. Maybe it's how we play, maybe we're a little rougher on games, but they seem to be wearing a little faster than cards in other games. I suspect it's because of how much use they get, and hence would think that replacing those cards with maybe something a little thicker or durable would be nice.

Is that so ? How about plastic card shields ? If you ever actualy wear out card shields, you just changed them. arround here, you can get 100 high quality card shields for about 3 $ CAN or 500 lower quality ones for the same price. I would actualy dislike holding 7-9 3 milimeters thick cards in my hand... Also, while they may be less flexible or more resistant to tears, the surface would use at the same speed than their paper thin cousin. Therefor you would still need card shields for extra thick "cards".

You may argue that they should have included a pack or two of cards shield in the box... but I belive that you rated the components way to low if this was your main issue.


I may have to look into the card shields thing. I've never gotten card shields really before, but with the use that the cards go through I think it could be a good investment. Thanks.
Daniel Freeman
United States
College Station
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron070809
mb
GreyLord wrote:
In that light the cards are okay, but certain cards get high usage and will probably wear out rapidly. These are the role cards known as Action cards.

The action cards don't get shuffled, which is the main reason why cards get worn out. The action cards in my deck, which has seen ~50 plays, are in much better shape than the rest of the cards.
Jason Goodrich
United States

California
flag msg tools
mb
If you seriously got beat by a 3 year old, you shouldn't be reviewing this game. Why this thread is recommended, I have no idea.

I've played this game with my wife - a light gamer.

My wife + friend (big time strategy guy - into MTG etc) twice.

Then with my wife again.

I've won by large margins every time. Partly because I'm good at games and partly because I just know the cards a bit better than the opponents (simply because I read the rule book and glanced through them before playing).


I know someone will say that I missed the whole point of this review but I don't think I did.

I really think its virtually impossible to be beat by a 3 year old if you have even *some* sort of strategy. In fact - I think beating a beginner or 3 year old should be easier to beat than someone playing random roles because they tend to *only* pick roles that benefit themselves and have no concept of the effects around them. To them the game is the cards in front of them, not the whole table.
John W
United States
Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GreyLord wrote:
It's relavant because she played her own cards, held her own cards, and won on her own.

I found it neat, cute, and interesting. That's why I found it relavant.

On your post however, your rather rude aren't you.
You just lectured the Garibaldi guy about quality of reviews:
GreyLord wrote:
No, the thing that's pissing off others isn't just this one review, it's a culmination.


If he puts in another review for the same game...that's tacky. Another has been doing this, or with that intent, and if it's a trend...it's sleazy...IMO.
and you have the balls to defend your own review (to the point of insinuating I shouldn't be able to say boo about it) when it digresses at length about your THREE YEAR OLD playing RftG?
John W
United States
Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bolger wrote:
And Reapersaurus, please stop posting your rude comments here and elsewhere. Candidness might be very important to you, but it is perfectly possible to be candid and polite at the same time.
With all due respect, I'm not going to stop posting my "rude" comments here and elsewhere just for your peace of mind.

You may want the world to be a place of agreeable voices that say exactly what you want to hear, but on BGG I am going to continue to give my supported opinions about reviews, and games (in this case, the age-inappropriateness of RftG).
Robert Wilson
Canada
Riverview
New Brunswick
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi all

at first I thought the fact that you played this with a 3 year old was cute, but after playing the game last night with my father and brother, I cannot see how a 3 yr old could interpret any of the high VP cards if she couldnt read.

And I dont see how you could get beat :)
Anony Mous
United States

flag msg tools
Really? You're going to rate this game a 3 on components because you're too stupid to know about card sleeves?

The first thing I did when I opened my copy was to sleeve every card. Of course, when I got mine, I'd also played it 100+ times with other people's copies, and only 1 of them did NOT have his cards sleeved.

You'd think that with a game you rate a 10 on replayability that you'd want to take care of it. And if the cards are starting to show wear, then you'd think that trying to do something about it would cross your mind.

It's no surprise your daughter beat you, it sounds like she's smarter than you are.
Sean Shaw
United States

Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It is interesting, normally I win at the games I play. I tend to be one of those that have what some would say that winning syndrome. However I HAVE learned over the past few years that if you win all the time, people sometimes stop playing with you. So I do handicap myself.

So I wouldn't say that I'm an easy player to beat. We were playing a so called "expert" (we didn't even get into the teens first game against him in VP) on this game. I had no handicaps, she beat both him and me, so who knows. My wife considers it beginners luck. However, once you put down the right cards, no offense intended, but her strategy of produce and consume...ISN'T that complex. In fact, all she did after she placed her original planets was to play those two cards.

There are other strategies that are more complex, but the produce consume strategy at it's core is really simple. If you don't think a three year old (well a smart three year old I suppose, normal three year olds probably are something else) can't do that, then you need to play her at Othello and be betting money so I can have a better income.

She can read currently, but not well. She can read up to three letter and some four letter words. However, she wasn't really doing anything off of reading, it was more picture recognition on the role cards themselves that she would chose by.

She has no problem adding up to ten, and can count up to one hundred, so the numbers are no problem either. All it takes is having an educational slant in your home, and kids that are smart.

However, I think my wife is right that a lot of it was beginner's luck for her. She seemed to lay down planets of whatever she wanted to normally in the game, and she just happened to get the right combination it would seem. I thought she was going to lose again to tell the truth. The "expert" player who taught us never learned how to play gracefully and kept smoking us. In that light, perhaps that made it even sweeter when he lost (he was working on his 15th game in a row on winning)...to none other than my 3 year old.


On the matter of components, I can see some people getting some grief. Ask yourself, what would you rate a pack of cards? A pack of cards costs me from One dollar to 3 Dollars. Two packs I could expect around 5 dollars. So this game's components is worth...about 5 dollars...at retail price. You add in some cardboard chits, which I could get something equivalent for around 2 dollars, and that's 7 dollars worth. Now you pay 30 dollars for 7 dollars worth of materials (or 19 dollars let's say if you get it cheaper..or maybe even down to 17 dollars) you're getting ripped off on components.

I have a link at the bottom that explains how I normally rate games. If it's a card game it's probably going to be ranked lower as it deals with greasy fingers, kids, drinks, and the whole gambit. This isn't some easy to get game at the supermarket where I pay 5 dollars for a new deck of Race to the Galaxy, this game costs me twenty if I go and search for a bargain.

If a game has components like that which in the market are worth a LOT less than what is commonly held for materials, it needs to have something that REALLY impresses me. Either really good integrated mechanics that justify the need, or something super special about the game itself. In that same light, a game that has great components but has terrible integration can also downgrade itself incredibly.

To tell the truth, based on the worth of the components, the durability, and value this game would rank as a 1 or a 2 normally. That it ranks a 3 means that it has something that has raised it slightly. However, to compare the value of components to a pack of cards...which would also rank low...the pack of cards ALWAYS would win out simply due to price of components to what they sell for.

Components actually are an easy thing to rate because I do it more on...what is it made of, okay that's it's score...and how much would I have to pay to actually get these materials...okay...that figures on it's score.

Then it's on whether it's going to have something that completely wipes me away and impresses me in how it uses those components or not.

Race to the Galaxy is a card game that uses the cards...like cards. Nothing really that is new or unusual in that. Even worse, they could have done multiple things with the role cards to make them more durable, or nicer...but instead decided to use cards for them as well...which doesn't add any brownie points.

So, yes, I rated the components low...and would do so again. That doesn't mean it's a bad game, but it means that it's no Descent in component toughness, durability, or value either.

Luckily most who are getting this game already KNOW it's a card game and so realize that these components are only as good as cards are going to be.

Hence they also probably know to expect that they are not going to get a LOT of bang in the component area for the money paid. They are paying money in order to get more for their money in other areas...such as gameplay, useability and replayability.

The same as any other card player. Poker players don't get cards (well there are some NICE decks, but RftG has cards more like what you get in a common poker deck, that cost a lot and are nice components, but RftG cards don't even come close to those in quality) to play with that are great in components and quality, they get them to play poker. It's the game, not what it's made of.

The same would/should hold true for RftG. If you are getting RftG, (and just in case it wasn't abundantly clear in my review) for components and not for the gameplay, you are wasting your money.
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
BoardGameGeek and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.