I'm intrigued by ATOE and I have been reading with interest the discussions of whether ATOE is "Arkham lite" or "a cross between Arkham Horror and Talisman." (I don't own Talisman, either.)
The main reason I don't own AH is because of this review, specifically this passage:
Quote:
Thoughts on the Gameplay
Unfortunately, this intense, "let's-kick-some-ass" vibe only lasts until players glimpse the details and game mechanics underneath the game's surface. After playing this game the third and fourth time (which, granted, is already a 16 hour return on my investment in the game), I felt like one of the investigators who sees something he isn't supposed to see and starts to go insane. So what did I find? Well, for one thing, I began to realize that when you draw a random encounter, there is a 50-65% chance that something bad will happen. Not might happen. Will. Your skills, equipment, and ability to make intelligent decisions are all basically forfeit when you draw an encounter card, because odds are you'll be worse off than before (and if something good happens, you'll rarely feel like you can take any credit for it). Certainly, this plays a big factor in the appreciable 'plans-gone-terribly-awry' effect I described above. But here's the problem: as an experienced player, you begin to realize that perhaps the most intelligent decision to make in Arkham Horror is not to have an encounter unless your reward is guaranteed before you draw the card. And the game lets you do this (see strategy description below).
A lot of potential role-playing is lost once you realize that there isn't point in going for a walk in the woods if you're a photographer, robbing the bank if you're a gangster, going to the boarding house if you're the salesman, etc. You can think up these decisions ad infinitum and none of them will make sense given the way the game works. The random encounter cards don't know you're an author or a magician or a psychologist. And more importantly, they don't give you room to behave as if YOU know. If you're not the role-playing type, but instead are simply curious, a time or two through the game will teach you that, no, you don't actually want to know what will happen if you go hang out at the Library. Curiosity kills the cat in this game, and the cat doesn't have a say in the matter.
By way of comparison, consider the classic encounter-based game Tales of the Arabian Nights. In that game you encounter a random category of person/creature/thing (princess, djinn, slave, ne'er-do-well, hunchback, etc.) the type of which is then randomized (cunning, powerful, wicked, insane, etc.). Based on what you've encountered, you can then choose a reaction from a matrix (rob, attack, honor, grovel, trick, court, and so forth.). Basing that choice on your skills gives you a decent shot at a desirable outcome, though the game is by no means predictable or transparent. In Arkham Horror, the simple ability to affect the outcome of a random encounter is almost non-existent. Sure, some encounters involved being attacked my monsters, and players who are equipped with powerful weapons will usually win in such situations. Most of the time, though, you'll have no such impact.
There is essentially only one practical way to win in Arkham Horror, which is to seal six gates. (If you appreciate games that provide varied paths to victory, Arkham Horror is not for you). Sealing gates requires clue tokens or elder signs. At the start of the game, a single clue token is placed on about half the locations on the board. At the end of each turn, an additional clue token may appear at a random location, and inevitably, there are often locations which have two or even three clue tokens on them. Two or three clue tokens are worth the effects of nearly any random encounter card, so as I said above, you can guarantee a suitable reward before drawing a card, treating any consequences as either a price or an unexpected and irrelevant bonus.
Furthermore, several locations on the board allow you to purchase items, clues, spells, etc. Only two of these things matter: clues and unique items. The unique items are better than the common items, so there is no incentive buy the latter. Most spells are useless (the major exception being Find Gate), so a trip to the magic shop is not likely to be worth it. To get unique items, you need money, and players gain access to money via surprisingly narrow paths. You can 'cheese the game' and follow a perfectly legal bank-loan / default strategy (though on the BGG forums, designer Kevin Wilson says this will be ruled out in the next edition of the game) or you can go to the Newspaper. That's right, the town newspaper is the primary font of wealth in Arkham. For no apparent reason, the newspaper is also the only location in Akrham where there is only a 1/7 chance that something bad will happen to you, and as bad things go in this game, it's a pretty negligible outcome. Despite all of the atmosphere and varied locations, it's hard to want to go anywhere when you know you need money, you know where to get it, and you know where to spend it, especially when tantalizing possibilities turn out to be a sham.
Want to win a game of Arkham Horror? Apply the following simple strategy. Always have someone pick up pairs and triples of clue tokens. Have everyone else get money from the newspaper and buy unique items from the curiosity shop. Always buy Elder signs first, 'King in Yellow' tombs (equivalent to 4 clue tokens) second, and weapons third. When Elder signs are purchased, hand them to the person with the least clues and send them to explore and seal a gate. When any player amasses five clue tokens, send them to send them to explore and seal a gate. In the meantime, kill all monsters of one or two toughness (should be easy with weapons from the unique item deck) so the town is not overrun. You should be able to avoid tougher / rarer monsters and they'll probably end up getting banished when gates are sealed.
The flow of events will vary from game to game, but when the above short paragraph is governing your decision process for four hours, it can be hard to stay interested, even in a game as admirably atmospheric as this one.
Unfortunately, this intense, "let's-kick-some-ass" vibe only lasts until players glimpse the details and game mechanics underneath the game's surface. After playing this game the third and fourth time (which, granted, is already a 16 hour return on my investment in the game), I felt like one of the investigators who sees something he isn't supposed to see and starts to go insane. So what did I find? Well, for one thing, I began to realize that when you draw a random encounter, there is a 50-65% chance that something bad will happen. Not might happen. Will. Your skills, equipment, and ability to make intelligent decisions are all basically forfeit when you draw an encounter card, because odds are you'll be worse off than before (and if something good happens, you'll rarely feel like you can take any credit for it). Certainly, this plays a big factor in the appreciable 'plans-gone-terribly-awry' effect I described above. But here's the problem: as an experienced player, you begin to realize that perhaps the most intelligent decision to make in Arkham Horror is not to have an encounter unless your reward is guaranteed before you draw the card. And the game lets you do this (see strategy description below).
A lot of potential role-playing is lost once you realize that there isn't point in going for a walk in the woods if you're a photographer, robbing the bank if you're a gangster, going to the boarding house if you're the salesman, etc. You can think up these decisions ad infinitum and none of them will make sense given the way the game works. The random encounter cards don't know you're an author or a magician or a psychologist. And more importantly, they don't give you room to behave as if YOU know. If you're not the role-playing type, but instead are simply curious, a time or two through the game will teach you that, no, you don't actually want to know what will happen if you go hang out at the Library. Curiosity kills the cat in this game, and the cat doesn't have a say in the matter.
By way of comparison, consider the classic encounter-based game Tales of the Arabian Nights. In that game you encounter a random category of person/creature/thing (princess, djinn, slave, ne'er-do-well, hunchback, etc.) the type of which is then randomized (cunning, powerful, wicked, insane, etc.). Based on what you've encountered, you can then choose a reaction from a matrix (rob, attack, honor, grovel, trick, court, and so forth.). Basing that choice on your skills gives you a decent shot at a desirable outcome, though the game is by no means predictable or transparent. In Arkham Horror, the simple ability to affect the outcome of a random encounter is almost non-existent. Sure, some encounters involved being attacked my monsters, and players who are equipped with powerful weapons will usually win in such situations. Most of the time, though, you'll have no such impact.
There is essentially only one practical way to win in Arkham Horror, which is to seal six gates. (If you appreciate games that provide varied paths to victory, Arkham Horror is not for you). Sealing gates requires clue tokens or elder signs. At the start of the game, a single clue token is placed on about half the locations on the board. At the end of each turn, an additional clue token may appear at a random location, and inevitably, there are often locations which have two or even three clue tokens on them. Two or three clue tokens are worth the effects of nearly any random encounter card, so as I said above, you can guarantee a suitable reward before drawing a card, treating any consequences as either a price or an unexpected and irrelevant bonus.
Furthermore, several locations on the board allow you to purchase items, clues, spells, etc. Only two of these things matter: clues and unique items. The unique items are better than the common items, so there is no incentive buy the latter. Most spells are useless (the major exception being Find Gate), so a trip to the magic shop is not likely to be worth it. To get unique items, you need money, and players gain access to money via surprisingly narrow paths. You can 'cheese the game' and follow a perfectly legal bank-loan / default strategy (though on the BGG forums, designer Kevin Wilson says this will be ruled out in the next edition of the game) or you can go to the Newspaper. That's right, the town newspaper is the primary font of wealth in Arkham. For no apparent reason, the newspaper is also the only location in Akrham where there is only a 1/7 chance that something bad will happen to you, and as bad things go in this game, it's a pretty negligible outcome. Despite all of the atmosphere and varied locations, it's hard to want to go anywhere when you know you need money, you know where to get it, and you know where to spend it, especially when tantalizing possibilities turn out to be a sham.
Want to win a game of Arkham Horror? Apply the following simple strategy. Always have someone pick up pairs and triples of clue tokens. Have everyone else get money from the newspaper and buy unique items from the curiosity shop. Always buy Elder signs first, 'King in Yellow' tombs (equivalent to 4 clue tokens) second, and weapons third. When Elder signs are purchased, hand them to the person with the least clues and send them to explore and seal a gate. When any player amasses five clue tokens, send them to send them to explore and seal a gate. In the meantime, kill all monsters of one or two toughness (should be easy with weapons from the unique item deck) so the town is not overrun. You should be able to avoid tougher / rarer monsters and they'll probably end up getting banished when gates are sealed.
The flow of events will vary from game to game, but when the above short paragraph is governing your decision process for four hours, it can be hard to stay interested, even in a game as admirably atmospheric as this one.
Now, again, I've never had the opportunity to play AH. But all the additional reading I've done, and seeing the compositions of the encounter decks, has led me to believe that 1) this criticism is probably basically right as regards the original game, but 2) this seems to have been addressed in the expansions, or so a lot of people say. But I don't want to blow all the money it would take to buy the expansions in addition to the original game, and in any event I won't often get the chance to play a three-hour-plus game. Hence I don't own AH.
By now you've guessed: I'd like to know whether ATOE falls afoul of the problem identified above in AH. Suppose for a moment that the theme appeals to me, but not so much that I would play it for that alone. Suppose I also want the game to work as a game - I want to make choices, not have the game make them for me. Would you recommend ATOE?
Feel free to be as open-ended as you want in giving me advice; I'm working from not much information here and would appreciate any contribution you'd like to make.
Posted Mon Oct 6, 2008 10:43 pm
