|
|
There are those games out there that you hear a lot about, the kind that you have always wanted to play, and are excited by the prospect of actually sitting down to try it out. Such was the case with Settlers of Catan, a game that seems to be highly rated by many who have played the game, and thus was on the gaming radar for some time. Sadly, this game doesn't come close to the hype heaped upon it. In fact, this is a game that has very little going for it once you get past the expectation. Created by Klaus Teuber in 1995, Settlers has been something of a board game phenomenon since, with a legion of players, and a number of expansions, and game system clones created in the past 13 years. In that respect it reminds me of Monopoly. Wait, it reminds me of Monopoly in another way too, just how awful this game is. So what exactly is Settlers about? It is a game where players collect resources to build towns, cities and roads, and to amass armies, each worth points toward winning. Sounds like a game where there would be a descent level of strategy involved in gaining and managing those resources doesn't it? Sadly, this game quickly throws player thinking by the way side in favour of a game with layer, upon layer of random luck determining the victor. The game starts out so promising too, having a modular board, that is laid out each game, giving the initial board a different look each play, which should lead to the need for some different strategies too. The modular board is the best aspect of this clunker. However, the board pieces are then assigned numbers from two to 12, although there is no seven. Players then get to place two towns and two roads onto the board to start the game. After that a player's turn comes down to rolling a pair of dice. If you have a town adjacent to the territory with the number that comes up on the dice, you gain resources. OK, do some quick math, with seven off the board, six and eight are the most likely number to be rolled, so guess where you better place your town if you can. Now for the seven, when that number comes up, and statistically it will come up most often, it can be used for players to turn resources over to the bank should a player have too many, or it can move a random 'robber' piece to actually steal resources from another player. Yep, randomness on top of randomness. There is also a deck of cards one can draw from, another aspect of the game in which players have no control over the outcome. This is a game where you need different types of resources too, wool wheat, iron ore etc., and a player can end up shorted out of one or more depending on where their towns and cities are placed. There is a trading option between players, but that is likely to come down to players cooperating to overcome a clear leader, and hardly adds to giving good players the win. There is just way too much randomness for this game to be taken seriously. That said, everyone stays in the game until there is a winner, which is generally a good thing, although you might wish you could lose out to go watch a television test pattern in the case of Settlers. This is a game you might see referred to as an entry level sort of board game, one that is great for introducing new players to the hobby. Yes, you can teach the rules quickly, but you aren't exactly giving anyone much of a challenge. This is a game about rolling dice, drawing cards, snoring a bit and rejoicing when it's over. Leave this one in the store.
|
|
|
Don't know about this one… I've played Catan for years, and although there are games I find more interesting nowadays, I still find this one quite solid. There's tons of luck in this game, but not much more than in others.
Seems you undervalue the value of trading in this game, which is the main idea of Catan as I see it. It's not just to overcome a leader, but to balance what you need against what your opponent's need, how likely he is to get in specifically your way and risk management.
I can see the game being a snore if you don't trade, though. There's where it's got a lot in common with Monopoly. I'd sure snore my way through a game of both if all players just refused to trade.
|
Massimiliano della Rovere
|
I agree with you.
Catan *was* a great game when it was something new, but now I consider it flat boring.
It is great maybe to teach child to non-violence and at most obstructive challenges, but it has done its time.
|
|
|
I think you are quite right in stating that Settlers is basically a game of luck, with a little bit of strategy (what do I do with the resources lady luck gave me?) and player interaction. Even town placement has not the strategic importance one may think. Just three days ago, we played a round of Settlers where, over the entire game, only the numbers 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and a single ten were rolled. 5 and 9 being rolled most often. That's right, folks, about 50 die rolls and not a single 6. Your theoretical strategic options are reduced by the (random) ressources you get. Yeah, theoretically, I could choose if I want to expand my road to the shore, building a harbor, or if I want to upgrade my settlements into towns. But with i.e. a shortage in wood or bricks, the harbor-strategy fails even before it is initiated. This makes the game basically luck-dependant. And more: It reduces the need for a tight strategy. You got to make some decisions based on the current situation, but if you make an unlucky decision, luck may just favour you next time and get you back into the race. So, is this game of randomness and limited options a bad game, then? Certainly, if you're into heavily strategic games. If you favor Chess, Abalone, Samurai, or a good Wargame, stay away from Catan. But, there are people who just want to play a bit without making each turn a deep thinking exercise. The kind of gamer that likes Pachisi a lot, or Ligretto, or Yathzee. Luck-driven games with something to decide, but not too much focus on strategy. Looking for the interaction with other players, talking when it's not their turn, having a good time as a group while doing something together. For those, Catan is the perfect past-time. And something in my guts tells me that this "casual boardgamers" may be the majority of people. Heck, even I am "casual" now and then, because my brain has times when it just plainly refuses to work on something like Chess. I do get tired sometimes, or want to have a good time talking with friends over some light entertainment we enjoy together. That's the perfect time for a round of Settlers. [Edit: Spotted a typo]
Last edited on 2008-12-10 04:01:24 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
|
|
|
Talisinbear wrote:
OK, do some quick math, with seven off the board, six and eight are the most likely number to be rolled, so guess where you better place your town if you can.
Because 6 & 8 are more likely to be rolled, they are also the main targets for the robber, so building on those tiles isn't the huge advantage you make it out to be. Talisinbear wrote:
This is a game where you need different types of resources too, wool wheat, iron ore etc., and a player can end up shorted out of one or more depending on where their towns and cities are placed. There is a trading option between players, but that is likely to come down to players cooperating to overcome a clear leader, and hardly adds to giving good players the win.
I find it odd that you only mention trading once in the entire review, when trading is the single biggest factor in the game. The whole POINT of the game is making deals. The person who makes the best deals almost always wins. As for ganging up on the leader, that is also a key strategy... you need to stay under the radar until you are in a position to make the final push for the win.
|
|
|
Talisinbear wrote: There are those games out there that you hear a lot about, the kind that you have always wanted to play, and are excited by the prospect of actually sitting down to try it out.
...
Leave this one in the store.
What other games do you like?
|
|
|
Yes - - there are random elements in this game, but then the same applies to poker.
You could substitute the dice for a more predictable randomness by using the "event card" expansion, but that just turns the game into one about expectations, when with the dice, your either excited or exasperated, which is the key to the joy of Settlers.
I have played it 15 times and only won once; yet a friend who does not play many board games has won 4 out of 4 of those games. The strange thing is, his day job is as a strategic planner, and he is very clever (after I think about why I lost many hours later) with controlling resources thru trading and non-trading. So, personal experience suggest to me there is more than random luck going on.
I think people get upset with the randomness because they don't change their original strategies as the game progresses. They wait for the dice to roll back into their favour, whilst the winners tend to make the most of the resources they get given and change plans accordingly.
On average, a good poker play will win over an average poker play. Its the same rule with Settlers.
I really like this game; despite the fact I am seemingly hopeless at it.
|
|
|
Funny review, I am on the other side of the fence, I was excited for this game and I love it. I like dice based games and enjoy the luck of it all. To me chess is just plain boring, and I am consider to be good at it and I use to play a lot but compared to games I have found here ( say settlers ) it just seems so boring and slow. I use to play a lot of cribbage on line with a friend back home but after teaching him carc and settlers we play those instead.
All I know is the better player usually wins and I see a lot of skill involved with the whole aspect of the game ( what locations to pick, what your going for resource wise, how to mess with the other guy, where your going and for what reason, and figuring the best place to go based on #'s that are always different. There is usually one resource that is scarce, knowing that is controlling it can be the difference between winning and losing. ), but yes there is luck involved ( dice rolls but also what development cards you get ).
|
|
|
Calvin, Don't try backgammon -- you'd hate it. Even though backgammon has  strategy, short & long term (same as SoC) blocking (same as SoC) and lacks several paths to victory (like SoC) it involves dice.
|
|
|
masdero wrote: I agree with you.
Catan *was* a great game when it was something new, but now I consider it flat boring.
It is great maybe to teach child to non-violence and at most obstructive challenges, but it has done its time. The same thing could be said about pretty much any game listed on boardgamegeek Yes, games are more fun when they're new. If they weren't we'd only ever need one game. I'll always be a fan of Catan in particular because it was THE gateway that got me started on this hobby.
|
|
|
Talisinbear wrote: There are those games out there that you hear a lot about, the kind that you have always wanted to play, and are excited by the prospect of actually sitting down to try it out.
Such was the case with Settlers of Catan, a game that seems to be highly rated by many who have played the game, and thus was on the gaming radar for some time.
Sadly, this game doesn't come close to the hype heaped upon it.
The hype from 13 years ago? Sure, there's better stuff now. It could be argued that Catan deserves some of the credit for that. Talisinbear wrote:
In fact, this is a game that has very little going for it once you get past the expectation.
Created by Klaus Teuber in 1995, Settlers has been something of a board game phenomenon since, with a legion of players, and a number of expansions, and game system clones created in the past 13 years. In that respect it reminds me of Monopoly. Wait, it reminds me of Monopoly in another way too, just how awful this game is.
That's trollish. Talisinbear wrote:
The game starts out so promising too, having a modular board, that is laid out each game, giving the initial board a different look each play, which should lead to the need for some different strategies too. The modular board is the best aspect of this clunker.
Depends on who you play with. The trading aspect is probably the more interesting part of the game. Talisinbear wrote:
However, the board pieces are then assigned numbers from two to 12, although there is no seven. Players then get to place two towns and two roads onto the board to start the game.
After that a player's turn comes down to rolling a pair of dice. If you have a town adjacent to the territory with the number that comes up on the dice, you gain resources.
OK, do some quick math, with seven off the board, six and eight are the most likely number to be rolled, so guess where you better place your town if you can.
That's no secret. The 6 & 8 are colored red to indicate just that. And notice the dots under the numbers to visually indicate the increased probabilities. Talisinbear wrote:
Now for the seven, when that number comes up, and statistically it will come up most often, it can be used for players to turn resources over to the bank should a player have too many, or it can move a random 'robber' piece to actually steal resources from another player. Yep, randomness on top of randomness.
The strategy is choosing who and where to burn with the robber. This game is intended for at least 3 players. Talisinbear wrote:
There is also a deck of cards one can draw from, another aspect of the game in which players have no control over the outcome.
They all have a positive affect for the buyer, but you can choose to win without purchasing any dev cards. Talisinbear wrote:
This is a game where you need different types of resources too, wool wheat, iron ore etc., and a player can end up shorted out of one or more depending on where their towns and cities are placed. There is a trading option between players, but that is likely to come down to players cooperating to overcome a clear leader, and hardly adds to giving good players the win.
Sounds like the perfect mechanism to stop the dreaded runaway leader problem of many games. Talisinbear wrote:
Leave this one in the store.
Naw, play it at a few times. It's loads a fun at first, but like most games it will lose its charm after a while.
|
|
|
Looking at your game ratings list, you seem to be a big fan of abstracts and games with little/no luck. I'm not surprised Settlers doesn't appeal to you, given your taste.
This review seems a bit like test driving a tractor and saying that it's terrible because it isn't a car.
I'm not begrudging you your opinions, but it sounds like you could have watched someone play the game for 5 minutes and known that it wasn't for you. I guess I'm finding a long convoluted way of saying I don't think Settlers is a bad game, it's just not for you.
I don't like Wargames. They're long and boring, and the theme does nothing for me. I'd rather claw my eyes out than sit down for 6 hours of tanks, planes and infantry. That said, I don't think they're bad games or that wargamers are just playing crappy games because they don't know any better. Different strokes for different folks.
|
|
|
Totally agree. It was fun ten years ago. Now it's just boring and painful. Every game ends with a standstill of zero trading because one person is a single point away from winning. Eventually we are put out of our misery because someone finally makes the die roll which gives that person the resource they need so they can end the stupid game. I don't despise luck in a game but I depise it when it always decides the winner. Haven't played this in years....
|
|
|
I rather expected many would not like this review  But at least a few supporters
|
|
|
Talisinbear wrote: I rather expected many would not like this review But at least a few supporters I very much like negative reviews, they can be extremely helpful. The exaggerations here were just a little over the top.
|
|
|
"I can't believe [you rate this] so low. Must be a lot of gamers that aren't into game where intelligence with a dollop of luck are the key factors. This is a GREAT game."
To quote (and very slightly paraphrase) you from your comment on Trivial Pursuit on your games owned page, I believe that captures how I feel about your review of Catan. (Although I usually play with Cities and Knights.)
|
|
|
Talisinbear wrote: I rather expected many would not like this review It is not that I don't like your review (though I disagree with you on nearly every point). What I don't like is the lack of insight. Is there a luck factor to Catan? Certainly. But luck is one of many factors that must be considered when planning a strategy for the game. Luck also has probabilities. These affect placement. You say that the 6 and 8 tiles come up the most so are the obvious placements. There are 6 options on each of the 4 tiles that can be chosen from. And of those 24 options, each borders three resources and various neighbors. The variables that drive this game are many, but one of the least is luck. Backgammon has luck; Poker has luck; both are most often won by the best player. This game has far more skill and subtlety than your review, and most negative reviews, address. It is fine if you don't like the game. If you don't like it because of the luck factor, you are most likely not playing the game well.
|
|
|
Overall, good review. It's always nice to hear legit reasons why someone thinks a game sucks. Certainly beats reading 30 different reviews explaining in the same fashion why a game is so good.
It boils down to whether you like games like SoC or not. Regardless, not everyone likes the luck and the trading aspect of SoC, so I can understand that. It's still a cult favorite though. It really does have alot going for it the way everything comes together and all that is available. I don't play SoC much, if at all, but I still acknowledge it to be a great game.
|
|
|
Dave Davies wrote: Talisinbear wrote: I rather expected many would not like this review :D
It is not that I don't like your review (though I disagree with you on nearly every point). What I don't like is the lack of insight. Is there a luck factor to Catan? Certainly. But luck is one of many factors that must be considered when planning a strategy for the game. Agreed. I don't care that you didn't like the game, I don't need people to like what I like. Settlers does have a fair amount of luck. Good games find a way to mitigate the effects of luck and improve your odds. One of my favorite games, Arkham Horror, does this very well too. I don't think anyone here takes issue with you disliking Settlers, I think it's your tone that some may have issues with. But hey, it's a review of a board game on the internet, so no reason for anyone to get worked up. Some may like your tone, some may not. Again, different strokes for different folks.
|
|
|
For that matter, to some people "randomness on top of randomness" is an apt description of M:TG, which you've rated a 10 regardless.
Last edited on 2008-12-10 14:51:32 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
|
11. Thou shalt not play worker placement games.
|
"Luck" has been hung around Settler's neck for the last ten years.
Generally after the first turn or two in Settlers I'll size up my position and make a prediction on how I'll finish out the game. Based on my starting position and those first few rolls, I'll set a personal goal of scoring seven points before game end, or eight, or maybe getting the win. It's a mental tool I use to keep my head in the game even when it looks like I don't have a chance to win. And when I keep my head in the game, in spite of what appears to be defeat, it's simply remarkable how often I exceed my personal expectations and win.
Lose heart in Settlers, lose the game.
Keep your head in Settlers, win the game.
That's Settlers. Luck is just an excuse.
Sag.
|
ronaldinho @boardspace.net
|
While all the arguments for Catan are valid, the same type of arguments can be made for Monopoly. There seems to be a double standard when it comes to judging the two games on BGG.
|
|
|
Very, VERY shallow review. If you could call it that with a straight face. I was hoping for a negative review with some interesting, or at least amusing insights, which I would gladly thumb because I always find criticism much more informative then praising.. however what I got is a bland description of gameplay with a few closing comments on how awful the game is. It seems you either didn't play the game at all, or played one game and then decided to "review" it. Which is fine, if you actually had something interesting to say. Why did you hate it? Because it involves dice? Because you hate numbers? Because hexagons stole your lunch money when you were a kid? It just seems you wanted to tell your hatred for this game out but had been forced to add some padding in the form of rule description so this would be accepted as a review. Which it was, because Geekmod is obviously working as great as ever. Next time try to be more informative on why you think the game is awful. Comparisons with Monopoly and lame jokes like "I'd rather be watching test pattern on TV" can perhaps amuse some people, but are absolutely pointless unless there's an actual argument behind them.
Last edited on 2008-12-11 08:06:29 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
|
ronaldinho @boardspace.net
|
Quote: which I would gladly thumb I doubt it.
|
|
|
Why? Because I didn't thumb your own negative review of Catan?
Well, in retrospect, I'll give you that your review is much more thumb-worthy then this one. It's interesting though that this one currently holds three times more thumbs then yours, even though you gave out plenty of arguments and this one is essentially "This is Settlers. It's random. It's awful. Better look at test patterns. Don't buy it".
Go figure.
|
|
|
Posted Wed Dec 10, 2008 6:25 am
