-
Brad Cummings
United States
Connecticut
-
Hello Everyone,
This week we are trying a slightly different review format. In this Gabe and Brad Review, we both give our thoughts and opinions about Tikal for iOS. We hope you enjoy the meshing of opinions that this format will provide.
The Stats:
Compatibility: iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch.
Current Price: $4.99
Developer/Publisher: Codito/Sage Games
Version: 1.0
Size: 30.5MB
Multiplayer: Yes, local and online.
AI: Yes, Varying difficulty levels.
Itunes link:http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/tikal/id430920838?mt=8
AI/Single Player experience
Gabe: I respect the fact that Codito gives six different AIs to play against. I have to assume that the five with predictable styles (warrior, prophet, builder, warrior, healer, and princess) are mainly there to allow the user to determine what kind of player he wants to play against. But for the experienced player, only King (the highest setting) really matters. I'm not a big fan of playing against AIs in general, I much prefer the skills, vagaries, and unpredictableness of real human beings. When I actually complete a game against the AI I will let you know.
Brad: Being new to Tikal I started out with an AI game. I chose Builder and Prophet to play against, thinking 3 players might be a good number to start with. I really found the whole single player experience a little disconnected and vague. I think Scott Nicholson put it well in his blog, “It presented this wide open game space to explore and allowed you too many options at once. It would be like playing Go, and you got to place 5 stones per turn - just too many options and too much change between turns.”
The AI players seemed to ignore me and compete against each other, allowing me to gain a better score. I am sure with the more difficult AI they will play more competitively. I do wish the app had a better built in tutorial. I was a little bit disappointed that I had to read through the text rules. Yes, if I owned the physical board game I would have read rykes, however, the standard for iOS board games seems to be video or interactive tutorials.
Multiplayer on 1 device (iPad)
Gabe: This works adequately, but not great. As Pass N' Play, each player has to rotate or be handed the device to use the same orientation. I think Codito missed a great opportunity to put the info for each player on each side. They did it in Ra and I thought it worked great there. I know this is not important to some who simply outright reject the idea of playing face to face at all and would just play the print version. But for those who don't like Tikal well enough to own the print version and like Face to Face play on the iPad, perhaps they can add this as an option for a future release.
Brad: As I do not own an iPad, I cannot add to Gabe’s comments on this subject. As for pass and play it seems to work well enough. Because most of the information is public, it is easy to pass from one player to another. This is definitely a viable play option but does not have any great advantages over the physical game (unless of course, like myself, you do not own the physical version).
Online Multiplayer
Gabe: <Sigh> Oh Codito. I'm giving an incomplete on this one. It seems so promising. And in theory I am absolutely fine with a 2 human-player limit. But the app suffers so much from hangs and stoppages where neither player is able to take a turn, that I simply can't even consider this a working feature. I've suggested it in the past, Codito should slap a big 'ol "BETA" sticker on their online multiplayer feature. It would be a minimal effort to reduce a lot of disappointment and frustration felt by their users.
Brad: I agree with Gabe on this one. The multiplayer has the same hiccups and disconnects as we saw with Ra. I think it is essential that iOS board game apps launch with online multiplayer if possible, even if it has a Beta label attached. However, it is important to make sure it is in working order. First impressions count and if players have trouble playing a game online, they could stop playing it online all together which starts a vicious spiral leading to a completely dead Open Feint server.
Graphic Design
Gabe: The Spielbyweb version uses the graphics from the award winning print version, right down to the wooden octagonal cylinders. It's a great effect. Obviously Codito can't do that, or at least didn't get the license to do it, as they are probably working with the game designer and not the publisher of the print version (AbacusSpiele?). The graphics that they came up with are pretty good. Compared to the Spielbyweb version, it took some getting used to but now I like it. I only have minor complaints like the tents should be wholly colored in a hue of the player's color, not just tiny dots on the corners. The star on the leader is great idea, why not continue this on the worker as well and place a small round colored halo around them?
Brad: I think graphic design is one of the strong points of the Tikal app. Yes, they cannibalized the menu layouts of Ra, which I was not a fan of, but I can see that they are becoming a Codito staple and I can accept that. I found the logo very cool and the menu background and boards very refreshing and interesting to look at. Though it cannot rival some of the big boys, I think this is a major improvement over previous apps from this developer.
User Interface
Gabe: Overall, I think it works pretty well. The menu screens are becoming common Codito fixtures. I can appreciate the similarities here with their other games. Why reinvent the wheel right? Unfortunately I still think that setting up a multiplayer and AI game is far to cumbersome. Why doesn't it feel this cumbersome in Carcassonne? I'm not going to go into all the differences, but, in short, I think Codito gives perhaps just one too many options when it comes to identifying each player. Does each player really need a color, an avatar, and a name?
As far as the UI for gameplay goes, I think it works adequately. They could have really taken a lead from the Spielbyweb in the UI dept. Spielbyweb has a great move calculator that highlights all of the possible spots to which you could move your worker and gives you a calculation preview. Codito's iOS version does not have this. They could have presented such a preview whenever you click your worker or leader, but instead the only feedback you get is the vehicle enlarging a little bit. Again, it works but they should have studied up a bit more on the good points of the Spielbyweb implementation. The treasure exchange interface on the other hand I think works quite well. I like they fact that they didn't try to shows the actual treasures in the player displays. Instead they just put a number at each position. Very understated and very appropriately done.
Brad: I agree with Gabe in that the menus work well. As I said, I think they could be more graphically interesting, but they are clear and easy to navigate. As a new player I found the user interface of gameplay very difficult to navigate. On the small screen of the iPhone it is often difficult to make selections of different elements on a tile whether it be a worker, a tent, a temple, etc. This is coupled with perhaps the most sluggish zoom system I have ever used on iOS. Oft times to get a clearer view I would zoom and then try to pan, but the pan either moves slowly or does not move at all. The list of treasure under each player’s name is confusing at first, as well, but with a play through it becomes clear what each number means. I do not mean to sound like the game is unplayable, because it is very playable and very interesting. However, there are few issues that make it hard navigate.
How does it compare to the physical board game?
Gabe: Again, it's a shame that they could not use the graphics from the original board game. It is one of the most beautiful board games to see and touch in person, but I think they did an admirable enough job. For $4.99 and having it wherever you go, can you really complain about an alternative take on the graphics?
Brad: Having never played the physical board game, I will defer to Gabe on this one.
How does it compare to other Codito games? How does it compare to other iOS board games?
Brad: Tikal is in many ways a step forward for Codito. I felt like the game was pretty and, for the most part, well laid out. They tried, in my opinion, to fry a bigger fish this time around and succeeded in some ways, while coming short in others. The task of displaying a large board on a small screen and allowing zooming still need to be perfected. The biggest disappointment for me was the state of the multiplayer. Most everyone railed on Codito for the multiplayer offering in Ra, heck, that was practically the theme of my review, and yet we have a new game with some of the same issues.
Codito is going to be releasing some heavy weights over the next year and I would love to see them go toe to toe with some of the all-stars of iOS board games. Tikal is a good game, and offers many features such as multiple AI and many multiplayer options. However, I still think it is missing the polish that allows other games to shine. I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
Gabe: It compares really well with other Codito games. It's great to see Codito working on games that have no hidden info. Unfortunately, it also currently shares the other bad qualities of Codito's online multiplayer games, that the online multiplayer is too buggy. Again, if you want people to swallow something that is buggy and incomplete, then be upfront about. Call it BETA and then I think a lot of the negative reaction goes away, in fact maybe even becoming a positive.
In Tikal, Codito has not reached the bar that some other iOS games have set. In the user interface dept they are right there. But in the graphics and online multiplayer categories, they come up short. Right now Carcassone, Neuroshima Hex and Small World (for everything but online multiplayer) and Samurai (with great online multiplayer) really set the bar for iOS board games. The collection of minor issues taken together also combine for me to knock it down another point. I give this 6.5 out of 10 stars.
Rating:  2/4 Decent
|
|
So I went and got the board game instead!
