The first thing that strikes you about this game is all the bits. I mean, there are a LOT of bits. They all work together pretty well, though. I need to play it more to really decide if I love it or just like it.
There is such a thing as a game being TOO balanced, and I think Alien Frontiers is it. The final few turns just seem too close, regardless of what has happened earlier in the game. The more I play it, the less impressed I am with it. Also, the Shipyard mechanic is just way too important in the game; if you roll no pairs for the first four turns, I truly believe you are screwed.
Rating after one play. It' VERY reminiscent of both Lost Cities and Battleline. Problem is, if I'm going to play a two player game, I'd rather play a long list of games over this one. It just doesn't seem to offer enough that is different to me.
Rating after one play. I feel bad about giving this game a 6. If I had played it 8 years ago, I would probably have given it an 8. The problem is, this game would always be eleventh on my list of 10 games I want to play. It's perfectly fine, and suffers more from the fact that it is coming way to late to the tile laying game party to really be the life of said party.
Rating after 1.5 plays at GenCon 2010. The end game book is a really neat idea, but the game play up to that point seems directionless. Maybe if you played a lot you would learn the value of which floors to explore and when? I'd definitely play it again.
Only played via computer implementation. I'm surprised by how much I like this game. I love the turnover concept, and the way it forces you to seriously consider the order in which you take actions on your turn.
I love this game, but still haven't figured out the strategy. Spread contributions out, or concentrate? Go for scales, or not? Use all your cards or save some? I've played a number of times now and still don't have a feel for it.
Wow, I loved this game. I didn't expect to; my expectation going in to it was that it would be overly complicated and simulation-y. But it is neither. Sure, it's got complication, but all the complication seems to be DOING something; it's not just there for bragging rights.
Rating after only one play. It is very fiddly, but it seems like a much better game than I expected. The basic problem of finding the best path to get the most gems each turn is interesting, and I want to play more. I expect my rating might increase to 8 if a second play is as fun as the first.
Rating Based on only one play. It might grow on me with more plays. It seemed like a fun game, but it hit the same buttons for me as Ticket to Ride, so I'm not sure owning both would be worth my time and money.
At first I really liked this game, but after more plays I like it less. I would rate the two-three player version a 7.5, but the rating drops with more players, simply because it takes so LONG to pick roles, and people sit around doing nothing far too much.
This is a great looking game, but beneath the cool bits is a fun auction/set making game. I've now seen at least two different viable strategies in the game, so it has even more depth than I thought it might.
When I read the rules, I was worried that the combat would make the game way too random. But in fact, there wasn't really that much combat. As Ares and Poseidon can only be played by one person each a turn, the game is much more about managing your wealth and winning the right auction at the right moment.
I don't think it is a very good two or three player game, so far; playing it with that number seemed meh. My two five player games were much more fun. That being said, the finishes so far have all been, to my mind, quite random as to exactly who won. TIf every game ends with that much randomness, I think I will not like the game in the long run.
This one is a hard one to rate. Do I think it is a great game? Yes, one of the best many player games. Will I ever play it now that I am 40 years old, long out of college, and don't have 10 hours to spend backstabbing my friends? Not a chance.
It's three hours long, so it probably won't ever be a top game for me simply because I would so rarely be able to play it. However, of all the multi-player long games I know of (Twilight Imperium, Game of Thrones, etc.), this one is the best. I really, really, enjoy this game, even though my brain hurts and it frustrates me no end.
Probably the best card game ever made. Now that I have played a LOT, I find that the game with just the base set has finally (after playing literally hundreds of times) gotten a bit stale. This is no criticism of the game, in fact it's a testimonial to how good it is. But I have reached the point where I need to throw in Intrigue for it to still be totally fun. Intrigue, mind you; I haven't even begun to plumb the depths of enjoyment of the other expansions.
I love the fact that this game has almost no random elements, except for the initial placement of the 8 boards. And yet, it doesn't feel abstract at all, even though it really is very abstract. Only French version for Trade, not English.
Rating after one play at GenCon. It seems fun, and I might give it an 8 if I played more, but there didn't seem to be much depth for strategy, and Lord of the Rings the Card Game scratches the same itch better.
Rating after one play. I feel bad about giving this game a 6, because it really is a pretty fun little coop. The word "little" is the problem, though. It just felt like there wasn't much there, especially when compared to Pandemic. This game is very similar to Pandemic, but Pandemic isn't so much harder than this game that I can think of a situation where I wouldn't choose to play Pandemic over this one. However, maybe with more players and higher difficulty I will like it better.
A blast from the past game that I played for the first time 26 years after it's creation. Not quite as old school as it first seems when you pull out the dice and Ral Partha figures. At first I though, "Oh great, Talisman reprise", but it's really not bad at all. There are dice, but in the end what really matters is positioning and speed. If I'd played it in 1985, I probably would have given it a 7.
Because of better integration of the theme, this game seems less sterile than the similar Pillars of the Earth or Caylus, and the theme is cool. I traded it because it just didn't sing for me (and because I got something really good for it) but it is a good game. Only played as a two player game.
I'm surprised by how much I like this game. It is so very, very, random, and yet it doesn't bother me that much. I need to play it more to really decide my feelings on it. With more plays, the randomness might get too much, or I might see areas for tactics and strategy that weren't immediately obvious to me.
I've only played twice, and keep getting my behind handed to me. For some reason, in any diplomacy-based game I play, people just mistrust me big time. Ah well; it is a great game, but just takes too much time and too many people for me to rate it higher.
I can't in good conscience give this game better than a 5 because it just isn't my style of game at all. In fact, if it weren't Discworld, and had a typical boring fantasy theme, I'd probably only give it a 4. Strictly as a game, it's better than Talisman, but not so much better I would get excited about it. Sort of a high rent neighbor to Talisman.
That being said, the art is great, the card quotations are funny, and my girls and I laughed like crazy while playing, especially every time the luggage ran over someone, so that's worth something.
Rating after only one play. I liked this more than Tikal, of course I won, so that helps with my opinion. It just seems more streamlined than other, similar games; all the extra not-so-cool stuff has been sliced away, leaving only the cool center.
Rating after one play. It seems like a Frankenstein monster of a game, with bits from all sorts of other games (Thurn and Taxis, Blue Moon City, Ticket to Ride, etc.), but the combination feels unlike any of it's influences. If I play more, I may raise to an 8.
I like it a lot so far, but suspect it will pale with multiple plays. I'd love to try with all five players. Every game I've played so far has been very close. I'm not sure if this is because we were all playing equally well, or because it doesn't really matter how you play.
Rated a 6, but 0.5 points for nostalgia value, for all the times I played it in college. There really is a good game in there, but the problem is that if everyone is playing skillfully, the game will go on FOREVER!
Theme is usually not that important to me, but in this case, I really like the theme, and tips an otherwise ok game into the pretty neat category. Cries of "Jambo" fill our house whenever we play. And we play a lot; I think it i my 13 year old daughter's favorite game.
It reminds me a lot of Race for the Galaxy, except without the "race" feel. I think I like it better than Race, even though in my first game I forgot that you took poverty for every card in your hand at the end...lost 21 points!
I'm convinced...this is the new Thunderstone for me in terms of a strong desire to buy up all the cards I can. This is a fantastic coop game; deep, very evocative, and tense. Difficulty 4 on the 2nd Scenario has proved to be difficult indeed with the starter decks.
Super Stratego! Very tense game. I prefer the base edition over the deluxe, because the extra bits in the deluxe don't seem that good to me, the art on the original edition is better, and the box is much smaller.
A fun game, once you get past all the fiddly bits and figure it out. Has a fair amount of strategy, but also a fair amount of luck, especially in the mission cards you draw. Not a game for people who like simplicity; my wife decided she hated it about the time I had explained the third of four different decks of cards.
After only one play. I like the building up that happens, it's visually cool to look at (although the board and color selection is just plain horrible). It reminds me of other area control games, but the ability to both add a controlling piece and at the same time cancel out an opponent's makes it a bit different.
What I'd like to do sometime is come up with a totally different game that uses the same pieces as Masterpiece, but is actually a game worth playing. Until then, it will continue to gain dust on the shelf, more a collectible than a game.
Rating after only two playes so far. This game makes me wish I hadn't spent all that money on magic cards back in the day. What a fascinating game! I love the asymetrical nature of it. It seems very deep, and I want to play it a lot to learn more. I suspect this will go to a 9 before I am done, and that's with only 130 cards I got through math trading.
This is a game where every choice you make seems to make a big difference. Simpler than Puerto Rico or Louis XIV, both of which it feels a bit like while playing, and with less player confrontration than in either of those games. It also plays FAST, once you get the hang of it. Plays well at any number of players.
I really didn't think I would like this. Cooperative games...meh. But this one really is a lot of fun; it does a good job of building tension and making everyone think. And with 6 epidemic cards, wow, it is hard!
Only played twice. One reviewer said that it felt like the game was playing itself, and I agree with him. Most of the time there are several equally good moves, with no real reason to pick one over the other.
Rating after two plays. It could be an 8, or it could be a 6, depending on whether it is really a very light strategy game with dice, or a random dicefest with a hint of strategy. It is a good looking game.
I've played it a whole lot now. At first I loved it, and then I just liked it. I think the the bit that soured me slightly on it that eventually cropped up is that it really is a race. If you treated as a civilization building game or a deep strategic game, you will lose. The goal is to win fast, not build lots of stuff and get lots of points. It's the card game equivalent of a real-time strategy "twitch" game.
Definitely a thinker, not a social game. People are very quiet while playing Samurai, and there is can be a lot of analysis paralysis. But the elegance of the rules and the interesting choices to be made make it a favorite for me.
I like the way, in comparison to Race for the Galaxy, that you must choose actions jointly among the players, instead of pick the thing you want from your own set of action cards. However, I think I would rather play Race over this almost every time.
Rating after one play. Another game that, if I had played it five years ago, I would have thought was fantastic, but now, with so many good games in the world, I found simply enjoyable and fun. I do like the nasty streak in it, and the way you really do have to pay attention to what the overseer might want out of the irrigation step.
This game is much more my style than Formula De. 1st, I much prefer the "do the best with what you have" idea of cards in Snow Tails over the "gamble on the dice" idea of Formula De. 2nd, dogs and sleds are just a cool theme. I like the way the curves force you to drift, and the bonus speed mechanic adds another layer of depth.
Rating after one play. It's a good game, but doesn't really have anything new to it, it seems to me. I can't seem myself buying it or playing it a lot, compared to other games I have. I'd rather play Notre Dame over this in every circumstance.
It seems like a cool game, with surprising depth for what is essentially chess with dice. However, I'm worried that the depth is just a red herring, and really it's about who gets the champion down first and then rolls better.
I've decided I like it more than Dominion, but in a different way. Dominion is faster, and more analytical; the goal is simple. Thunderstone plays out in stages and thus feels deeper, even though it might not be. I've already purchased three expansions and counting.
I wouldn't exactly call it a "deduction" game; deduction implies that there is some preexisting truth that you are deducing, and that doesn't happen in Tobago. But it is unique, and I bet it would be a fantastic family game, although I haven't played it with a family yet.
Rating after only one play. I think the rating will go up if I could play it more often; the first game was mostly figuring out what I was doing. I like the dice mechanic for action selection, and the ability to buy other people's dice. It's like Yspahan on crack. It feels less dry than Caylus, but I think Carson City is probably a better fit for me.
I can see why this game has ended up as the top wargame. Game play-wise, it is very elegant and smooth, with all kinds of tough, tough choices. Theme-wise, you really feel like you are seeing the Cold War unfold on the table in front of you.
Rating after only one play. Wow, this is a weird game. I liked it a lot, but it is strange. The whole Island mechanic, where the different types of vikings are in different rows, is counter intuitive to the theme and hard to explain, and the scoring is simply bizarre. But the wheel is just incredibly cool. My rating is liable to drop with more plays, but at first glance I was very intrigued.
Rating based on multiple plays many years ago. I remember this as being a fun game, but difficult for the fellowship to win. The newer War of the Ring game is clearly better, but this one was very good for it's time.
Rating after one play. I enjoyed it tremendously, but wonder if it plays well multiple times. Corruption can KILL the Free Peoples...I should have figured out the average corruption before heading in to Mordor.
Rating after one play. I would probably rate this a 7 if it were just me. It's fun, and pretty to look at, but nothing particularly challenging or unique. However, it is a game both my non-gamer wife and non-gamer daughter thought looked neat, and actually wanted to play. For that, it gets an 8.
I really don't like this game. I only play it because other people force me to, and then they lynch me. It can be ok if people are treating it more like a humorous, high interplayer conflict, rules-lite RPG than a party game.
It seemed a bit trivial to me, and the damage cards seem overly random. It is neat how the planes fly around, but I'm not sure there is enough tactical interest in it to make it worth playing often. It's no Ace of Aces, that's for sure.
Rating after one play. The role selection seems cool on reading the rules, but in practice it seems too chaotic to really matter; all that really matters, I suspect, is whether the person to your left goes first, and you have little control over that.
Rating after only one play. It get an extra 1 rating just because it is so big and pretty, and sometimes you just want to play a big and pretty game. Other than that, sort of like an improved version of Talisman. I'd play it again, but I wouldn't want to play it often.
The way the dice work is very interesting. I'm a bit worried that there isn't really all that much strategy to the game; it seems like it's either camels or neighborhoods. I do like it, just not as much as other, similar games.