I'll play almost anything, once. How much further play the game sees is largely about how much I don't like it. When it comes down to it most games are at least playable. So this review will start with a game description, move to what I don't like, and finish with whatever I think is outstanding.

So...

Lost Cities

Collect the best sets of cards in up to five suits.


If you reckon you know your way around how Lost Cities works, you can skip the dry boring Contents and Rules Overview bits, and go down to the guts of What's Not To Like, and What Stands Out.


Contents

+ A deck of 60 cards in five suits, oversize (2.75"x4.25" / 7cm x 11cm), standard card stock, full colour.
+ A board, Z folded, being basically designated places for five discard piles.
+ Rulebook.


What's in the box? (And, for that matter, the box.)

The cards are black bordered and covered front and back with scenes evoking the ambience of exploration. The relevant information on the cards is the digit or icon shown (like standard playing cards) in the top left and top right corners, allowing fanning in either direction. The artwork in each suit depicts a progressing trail of an "expedition" for that suit, and in a nice piece of graphic design each suit's scene is colour dominated to make the suit colours... a yellow dessert suit, blue underwater, green jungle, white snow, and red firey lava.

Minor component gripes...
+ I'm not fond of like dark-bordered cards. They look great for about ten minutes, but show up usage very quickly.
+ The cards being as oversize as they are, your kids may have trouble shuffling the deck.



Lost Cities Rules Overview (You can of course skip this bit.)

Objective Balance your commitment to an appropriate subset of five possible suits so as to maximise points.

Setup Shuffle the cards thoroughly and deal 8 to both players.




Layout The layout provides the structure of this game. There are five discard piles which players share, one pile for each suit. And the players each have their own space to develop a face-up run in each of the five suits.

A Player Turn... Play a card. Then draw a card.

Play a Card in ONE of the following ways:
+ Discard a card face up on top of the matching suit discard pile
+ OR Start a new face up suit they haven't yet started
+ OR Add a card to one of their own existing face up suits

+ Each suit includes three multiplier cards, which can only be played before you play numbers in the suit.
+ When adding cards to suits, the new card must be higher than any card the player has face up in that suit. So generally players try to start with low cards, and when the high cards are played then the suit is exhausted even if lower cards emerge later on.

Draw a Card either from the top of one of the five face up discard piles, or else from the face-down deck.

Scoring when the deck runs out is simple arithmetic, but non trivial amounts of it. Each suit has to be calculated. If the player has no cards in the suit it's worth zero. Otherwise, add up the numbers, subtract twenty, multiply by the multiplier. A suit of 8 or more cards gets bonus points.



The board has one function... it makes a tidy layout obvious, which helps make the game structure even clearer.


Notes On Play Feel
Players will observe each other, and what you see will influence what you do, but there's no direct interaction.

The twenty point penalty on each suit you start drives much of the feel of this game. It means, if you start a suit you are commiting to playing at least three and probably four cards in that suit just to break even. Since you only get to play 22 cards during a hand, it's extremely unlikely you'll break even in all five suits. If you do start all five suits, you aren't leaving a lot of excess cards to actually score positive points with. Which all means you have to pick your suits carefully.

So you'll want three suits. Sometimes you want four. But which three or four is the question? There's not enough space in your hand to expect to develop a confident combination of cards before starting a suit. It's especially tough for your opening choices, which are largely guesswork from what's in your hand. As the hand develops, your opponent's plays will give you clues about where they have strong cards and this can guide you somewhat on which third or maybe fourth suit you might start. And furthermore, there ARE only five suits... two players, five suits, but you want three or four each? There's going to be some... competition.

Discards are also interesting. Every time you discard you forgo the opportunity to add a scoring card to your display and thus your final layout will have one less card than your opponent. Of course, they sometimes may choose to discard as well. And if you discard suits you don't want, you're probably discarding cards that help your opponent.

Even the multipliers require careful consideration. They aren't worth points on their own. Every multiplier card you play is also one less actual number card to score with. A display with only three suits but with 9 multiplier cards is likely to score fairly poorly! Balance is needed.

Which all adds together to make some crazy indecision moments. Start a risky suit? Discard a card (sacrificing points and probably helping your opponent)? Or give up waiting for the "8" or "9" in your best suit and play the "10" now, thus closing your option to play more to the suit later.


Rules Complexity
I assess in order to play Lost Cities you need to learn about 7 basic pieces of info before you start, with about 11 in total. You need all 11 concepts by the end of the first hand.

For comparison:
Ra: 10 .. 14
Chess: 9 .. 12
Settlers of Catan: 12 .. 19
Puerto Rico: 20 .. 31
Ticket to Ride: 11 .. 11
Bohnanza: 9 .. 9
Carcassonne (H&G): 8 .. 11



One of several fan designed accounting sheets, to help tally scores.


So What's Not To Like?

So after all the "irrelevant" waffle above that I hope you skipped if you weren't interested, here's the juicy bits...

Theme? The "theme" here is only as good as your own creative imagination. The gameplay makes no attempt to replicate any functional aspect of the game setting. The back of the box teaser, which is also the introduction to the rules, starts:
"For the daring and adventurous, there are many lost cities to find and explore. The search can take you to the Himalayas, the Brazilian rain forest, the ever shifting sands of the desert, ancient volcanoes and to Neptune's Realm."
Nice plug on the (excellent) artwork there, but nothing to do with the game play.

It's a Card Game. This is a Card Game. This is not a "strategy board game". You could play it with a standard deck of cards, if it wasn't for the fifth suit. An importer of games told me the inclusion of a board in a game box changes the tax category and makes it cheaper to bring into the country. "Oh", I said, "so that's why there's a board!" And being almost a "standard" card game, it's unlikely to wow you with a sense of uniqueness or sparkle.

Low interaction. You can't attack, rob, trade, or in any way directly interact with each other.
Though what you do will influence your opponent's decisions.

Luck is a significant influence in this game. The obviously worse player may well win hands. You can't win a hand without enough of the high cards to score with, or rather you can't win if your opponent has the flexibility of having all the high cards.
Generally, Lost Cities is played over a series of hands which tends to balance this out somewhat.

Too much shuffling! A hand plays fairly quickly. The nature of play sorts the cards. Then you need to "unsort" them before the next hand.

Too much math for some people. Having finished the hand, you're likely to spend more than a few seconds adding up the scores. Some people prefer games where the score is a little more immediately obvious, such as on a score track or just "I have the most money" or even "I'm the last one standing". This is not those games... you will have to calculate the score.

Very little strategic depth. It's a card game. It has luck. Each hand is quick. Instinct and many plays will help a player learn to win more often, where strategic analysis may yield little insight.

Burnout! A lot of people (myself included) comment that while they had a bit of fun with this for a while, eventually the same sort of gaming itch was scratched better by game X.
X is different for different people, which speaks to the fact the Lost Cities has a combination of characteristics all it's own.

Rinse and repeat. The lighter and simpler a game is, the more likely you are to feel the play becoming repetitive. Lost Cities sits well within this category.
Of course, many cultures include some simple traditional game/s that fit this description but are played religiously.

Price. It costs how much? For a deck of cards!? Bleah.



Cards cards cards cards. (Card backs.)


So What Stands Out?
Despite some seemingly damning thoughts above, Lost Cities maintains a steady following and a top 100 spot. Key points make this the right game for the right people at the right time.

It's Two Player.

Ambience is infused in the artwork. Each suit, the lowest card shows the beginning of a trail of exploration which slowly expands until the climactic discovery of archaeological artifacts when you reach the final "10" card. Since the cards are played in increasing sequence, each suit draws closer to its ultimate goal as the hand progresses.

It's a Card Game. While being "just a card game" might be a downer for a die-hard strategy board game player, this signficantly improves its perceived accessibility to non-gamers and casual gamers. "Oh, cards, yeah lots of people play cards... ok I'll have a go."

Very simple rules add to the accessibility.

Intuitive skills. There is in fact quite a degree of skill to winning more often than your neighbour. It's the kind of skills that don't yield easily to analysis, though a few basic pointers can start you off. But it means more casual gamers are more likely to have and develop those skills on par with the die hard strategy analysts.

Non aggressive. Your fates are entwined. But you can't actually play destructively to your opponent's position. The best you can do is manage to deny them cards they want, and even that requires you draw those cards in the first place.

Addictive. The flip side of "rinse and repeat" is that, for such games, more people tend to find them mentally relaxing and addictive.

Quick. A hand of lost cities takes only a few minutes. You'll want to play several hands for a game, but that means 20 minutes is quite viable.



Each suit of cards progresses through a single scene, showing a detail portion from start through to destination.


Overall Lost Cities is often touted as a "gateway game". The usefulness of this thought depends on "gateway to what"? Lost Cities is not a strategy board game, so it can't be a gateway to strategy boardgaming. But it might be a gateway to playing "non-traditional" games.

Even more, "Lost Cities" is often cited as a "girlfriend" game, which I believe is a misdirecting comment. It's simple, accessible, admits skill but has lucky outcomes, potentially acceptable to non-gamers... male or female, friend or lover. When you get down to "what kind of game should I try for my girlfriend" it's much more important to ask "what kind of person is my girlfriend" rather than getting caught up in the supposed list of "girlfriend" games. Equally, don't be specifically put off if you're wondering what to start your husband on.

Eventually, you are likely to stop playing Lost Cities, as we have. In the meantime, you are likely to get (at least) multiple playing sessions of one-on-one time with someone, and possibly another notch in the "we play games together" cane. Take it as light fair and enjoy it for what it is... a simple card game with hidden nuances you can explore and improve on, yet a game which anyone can and will win even with disparetly skilled players at the table.

It's all a matter of taste. I've found myself playing Lost Cities more and more over time. My rating has gone up from '7' to '10' between the time I first rated it and now; I can't think of any other game that has had such a positive change for me.

The key for me has been getting pasted by better players (sure, there's luck, but a better player can win two-thirds or more of the games.) This always made me want to understand what the other player knew that I didn't.

... and SKILL.

Skill-intensive players are underwhelmed by LC therefore they will prefer to play other games.

I've found that many of the players who say Lost Cities doesn't require skill are not very good at playing it. You may well be the exception, Dan, but I agree with Eric. There is a great deal of skill involved in good play, but the skills involved seem very difficult to teach.

I've never played, but one advantage - It makes a good camping game. You could even take it backpacking. A game like settlers, while not very heavy or big, wouldn't work since it is hard to set up on a picnic table and has lots of small bits.

Brian

Isn't it traditional, when agreeing with something, to refer to the first person in a thread who said it?


Just watch out for the breeze.

btw the whole 2P Kosmos series comes in those small-ish boxes.

Dan was replying to Eric, and I was addressing that reply.

(Just making a poor attempt at humourously saying I agree with that thought as well.)

Amazingly (to me, anyhow) LC gets played at my house more than any other game. It is not my favorite game, by far, but when the time is right, it is the perfect game. When is the time right for me?

- Only two players available.

- Short time contstraints.

- Haven't played LC recently.

I've been prone to dismissing LC, as initially we would often play a couple games back-to-back, and I'd say 'phew, I think I've had enough of that game'. But then, after letting a couple of weeks go by before playing again, I'd say 'you know, I actually really like this game a lot'. For such a short game, it really gives me a delicious little brain-burn. I just have to force myself not to come back immediately for a second serving.

Oh, and for those who think interaction is low, they haven't seen somebody's face when their opponent discards a red nine right after they layed down the ten on their tripled red expedition. I love the whole conflict of 'how much of my intentions should I expose' vs. 'how much time do I have' vs. 'how can I maximize screwage of my opponent'. Mr. Knizia created an elegant little gem with this game.

Your review nails it as usual - keen and precise. I'm fairly sure that if I had read this review before buying the game, I would have decided against the purchase. I particularly like the "gateway to what" comment, the "nice plug on the artwork but no theme" comment and the "this costs how much?" comment. For me, there just isn't enough of a game here. The math-scoring seems laughable (and I mean that literally - I want to laugh when the rules say I can score between -80 and 156 per suit). Still, I am aware that the game can be played with skill, as others have noted in this thread. The problem is that everything that turns me off about this game (and it's quite a gaggle of eyebrow-raisers) saps any desire I might have to get better at it. For a simple yet intense and surprisingly subtle two-player Kosmos game, I'll take Odin's Ravens any day.

Crap, Joe. You've written one of my upcoming reviews for me. AND you've done it 10 times better than I ever would have! Thanks! DAMN.

That's a theoretical range you'll never see in a real game. So what?

LC is a pleasant little card game to pass a small amount of time. As such, it does it's job incredibly well, and has subtle qualities that aren't immediately apparent to some. But thanks for the Odin's Ravens tip (and review - I just read it). I'll pick it up. I need more quick two player games to lengthen the time between plays of LC.

Another clear example of interaction in Lost Cities is game speed. Game speed affects the effectiveness of strategies, and game speed is under the control of the players. Early in the game, people often want to delay, but there comes a point (often with 20-25 cards left in the deck) when you start to wonder whether you'll get to do everything you need to do.

Typically, one player will be hurt more if the game ends quickly, and will gain more if it lasts longer. That player has an incentive to prolong the game (for example, by picking up discards) while the other player has an incentive to end it quickly (by taking cards from the draw pile, and by not discarding if the discard piles are small.) This balance can shift (most notably when a player starts a new color and thus needs more time to make the new color pay off.) You have to rush or delay as appropriate to your situation, and it's not easy to know when to do which (especially if your opponent bluffs.)

Odin's Ravens is excellent - glad you found the review useful. Jambo is another enjoyable two-player Kosmos game in my collection, but if you've ever been involved with the CCG scene it will inevitably seem like a nicotine patch for those games..., which isn't necessarily a bad thing .

Also, I can't say enough good things about Mr. Jack. Maybe that will break up the LC addiction a bit

Somebody should post a parody of the LC scoring that involves a toggling through some algebra inequalities...

Believe me, there is no LC addiction here. I can get downright sick of it - moderation is the key. I'm with you on Mr. Jack and Jambo. They're both in our after-dinner rotation, along with LC, Travel Blokus, and San Juan. I've given the CCG scene a wide berth until now, but I'm getting a taste, with Blue Moon. I'm pretty sure there's a good game there - it just hasn't emerged for me yet.

There is something about this game I'm not able to figure out... the high score, the large majority of positive oppinions (hence high score)... the "skill", the "difficult maths"??? Is it because it is a Reiner Knizia game? And because Reiner Knizia (RK) is Maths Doctorate? I truely think RK is highly overrated (just like this game). There is nothing skillful about this game, and the maths is not difficult (are we all getting mentally lazy?).

Could please anyone tell me what skill is required to play this game well? I own this game and I try to avoid playing this game, but when I play it I win most of the time! I regard myself to be a fairly skilled player, and am in my playing group mostly the primary target for damage, but I don't feel this game pushes my skills to any hight... I actually feel that if I play this game too often I'll start losing skill...

I'm amazed for someone giving this game a 10... must be a matter of taste... otherwise, could someone please explain?

Excellent review by the way...

I'm the most humble player in my group.

No one is as humble as I am. If anyone thinks otherwise, than let's have a humble-off, I'll out humble you so fast it will make your head spin.

Pedro, I felt the way you do, and then I went to some conventions (like WBC) and got absolutely blown out by better players. Not only did they beat me well over half the time, but they had different playing styles. I tried to learn ... and then I joined brettspielwelt.com and got blown out even worse.

You might try brettspielwelt. Play some games against good players. If you win more than half your games there, you're probably right about your natural ability. But maybe you'll learn something.

There is absolutely a skill to playing this game.

It's all about bluffing and taking control of when the game ends through your burning through cards or milking the discard mechanism.

As for whether it's a strategic or tactical game I'm kind of on the fence about this. The way you play a round is very much determined by what cards you get in the initial draw. This would indicate you may not be able to form a long strategy for the round.
I would say it's a very tactical game but if you don't go into each round with a strategy you will get trounced.

I tried typing out some examples but as has been said it's hard to explain exactly how the skills set that serves in this game plays out. It a kind of nebulous thing...

The gist is that you must go into each round with a valid strategy and attempt to fulfill that but have the tactical mind and willingness to abandon that if things don't go your way. You must make this decision sometime in the "mid-game" so that you don't get screwed holding cards you wished you'd played nor do you have a bunch of random expeditions you started and had no real chance of completing.

The overall strategy, as I said before, is that once you are in a good spot in terms of points -more than your opponent- then burn that deck like nothing else. draw cards and discard to things that don't help your opponent. If you have a run of great cards in your hand then slow time down by drawing from the discards to prolong the game as much as you can. Remember the game ends when the last card is drawn from the deck. If you need time to play your 5-10 run of reds then slow time by picking up discards. If you already completed your massive expedition(s) then burn that deck and try to discard things that won't help your opponent.

Is this game random? Yes.
How you take advantage of that randomness or how you let it control your card play is the difference between a skilled player and a fumbler.

Skilled player wins every time, guaranteed.

Honestly, if you put down 3 Investments without even having a single card in that suit, you're a pretty damned poor player.

I'm an advocate of the game, but that statement is over the top. There is of course a curve, with a small advantage in skill generating a small majority of wins, and a large skill advantage yielding a large disparity. I'd say the skill to luck factor is about the same as in cribbage.



True.

Ok, "every time" was being a bit rhetorical but you get my point.

I made a copy of this game using two decks of standard playing cards that had outlived their usefulness for poker play. The jacks, queens, and kings became the investment cards, the aces were discarded, and an extra set of cards 2 thru king from the second deck got a little sharpie attention to become a new, fifth suit. Every one of the five suits then got a little wash of color from a colored marker to make it stand out in a nice, obvious way. I considered printing out my own versions of the card images, but that turned into a lot of work and a lot of pasting or laminating...not really worth it plus it would make things very difficult to shuffle.

If you drew from a covered pile (where you couldn't see the back of the deck before drawing) you'd have an even easier time of it. You could just get five different styles of playing card, or even use Uno cards.

This is one of those games that is easy to make and play at home, which makes the market price of it all the more shocking. It's like paying someone to play Liar's Dice or Tic Tac Toe or Hangman.

I've got to disagree with you there. The cards look really great. The board is kind of pointless but it does look nice.

I'd say it's worth between 12 and 15 bucks for a set of cards with some great thematic artwork on them.

To each his own. I don't mind paying 12 to 15 bucks or more for a set of nice cards for some unusual game, but when the game attached to them is so simple it can be played with a slightly modified deck or two of regular ol' bicycle cards, something is wrong.