After having played Android I was wondering how in heavens they came up with that game idea. It probably boils down to a brainstorm session somewhere in a very colorful place with some designers bathing in a pool of psychotropic drugs.

I can even imagine this brainstorm session taking place:

-------------------------

"You know, we need a new game... a groundbreaking, breathtaking game... one to enter the hall of fame and glory of all times. But we have a problem: all good themes and mechanics have been taken, what do we do?"

"Hum... I need some inspiration time", then, after some hours thinking and a couple of drugs mixed in the bloodstream, returns: "... I know! We can make a detective game!"

"C'mon, there are dozens of detective games out there!"

"Ok... but what about a detective game that takes place in space? A futuristic space!"

"Are you nuts? What's the fun about it? It's like trying to mix water with oil."

"Ohhh... players will be able to travel to the moon... and this will be sooooo cool!"

"Ok, we might be onto something here but... detective theme? People are tired of deduction mechanics."

"Who said anything about deduction mechanics? We create a detective game where the crime doesn't matter."

"What do you mean? What have you been smoking recently?"

"Bear with me... players KNOW who is the guilty right from the start... then they just have to prove their hunches... and.... wow... that's great... we just call them HUNCHES. Great idea! They move around the board collecting evidences to prove their hunches... ohh.. this will be so great!"

"But then it's not a detective game anymore. It's just a stupid system to prove someone guilty and others innocent!"

"Whatever... players will be able to fly to the moon.... it'll be great!"

"I don't know, this sounds like an empty idea to me. How would players collect these evidences? You are not thinking about a boring roll & move system again right? We have lost millions on those last couple of games you came up with that stupid idea! Everyone is simply tired of Monopoly!"

"No, no! I've come up with something really great this time", then a big break for some more psychotropic drug use. "This time players will have small rulers which happen to be their cars and they'll be able to move based on the length of their cars-rulers."

"But isn't that simply worse than dice-rolling? At the end of the day, each player will be limited be the length of their rulers. It's like giving a die with 6 faces with number 4 printed on all of them!"

"Whatever... players will also have to take care of their own personal lives... before traveling to the moon, of course."

"C'mon! You're going too far. Are you going to make players mind every-day chores like house cleaning and shopping?"

"Of course not! We give them this great plot deck where they have to struggle to balance their lives based on their choices."

"Sounds fancy. How would it work?!"

"Simple: players have options like 'should I go to the supermarket?' if he decides to do so, he gets GOOD BAGGAGE, otherwise, he gets BAD BAGGAGE. Then we can have hundreds of baggage markers that will go together with other hundreds of useless colored markers!"

"I give up. You've been too much on drugs again. Last time we released a game you designed on drugs, we were sued by the Human Rights, remember?"

"Those sissies... can't find enjoyment in small things."

"Small things? You designed a game about killing old people in cruel and coldblooded ways. How big is this new game of yours anyway?"

"Small... of course... something around 1.673 markers and a big dark board with very difficult to read texts and symbols plus color-codes... lots of cards too... all different of course and also two dozens of character sheets."

"Sounds American enough. Now we are getting somewhere. And how long would a session take?"

"Very short too. Around 18 hours... if players are very, very fast of course."

"You know we'll never be able to play-test this thing right?"

"Whatever, the public will love it anyway... remember: players will go to the moon! That'll be great!"

"Ok then. Go forward with it but this time let's make it a success. Put some carcasone-like, you know, tile-placing mechanics somewhere in the game. It's a sure shot at least!"

"Great! I'll call it a CONSPIRACY PUZZLE!"

-------------------------

UPDATE: Pictures of Android being played with OUR own house rules after trying this game as it should have been: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/34188/item/889751#item...

And this is a review of what?

It must have been produced on some stronger drugs though.

Agreed, not much of a review, but I giggled. I haven't had a chance to play this one yet but it looks like it could actually be quite amazing once you get past the idea that you're basically framing someone.

You can either think that you're framing someone or that some suspects have stronger evidence against them than others and thus your hunches may prove to be correct or incorrect (but if they're incorrect you're not that good of a detective so it's more probable that you will lose )

Ok this is not a standard review, although i points out a few aspects a review should: Concept, Components, (weird) game mechanics, playing time...
I like this review because i played the game, did not like it and think: Yes, this article could indeed be an actual description of how this game was born... ;)

Everyone has a dark side... ops... isn't that what Android was all about?! Damn, I should have had stronger drugs while playing it

You're right, Tiago. You should've...

I know my rating of the game, based on the same session you were in, is one point higher than it would have been without the six-pack...

I just want to say that I completely agree with Tiago's "review", although I think the framing-mechanic is one of the good sides of this game. And it's still pretty bad.

First, thanks for the review - it was a fun and entertaining read.

Second, my disclaimer (or confession of ignorance). I don't own a copy of the game and probably won't get one due to the restrictions of my playing group (stroke patient who struggles to read lots of text) and the fact that a maximum game session for me is limited to a couple of hours.

The majority of this post I have already made to Neil Thomson's Android Session report.

And finally, the reason for my post...
I've been reading this sort of thing a lot about the evidence mechanic and I have quite a different take on it.

I think we've all been conditioned by games of Cluedo and reading about Hercule Poirot into thinking that's how crime and punishment works in real life. We think we can exercise pure logic and deduce the guilty party. In fact if you think about it real investigation is about finding different bits of evidence about different suspects and asking a jury to make a decision on the balance of probabilities. This is exactly what happens in Android, so I think it's much more realistic than a deductive process would be.

I also don't buy the argument that we are talking about a fit up (necessarily). Sure, you can imagine it that way if that fits your conception of the character, but it is also possible to imagine that you are finding out about the movements of your suspect and building a case against him/her. The fact that you have a hunch about who it is will bias your investigations into how and where you look for evidence, but again I think this is an accurate simulation of real life. After all, if you were a detective and you had a strong feeling that a particular person was guilty, why would you spend the majority of your time doing anything other than investigating that person?

If you wanted to, a game where the guilt of different suspects was decided by a narrow margin could be seen as a miscarriage of justice, or that they were accomplices but there was insufficient evidence to convict both - whatever would enhance your experience of the story. After all, such things do happen in real life.

I can be easily convinced that this framing system is into place, that all characters are corrupt and, as such, do not care about the real murderer but are simply trying to frame someone based on their hunches. I might be even convinced that this is what happens in real life (even though I would prefer to believe in justice and those nice utopias). The question is... put in simple words: it does not work that well in the game.

Might be explored better in a future title though.

I can't comment on the game as I don't own it. Opinion seems divided quite strongly, and yours is certainly as valid as anyone else's.

However I want to be clear that I do not believe the evidence mechanic in Android has to be a frame up. In real life a detective will have an idea (or hunch) about who did it. They will obviously spend the majority of their time investigating that person and building a case. In real life the guilty person is decided 'beyond a reasonable doubt' - not by the application of pure logic and deductive reasoning.

I don't mind the way the text is written, I know that this game is "hit or miss" and there are a lot of people who don't understand the theme connections to the mechanics, but this shouldn't be in "reviews", it should be in "general".

This does not help anyone to understand what the game is about (what I think is the purpose of a review), except that the poster believes it was designed by someone under the influence of drugs.

OK, wrong category, i am with you there!

Welcome to the American justice system.

The way this game determines "guilt" is far more realistic than your favored deduction games.

Nice review. It was informative for me and re-enforced why the game isn't for me.

Ok, what is with this whole 'Framing' thing? I guess I get what people are saying, but really, is it that hard to get that your character finds evidence and the player decides who it applies to?

What happens in the "story" is:
"Caprice just found evidence that strongly incriminates Tiago"

The mechanic for deciding that the evidence was strong was the random tile draw that gave a 4.

The mechanic for deciding that the evidence was against Tiago was player choice.

*The fact that this element of the game doesn't bother me should in no way be construed as a recommendation of this atrocious wreck of a game.

Tiago compared the car measures to odd random dice - its really not. You could have had hexes or something on the board and a move score. But if you'd done that, you could actually plan your move on someone else's turn and wouldn't have the fun arguments when the ruler barely reaches something. Its an exciting mechanic that combines the worst of boardgame movement and measured movement.

Am I to understand that someone thinks allowing players to go to the moon is a selling point? Really? If so, check out Risk 2210 A.D., this is your game.

Not having played the game, this review did help me get a better image of what the game might be like, so I think it counts as a review, just not one that reviews every single aspect of the game in depth, and it doesn't draw a clear conclusion as "the innovative mechanics fail to produce a great game". More something like "This game is fucked up, if you like fucked up games, you might like thisone".

As it has been pointed out, this "review" was written after one session... Sorry, but that's not enough to get a clear idea of how the game works.

Anyone can mock something they don't understand, as for its usefulness: I'd say it's none.

I beg to differ: A game that takes that long to be played, better leaves a good impression right after the very first game! Otherwise there are a lot of people - like me - who will not like it. And so i think a review after just one game is extremely useful. It did not klick with the reviewer after one game, so chances are it will not klick with me after one game... i call that useful information.

Instead of drawing lines in the sand, can we come to the understanding that different people adhere to different paradigms when it comes to games and their reviews. Nah, didn't think so - *ducks for cover*

Using that reasoning, most session reports should be filed under "review."

Except that this is as much of a review as saying: "Kevin Wilson was wearing light blue boxers when he was designing Android!"

OT, but: Risk 2210 AD is actually the only Risk I've tried that I'd be willing to play again. (And before anyone asks, no, the reason is not the Moon.)

But you already knew that, so this review isn't really offering anything new.

I can see how some people need instant gratification, if so, this is not the game for you. You've got to put some effort on your part to enjoy the game. If you can't or don't want fine, but don't blame the game for your impatience... or for not being what you wanted it to be. Just play something else...

I don't agree, I think you get a pretty good feeling of his thoughts on the game. And kind of funny too.