When I first came across Endeavor on this site, I quickly dismissed it. While it was a colonial game of expansion, and I do enjoy those type of games, I was not impressed by the board - it seemed chaotic and unattractive. Then when I looked at the player mats with their size and darkish colors and I didn't want to take a second look. But eventually I did give the game a second look, and a third, a fourth, until I eventually purchased it. I am glad I did! What follows is a review of the game from what I liked about it - I do not go into the rules since that has been covered in previous reviews and can be downloaded on this site.

I must say to start, the game is not unique in its theme. Others have done it and done it quite well - most notably from my collection, Age of Empires III (AoE). In fact I would say the theme is actually played out better in AoE. And I would have preferred a regular map rather than what's in Endeavor. However having now played it 6 or so times I see its brillance of this game and its design.

First off is the time it takes to play. They somehow managed to take a game that is dripping with strategy and completely open information and made it play in a reasonable time frame. One thing that drives me nuts are games that take 4, 5, 12 or even more hours (Civilization) - most of us have lives, wives, children, work, etc. I have played this game with 3, 4 and 5 people. The 2 five player games were completed in just under 2 hours - including rules explanation. The guys I played with were really impressed with that considering the meat of the game and the fact that most games we play clock in at 1.5 times the time shown on the box.

Second is the strategy. I really don't think this game can be "solved". There is no one way to win. No matter what area you concentrate on, it hurts you in other areas. If you concentrate on jumping up the building track you will sacrifice somewhere - probably in not having enough population to use those buildings to their maximum extent. Go up the people track and if you neglect banking, you will be basically forced to use the war action to make use of all your people. And war - just like in real life - is very expensive. In other words for whatever good action you decide to excel in, you are going to fall short in another area.

Third are the components. I will admit the board is not what I would choose, however I may well be in the minority here. Most people really like it. It is important for me to say I don't dislike it, I just like regular maps better. But the way the board is laid out with the shipping tracks, the cities and the cards is pretty close to perfect. It is not cluttered but yet utilizes space extremely well. I would have preferred city names (and I think that would have added just a little to the theme), but that is so minor that at this point I am just nitpicking, The player boards are large and maybe could have been done just a little differently to conserve space, but again that is a nitpick. Functionally every component in this game speaks perfection.

Finally the game is just fun, and easy to learn. You start off slowly and numerous times people say how quick the game is going. But then as you reach the last couple turns you begin to see this game blossom and you find out how your strategy and tactics worked out. Also I have not seen any runaway leader problem. Sure there may be times when a person falls way behind early and it may be hard for them to come back (but not impossible), but I don't have a problem with that. It just means all the turns are important.

I have found this game pretty much universally accepted by the people I game with and my family. I have played many games and I would say this game comes as close to perfection as any game I have ever played. I only have one thing left to say - if you haven't tried it yet, you should endeavor to try endeavor.

I have to disagree with you here. I'm also in the minority, mostly I suspect because I tend to play under not quite ideal lighting and the board isn't terribly bright, especially where the connecting lines are concerned. An annoying flaw with the board is having a N.America connection point sitting in the Caribbean and the other 2 swinging through the Caribbean and Indian backdrop graphics respectively. The 'New Orleans' - 'Tunis' connector is particularly annoying as the curve runs in parallel with the 'Madrid' - 'Nassau' one and with the counters or pieces in place I find myself having to recheck everything when contemplating occupations or attacks in those areas. None of that was necessary, there is plenty of space in the 'North' if you swing the N.American shipping track a bit, so perfection in graphics still awaits.

There is one space where the beginning of a shipping track was close enough to a "connection" token that the connection token was mistaken for the first space of the shipping track. My wife said "You have to start on the first space!"

I didn't like Endeavor.

It's a game that falls into the "pushing pieces at each other" genre. As I was playing, I felt like I could have gotten the same experience if I played the game over the Internet with people pushing pieces at each other, and if I want to physically meet up with others, I'd like to get more out of the meeting.

For me, I want more social interaction in my games. Since the game state changes between players turns, many times, players found that their planned move was taken by one of the previous players, so they must re-plan at the start of their turn.

These things are not unique in Endeavor, but they were embodied by the game. If I want to get together with people to play with them, I'd like to directly interact more.

This is a situation where the BGG ratings fail me. I do believe it is a well-designed game and I can understand that many people will like this game. But, since BGG ratings are based upon personal interest in replaying (and I don't want to play it again), then it would have to get a low BGG rating for me.

That said, I also didn't like Caylus or Stone Age or Dominion. So, take my opinion as _my_ opinion.

So you want a game where other players' moves don't cause you to change your own move?

I think that rationale was more of an aside to his main point, which is that Endeavor isn't primarily socially focused in the vein of games (Castle Panic) that he's found to be more in line with the characteristics he looks for in his current gaming session. At least that's the impression I get.

To that point, though (as in, the other players' moves interfering with one's own strategy), I think that the issue isn't so much that it occurs, but that it limits the future scope of one's decisions. For instance, in Thurn and Taxis, one of the abilities that players can utilize completely "reboots" the available cards to be obtained. That makes any future thinking strategy mostly moot; instead, you take on the mindset of taking each turn and reacting to the state of the board as it is. Different mindset, nothing wrong with it, but it is disconcerting for players who would prefer to attempt to strategize and plan ahead.

I'm curious about this, because (from your videos) you seemed to quite like, say, Agricola. There, also, the game state changes between player's turns (You took the wood!). So, I'm genuinely curious - what do you like in Agricola (which has the same type of game-state changing) that you don't like in Endeavor?

Funny that Scoot mentions "you could play on the internet" - The perfect information aspect of the game makes it well suited to play by forum -- there are 13 or more PBF games that have started. Not sure how many are active.

As I said in another post, I can see how Scott might not be thrilled with the abstracty / low social aspect of the game, the interesting decisions are enough to keep me interested. Though there is the "hey - why did you attack me?" social interaction


Brian

I take it no one did any attacking in your game? That seems pretty interactive to me.

Let me make a comment based on this one that may or may not relate to it depending on how well I have understood your point. Endeavor, if played well, should be full of negotiation and interaction. Not to imply that you have not been playing well. One thing I found after a few games was that the more I cooperated with others, the more sucessful I was. I actually remember Carl tipping me off to this in my very first game but it took me sometime to appreciate it. The more you agree to go after areas together and cooperate to work through the draw deck, the better off your position. War is critical to balancing a leader, and the more your coordinate your attacks strategically, the less expensive and more balanced the game is.

So in brief, as it relates to the game, there ought to be continuously negotiation and interaction if you wish to get the best out of the game. Admittedly though there is quite a lot of planning and calculation involved and perhaps that detracts from your experience. If so I acknowledge that fact, this is primarily a game of planning. Good comment.

That's an excellent point.

Some gamers get annoyed when other players make suggestions or try to negotiate with each other. Personally, I think that's part of gaming, particularly with multiple players. And especially where there is opportunity to directly impact certain players. There's a lot of room for negotiation and cooperation in this game, and if you aren't doing that sort of thing, then it may seem dry and boring to you.

This was my thought exactly. I really like both this and agricola. They do share a common degree of interaction, yet you like one and dislike another based upon that criteria?

that seems odd to me.
Or can it be that your tastes have changed since your agricola review?

Tim

But with more player interaction.

My tastes have changed.

I find that many times, in games where there's no social interaction, I am asking myself.. "Why am I doing this? Am I really enjoying this? I'd really like to be doing some activity where I could get to know something about the people sitting around me and socially engage with them."

I could see that the game would be different if the players talked, threatened, cajoled, and negotiated (on the other hand, Diplomacy is also not one I like, as it encourages too much stabby stabby).

But all we did was push pieces at each other. In the game that I played of it, nobody talked. Attacks were done quietly and carried out without discussion. There is interaction between pieces, but no social interaction was required. I might as well have been playing against several AI components, as it felt like I was playing an online version of a board game against the computer.

So, I think you hit it - my tastes have changed. When I look at games on my shelves to pull out, I find that I tend to leave the ones that don't have as much social interaction. Agricola, for me, is a bit of a roleplaying-make believe game. I like playing farmer, and I can wrap my little creative brain around that. I don't always make choices that work toward optimizing points; I like to make choices that make sense in my little farmer world.

Also, I don't think I've quite figured out what my changing tastes are, so I can't really engage in that level of discussion at this point. I do recognize they are changing, as I lose patience much more easily with games nowadays. I find that 80% of the games I play immediately move into the "I never want to play that again" pile.

But I know that the 90 minutes I spent in silence pushing pieces at the other players and brooding about my next move in Endeavor didn't provide me with an enjoyable gaming experience.


I think if you look at the sort of games I've been covering over the last year with BGWS, you can see more and more of them have social elements, and I've moved further away from this type of classic euro game design.


Cranky old gamer Scott

p.s. My tastes are just that... mine. Please make your own decisions. I wanted to offer up my view as to why this game fell flat for me.

I think it's time to get a new game group, Scott. Your old group has clearly just gotten boring.

Seriously. This game is chock full of interaction, negotiation, threats, retaliation, and table talk.

Well, just my 2 cents, how about play "Say Anything"?

Hey guys - I wrote the review and Scott gets all the comments and quotes. Man, that's just not fair! (Hey, I'm kidding here).

I don't understand nor agree with Scott's comments, but that's ok. I am finding that people are different in many ways and one of those ways are what games they prefer. Even in our gaming group I have noticed wild swings in the type of games we like. Some prefer open "information, absolutely no luck" games. Others almost feel luck is a necessity. Some love cooperative games - others rate almost all cooperative games a 1. And even my wife absolutely despises them and refuses to play them. Others love train games to the point that if that was the only type of game in the world, they'd be more than happy.

The point is that we differ in what we like. But Scott mentioned something that is a point well taken that we may have overlooked. Note the following:



Maybe an additional rating could be used - I hear some people groaning right now. But haven't you ever played a game where you recognized the genius but just don't enjoy the game? One example of that for me is Tigris & Euphrates. While I see its genius and great design, I just don't enjoy the game. It seems like work rather than fun. If I could rate it on game design it would get a 9. However because I don't like to play it, I simply can't rate it high. There are others games I feel the same way about.

So I see his point - even though I don't completely understand all that he said. There is definitely interaction in some of the games he points out. Caylus? You gotta be kidding me - no interaction? Folks, if someone takes a spot you wanted, that is interaction. I think he meant more "verbal" interaction and possibly negotiation.

The bottom line is I'm right and he's wrong. Simple as that. (Actually I didn't know how to end this so I thought I'd try to be funny -

Yeah, that's why I said social interaction in my original post. Someone else clipped a portion of my post without bringing in that term, so it became just "interaction". That's what happens when someone gets too clip-happy.

In my model of games, I put forth a number of types of interaction. There's interaction within the Game State, which is what Endeavor has. There's social interaction between players in relationship to the Game, and then there's social interaction between players external to the game.

90 minutes of silence = no social interaction, which is what I experienced in the game. I'd be willing to try it again with people who talk and some libations.

Since I wrote this model, I find that I reflect more upon different types of interactions, and recognized that I like games that have social interaction that is brought about through game situations.



As I've said in each post I've made.. this is my opinion about my taste. I wanted to offer a counter-example of 1 case to your original review comment that the game was for everyone.

I am realizing that my tastes have shifted off of the BGG "norm". I have thought about ending my show because of this, but then I figured..heck, I'll just cover what I like, and folks can enjoy it or not based upon their own interests.

So, when's your video review on Endeavor coming out?
(see, that's a way to end it that's funny...)

You know some of my friends have called me out before for rating things like Powergrid a 2 because realistically I might try it again if forced and that is somewhere in the 4 range. I have since upgraded Powergrid because I enjoy the interactions of the 2nd power plant deck and some of the newer maps.

But my rating was based on the fact that I didn't enjoy the game at all (especially to start). I thought it was too long for what was in it, didn't see more than one strategy, blah blah blah. I see a bit more in it now, but not much more and I really have to be in the right mood to play it. I respect that others really like it.

But should my rating of it be based on whether I want to play it again or what I thought of it. I think in part it is always going to be both, but my scale doesn't have to be the same as BGG. I doubt that most people even use the scale at all. I think the scale is just a guide, and clearly you can rate a game based on what you like. A lot of people just rate stuff with a 1. Others just rate stuff with a 10. In fact some people rate it either a 1 or a 10. But the point is you don't need to follow the BGG guide IMO.

So Scott I'll be expecting you to up your rating any day now.
(I haven't had any wine but I still think I'm funny)

Well said Scott - tastes are tastes and are very individual. Never trust another person's review of anything until you have read, seen, heard or played it yourself (etc...). Even Scott's, though I love his videoblog.

Ah, that makes sense; that wasn't something I had considered as a difference between Agricola and Endeavor.

It isn't easy going against the general opinion; I appreciate you offering a different perspective.

Alright, take this.
I recently put this game on my radar, checking out what others are saying about it. Reading your review was the 'last nail in the coffin' so to speak. Its a done deal. I'm getting it.

Thanks for the review.



No no no. Lets not get all crazy here, don't even suggest it.

The rankings are simple, and they work fine. The forums here on BGG are also the perfect place to investigate for yourself if a game is something you are interested in.

Personally, I use the rankings to see what other people are playing, then I read reviews exactly like the one you wrote to decide if its something I should purchase or not.

Peace, Out.

Edit: I just realized we have a name in common. Coincidence - For others reading, there is no relation.

2nd Edit: Oh and Scott, thanks for all the effort you have put into your video reviews. Your video reviews have helped my lots in the past when deciding if there is a game I should purchase.

It's your opinion, and far be it from me to try to change it, but do you think there might be something to the idea that you might enjoy games like this if you played with people who are more sociable?

We just played a 5-player game of Endeavor this afternoon and there was quite a bit of discussion, smack talk, character revealing, and negotiation. I would imagine it was almost the complete opposite of your experience. Same game, just different people.

If I don't enjoy a game enough to replay it, yet I can see that there is nothing inherently flawed in the system that is causing the problem then I .... just don't log a rating. I'm not going to play enough to come to a rational conclusion, so it seems a bit ridiculous to warn people off for an emotional response which they are hardly likely to share. If I had rated Endeavor after a single play it would have been a 7 (solid, but unexciting). After 4 plays it started to shine.