Larry Levy:  Enough Yapping—How About Some Gaming?

Observant readers of this column may have noticed that in my recent efforts, I talk about designers, past games, future games—just about everything but today’s games.  The sad reason for this is that my gaming lately has been quite limited.  Trying to buy a house and sell two others will do that to you.  I know, my priorities are seriously out of whack, but it happens to the best of us.

Fortunately, last week I was able to clear some time and check out some of the new titles (well, new to me—the rest of you are probably planning your Nuremburg purchases by now).  Working on the desperate theory that everything hasn’t already been said that needs to be said about these games, here are some session reports, together with a few other relevant comments.

Caylus
Yes, three months after its release and six long months after Rick’s orgasmic preview in GameFest, I’ve finally had my maiden playing of The Next Big Thing.  It was a three-player affair, with one other newbie and another player with mild experience.  First of all, I’m not sure this was the best introduction to the game.  For one thing, I kinda played like my head was thrust up my hindquarters, with much flailing around and a few crucial rules overlooked (not once, but twice I forgot that it was the bailiff’s position, not the provost’s, that determines when Castle sections are closed down, spoiling some carefully laid, but thoroughly illegal plans).  I usually do pretty well the first time I play a game, but when it’s an involved and interconnected design like Goa or Caylus, it does take me a while to get my bearings.  Another issue with our game is that it didn’t seem very typical.  Only once did we push back the provost to deny a player a building action.  Moreover, there were very few instances in which workers were placed after the first player passed, even to take advantage of the Inn or a player’s own buildings.  It’s kind of like we were in lockstep.  I did finally get some strategy figured out and thought I had managed a comeback win after building my second Prestige building on the last turn while apparently shutting out the other two players.  Alas, I forgot about the construction line in the Favor chart and one player very nicely took advantage of that to snag his own Prestige building, giving him enough VPs to eke out a victory.

So, after all this time, what did I think of it?  I thought it was very good.  I’m not ready to call it the greatest thing since Puerto Rico, but then again I wasn’t ready to call PR the greatest thing ever after only one play.  For the first half of the game, I was enjoying myself, but not really feeling that engaged.  Then the penny dropped somewhat, and I began to see the potential.  One very good sign is that I’ve been thinking about the game ever since we played, and I don’t do that very often at all.  So it wouldn’t surprise me if future playings raise my rating.

The game weighed in at just about two hours, which is pretty long for a three-player, but far from excessive (our three-player Reef Encounter games take about that long).  However, I really didn’t feel that time was a factor because there was next to no downtime.  Sometimes you had to pause to consider your strategy, but often it was just a matter of seconds.  Thus, we had a game of planning and strategy, but with interspersed actions (keeping everyone involved) and not too much agonizing over any one action.  In a game of this length, I think that those two features are good ones.  After it was over, I felt as if I had had a mental workout, but I didn’t feel drained, the way I often do after playing a long, heavy game.

You would think that getting this to the table for more plays wouldn’t be an issue at all for the #2 rated game of all time.  However, Caylus really hasn’t grabbed any member of my game group and a number of them have complained about its duration.  This is quite surprising, given that we have a wide cross-section of gamers, quite a few of whom have no problem with longer games.  Maybe I’d be reticent too if my first play had been with four or five, but I’m surprised all the same.  Hopefully, enough people will give in to my abject begging and I’ll be able to give the game the additional plays I think it really needs to be properly evaluated.

Right now, I have it rated an 8, maybe even a high 8.  That’s quite good for just one play.  If the strategy turns out to be as rich as it seems it might be, and the time factor doesn’t rear its ugly head, this could easily go up to a 9, or maybe even the big One-Oh (although that would make it only my fifth 10).  On the other hand, if I find I’m agreeing with my group that the game is just too long, it could fall.  At present, though, I’d have to say Caylus doesn’t quite live up to its hype, but it’s pretty close.

Elasund
I mentioned last week that I was hoping to get to play this new design and my wish was granted.  First, let me confirm what others have said:  this has little to do with other Settlers games.  Thankfully, it also reverses a recent Teuber trend of designing very low interaction games, such as the other “Catan Adventuresâ€? game, Candamir, and Anno 1503.  (I actually kind of like Anno, but it has much less interaction than I usually prefer.)

Our game was with three and it worked well with that number.  Like most of Teuber’s creations, this is well designed, with interesting decisions presented throughout, and seems to be well balanced.  I think the building permit mechanic works quite well and utilizing your Influence cards properly is quite important.  Although the dice add a little luck to the game, I don’t think it detracts from the design at all and actually serves to keep things dynamic.  In a real departure from most of Teuber’s games, this one is openly confrontational.  You have to be constantly aware of weaknesses in your building structure (particularly the buildings which yield you victory points) and either take steps to shore up those weaknesses or be able to defend attacks made against them.  This is not a game for the faint of heart!

In our game, I had placed 8 of my VP cubes, including VP buildings on both of the double windmill spaces.  I was able to fend off an attack on one of these buildings, but I couldn’t hold back the forces of evil gathered at the other one.  One of my opponents then used these to make a master stroke, wiping out three of my buildings and replacing them with a 2 VP behemoth!  It cost me four cubes and effectively ended the game, as we couldn’t stop him from building a Church tile on the next turn for his tenth VP.  It was a dramatic and well executed ending, although an unhappy one for me.

I found the game quite enjoyable, but after one play, I have a few mild concerns.  Most of the games I’ve seen reported seem to last a bit over an hour, but ours dragged on longer than this (maybe about an hour and forty-five minutes).  A shorter game would have been preferable and the initial portion, where there’s less action, seemed to go on longer than necessary.  However, lack of experience may very well have been a factor and we also may have ignored some key strategies (for example, very few Church tiles were built).  Still, it’s a good game (I give it a rating of 7.5, which very well may rise) and now ranks as my second favorite Teuber design.  Since my #1 game of his is Löwenherz, I can only conclude that I prefer his games when they’re nasty!

Hacienda
This is a perfect example of the dangers of reviewing a game after a single play.  Not that my initial favorable impressions were wrong (I continue to enjoy the game), but my thoughts on the game’s depth and strategies have changed after each time I’ve played.  I now have three games under my belt, with two, three, and four players.  My first game was with two and featured lots of animal card plays and very little land.  There was also a reasonable amount of screwage.  I then saw repeated references that the way to victory was through long land chains.  I mentioned this fact to my opponents prior my second game (with four) and everyone took it to heart.  There was, in fact, four long land chains in different parts of the board, but very few attempts to get in anyone else’s way.  It was still interesting, but the similar approaches were a bit disheartening.  My last game, with three, was kind of in between these two extremes.  Long land chains were still a point of emphasis, but it wasn’t as single-minded as before.  And there were more attempts to block off portions of the board this time (and most of them succeeded).  By the way, I won all three games, each time by a fairly slender margin.

So now, after three games, I think I have a better feel for how this game typically develops.  So far, I’ve enjoyed the 2 and 3 player games more than the one with 4.  Greater control is one reason, but a bigger factor, I think, is that it’s easier to play defense with lower numbers.  With four (and, presumably, five), the tendency is to say, “Fred needs to be stopped, but why should I be the one that has to do it?â€?  This seems to be less of an issue with three and obviously doesn’t come into play with two.  But this attitude could easily change as I and others get more experience with the game.  I’m also at the point where I see the advantages of the advanced game (the first variant listed in the rules).  Giving greater importance to the Animal cards should make the “long land chainâ€? strategy less dominant and make the game more multi-dimensional.  Hacienda seems like one of those games where the gameplay is good, but not great, and yet you’re always looking forward to your next game.  The fact that the analysis requires some thought, but still feels light, may be why this game seems so replayable.  At any rate, my rating is bouncing between a 7.5 and an 8; if the game continues to hold up under repeated plays (and particularly if the advanced game gives it greater depth), this will certainly make my Top 5 games of the year list.

Mesopotamia
Since I’ve seen this game described as Tikal Lite more than once, it was an automatic purchase for me.  Light it is—our three player game played very fast.  Positioning yourself to carry out the actions efficiently requires some thought and the ending was very close (we were all in position to win on our next turn).  And the game really looks terrific and is more than a little overproduced (real stones; interlocking hexes; the totally unnecessary, but very nice, temple; not to mention the dynamic picture of Greg Schloesser on the box cover).  But in the end, the game is somewhat disappointing.  The biggest problem is that there seems to be just one path to victory.  Everyone has to dunk four stones into the temple to get their max Mana level up to 7; everyone has to build four more huts to get their offerings into play; and everyone then has to add 15 more Mana so that their offerings can be delivered.  After that, it’s just a matter of birthing enough babies to get things done, performing multiple actions simultaneously whenever possible, getting your huts and holy places nearby if you can (to minimize movement costs), and getting lucky with your tile explorations and card draws.  The latter wouldn’t be such a big factor except that there’s so little else to differentiate your relative progress in the game.  The order in which players do things varies, so it looks like everyone is following different strategies, but as the game reaches its climax, you realize you’ve all wound up following the same paths and reached the final destination at about the same time.  As a result, the closeness of the game feels decidedly artificial.  Don’t get me wrong, this is a pleasant game and I wouldn’t mind playing again, particularly with a group that likes lighter designs.  But it lacks a necessary spark.  Maybe if there was another way of spending your Mana, something that would give the game another dimension and allow for an alternate victory path, I’d be more enthused.  But the game in the box doesn’t feel like a keeper.  I guess I’m just not a big fan of Klaus-Jürgen Wrede (although Mesopotamia is certainly far better than his dreadful Krone und Schwert).  I rate this a 6.5, by no means bad, but headed for the trade pile unless future games reveal further depth.

Parlay
This is a new game from the husband and wife team of Paul and Jennifer Sturgis, self-published through their own company, Real Deal Games.  I saw Brian Bankler discussing this on his Tao of Gaming blog, commented there that it sounded interesting, and then received a very nice email from the Sturgises offering to send me a free copy.  See, your mother was right about raising your hand in class.  Anyway, it’s an interesting mix of a word game and Poker and though the word game dominates, the Poker portion adds more than a bit of spice.  The game is played with a standard 52 card deck (and two optional Jokers), except that each card also has a letter on it, along with a point value (tougher letters have higher values, as in Scrabble).  Essentially, you’re trying to form the highest scoring word and the best poker hand with the cards dealt to you and the table cards available to everyone.  You also have a chance to discard some cards and draw new ones; the specifics vary with the type of game played (there are about half a dozen variants listed in the rules).  Players must decide each hand whether to “Stayâ€? or “Foldâ€?.  The former qualifies them for bonus points (including doubling your word score if you have the best poker hand), but only the player with the highest point total of those who Stayed gets to score; the other players who chose this option score zero points.  Folding, on the other hand, guarantees the player will score for his word, but not any of the often lucrative bonuses.  This is a pretty interesting decision and is the mechanic that makes the game work.  We played with six and it worked fine with that number.  About one hand per player gives you a quick playing game that doesn’t outstay its welcome.  The components are all professionally done as well.  This is a nice addition to any word game lovers collection and I compliment Paul and Jennifer for a solidly crafted design.  I rate it a solid 7.

So that wraps up a very satisfying week of gaming.  Although I enjoyed all the games I played, it does seem as if 2005 is falling far short of the previous year in terms of the number and quality of new games (though to be fair, 2004 was probably my favorite gaming year of all time).  Designs that I hoped might become permanent members of the gaming rotation are so far merely good; games I hoped might be great haven’t quite reached that level yet.  There are still a number of games I haven’t played, and I still hold out hope that Kaivai, Elasund, Hacienda, and particularly Caylus will meet their high expectations as they get further play.  But it also may prove to be the case that 2005 turns out to be a slightly below average year.  Ah well, the Nuremburg games are just around the corner!

Comments: