Basically the same as the other 10 Days games. Rummy-esque with countries. The people I played with didn't think it really would be useful for teaching geography, since you don't play on the board itself.
Also, why does the USA get an entire map to itself when the other maps are whole continents, including very large ones like Asia and Africa?? (1 play)
A licensed game with a license I'm not really interested in. Played the four player variant and enjoyed myself decently, but it is pretty luck-driven and not many decisions. Designed for a nongamer audience who will probably like it. (1 play)
A simple two-player or team-based abstract that's oddly reminiscent of Acquire without the stocks. Fairly random as where you can place depends entirely on the cards you draw (low cards are better). (1 play)
Well, okay, it's not like I played the whole thing. There were several interesting features to it; I enjoyed the Parthenon-esque shortage/surplus thing and the way that you need to grab land to cash in cards and figure out when they'll help you. But the offensive cards seemed really, really powerful, and it bothered me that there was no way to defend oneself against them. And it seems likely that, had I played the last two ages, where the game seems likely to devolve into some kind of multiplayer wargame, this problem would only get bigger. (1 play)
An Amazon.com tie-in trivia game. Its real purpose is to advertise Amazon, but it's a decent trivia game about books. The main decision is whether to pass or try to answer a book based on the first, very general, clue. It's far from deep, but it can be lots of fun with the right crowd--in fact, I played with that crowd and it was exactly the right thing. (1 play)
Well, you can't deny it looks fantastic, and it's very pleasing to the touch. I'd kind of like to keep a leaf on my desk to play with while I work. As a game, though, it was kind of frustrating because we never seemed to make much progress, and the cards that randomly stop players from participating aren't much fun either. (1 play)
A strange card drafting game where the main trick seems to be stopping the cards you draft from starving to death, and in the cards you take strongly affect what you'll be able to get in the future. As it's very different from most games I've played, it's probably worth checking out for card game fans. I did find myself a little frustrated as I got stuck in the negative feedback loop (can't draft many cards, can't stop cards from starving, nothing is getting better) instead of the positive one. (1 play)
This is one of those games where you spend a lot of time gathering resources to complete a goal, only to find that someone else has either swiped them or made it too expensive for you. It can be difficult to get much done. Frustrating. (1 play)
What an unusual game. The combination of roll-and-move and blind bidding makes it feel a little old-fashioned to say the least (and so it is--published in 1988). The game is probably better than that description makes it sound, though; the more interesting decisions come in the bidding of gems, when it is necessary to calculate how much you can offer without giving your opponent an advantage in gems of any color, and in particular what counter offer will be made.
I wasn't that engaged in it--I'd be willing to try it again, since there does appear to be a game in here, but it simply didn't really grab my interest. (1 play)
Yup, this is a rummy game, all right. Decent card game filler with a memory aspect if that is what you are looking for. There's a rather obvious card-drawing tactic that I'm annoyed I didn't see. (1 play)
I think this is really a children's game. It has a fun pirate theme and an unusual, but simple, memory mechanism based on stacking discs. Since discs can be stolen it does have a little cutthroat back and forth. Not that interesting overall. (2 plays)
Heh. It's really difficult, with this game, to see whether you are actually making any progress or not. Technically there are two phases here--one where players buy letters and one where they make words from them. But you don't really want to buy letters unless you can make words from them, so in practice separating these phases is a little more difficult. The awareness that people were waiting for this raised my anxiety level; I kind of wanted to play solo and play with combinations of letters as long as I wanted to. (1 play)
This game is exactly what I expected it to be, a pure press your luck game with dice rolling. Setting it out along a stop sign is kind of clever. It feels kind of classic (and is, I guess), and can be fun with the right people, but it's hard to muster up any really strong feelings about the game itself. (1 play)
Played with two. Found this very weird. It's a kind of area control game, but one where the number of areas to control gets smaller and smaller, until it comes down to a battle over the final few that are left. It seemed pretty neat until we realized that we were going back and forth in a seemingly endless way and that neither of us was going to be able to win anytime soon, at which point we abandoned the game. Maybe it's better with three? (1 play)
Did not enjoy this much. Do you really want to be kicked off an action in a worker placement game? I also didn't like the mechanism whereby some players are simply not allowed to score points. Or how it's possible to create something to build up your economy and then have it incapacitated by another player.
Also, why is almost every game set in the Old West about gunfights? (1 play)
"Candyland with (some) strategy" is a pretty apt description for this one. Certainly, it's important to figure out what the people behind you will do with what you leave for them, and balancing drawing cards with moving forward is a nice decision. All in all, not a bad filler, but a little light for me. (1 play)
Yet another take on the hidden loyalties style of game. It's not my favorite genre, and this game is a little clunkier than most. The endgame rules are both confusing and kinda random; players are required to collect a specific set of cards from the deck, so whoever manages to get it first wins. This might happen through clever maneuvering and deduction, or through dumb luck, either way. You're better off playing The Resistance. (1 play)
Well, it's well named. It's kind of a memory/guessing game with the location of the Ovoid, but there's also a lot of chaos and figuring out how to fight the right person at the right time. The game dragged a little, especially since it was kind of futile at the end (we knew who had it, but nobody could do anything about this). (1 play)
I felt really constricted in what I could do and weighed down by the (somewhat optional) math. In each phase, there are many options, but only one or perhaps two that make sense. Also, it's silly to have an auction phase AND a trading phase. (1 play)
This is really cool looking and I think it's probably quite successful at what it wants to do. Simultaneous action selection chaotic fighting in the Old West really isn't something that I'm very interested in, though. (1 play)
The art is GORGEOUS and bizarre. I think it was probably worthwhile for the designer to design the game just so these cards could be published. So that part is an absolute pleasure.
As for the game itself, it's one of those party games that requires you to figure out what other people are thinking, and I simply have no ability at such games. It got a little frustrating when I was playing with this and kind of detracted from the art a little. So I wanted to like it, and whoever is reading this, I think you will. It's just that the ratings are supposed to measure my experience. (1 play)
Very light filler push-your-luck game based on flipping cards and matching them to cards that already exist. The way that people can drop out restricts player's choices, so that it becomes less push-your-luck and more just luck. There are better such games out there. It's short, though. (1 play)
It's a neat theme, but the game wasn't very interesting. There's an appearance of geography, but all that really matters is whether buildings are on the corners or in the middle. There was also a high degree of randomness in several parts of the game. All buildings were built with cards that the players draw randomly (no drafting). These buildings were themselves randomly drawn. And you also drew events each turn, usually to make bad things happen to your opponents or maybe yourself, although sometimes nothing happened at all. (1 play)
I liked this about as well as I expected. It's a quasi-miniatures game where you go around and kill things and have adventures. The theme is kind of funny, but the map is way too big (at least with four characters) and there's plenty of incentive to avoid the other players as much as possible. Managing the risk is quite difficult to do; most of the time you will simply be roaming around and seeing what happens. (1 play)
Kinda long. This is a fairly clever brain-burner and I am sure that the expansions spice things up. The theme and the mechanics are a rather counterintuitive fit--who makes abstract strategy dungeon crawls?
I was excited to try this game, since it was billed as a shorter, lighter Descent, and length is really what's been keeping Descent off my table. It is indeed shorter. However, this game lacks a lot of the flavor and atmosphere Descent had, focusing mainly on the tactical war stuff. Also, some of the characters are strictly better than others. Disappointing. (1 play)
Meh. I dunno, I like for my card-combo games to have cards that are better differentiated from each other and do fun things. This is a deck building game where there are only a few different kinds of cards available ever, and while the activation mechanism is unusual, I didn't find it especially compelling. (1 play)
Not surprising someone came up with this goofy theme; you're inviting heroes to your resort and you can use them to fight monsters or you can build them up to help you win. The random events seemed excessively punishing. (1 play)
Well, it's certainly pretty. It reminded me of Taluva in that you want to lay one card over a set of symbols to separate them, but it is much more random and I also found it more frustrating, because you often must destroy something to your detriment and it is very difficult to set up for potential future moves. (1 play)
Like Thurn and Taxis, but with more murder. There's a certain amount of area-controlly competition which I enjoyed, but it wasn't enough to hold the game together. The luck of the draw dominated and in the last turn, it's impossible to play a card if you don't first assassinate someone. This becomes a little tedious, above and beyond the game being long for what it is. Meh. Also, the art is very ugly and it's hard to tell which noble is which. (1 play)
It's quite interesting, at least at first. It's a hand management game of accumulating cards slowly and spending them quickly, trying to convince your opponents to withdraw. The text cards add some flavor.
The problem is that once it gets near the end, it will pretty much depend on what cards you happen to have in your hand, and at the point it also starts feeling a little long and tedious. So, nice quick game at the beginning, but pretty "meh" toward the end. (1 play)
See, you would think I would like this because it fixes some of the things I complain about with Ticket to Ride (futility) and adds some elements that I enjoy (economy) while retaining the interesting connection stuff. But the game was far longer than it was interesting, the endgame is messy and anticlimactic, and the ugly, boring board didn't help. Also, it became obvious about halfway through who would win. Meh. (1 play)
A back-and-forth board position game for two players. And that's really all it is. It's not really my thing, it seems to offer some pointlessly irresolvable struggles: I put this bridge here! You take it off! I put it back! Of course, this is limited by cards, but the game needs to offer more than that to excite me. (1 play)
It's not that I mind dice. It's just that the game seems designed to eliminate the possibility of long-range planning. It does have a very interesting variation on the worker-placement mechanic. I'd like to see something similar to that in a more interesting game. (1 play)
A bicycle racing game. Probably more interesting with fewer players; we played with six, so we only got to control one rider apiece. The game is all about using energy at the right time and is pretty thematic, and it's relatively simple once you get past the convoluted and poorly translated rules. It was sort of long and silly. I'm not a big fan of racing games generally, so I wasn't a big fan of this one either. (1 play)
People say this is a cooperative game, but it really wasn't when I played it; we didn't cooperate at all, and there was never really any danger of us losing as a team. I wasn't a huge fan of the system; it was kind of clunky and the symbols didn't seem to work too well because it was too hard to make them work together. The villain was kind of boring too. Meh. (1 play)
This is a very silly roll-and-move racing game made more interesting by characters' special abilities. The target audience seems to be children, with the simplicity of the basic mechanic and the underlying silliness of the game, but the interactions among the abilities are complex enough to prevent kids from being able to play it without an adult. So, I'm not sure where that leaves Magical Athlete. (1 play)
A short tile-selection-and-laying game. It has several elements that will interest people who like laying tiles--the placement is limited in an interesting way and there's an element of prediction in the placement. It's not really my kind of game, though, and I probably won't play it again. (1 play)
Sadly, this is less fun than it looks. The components are awesome and I like the idea of the game a lot, but it's actually more complicated than it should be, it's impossible to keep one's progress, and the endgame is kind of weird and pointless. (1 play)
Man, what's up with this game. It's quite vicious, with horrible things almost guaranteed to happen if you should make any progress, but at the same time, it's also extremely random! Annoying. (1 play)
As stock games go, this isn't my favorite. The game was really too short for the stocks to develop in an interesting way and largely depending on what happened in one or two turns. Also, there were some spaces that ware purely profitable, and which players have access to them is determined by turn order. (1 play)
Traitor-based co-ops aren't really my thing, so it's hard for me to judge which ones are better than others. Still, this is a very interesting idea. I think the idea of having traitors pass cards in trades to others, secretly increasing the number of infected as time goes on, is pretty brilliant. I'm also pleased that it, like The Resistance, plays fairly quickly.
I do think the gas-can-as-infection-nullifier is a little clunky and introduces the possibility for players to make mistakes. I also found that the sheer number of little social interactions among players made it impractical for the infected players to remain secret in the one full game of this I played. (1.5 plays)
This is a boat racing game in which you can increase and decrease the number of dice you use, adjusting for speed and trying to get around islands. It's pretty good at what it tries to do, I guess, though I haven't played Formula De and suspect that's probably more interesting. For some reason, this game is played in three rounds. I really don't see the need for more than one. Even within a round, it kind of drags once people start crossing the finish line. (1 play)
Very short and very light; in fact, it's so short that buying a die is a little chancy as you may not ever get to use it. Some of them are much stronger than others. The idea of a dice building game is moderately clever, and the game will appeal to people who have short attention spans and love dice. Me, I'm not really in that demographic. I'll still end up playing it fairly often as it's so short that it's likely to come out when people have it. (5+ plays)
A trick taking game that largely depends on your ability to accurately predict how many tricks you will take. It's difficult because it's rather easy to change the trump or to beat a high card, you there are always enough cards left over that other people's hands are an unknown quantity. Probably longer than it needs to be for what it is. (1 play)
A racing game based around a programming mechanism requiring that the players interpret space visually and including a relatively strong blocking element. The above is a list of things I dislike and also a good description of Dragon Delta.
So, the real thing that requires explanation is why I didn't hate it more--essentially, it's relatively low-pressure, with a limited number of options and a relatively quick way across the board, so it is likely that all players will have a chance, no matter how inept.
Jumping card seems underpowered for the risk involved. (1 play)
This is a very strange little game. It's an area control game of sorts, except that you can decided yourself where the valuable territory will be, and you can guarantee yourself the ones that you play. This sounds kind of interesting, but in practice it means that you NEED to guarantee that you control the ones you put down, so that's what successful players do. Does not reward creative play. (1 play)
Oh, boy. Okay, I played this when I just wanted to go to sleep and the game suffered accordingly. All the same, it seemed pretty excessive. The rules were rather complex for a dungeon crawl, and it was really difficult to make any progress with the attack cards and random attacks flying around. (1 play)
This game is probably better than I think it is, since the person who taught it hadn't played for a while and the rules were rather opaque. It did seem a bit convoluted for a racecar game. It provided lots of opportunities to crash, but nobody really seemed to, since we kept rolling lots of lane changes on the dice. I think there's more to get out of this than I did, but since I'm not a big fan of the genre, I'm not particularly inclined to explore it further. (1 play)
Have finally played not online. Still don't like it. But the components are fantastic.
UPDATE: The frustration: enjoyment ratio is just too high here. Giving up for now, but I may try it again sometime.
Very counterintuitive. I am still trying to wrap my brain around this abstract set collection game. It is of interest primarily for the scoring system, which has to be the most bizarre that even Knizia has ever devised. (All plays online)
The components are fantastic. Little plastic books? Yes please! As for the game itself, it's a spatial racing game where other players can see who is winning and try to block whoever is ahead, so it gets kind of tedious at the end. Not my favorite kind of game, but reasonably well executed. (1 play)
This is a great game for outgoing people who enjoy spending social time with their friends, laughing, and arguing lightheartedly about trivial matters. In other words, the opposite of me.
It's a good game and I want to give it its due; I think the problem here is with me rather than with the game. I am rather shy and often dislike expressing or committing to opinions, and I am not good at performing on demand. So, this is a perfect game for its target audience. I'm just not part of that audience.
EDIT: Every time I play this game I am convinced that the next time, it won't be fun. I have tried playing with people I know and have less trouble putting down answers, but on the other hand it seems like a great opportunity to get into a fight. Eh. I've laughed while playing it but I have this sort of distaste for it that it probably doesn't deserve.
A card game that has nothing to do with Scrabble. Four cards are dealt out to play a word and players play one letter at a time from their hand to the word until one player has exhausted the cards in his/her hand. Sounds fun, but the simultaneous, speed-based nature of it was a little frustrating. (all plays in one session)
Silly psuedo-area control filler. Use different colored cards to attract different types of "customers" on the board. Enjoyable with three, but I'd be very leery of playing with a large number of players because it's important to compare plateaus with the ones other players have. (1 play)
Another Settlers variant. I like tech tracks, but here they are mostly just an obstacle to things you really want to do. The moving settlements are an interesting variation, which I enjoy, but the length of the game is a problem. Settlers should be short!
I appreciate that someone wants to make a more interactive deck building game, but this one really fell flat for me. I think the biggest problem was the battles, which bring the game to a screeching halt. The game also includes an element of risk in flipping over cards from the deck--this, too, is something of an interesting idea, but since there's a pretty wide variety of cards in there and you essentially lose your turn if it doesn't work out, it's not really well-balanced. The game also felt a little "loose" in the sense that it lets you do too many things with your hand, but maybe I'm just used to Dominion. (1 play)
I don't know, the passengers were an additional thing, but I didn't think that they either added or detracted; they were another option if you like that sort of thing. The map was pretty tight and competitive. I didn't like the tickets--it seemed like most of them weren't worth anything, so it was difficult to make much progress at all. But at this point TTR is TTR to me. (1 play)
Well, I really like trivia. Actually. I used to think the questions were bad, but I got a lot of them right the last time I played!
Hm. As with any mass market game that's been around a long time, it's hard to rate in a way that reflects anything but bias. The truth is that I enjoy playing Trivial Pursuit sometimes, mostly because of my love of trivia. The truth is also that it is definitely flawed--the board is too big, the game is too long, the questions become obsolete quickly. But, you know, Trivial Pursuit. I'm not changing anyone's mind here.
Quite a strange little auction game,where it is possible to bid on either a known or an unknown tile. So, it's entirely possible you are bidding on something that will only hurt you. Very pretty, but the random bidding is not really a good idea. (1 play)