The Programmed Movement is Inappropriate
I don't like RoboRally because, well, I program for a living and I don't need to come home and see my programs still not do what I tell them to. But for its fans, the programmed movement of RoboRally means "chaotic fun." When that's the point of the game, great. In an area-control Euro? Not so great. The game would have been improved by turns, by shorter programming, or even by a "time lapse" mechanism a la Thebes.

For a Game Requiring So Much Thought, There Sure is a Lot of Luck
Resources appearing right next to you. Delivery opportunities appearing right next to you. Cheap delivery opportunities at the vital 3-point towns appearing closer to you than to anyone else, allowing you to pick up those vital religion points. I'm not opposed to a lot of luck in games, but in a game that seems to want to reward careful planning, it shouldn't also reward standing around at the right place at the right time so heavily.

Secret Resources Exacerbate the Other Problems
It's not like we can't see what you pick up, it's that we don't have eidetic memories and can't recall. Knowing what the other players have would reduce the chance of maddeningly arriving at a town after another player has delivered there.

The One-Time Use Chits Add Nothing
This game is more than complicated enough without having to worry about what the one best time all game to use your magic once-ever chits is, or worrying about others using theirs to harass you.

The Theme is Flimsy
The trading-in-the-mountains theme is so transparently pasted on it would make Reiner Knizia blush. The play of this game is intricate and the process of scoring and determining a victor is complicated. A good theme would not only make it easier to take in, but could also tighten up the mechanics as well.

Verdict
If you want programmed movement, play RoboRally. If you want area control, play El Grande. If you want to wander around a graph of lines and nodes, play Elfenland. If you want intricate mechanics with subtle interactions, play Puerto Rico.

If all four of those games are getting old for you and you want to try something different, play Himalaya, I guess; you'll probably find it an acceptably good time.

You're certainly not the only person to find fault with this game, but I personally think it's great, and far, far better than Elfenland.

What I like is that the programmed movement is extremely complementary with the strategy. You can't really play it tactically, because of the turn planning time limit, not completely predictable movements of the other players, and the randomness of the goods and orders. If it did play tactically, then the luck would be a big problem (as I think it is in Elfenland, which I find extremely tactical). But Himalaya, with its intricate winning conditions, allows for interesting long-term strategic possibilities without any downtime. Typically, I found that there were usually only a few reasonable business transactions that I might make each turn, but, like a pool shot, it was important to set up the next turn and think about which of the three scoring tracks I needed to worry about most in the turns beyond that. By the end of the game, I had discovered that my determination to get good stupa placements and political influence had been good enough to get me second place, but I lost to a player who just skated through in both of those categories. I filled a lot of small orders which gave me a lot of influence, but not nearly enough yaks to win.

It's not really a great game for people who like to be able to analyze and effectuate every move and want to feel in control all the time. I personally love simultaneous action because it is one of the only really thematic ways to derive turn order, plus its fun. And Himalaya has a clever movement system that makes it easy to record moves. Ironically, this programming game is probably not a good game for actual programmers, for the reason the original poster mentioned. If we play Himalaya I'm going to wreck your program if I can.

This was, amazingly, the first Euro I ever played. And it's still one of my favorites. Yes, the theme is a paste-up, but at least its not another Renaissance game or traveling on fairy clouds - and it has interesting pieces and engaging art. I give it an unqualified thumbs up, if you like this sort of mechanic.

You bring up good points as to why people would find the game enjoyable. For focus and brevity in the review, I did narrow in on the negatives, which otherwise can be a little bit hard to find in reviews.

I'd like to respond to the comment:



I don't insist on that. What I would like is one of:

to know what I need, but to have to fight hard to get it;
to not be sure about what I need/what would be of most value;
or to have the make the most of what I have.

In Himalaya, I guess I feel like I don't know what I need to advance in the game. I don't know whether I'll need yaks because I don't know who will be eliminated before that; I don't even know whether I'll need more diplomats, because I don't know who will be eliminated in religious scoring. And even if I do realize that I need to shore up one of those areas, I might be totally unable to do so thanks to the locations of deliveries.

(I'm not an Elfenland fan either. And I felt like my least-favorite mechanic from Elfenland, the obstacle tiles, inspired the yeti and snowstorm chits in Himalaya.)

I thought your review was perfectly fair Rob, and useful. I made my counter-argument as a way for people who are interested in the game to be able to read both sides and maybe feel more informed about whether to buy it.

I wasn't suggesting that you personally were such the caricatured inflexible game player that I described. It is interesting though that the things you mention as frustrations (not being sure which area you need to shore up, not being sure if you will be able to shore them up even if you do know), are the exact same things I love about Himalaya. There is a lot to think about, and if you had a lot of time to think about it, you might be discouraged by the luck. But since the game moves so quickly, you kind of fly by the seat of your pants and hope for the best. One's enjoyment is no doubt partly determined by how much you like using your trousers for aviation. It's definitely more of an intuitive game than an analytical one.

Also interestingly, I think the roadblocks are probably my favorite part of Elfenland. However, I have not used the advanced block/yeti rules for Himalaya and don't feel very interested in them, because it seems like it would add tactical play that isn't really welcome (maybe they fit better if you are playing with a small number of players, and therefore less interaction?).

It's all good, sir. No offense taken.

Looking at your profile I think I see where we are different, because my immediate reaction was to say "Hey! I love games where I'm flying by the seat of my pants!" I seem to prefer much shorter, lighter games in general--my favorites are mostly in the 15-60 minute range, while yours are in the 90-120 minute range. So to me, the chaotic feeling is a negative, because I want my longer games to be relatively heavy and analytical. Whereas for you, an hour-long game is relatively short, and so, oddly enough, it seems like you like Himalaya for the same reason I like 15-minute Coloretto.

Does that make sense?

While I haven't played those other games enough to be tired of them because I don't get enough gaming time to get tired of any game I actually like.

So I find I loved Himalaya the couple of times I have gotten to play it, and perhaps to me it is because I get to play a lot of games I like all at once. =-)

Your most recent response to "e" was helpful in understanding your original intent and approach. Without that clarification I was inclined to write, somewhat uncharitably, "So . . . games are only good when you have absolute control and do not have to use reasoning to counter unforseen events?"

I see from your clarification that the answer might be "yes," but a "yes" qualified by " . . . in the kind of games I tend to prefer."

Understanding your point of view helps. I personally like the game as a change of pace from my more usual fare, and rather enjoy the unpredictable elements that spice it up--seeing "perfect plans" unraveled is always fun for me even if the fun is leavened with frustration when it's MY plans I have to go back and re-cast.

Seeing your post title I read it out of a combination of curiousity and truculence in anticipation of launching a rebuttal, but there's no point in arguing different tastes in gaming. If I may make a friendly suggestion, though, it might be helpful to take the approach, "X Reasons Why Some Gamers Might Avoid Game Y."

From your perspective, your criticisms were apt. Cheerio.

Yes, perfectly. That's a great distinction you've made, which is probably helpful in understanding the appeal of the game. I can understand why you'd be put off by the luck and chaos if you saw this as a long game. For me, it is short and light, and great for new gamers and non-gamers.

I think what Rob was referring to when complaining about the unforeseen events problem is that there are many degrees of randomness in games. Even a game with a large random element can reward good planning. On the opposite end of the spectrum are games where the random element is "bloop-inducing" - that is, it hands a large advantage to a player with an event that can't be foreseen or prevented. In Himalaya's case, an awesome resource or great objective happens to pop up at your board location. You can sort of plan for this - it makes sense to head to open areas at the high end of consecutive numbered full areas. In practice, it feels very "bloopy."

My biggest complaint about Himalaya is the large difficulty in knowing what your objectives are. The scoring system is 'neat,' but it makes planning very slow. To summarize, there are three sub-scores in the game (religion, territory, yaks). At the end of the game, the player with the lowest religion sub-score is eliminated, and all his pieces removed from the board, which can change every other player's territory sub-score. Then the player with the lowest territory sub-score is eliminated. Finally, the player with the most Yaks wins.

The problem with this scoring is that in order to have a coherent plan as to what objectives you need to aim for to win, first you have to count every player's religion score. Then you have to count every player's territory. Then you have to figure out which player is likely to be eliminated in step 1, and how it effects the territory score. After you've considered three or variations of that, you have to consider how many yaks you'll probably need. You also need to know what objectives your opponents can fulfill, and what bonuses they'll get for having the majority in different types of goods at the end of the game - but goods held are secret, so you hope you've been able to memorize what everyone has been picking up whilst doing all this other calculating. It also really doesn't help that the components for the game are small and hard to distinguish - ie, is that a delegate, or a temple that got bumped?

If you can't do all this, or you can't do it without keeping everyone else waiting... then you can just sort of play randomly, but there's little feeling of control, and your decisions have little actual basis to them. There's no reasoning, just short-term optimization. For me at least, this is very unsatisfying.

I'm a programmer and love Himalaya. It's one of my favorites. Playing with the 5/6 expansion does take some of the randomness out of the game since you can better predict where the goods and orders will show up. Also, if you're not into memory games, play without the screens. Just a thought.

This is a good suggestion and I'll take it to heart.

Thinking about the kind of reviews I would like to write--I don't want to bother writing one that goes along with the prevailing sentiment, because what use is that? And reviews seem to be generally positive--I suspect because a neutral or ambivalent experience doesn't really inspire a review. So phrasing the title as a non-absolute makes sense. On the other hand, I want to keep it punchy. So going forward I might choose a title like "Five Reasons You Might Not Like WXYZ" with a link to a positive review in the intro, so people can see whether their priorities align more with mine or the positive reviewers. As you mention and I think we'd generally agree, we can't successfully argue taste.

Thank you, Rob, for your concise and pithy contrarian review of Himalaya. A dissenting opinion among many "I liked it too" reviews is very useful to me in my decision making process - I like to see the other side of the coin. Please keep up the good work.