Chris Palermo
United States
Ronkonkoma
New York
-
Interestingly, Dante’s Inferno owes an awful lot to some Euro-game predecessors — Settlers of Catan, for starters. The same concept of collecting resources based on the 2d6 probability is alive and well in Dante’s Inferno. There are some subtle changes, but nothing too substantial. In the end, the game plays like an equally long Settlers of Catan, with less options and choices.
Essentially, each player controls a team of hunters, whose goal is to kill the devil in the ninth circle of Hell. The board, a square grid, contains ‘resources’ (which are nothing more than differently colored tiles), each with a set of two numbers on them. Players can position their characters on each tile, and –—when either of the two numbers are rolled — they collect the respective resource.
Each action requires turning in one tile or a combination of tiles. Like Ingenious, the number of each colored resource is kept on a separate board that each player controls.
Like Settlers, players can freely trade resources for other resources or for (non-binding) future considerations.
So moving, moving forward (to a deeper circle of Hell), recruiting a new hunter, etc.; each action requires some combination of colors.
In truth, there’s really no need to recruit other hunters, because, once ONE hunter makes it to the center and slays the devil, the game ends. It only takes one hunter to do that. However, the more hunters available and on the board means more resources.
Finally, also like Settlers, whenever a 7 is rolled, a demon may be placed on the board. This is the only way other characters may be attacked.
So, besides the fact that the game feels like a rehashing of an old classic, the key question (as it always is) is “Is it fun?” Well, yes, to a point. You don’t feel immersed in the theme — I never once felt as though I really was a demon hunter descending circles of hell.
There’s a sameness to each turn, however; and that can become somewhat tedious. Unlike Settlers, which offers multiple avenues to victory – development cards, upgrades, longest roads, etc. — Dante’s Inferno has but one criterion: Kill the main devil. Everyone else loses.
The pieces are attractive enough, but the markers to denote how many resources each player has are nearly useless. The tiles are standard tiles — sturdy and thick enough to withstand some amount of play.
While it’s true that the winner isn’t known until the very end of the game (the first one to defeat the demon wins), that’s not necessarily a good thing in this situation. The gameplay leading up to the endgame can be somewhat boring, as the entire turn consists of little more than rolling dice, collecting resources and taking some small actions (assuming you have resources to execute the action). Again, it’s way too reminiscent of Settlers, which actually did it better.
The theme itself doesn’t add anything to it. You can’t even say, “for ‘horror’ fans, add another point,” because nothing about the game drips with theme.
There’s no magic, no spells, no special circumstances. Instead, there’s resource collection and spending, and that’s all there is.
Mercifully, the game didn’t take even as long as had originally been suspected. Again, though, if I ever feel the need to play this game again, I’ll happily take Settlers of Catan down from the gameshelf, to play the original.
Presentation Ratings
Graphics: 6
Components: 6
System Ratings
Originality of Mechanics: 5
GamePlay/GameFlow: 6
End-game: 7
Fun Factor: 6
Gamer Rating: 64
Overall Rating: 63
-
Brad "What do you mean "Double Skulls" again?!" Redfield
United Kingdom
Under a DVD Collection, Scarborough
North Yorkshire
-
I've never played Settlers of Catan, so I can't comment on how similar Dante's Infernos resource mechanic is. I agree that this game seems a little avaerage though. Why not make it like Zombies!!! with a modular board on which you must fight demons in order to rescue the damned instead of just lurking in the outer circles and collecting them when the dice roll says so? That's the least that this game should have been!
 
-
|
|
