C Paget
Canada
Toronto
ON
...
-
Citadels is a game that I’ve played a lot, and with a wide variety of audiences. I don’t have as much experience with the Dark City (because I don’t own it), but I’ve recently played it a few times with a friend’s set – so I’m finally feeling ready to review and compare these two games.
I have posted this review in the Citadels forums, but felt that it's important to have it handy for the Dark City expansion too. Because I do review both the expansion and the base game separately (but comparatively).
Subscribe here: Radar Review Announcement Geeklist
Value: Is it worth the price?
9
For a card game, this one is a tiny bit pricey. But it’s still worth it.
I didn’t give a separate value for the Dark City expansion because it now comes with the original game (this is true in Canada, and I assume elsewhere – but I’m not 100% sure it it’s true everywhere.).
Variety: Is each play different?
6 (Citadels) / 9 (Dark City)
The base game always uses the same cards, but it can feel quite different from game to game. Part of the strategy is trying to predict your opponents’ moves, which really adds variety.
The Dark City expansion includes a new set of roles and new purple buildings, which you mix and match in the game set-up. There is a lot of variety available, particularly with the role combinations.
Replayability: Can you play again & again?
8
Lots of replay opportunities with this game. Because you need to adapt your strategy to suit the people you are playing against, the game doesn’t get old.
The variety offered with the Dark City expansion adds to the replayability, but the imbalance between some of the added cards makes it less replayable; giving a zero net change from the base game.
Slow to Master: Experience to move beyond rules?
4 (Citadels) / 5 (Dark City)
It take a couple of games to learn the rules, and then a game or two to start developing your own strategy in role selection and managing the money vs. cards draw.
The extra variety in the Dark City expansion means that it takes a little longer to move beyond the rules.
Strategic Depth: Opportunity for decision-making?
5 (Citadels) / 4 (Dark City)
This isn’t the deepest of all games. At times the decisions are quite obvious, while other times you might have some tough calls to make.
However, the base game is a tight game, with excellent balance between the roles, which makes the strategic elements shine. The expansion detracts from this, and has less overall strategic depth than the original.
Player Interaction: Contact between players?
6 (Citadels) / 8 (Dark City)
Lots of player interaction, both directly as you try to assassination/thieve etc , and indirectly as you consider your opponents’ strategies during role selection.
The added purple districts in the expansion offer even more opportunities for player interaction.
For the base game and the expansion: it’s common to have a kingmaking situation; for some people, this is a major flaw.
Fun: An enjoyable experience?
7
I personally think that this is a very enjoyable game.
But a common complaint is the possibility of a single player being overly targeted, often accidentally. .
Because of the bluffing nature of role selection, it’s possible for one player to consistently be victimized by the assassin / thief / magician. There are a few common responses to this complaint: pointing to the Dark City roles as a “solution” (it’s not, because the witch / wizard still target people) or saying that the targeted player is just bad at the game.
The fact that this takes place can really hinder the enjoyment of the game.
Luck-Free: Is winning independent of luck?
6 (Citadels) / 4 (Dark City)
You definitely need some luck to win this game. Luck in the cards that you draw, and also luck in how your role selection fits into your opponent’s role selections.
Strategy is very important as you try to outwit your opponents in the role selections, but luck is always a factor too.
The Dark City expansion adds more luck into the game, because the new cards are not well-balanced. In particular, there are a couple purple districts that are far too powerful, so you’re lucky if you get them, and even luckier if you get an awesome card combination.
Theme Fit: Does it match the theme?
7
Overall, the theme is a great fit for the gameplay. It’s not as immersive as some of the “thematic” games out there, but the theme comes through in the district cards, in the artwork, and most importantly: in the role abilities.
Gateway: Is it good with non-gamers?
6 (Citadels) / 7 (Dark City)
Citadels is a good game for some non-gamers, but not all.
Its complexity acts as a barrier, because non-gamers generally like to understand the game before starting it.
The expansion makes the game more of a gateway, which is odd as expansions usually increase the complexity. But the Dark City just makes the game more variable, and also highlights the element of luck. So a non-gamer is more likely to win a Dark City game, even without a well-developed strategy.
Rules A-OK: Confirming it isn’t broken?
10 (Citadels) / 5 (Dark City)
The rules of the original game are great.
The Dark City expansion, however, has many broken cards. A few combinations of the new roles (with each other or with the original roles) lead to very predictable strategies or even negating each other’s effects. And then many of the new buildings are overpowered and a couple are underpowered. If you have a lot of experience with the Dark City expansion then you can mitigate some of the problem by carefully selecting the card combinations to include in the game. Or you can explore variations on the cards to try and fix them.
Or you can do what I do – stick to the original Citadels game.
Teachable : Is it easy to teach?
8
Fairly easy to teach. For non-gamers, the concept of picking a role on each round can be a bit difficult, but for gamers it’s old hat.
On a personal note, my biggest difficulty in teaching Citadels is the fact that my copy is in German...
Least Text etc: Minimal Reading/Symbology?
5
Not all cards have text, but some do (the purple buildings) and this can add to gameplay – and sometimes players require further explanation, and by asking they’re sharing their hand.
The biggest text/symbology barrier is the roles themselves, because it takes a little bit of memory to keep track of all the different roles. A small cheatsheet can help with this too.
Short Set-Up: Does it set-up quickly?
8 (Citadels) / 7 (Dark City)
The original Citadels is a quick set-up: shuffle the cards, and then start with role-selection. I’ve written a summary of the role-selection methods by # of players on the inside of my box lid, and this makes the set-up even faster: I never need to refer to the rules.
The set-up for the Dark City expansion is a little bit more involved, because you have to choose which roles and cards to include in the game. If the group is experienced, then it could take even longer because you’ll have some discussion about which roles should be used.
Components: Are the bits high quality?
6
It’s a card game... the cards are pretty good and the artwork is great, albeit dark.
My complaint with component quality is the role cards: because they are used so much, they will quickly show wear. In general, I don’t sleeve my cards – but I went out and bought some stiff sleeves for Citadels, and I’m considering getting them laminated. It really would have been best if the game had addressed this problem directly, even just including card sleeves that nicely fit the role cards would have worked.
The other components are ok: the gold is plastic, not as good as wood but it looks nice (tasty!) and serves its purpose. In my edition, the crown marker is a just another card, but this has been fixed in new editions and you get a beautiful little wooden king token instead.
Bottom Line
I highly recommend Citadels, the original game. In particular, it makes a great “party game” for gamers: it has some great gameplay while being a lighter game that works for a larger group.
I do not recommend the Dark City expansion, because of its broken cards. This recommendation is a little moot because the expansion now comes with the game, so instead I recommend that you play it when you’re looking for some variety and luck, but stick to the base game when you’re looking for a tight and interesting game.
For those that are interested here is an overlay graph of Citadels compared to the Dark City:
As a final note, I was very surprised with how different my numbers were between the Citadels base game and the Dark City expansion. It makes for an interesting visualization!
-
Jim McMahon
United States
West Springfield
Massachusetts
Lookee what he can do! He wants a job!
-
Isn't this exactly the same review as the one uploaded for Citadels, and still without any explanation of how/what is broken about it?
-
ackmondual
United States
Virginia
-
jimmcmahon wrote: Isn't this exactly the same review as the one uploaded for Citadels, and still without any explanation of how/what is broken about it?
AFAI can tell, yes. However, review hunters can also come directly here for the expansion review.
-
C Paget
Canada
Toronto
ON
...
-
Yes, it is the exact same review. I just wanted it accessible for both the game and the expansion:
tathta wrote: I have posted this review in the Citadels forums, but felt that it's important to have it handy for the Dark City expansion too. Because I do review both the expansion and the base game separately (but comparatively).
As far as an explanation for how the game is broken, I did say this:
tathta wrote: A few combinations of the new roles (with each other or with the original roles) lead to very predictable strategies or even negating each other’s effects.
And this:
tathta wrote: And then many of the new buildings are overpowered and a couple are underpowered.
And, in luck area of the review, I say this:
tathta wrote: The Dark City expansion adds more luck into the game, because the new cards are not well-balanced. In particular, there are a couple purple districts that are far too powerful, so you’re lucky if you get them, and even luckier if you get an awesome card combination.
Imbalance is also mentioned in regards to strategic depth and replayability.
One of my reviewing goals is to be pithy. So I do not go into detail about the game's rules etc etc etc. For Dark City, this meant that I was describing the brokenness is general terms, rather than going into detail about each specific card.
So to recap, Dark City is broken because of...
... bad card combinations.
... overpowered (and some underpowered) new cards.
... imbalanced gameplay.
If you're looking for specific reviews on each card in the expansion, then I recommend that you check out the forums because there is lots of card-specific discussion to be found.
-
Trent Hamm
United States
Huxley
Iowa
See this text? It's a gratuitous waste of GeekGold.
The game itself isn't important. Spending time intellectually jousting with likeminded folks is the real reason to game.
-
One or two specific examples of the "broken-ness" might have been good...
-
C Paget
Canada
Toronto
ON
...
-
I'm sorry, I stand by the decisions in my original review.
I gave multiple reasons for why I think the game is broken, and I chose not to list the specific cards as that doesn't fit into my reviewing goals.
If I gave an example, then it focuses the problem on that example - making it seem like fixing the example fixes the whole problem (I speak from experience here, based on responses to other reviews).
An alternative is to list the specific cards and their problems, and that doesn't fit into my style of review.
There are other reviewers out there, and there are oodles of resources available in the discussion forums.
My review has a specific style and format, and it cannot be everything to everyone.
I appreciate your complaint, but again - I stand by my review.
-
Dale Stephenson
United States
Buford
Georgia
-
tathta wrote: I'm sorry, I stand by the decisions in my original review.
I gave multiple reasons for why I think the game is broken, and I chose not to list the specific cards as that doesn't fit into my reviewing goals.
If I gave an example, then it focuses the problem on that example - making it seem like fixing the example fixes the whole problem (I speak from experience here, based on responses to other reviews).
An alternative is to list the specific cards and their problems, and that doesn't fit into my style of review.
There are other reviewers out there, and there are oodles of resources available in the discussion forums.
My review has a specific style and format, and it cannot be everything to everyone.
I appreciate your complaint, but again - I stand by my review.
I just read every other review of the Dark City expansion. None stated that the game was broken.
I also looked through the other Dark City forums, and found some discussion of various cards and character, but none of the threads called the game broken. I found a few vague mentions of cards being overpowered, but the only criticism of a *specific* card being overpowered was the witch. Discussion in the thread had adherents on both sides. I did not find any connection of overpoweredness with a particular combination of cards. If you think Dark City being broken has been adequately discussed in the forum already, please provide a link to *where* it has been discussed. If it hasn't been previously discussed, why not start a separate thread for that purpose?
I suspect you're right that if you singled out specific cards that the discussion would focus on the merits of that particular argument. But in the absence of specific cards, you've made very strong claims without any supporting evidence at all, and the discussion will naturally focus on your willingness to call a game broken without being in the least willing to support your argument. At least with specific examples you would have the luxury of choosing what you think are the *best* examples of the problem, and the ensuing discussion will have the advantage of displaying both the charges and the defense to the interested readers, allowing them to decide for themselves whether it is something that would affect their enjoyment of the game. And adding that information down-thread keeps your review itself intact in its pithy glory.
I don't think avoiding post-review controversy is a worthwhile goal. I often find the negative reviews are the most useful, NOT because of the quality of the review itself (they frequently are very low quality), but because it stimulates discussion by a variety of people who know the game well. I don't consider your reviews to be low quality, but a complete unwillingness to provide details about what is supposed to be a major flaw leads me to doubt the merit of that assessment.
-
Shawn Woods
Canada
Halifax
Nova Scotia
-
I find the rules for this game no more difficult than the original. This isn't a wargame or anything. They are both fairly light card games.
-
Brian Gomez
United States
Bellevue
Nebraska
No more confusing me for tickmanfan. I swear I got more thumbs when I was him!
The $wingin' Utter$ are a kickass punk band from California. Look em up.
-
It's a review, people. It may contain some facts, but reviews are subjective and contain opinions from the perspective of the reviewer. You don't have to like reviews or the reviewer, for that matter, but we can at least treat them with the same respect we'd like to be treated were we in their shoes.
-
Dale Stephenson
United States
Buford
Georgia
-
hskrfn822 wrote: It's a review, people. It may contain some facts, but reviews are subjective and contain opinions from the perspective of the reviewer. You don't have to like reviews or the reviewer, for that matter, but we can at least treat them with the same respect we'd like to be treated were we in their shoes.
Has someone treated the OP with a lack of respect? Personally, if I were to make bold claims in a mere comment, I would not be offended if others asked me to support my claims. I don't see that reviews should be held to a lower standard.
It's not at all a question of "facts" versus "opinions". The utility of a review is directly related to the ability to put the reviewer's opinions in the context of our own experience.
-
Brian Gomez
United States
Bellevue
Nebraska
No more confusing me for tickmanfan. I swear I got more thumbs when I was him!
The $wingin' Utter$ are a kickass punk band from California. Look em up.
-
Are you applying professional standards to someone reviewing games for fun? You say that you don't see that reviews should be held to a lower standard, but who sets the standards? If you don't like the reviews, you don't have to read them, but how many people do we need piling on comment after comment, all asking for the same information, especially after she's already stated she's said all she intends to on the issue? Perhaps a better choice would be to just agree to disagree and move on, no matter how much your interest might have been piqued by her claims she found the expansion to be "broken". Part of the beauty of this site, and it's community-driven core, is that we're all free to contribute in any way we choose. If you find your ability to put the reviewer's opinion in the context of your own experience, I imagine it might be cause for concern, but perhaps the blame is shared. Sure, more information to back her claim might shed a lot more light on her opinion, but ultimately, she declined and the issue is being pressed. At that point, I DO find it to be disrespectful. Let her write whatever she wants and if you don't get the info you desire, move on. This is a review, and a rather light one at that, certainly not a matter of great importance in the grand scheme of things. Is this really worth arguing over?
dalestephenson wrote: hskrfn822 wrote: It's a review, people. It may contain some facts, but reviews are subjective and contain opinions from the perspective of the reviewer. You don't have to like reviews or the reviewer, for that matter, but we can at least treat them with the same respect we'd like to be treated were we in their shoes. Has someone treated the OP with a lack of respect? Personally, if I were to make bold claims in a mere comment, I would not be offended if others asked me to support my claims. I don't see that reviews should be held to a lower standard. It's not at all a question of "facts" versus "opinions". The utility of a review is directly related to the ability to put the reviewer's opinions in the context of our own experience.
-
Dale Stephenson
United States
Buford
Georgia
-
hskrfn822 wrote: Are you applying professional standards to someone reviewing games for fun?
No. I have no idea what the "professional standards" for review actually are, but I suspect trying to strictly enforce them here would leave the site a poorer place. So would removing any criticism of the content of a review.
Quote: You say that you don't see that reviews should be held to a lower standard, but who sets the standards?
We do, collectively and individually. For example, you seem to feel that my posts do not meet your standards of proper behavior in a review thread.
Quote: If you don't like the reviews, you don't have to read them, but how many people do we need piling on comment after comment, all asking for the same information, especially after she's already stated she's said all she intends to on the issue?
Technically, the OP declined to revise the *review*. I suggested providing a link to where the appropriate discussion had taken place, or to start a separate thread on the subject. The OP may well not do either, and may not ever respond to either suggestion, but I see no harm in asking -- or in giving *my* opinion on whether including such details harmed a review.
I like the reviews, which is why I read them. If you do not care for the comments, perhaps you would prefer not to read them? How many people do we need commenting? As many as feel as they have a contribution to make.
Quote: Perhaps a better choice would be to just agree to disagree and move on, no matter how much your interest might have been piqued by her claims she found the expansion to be "broken". Part of the beauty of this site, and it's community-driven core, is that we're all free to contribute in any way we choose.
Exactly so. Which means that those are interested in a claim that the expansion is "broken" are free to request more information. If the OP never responds, perhaps someone else who feels strongly about the subject will take up the cause, discussion will ensue, content will be generated, and BGG will be a better place for it all. Why try to stifle the expression of commenters in a thread with no abusive behavior or remarks? If we're all free to contribute in any way we choose, why try to discourage me from contributing in any way I choose?
Quote: If you find your ability to put the reviewer's opinion in the context of your own experience, I imagine it might be cause for concern, but perhaps the blame is shared. Sure, more information to back her claim might shed a lot more light on her opinion, but ultimately, she declined and the issue is being pressed. At that point, I DO find it to be disrespectful. Let her write whatever she wants and if you don't get the info you desire, move on. This is a review, and a rather light one at that, certainly not a matter of great importance in the grand scheme of things. Is this really worth arguing over?
In the grand scheme of things, I question whether disagreeing over what constitutes appropriate commenting behavior in a review thread is more important than disagreeing over whether specific information to support a strong claim is useful in a review. And yet, here you are, doing exactly that. Do you consider yourself being disrespectful to me, simply for pressing the argument that further comments are disrespectful when you know I believe no lack of respect has occurred?
I believe there is a difference between disagreeing and being disagreeable, and believe that no one -- not you, not me, not the OP, not the other commenters, has been treated with a lack of respect.
-
|
|
