G W M
Australia
Sydney
New South Wales
Why is it that '90% fat free' sounds so much better than '10% fat'?
-
Like many, I was a big fan of Carl Chudyk and his work on two games in recent times namely Innovation and Glory to Rome. I particularly liked Innovation, and so was then intrigued when I saw Organic Soup while I was cruising around BGG.
I did chemistry up to the end of high school and was ok but not brilliant at the subject but it always fascinated me, and I am somewhat of a science-nut. So when I saw a game that seemed on the surface to be about building molecules in a board game context, and the Chudyk name was on the box, i thought I'd give it a try.
I also had not tried purchasing a game from www.thegamecrafter.com, which I have to say overall was a positive experience. The game is not as pretty as more commercial publishers, but I was still more than happy with the cards and box, though I have to say the rules were a little ordinary. Probably the coolest aspect of the order was checking the progress steps, somehow there was something awesome about my set being 'stiched together' as I waited!
The Game
The game is remarkably simple, and is actually easier to pick up than Innovation and a lot easier than GTR.
Rules can be summarised as follows:
* 12 atoms on the table at any one time.
* Players have a simple, complex and amino-nucleic recipe card in their hand (these can be changed by you once per turn, one of your choice) - recipes require you to build molecules using simpler molecules you have already made.
* You can only build a complex after a simple, and an amino-nucleic after a complex etc.
* If you don't have the majority of a molecule on the table in front of you, other players can steal your molecules to build their own!
* Back to chemistry class, when you trigger a reaction, you have to use all your molecules in totality, i.e. no leftovers (this reminded me a lot of chemistry exams!)
* First to build amino-nucleic wins.
Verdict
My review and verdict is based on playing with two players, but I think my conclusions can be generalised to the 3-4 player option.
On the positive side, the game is easy to pick up and doesn't take long to play. If you like chemistry and associated bits and pieces - molecules, chemical symbolism etc, this will be right up your street. As a parent I can also see applications in using this as a fun way to teach kids some aspects of chemistry and how it works in a fun setting.
On the negative side, this game has no real special cards or spoliers, the only unique aspect is the robbing of molecules from other players when they don't control the majority of the molecules, other than that this is basically a laddering set collection game where you are collecting atoms, then molecules to build increasingly complex molecules, with the ability to swap your 'goal cards' by changing recipes at the different levels. So, if you end up with a no-good combination of ingredients you can change track at the next level etc.
Conclusion
Not one that will see a lot of game time with myself, certainly not one for couples except perhaps a couple of chemists who love their work too much! The game is certainly not broken (the math is actually very elegant as you'd expect from the author), just not my cup of tea, despite liking my science. Probably need a few more plays to be sure, but thats the call so far. GM
-
Hunter Bennett-Daggett
United States
Dover
New Hampshire
-
Good review. I bought Rootword for more or less the same reason - liking Chudyk and word games, it seemed to have great potential. However, the result was also pretty similar. It was a decent game, cleverly constructed, but at least as a 2 player experience not that fun after a couple of plays. I had suspected this game would be the same. Thanks for confirming that!
-
michael dorazio
United States
tyngsboro
Massachusetts
-
Awesome game, but not so hot for two players. Three and four players are where it's at.
-
Boots
Australia
Petersham
New South Wales
-
I was the other player for the session that went into this review. My impression was that it had much of what makes other Chudyk games great - progression in the form of tiered recipes and interesting comboing in the form of the balancing reaction mechanic.
I'll concede that in four players the 'guarding' mechanism would make play more cutthroat and interesting, but in our game I found the progression to be too simple, as the basic molecules often gave you ample space to take leftover reagents, especially carbon. You really don't need to balance carbon out as it can always revert to single cards.
Unless we got a rule wrong?
-
Bruce Oppenheim
Australia
Sydney
NSW
-
Nice review Guy,
Would be keen to play this with you some day! - being a science nut!
-
G W M
Australia
Sydney
New South Wales
Why is it that '90% fat free' sounds so much better than '10% fat'?
-
Thanks Bruce, I think this one would be right up your alley, look forward to a game with you on the North Shore sometime! GM
-
|
|
Why is it that '90% fat free' sounds so much better than '10% fat'?
