$10.00
Recommend
8 
 Thumb up
 Hide
14 Posts

7 Wonders» Forums » Reviews

Subject: Dr. Funktastic Reviews 7 Wonders rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Dr. Funktastic
msg tools
7 Wonders
The 2 following ratings do not factor into the rating of the game, because for instance, forgiving games are not necessarily better than non-forgiving games

1) Forgiving Rating ( 1 - 10 ) (Multiple mistakes are not detrimental to your chances of winning --> One mistake could cost you a victory.)
5 - When playing against players of equal experience/caliber the game is fairly forgiving as there tend to be many opportunities to make up for errors, or to turn your perceived error into a nice play. When playing against players of greater experience/caliber the game is less forgiving but a few mistakes will not be detrimental. Seating arrangement of noobs and experienced players can have a very large effect on the outcome.

2) Complexity ( 1 - 10 ) (Mindless Fluff --> My brain has melted and is oozing out my ears)
5 - Initially 7 Wonders feels a bit more complicated than it turns out to be. The expansions do wonders…and bring the game to a bit deeper level but not to a deep, deep one.

Rating the Game
Components vs cost ( 1 - 5) (I paid good money for these onion paper cards??? --> These gold coins are real gold!)
4.5 - The game isn't expensive, currently you can get the base game on Amazon for around $30. The components are of high production quality and the artwork is absolutely great. I tend to not sleeve cards, and they have held up to several plays, including game mates that have less used less sensitivity and shuffled them like a deck of bicycles. That said, the borders of the age cards have shown some chipping. Why most cards are produced with black borders still baffles me, the smallest chips will show, but alas, I am not a collector, more an avid player. All the chits are of nice quality and handle nicely.

Fun ( 1 - 20 ) (I would rather gouge my eyes out with a spoon than play this game --> Is that a stripper over there, meh Is it my turn yet?)
10.5 – Using 14 as an average ( 70% or 7/10), I feel that this game falls a bit lower than average, meaning it is not my first choice, but I will play without complaint because it is so accessible and takes little time. But there is always a little tiny sinking feeling when my favorite games get pushed aside and we put 7 Wonders on the table, I don’t know why it exists, but I must admit that it is consistently there. Set up warrants multiple plays. It is not a difficult game to set up but because length of play is fairly short, I always get a wee frustrated when we set up and only play once. Finally, my biggest beef with the game is how much of an effect seating arrangement can have on the game, best play occurs when everyone involve is similarly competent. If this is impossible spread the noobs out. The Leaders expansion ups the fun rating to 13. I haven’t experienced the Cities expansion yet.

Obtaining Victory ( 1 - 10 ) (Every victory is a product of the same sequence of events --> A multitude of paths to victory)
7 - The game scores an average rating of 7 here. It tends to be a reactionary game of dealing with what is dealt to you. Knowing the technology or advancement trees is definitely beneficial to solid play. Burying an opponent’s link is mandatory, military tends to be a bust, but I will admit I have seen it succeed, Science advancements, when playing against an observant, knowledgeable, table often fall flat as a singular winning strategy, so the winner almost always tends to be he whom achieves the most balance through reactionary play. The Leaders expansion bumps this category to an 8.

Teaching and Learning ( 1 - 5 ) (It is easier to prove that there are an infinite number of twin primes --> ABC easy as 123)
3.5 – Although the game is fairly straight forward, noses still end up in the rulebook after several plays, sometimes I wonder….how the hell come you don’t know that icon yet! Then I find myself looking at a Wonder Mat I haven’t had in a while and do the same thing. Knowing this game forward and backward, however is achievable…until one throws the Leaders expansion in, and the iconography goes crazy…dropping the with Leaders score to 3.

Scale-ability ( 1 - 5 ) (Works only with less/more players --> Works great with any (published) number of players)
4 - This game is published as 2 - 7. I like the game at 4, however I think one of the main reasons this game shines amongst board game enthusiasts is that it plays 7 nicely and doesn’t take any longer. There is no direct interaction with players whom are not directly next to you, but indirect interaction with all players as you can bury cards that any opponent might be looking to play. It helps immensely to have a caller during large games. “Passing 6, Choosing 1 of 6. Playing 1 of 6. Passing 5. Etc…” .Inevitably someone will screw up in a large game. “Where did this pile come from? Hey! I just had these cards! Etc…” I haven’t played the 2 player game.

Access-ability ( 1 - 5 ) (Must be played by the hardest of hardcore gamers --> Easily played by my wife)
5 - She will play it, but it takes coersion, and I don't have to give up much. With Leaders 4, this makes the game more cerebral, but begins to isolate some players.

Overall Score
(4.5 + 10.5 + 7 + 3.5 + 4 + 5) = 34.5
6.9

With Leaders 36.5 = 7.3

Please note that I make no reference to theme, and replayability. I firmly believe that all themes are pasted on, and are what you as the player make of them. When I play Glen More, I choose to play Glen More as a Scotsman making whiskey and building my clan, because that is the theme of the game. Furthermore, I think all games are replayable, and that a game evolves with those playing it.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fernando Robert Yu
Philippines
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ok review, but you have to fix your conclusion since it still refers to Glen More.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mumu shanshi
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
freddieyu wrote:
Ok review, but you have to fix your conclusion since it still refers to Glen More.

I think that is what is known as an 'example'.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Norwood
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Firstly, Good Review.

Your component rating seems inflated, but it's your review/opinion.

A few points:

It's a card game in the end.

The cards are the weakest component, bar none. They are flimsy and not of even "average" card stock, and bend on the corners far too easily. This seems out of whack with a card -based game.

It is well documented the problems I had with replacing my Age III deck from the game producer because the ink shades on the backs of the cards were variant. They whiffed on two replacement decks, and this was a very frustrating experience for me. I decided to cannabilize all three Age III decks i had to see if I could put together a reasonably playable Age III deck. I succeeded, barely, this weekend.



1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dr. Funktastic
msg tools
Thanks Mark.

I agree with your points concerning the main components are the cards, and thusly they should be the main focus of the rating. Admittedly I hadn't considered this...

However, I have scaled the categories and components are only worth 5 pts, So 6.9 is still pretty close.

Sorry about your cards! That sucks really bad, and agree that if that happened to me, I would be upset. I hate doing it, but can you sleeve them? It would atleast salvage the game right?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan Kinney
Canada
Surrey
British Columbia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Dr Funktastic wrote:
Thanks Mark.

I agree with your points concerning the main components are the cards, and thusly they should be the main focus of the rating. Admittedly I hadn't considered this...

However, I have scaled the categories and components are only worth 5 pts, So 6.9 is still pretty close.

Sorry about your cards! That sucks really bad, and agree that if that happened to me, I would be upset. I hate doing it, but can you sleeve them? It would atleast salvage the game right?



Here's the thing. If you we're a paid reviewer I would expect you to document known problems to assist other people. But when I read a "community" review, I expect that the reviewer is focusing specifically on their own personal copy. If you're copy is fine...then it's completely fair to give the components whatever rating you want.

I'm not expecting detailed research of every threading the geek to see if people had problems. Now by the same token, if you were aware of others' plights and wanted to make reference to it, that's great. But, personally that's a level of research I'm not expecting from an unpaid, volunteer review.

Nice job, by the way.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Norwood
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jonocop wrote:
Dr Funktastic wrote:
Thanks Mark.

I agree with your points concerning the main components are the cards, and thusly they should be the main focus of the rating. Admittedly I hadn't considered this...

However, I have scaled the categories and components are only worth 5 pts, So 6.9 is still pretty close.

Sorry about your cards! That sucks really bad, and agree that if that happened to me, I would be upset. I hate doing it, but can you sleeve them? It would atleast salvage the game right?



Here's the thing. If you we're a paid reviewer I would expect you to document known problems to assist other people. But when I read a "community" review, I expect that the reviewer is focusing specifically on their own personal copy. If you're copy is fine...then it's completely fair to give the components whatever rating you want.

I'm not expecting detailed research of every threading the geek to see if people had problems. Now by the same token, if you were aware of others' plights and wanted to make reference to it, that's great. But, personally that's a level of research I'm not expecting from an unpaid, volunteer review.

Nice job, by the way.


Which is exactly why I brought it up, in context, to the quality of the cards in 7 wonders.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Teverbaugh
United States
Anderson
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
markgravitygood wrote:
jonocop wrote:
Dr Funktastic wrote:
Thanks Mark.

I agree with your points concerning the main components are the cards, and thusly they should be the main focus of the rating. Admittedly I hadn't considered this...

However, I have scaled the categories and components are only worth 5 pts, So 6.9 is still pretty close.

Sorry about your cards! That sucks really bad, and agree that if that happened to me, I would be upset. I hate doing it, but can you sleeve them? It would atleast salvage the game right?



Here's the thing. If you we're a paid reviewer I would expect you to document known problems to assist other people. But when I read a "community" review, I expect that the reviewer is focusing specifically on their own personal copy. If you're copy is fine...then it's completely fair to give the components whatever rating you want.

I'm not expecting detailed research of every threading the geek to see if people had problems. Now by the same token, if you were aware of others' plights and wanted to make reference to it, that's great. But, personally that's a level of research I'm not expecting from an unpaid, volunteer review.

Nice job, by the way.


Which is exactly why I brought it up, in context, to the quality of the cards in 7 wonders.


But you wrote his component rating was inflated. It wasn't based on his experience and also on mine.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Norwood
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
rickert wrote:
markgravitygood wrote:
jonocop wrote:
Dr Funktastic wrote:
Thanks Mark.

I agree with your points concerning the main components are the cards, and thusly they should be the main focus of the rating. Admittedly I hadn't considered this...

However, I have scaled the categories and components are only worth 5 pts, So 6.9 is still pretty close.

Sorry about your cards! That sucks really bad, and agree that if that happened to me, I would be upset. I hate doing it, but can you sleeve them? It would atleast salvage the game right?



Here's the thing. If you we're a paid reviewer I would expect you to document known problems to assist other people. But when I read a "community" review, I expect that the reviewer is focusing specifically on their own personal copy. If you're copy is fine...then it's completely fair to give the components whatever rating you want.

I'm not expecting detailed research of every threading the geek to see if people had problems. Now by the same token, if you were aware of others' plights and wanted to make reference to it, that's great. But, personally that's a level of research I'm not expecting from an unpaid, volunteer review.

Nice job, by the way.


Which is exactly why I brought it up, in context, to the quality of the cards in 7 wonders.


But you wrote his component rating was inflated. It wasn't based on his experience and also on mine.


Tell me what is out of whack here, removing my personal experiences with the poor card printing quality:

markgravitygood wrote:
Firstly, Good Review.

Your component rating seems inflated, but it's your review/opinion.

A few points:

It's a card game in the end.


This cannot be argued.
markgravitygood wrote:

The cards are the weakest component, bar none. They are flimsy and not of even "average" card stock, and bend on the corners far too easily. This seems out of whack with a card -based game.


This cannot be argued either. they ARE the weakest component, without a doubt. There are numerous complaints the cards wear terribly (not by me because of my aformentioned issues with getting a playable Age III deck) on BGG.

Now, if you give 4.5 out of 5 for components in a card game and the review further agrees the cards are not of the best quality, then I would say the 4.5 is inflated to some degree under the components category.

That is all I am saying and is not unreasonable, and is in fact, an opinion.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Teverbaugh
United States
Anderson
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The fact that you said his rating was inflated and used your experience to prove it. His rating is based on his experience. Perfectly acceptable for you to write that your experience differs from the review, but it doesn't make HIS rating inflated. Probably just bad choice of words on your part regardless of how you qualified it later.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Norwood
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I said "seems inflated." I did not say "is/was inflated."; I further offered my opinion on the matter so the OP knew where I was coming from.

Seems: To give the impression of being;

Seems is what I meant - "gives the impression of being inflated."

Again, I did not say it WAS inflated, you are the only one who "seems" bent on putting words in my mouth.

whistle


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Teverbaugh
United States
Anderson
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
markgravitygood wrote:
I said "seems inflated." I did not say "is/was inflated."; I further offered my opinion on the matter so the OP knew where I was coming from.

Seems: To give the impression of being;

Seems is what I meant - "gives the impression of being inflated."

Again, I did not say it WAS inflated, you are the only one who "seems" bent on putting words in my mouth.

whistle




You can write your way out of it if you want. I know what was written and I know it "seems" to be the wrong way to put it. So my "impression" is, you were wrong to do it that way.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dr. Funktastic
msg tools
Sorry guys, didn't mean to cause an issue...

Seems to me that you are both right.
My rating IS based upon my own experiences, my cards are holding up fine...in spite of "shuffling like they are a pack of bicycle playing cards" and thusly I gave it a 4.5.

However I concede to the fact that in a card game the primary component is the cards...and when I was rating this I was mesmerized by the thoughts of beautiful Wonder Mats and let it inflate my rating.

In hind sight...perhaps I reduce the rating to a 4...which reduces the overall rating to a 6.8, not a big enough change to warrant an edit IMO.

I am just writing these reviews because I enjoy thinking about and consolidating my thoughts on games that I have played several times and seeing how my rubric pans out with my overall non numerical impression of the game. So far they do. And I'm working towards an avatar..

1 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan Kinney
Canada
Surrey
British Columbia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Dr Funktastic wrote:
Sorry guys, didn't mean to cause an issue...

Seems to me that you are both right.
My rating IS based upon my own experiences, my cards are holding up fine...in spite of "shuffling like they are a pack of bicycle playing cards" and thusly I gave it a 4.5.

However I concede to the fact that in a card game the primary component is the cards...and when I was rating this I was mesmerized by the thoughts of beautiful Wonder Mats and let it inflate my rating.

In hind sight...perhaps I reduce the rating to a 4...which reduces the overall rating to a 6.8, not a big enough change to warrant an edit IMO.

I am just writing these reviews because I enjoy thinking about and consolidating my thoughts on games that I have played several times and seeing how my rubric pans out with my overall non numerical impression of the game. So far they do. And I'm working towards an avatar..



No need to apologize. This review is your opinion. Don't give in if you have had a different experience than someone who really just seems to have a gripe with a game publisher.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.