A game that really needs a second play before I can judge it, but that won't stop me trying. I don't think I'm a huge fan of engine-building but this has more interaction and competition than some of the other games I've played. Maybe a bit on the long side for me too, but will give it another go if I get the chance.
Slightly too long for the payoff, but an interesting mechanic. The disappointing thing was that in our 5-player game everyone made it to two pairs - meaning the winner was the player who had the single highest pair.
One play (or rather one experience) of this really strange game made it an instant buy for me. A great example of something where the story and the playing is much more important than the winning. I guess it would be nice if there was some predictability in using abilities and choosing actions, but then again maybe not...
Another instant buy, just because I can't think of a) a situation where there's not enough time or space for a game and b) anybody who could ever say the game was too complicated or too fiddly. The strategy seems very simple, but it's still good when a bit of push-your-luck pays off.
A first game of SoC (the other SoC...), and it was good fun. Reminded me of Lord of the Rings somewhat in rushing around and laying down cards to stop bad things happening, but was a bit less repetitive. The traitor seems a bit under-powered but it's a fun game, and surprisingly light and fast for something that can accomodate so many players.
After a second game my opinion is unchanged: it's not going to be one of my favourites, but I'd definitely play it from time-to-time.
Whenever I tried describing Space Alert to anyone they said "Oh, so it's a bit like RoboRally?" This made me want to play RoboRally.
After 1 game, it's hard to say whether I'll like it or not: we played the easiest board, and only had three players. Hence it turned into a bit of a multiplayer solitaire puzzle. Even with more, though, I'd be surprised if this trumps Space Alert for me.
The Boss was okay... A bit too random, and seemingly slightly formulaic play (i.e. wait until there's more information, place your gangsters in the last two turns). Probably the randomness makes the "place late" strategy less sure-fire, but the decisions just didn't seem quite interesting enough for me.
Citadels has been on my "want to play" list for quite a while, and I was unsure what I'd think of it. I'd read that there was a fair amount of backstabbing and it turned out that yes, there was a bit, but that wasn't the problem I had with it. For me, the game didn't really flow that well, in that every time I took a turn it felt like I was doing something sub-optimal. For example, I was building a cheap district so I didn't have gold to be robbed of next turn. Or I was taking cards because I had an empty hand, but next turn I'd have to take money, and then the turn after that I might get to build something...
Contrast this with something like 7 Wonders where every turn feels like a choice between great things to do and it just makes the game a lot less fun for me.
As with all things, a second play is probably needed to see if the subtle decisions about roles lift it, but I get the feeling this isn't going to be a winner.
A very under-rated game, if the rankings here are to be believed. It's definitely got a high random factor but it's quite good fun, and I'm always a sucker for any kind of tile-laying. I'm going to have to look out for a copy of Angkor.
Or "Masters Gallery" as it said on the box (and in the BGG entry). I was worried this was going to be a bit dry but, as often happens, the decision-making that Knizia puts us through keeps things interesting. A pretty good card game all-in-all.
I'd seen people playing this at London on Board and it looked good fun. When it came to playing it I didn't like it quite as much as I thought I would. I think it was just a bit too long for what it offered. Still enjoyable but not great for me.
This was a game I'd been wanting to try for a while as I'd heard there was quite a lot of player interaction. When it came to it, there was, but it still seemed a bit limited. Turns were a bit too long, and there weren't many rounds in the game. A turn could also end suddenly because an opponent played a super-powerful card. It was okay, but not as great as I'd hoped.
Since reading about Taluva I'd been wanting to play it. It hits all the right spots for me: light, fast, tile-laying! It didn't disappoint and, win or lose, I just love the look of the landscapes that emerge from the game. It's on my "must have" list now.
Having played this, I get the feeling that I'm just not a huge fan of area control games. It was okay, although I prefer a bit more fun in a game, especially at over two hours play time. (Although 3 of us had never played before.)
I can see the appeal, though, as the relatively simple rules (once you understand them) do set up quite interesting board dynamics.
The premise of hidden roles seemed interesting, but in practice the game played out quite simply. I don't mind luck in games but most of the time gameplay seemed to come down to "just play the cards you picked up" and the decision on who to shoot at didn't seem much of a decision to make 90% of the time. Not awful, but there are pleny of other party-type games that I'd rather play ahead of Bang.
Trick-taking games aren't my favourite category but I'll still be partial to one now and again. Haggis plays really well with only 2 players and I can see there's a lot of depth in decision-making and planning which I haven't even scratched the surface of in the few hands I've played. Good game for a train journey, I think.
A cheap eBay purchase which I was on the fence about. Opinion after one game is that it's okay for something fairly light, and could be fun with the right group of non-gamers, but it doesn't have enough challenge to be satisfying or enough interaction to be fun.
There doesn't seem to be much complexity in decision-making - or possibly there's so much complexity that all decisions are roughly as beneficial as each other - and as a two-player game there isn't enough opportunity to slow down the leader.
A game that I liked the look of since a) it's by the designer of Carcassonne and b) you get to throw your opponent's pieces into a volcano. It's pretty good fun even if a bit light on strategy. There's something satisfying about hoping to draw exactly the right lava tile to be able to cut off an opponent's exit...
Apparently one of the heavier Knizia games, and I liked it quite a bit. There's a lot going on but it's not too difficult to grasp at all and the game manages to include balancing without any bash the leader or cut-throat mechanics at all. Maybe it's a bit dry (not just because of the desert...) but I enjoyed it all the same.
This is definitely a struggle of a game. Although there were lots of good things about it, I'm much more of a fan of games that offer choices between many good things than ones where you're constantly having to minimise your losses, or take strategic losses, without seeming to move forward at all. Also, I think the "skip a turn" penalty is about the most un-fun mechanic you can include in any game.
I was very tempted to buy this just because a) it had monsters and b) it looked quite silly. After only one play it didn't seem quite as short and snappy as a game with very little decision-making should be. I think a second play is needed, though. But I am less inclined to buy it now.