Recommend
10 
 Thumb up
 Hide
6 Posts

Agricola» Forums » Reviews

Subject: Agricola: So good I reviewed it twice rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jacko Lantern
msg tools
mbmbmbmb
My first review http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/387823 was mainly about learning to play it. This one looks at the differences between the various versions.

Family version: Way too complex for me to learn! As noted in my other review, this should really have its own explanation of its rules. That said, I could imagine it would be a useful variant to teach to beginners who couldn't handle cards.

Solo version: I haven't tried it. And I probably won't. I was initially attracted by the idea of the game being for 1-5 players. But if I fancy playing Agricola on my own, which BTW I often do, I'd rather play out a multiplayer game (taking the part of each player in turn) to discover more about strategy and tactics.

2-player version: (This is one I don't play on my own: it would be too much like playing chess against myself.) As with 2-player poker, the psychology of the 2-player version of Agricola is quite different from playing with 3+ players. It isn't a bad game at all, as it has just enough interaction to avoid multi-solitaire syndrome without being constantly confrontational. Two characteristics of the 2-player version are the narrow choice of actions and the scarcity of clay. They don't spoil the game, but if you're used to playing with more players then you may find that strategies you're used to playing don't work in this version. Arguably the best 2-player Eurogame I've seen.

3-player version: I think this is my favourite version. The ratios of actions and resources per player works out very well, and there aren't so many players that you often have to fight over starting player so you can grab the key action space next round. Certainly the best 3-player game of any genre I've ever played.

4-player version: I wouldn't go so far as to say this version's "broken", but there are better games for 4 players than Agricola. I think the problem is that the ratios of actions and resources per player are rather low. In particular there's almost always too much of a battle over the family growth action, to the extent that in this version the wet nurse occupation card tends to be overpowering.

5-player version: Better than the 4-player version, and very possibly right up there with the 3-player version (I'm not sure as I've only tried it a few times so far). The ability to start farming pigs and cows early on certainly adds a new dimension.

Overall rating 9.5, based on: 10 for 3- and 5-player versions, 9.5 for 2-player, 9 for 4-player and (I guess) 9 for the rest.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean Shaw
United States
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My own opinion is that reviewing a game twice is bad form, edit and combine the reviews or something is at least better I would think.

I am happy people write reviews, and I think the Geek need more to write reviews...but two on the same game seems like...fishing?

But, Hey, normally I'm the minority here on the geek.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Smeding
Canada
St. Albert
Alberta
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GreyLord wrote:
My own opinion is that reviewing a game twice is bad form, edit and combine the reviews or something is at least better I would think.

I am happy people write reviews, and I think the Geek need more to write reviews...but two on the same game seems like...fishing?

But, Hey, normally I'm the minority here on the geek.


After reading both of Rainsiko's post's, I would have to say that his second 'review' is more like a 'player sweet spot' post. I think it's nice to break down a review into aspects that you feel stand out the most. It gives a highlight view of what you think makes the game soooo good or sooo bad.
thumbsup for this post.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Seligson
United States
Arizona
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
GFireflyE wrote:
GreyLord wrote:
My own opinion is that reviewing a game twice is bad form, edit and combine the reviews or something is at least better I would think.

I am happy people write reviews, and I think the Geek need more to write reviews...but two on the same game seems like...fishing?

But, Hey, normally I'm the minority here on the geek.


After reading both of Rainsiko's post's, I would have to say that his second 'review' is more like a 'player sweet spot' post. I think it's nice to break down a review into aspects that you feel stand out the most. It gives a highlight view of what you think makes the game soooo good or sooo bad.
:thumbsup: for this post.


I completely agree with Mike, and appreciate the viewpoint. I was very curious what his experience and opinions were, as I haven't played many 4 or 5 player games. I would not have combined this content with his first review, and if I would have changed anything, it would be to focus the title a little bit.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geoff Burkman
United States
Kettering
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Peekaboo!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rainsiko wrote:
My first review http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/387823 was mainly about learning to play it. This one looks at the differences between the various versions.

Family version: Way too complex for me to learn! As noted in my other review, this should really have its own explanation of its rules. That said, I could imagine it would be a useful variant to teach to beginners who couldn't handle cards.


Way too complex? Huh? How is that possible?

Rainsiko wrote:
Solo version: I haven't tried it. And I probably won't. I was initially attracted by the idea of the game being for 1-5 players. But if I fancy playing Agricola on my own, which BTW I often do, I'd rather play out a multiplayer game (taking the part of each player in turn) to discover more about strategy and tactics.


Agreed, though I'll normally only do so with a solo 2-player game. That's enough bitfiddling for me.

Rainsiko wrote:
2-player version: (This is one I don't play on my own: it would be too much like playing chess against myself.)...


Which is why I can tolerate it. 3-, 4-, or 5-player solo would be like playing Chinese Checkers against yourself, with waaaay too much bitfiddling.

Rainsiko wrote:
3-player version: I think this is my favourite version. The ratios of actions and resources per player works out very well, and there aren't so many players that you often have to fight over starting player so you can grab the key action space next round. Certainly the best 3-player game of any genre I've ever played.


The only drawback to 3-player, if you can call it that, is the shortage of reed. Beyond that, my crew tends to grab SP from each other just as much as we do in 4-player games. I can't say it's the "best 3-player game of any genre I've ever played," but it ain't too hateful. Give Caylus a try, or Puerto Rico. Both very solid in the 3-player department.

Rainsiko wrote:
4-player version: I wouldn't go so far as to say this version's "broken", but there are better games for 4 players than Agricola. I think the problem is that the ratios of actions and resources per player are rather low. In particular there's almost always too much of a battle over the family growth action, to the extent that in this version the wet nurse occupation card tends to be overpowering.


Feh to the Wet Nurse! And in a well-contested game of Agricola, Family Growth is going to be a hotspot, no matter how many players there are (assuming they know what they're doing, of course).

Rainsiko wrote:
5-player version: Better than the 4-player version, and very possibly right up there with the 3-player version (I'm not sure as I've only tried it a few times so far). The ability to start farming pigs and cows early on certainly adds a new dimension.


Absolutely! As does the "Through the Seasons" variant, I'll add. I've only played 5-player a handful of times, and would love to play more.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jacko Lantern
msg tools
mbmbmbmb
GreyLord wrote:
I think the Geek need more to write reviews...but two on the same game seems like...fishing?


My first one earnt me a couple of GG so that was like the fishing spot. This one was an afterthought but has got more thumbs up, so I guess it's more of a Minor Improvement kiss
 
 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.