Recommend
11 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

World Without End» Forums » General

Subject: Pillars of the Earth or World without End? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Marco Signore
Italy
Napoli
Italy
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Which one to choose, if you could only buy one?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Kundlak
Slovakia
Bratislava
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Depends....

Pillars are more "rich" with features and overall "dripping" with theme. Not that World has less, it is just a more compact game.

My choice would be Pillars first and than later World (if you still wish for it). Pillars may attract more newcomers than World, but World on the other hand has some nice mechanics (turning the Event cards to get a specific bonus for everyone...).

I would first choose Pillars and then World.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roger Fawcett
United Kingdom
Northwich
Cheshire
flag msg tools
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
badge
There's just one kind of favor I'll ask for you - you can see that my grave is kept clean
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have both. I've played Pillars quite a lot and World without End twice. Even after playing it once I immediately liked it more than Pillars. Pillars has lots going for it and is a great resource management and building game. World sidelines the building but gives you many more things to keep in balance. It has (arguably) more replayability because of the use of event cards.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Varholak
Slovakia
Pezinok
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
To whom that has read the novels both games including PotE+expansion & WwE are must have.

Since the PotE is more dedicated to people (craftsmen, master builders, workmen), WwE is more focusing thematically on resources and novel parallels.

I like both games very much!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Smith
United States
Troy
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I prefer Pillars, because I feel like I'm building my engine over the course of the 6 turns. My craftsmen get more efficient, I can build synergies between craftsmen and with privilege cards. It's a little more predictable than WWE, which I also like.

In WWE, I felt like each of the 4 chapters was repetative. My resources were mostly consumed by the chapter-end penances, and I had the exact same twelve cards at the start of each chapter. The events provide variation from game to game, but Pillars+expansion provides the same variation via different event, craftsmen and privilege cards each game. The events in WWE remove all ability to plan ahead, as you could get wammied by an event because of the actions you've already used/discarded, without you having any way to plan for, or avoid, that event. That makes WWE lighter and more random, which may be your preference. I prefer the planning/building of Pillars to the lightness/randomness of WWE.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
O R
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
“Bugger this. I want a better world.”
badge
"Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth; it is wise and terrible."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I had both, played 10+ games of each, and eventually traded World Without End away. So I clearly prefer Pillars... But...

Both have lots of stuff in common and are good games. The action card selection (WWE) is a step up from random selection (POTE) but for me, that never made up for doing away with craftsmen & the whole building and feeding your very own victory point engine thing.

Some will surely disagree, but WWE felt more tactical to me (just take the best punctual decision at every given moment and you'll come out on top) whereas POTE was more strategic (decisions have longer lasting impacts, more planning possible/necessary). Of course in WWE you have to "plan" which cards your wanna play in the era, but it's doesn't have the same scope. In turn, this makes WWE somewhat more streamlined / newbie friendly (imho of course).

Hopefully that makes some sense and can help you pick the best one for you.

Cheers.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam K
Sweden
Linköping
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
WWE seems to be compared with Pillars all the time. I have never played Pillars so it would be nice with some other comparisons.

I like games like Caylus, Puerto Rico, Agricola, Cuba. Also simplier games like Notre Dame, Stone Age and Thurn und Taxis. How is the game compared to any of those?

I've heard Pillars is only good with the expansion, and although some people find pillars better, there is also a value in having a 2009-game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
O R
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
“Bugger this. I want a better world.”
badge
"Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth; it is wise and terrible."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LupusX wrote:
WWE seems to be compared with Pillars all the time. I have never played Pillars so it would be nice with some other comparisons.

I like games like Caylus, Puerto Rico, Agricola, Cuba. Also simplier games like Notre Dame, Stone Age and Thurn und Taxis. How is the game compared to any of those?

I've heard Pillars is only good with the expansion, and although some people find pillars better, there is also a value in having a 2009-game.


It gets compared with Pillars because both games are from the same designers and inspired by book for the same author with gameplay mechanics which have a lot in common. Pillars is also a widely played game, so it's a good starting point for a comparison. But if you want a higher level comparison, whatever is said about pillars can also be applied to wwe (partially at the very least).

Now, as for the 4 "complex" games you mentioned, these are all part of my top 10 and so is pillars, so I'd say it's a good match for you. I completely disagree about pillars only being good with expansion. I have the expansion and only use it with 5 or 6 players. It makes pillars a bit more random and less predictable, which might be why people like it, but for me it's not a plus.

I also like NotreDame a lot and the card selection has a bit in common with wwe's card selection mechanics, which the overall only original part of wwe (ie, that pillars doesn't have). So if you really connected on that, you might like that about wwe.

Also, since you mention Stone Age, Pillars of the Earth (wwe to a much lesser degree) really has a lot in common with StoneAge. Central builders placement mechanic with resources collection and all that. Pillars removes the random (dices in StoneAge) from the production phase and replaces it with a nice auction type card selection. The victory point collection is also a bit more elaborate in Pillars, with the "build your own VP engine" craftmen mechanic. So if you like stone age and aren't afraid of a bit more richness (which you aren't if you like Caylus), you will like Pillars. It's a truly impressive game.

Thurn and Taxis is really too random and simple for my personnal taste and in that, resemble wwe a bit more. One thing my group also liked about WWE is that the theme is more vivid, with random events and such being more "narrative" than Pillars.

And lastly, I personally see no intrinsic value what so ever in getting a game from 2009 over one from 2006 =) Of course if the game is better then ok, but all things being equal, the year a game was produced holds no relevance to me. So you're on your own for this =)

Hope this helps.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam K
Sweden
Linköping
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This summary was perfect, exactly what I needed! The problem with Stone Age is that it is a little too simple (still fun) but more depth and more richness, as you put it, is what's missing.

I'll go for Pillars, especially if one doesn't need the expansion.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hugh Cowan
Canada
Toronto
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
LupusX wrote:

Also, since you mention Stone Age, Pillars of the Earth (wwe to a much lesser degree) really has a lot in common with StoneAge. Central builders placement mechanic with resources collection and all that. Pillars removes the random (dices in StoneAge) from the production phase and replaces it with a nice auction type card selection. The victory point collection is also a bit more elaborate in Pillars, with the "build your own VP engine" craftmen mechanic. So if you like stone age and aren't afraid of a bit more richness (which you aren't if you like Caylus), you will like Pillars. It's a truly impressive game.


Hi,

What about World Without an End versus Stone Age? I have Pillars of the Earth and quite like it so I was looking at WWE, but I keep seeing references to Stone Age which is a game that I had never heard of before.

I checked and Stone Age is quite high up on the Games list (34th or something), so it would appear to be quite good -- I just don't know if it would seem like just another version of PotE or not?

Thanks..........


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
O R
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
“Bugger this. I want a better world.”
badge
"Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth; it is wise and terrible."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hcowan wrote:

What about World Without an End versus Stone Age? I have Pillars of the Earth and quite like it so I was looking at WWE, but I keep seeing references to Stone Age which is a game that I had never heard of before.

I checked and Stone Age is quite high up on the Games list (34th or something), so it would appear to be quite good -- I just don't know if it would seem like just another version of PotE or not?


Well, WWE and SA are semantically much further apart then POTE.

To me, SA is a light version of POTE, eschewing much of the peripheral mechanics to concentrate solely on worker placement. It can be played with your family and non-gaming friends pretty easily and is very simple and friendly. It also relies on luck more which also makes it more forgiving. Knowing what I know now, given the people I play with, I wouldn't get SA, but it's a very nice game. In a way, it falls in the "too casual for me" category with other excellent games like Ticket to Ride and Thurn & Taxis. So it depends on what you are looking for.

WWE on the other hand, even though I feel it's less strategic, isn't really simpler than POTE. There's a sense of urgency of constantly having to make ends meet every season (a bit like in NotreDame with the Plage or Year of the Dragon with the monthly events) and it feels a bit like you are doing damage control more than "building" or growing. That can still be interesting and engaging, but it's a different game for a different crowd I think.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam K
Sweden
Linköping
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In which game of Pillars and WWE is the most interaction involved?

hcowan: It was really confusing as you quoted me, but the text is actually written by Lapsus (not Lupus ).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
O R
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
“Bugger this. I want a better world.”
badge
"Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth; it is wise and terrible."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LupusX wrote:
In which game of Pillars and WWE is the most interaction involved?


Well, most will agree that neither of them have really significant direct players interactions,

In POTE, you compete for the resources generation cards, and you also compete for spots on the board (iron, crafters and characters in particular).

In WWE, you give stuff to others when it's your turn (with the event card rotation placement) and you compete for spots on the board (houses in particular).

I feel WWE's interaction might be slightly less significant (albeit as present) as POTE's. This being said, this is really splitting hair at this point as both games really offer limited and somewhat indirect player interaction. Of course, you are competing with other players for points, but that's a given =)
 
 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.