It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Tonight on GeekNights, we review the mediocre Innovation and the basic but well done Village. Skip the former, but use the latter as a nice intermediate board game. In the news, Games for Windows Live dies, and Origin will allow refunds of EA games. Rym also geekbites Fire Emblem: Awakening (it's no Advance Wars). Come see us at PAX Prime, where we'll be presenting Bad Games and gaming at the Pre-PAX Sky High Tabletop Play Benefitting Food Lifeline!
Download MP3
Comments
In any case the opinion on the franchise holds for me. I had a real defining young gamer experience with Shining Force on the Genesis, and Fire Emblem helped scratch that itch many years later. I enjoyed the first one, never finished the second, and wanted to throw the Gamecube one in the trash (but begrudgingly finished it).
As for Innovation, gonna listen to that part soon. I played the game once and my only criticisms were the crappy graphic design, and that it took a bit long to teach for what we got out of it (also could be helped by stronger graphic design). I thought the gameplay itself was fairly solid. There is a re-make coming, btw, for those who like the game but hate the art.
As Scott J said, though, the general consensus of those "in the know" is that Innovation is a good game, so looking forward to hearing the criticism. You guys are hard to please but also back your shit up, which is a big part of why people listen to GeekNights
I am a fan of Village, and the "good intermediate game" take is accurate. I use it as a next step up from Ticket to Ride/Zooloretto. There is an expansion that launched at Gen Con ("Village Inn") which adds new buildings and might push it into "gamer's game" territory. I'm sure I'll check it out at some point.
This game is only "light" if players don't really understand it or aren't really playing seriously to win.
The game is solid but not good and colleges of mine and I broke the game down and tried to redesign it to make it better.
Innovation: In your comparison to Glory to Rome, did you actually note that they are made by the same guy?
I feel validated on my complaint of "this game took way too fucking long to teach." That, and the fact that it took us just over an hour to play a 2-player game is why I actually haven't revisited Innovation in the 2 years since I first played it. It's still sitting on my shelf though, b/c I thought it would be really fun once we did memorize the cards. Yeah, that hasn't happened.
The thing I remember about enjoying the game was that I thought the splaying mechanic was neat. You are right though about the heuristics though.
Village: Did you guys ever wind up pulling somebody back from a job and re-assigning them? It's an alternate use for the well.
I like how the usefulness of each job is balanced by the number of available grave spaces, and I've pulled some good fake-outs before where you pull back an old guy and then send him to something like traveling, only to immediately die. Pisses off the guy who had a traveler there for 5 turns assuming nobody else would threaten his spot in the book.
Some people do have issues with games where it makes sense to act against the theme, like intentional starvation in Stone Age. Doesn't bother me much though.
I did not realize in Village that the well could be used in that way. We only played once, two player, so there wasn't that much competition for spaces. Cock blocking was never really necessary in that way.
Keyflower is a another recent one that is pretty strong.
You are spot on about the "not playing to win" part. Leaving out a story proving it, I will say it's a fantastic game with 2 players. The cognitive load is immensely diminished, the game plays much faster, and it's speed goes through the roof. I have not enjoy the times I've played it with more than 2 players.
I played as the hobbits, and felt that their special power opened up a lot of cool and interesting strategic choices for what territory I wanted to conquer. Nobody else seemed to have any overpowered abilities, but there are quite a few I didn't get to see yet.
The game lends itself to a lot of analysis and planning ahead, so it can bog down to those 3+ hour sessions if you have slow players. I am so thankful that I have a good regular gaming group.
What won me over was the magic pool. I'll be honest, I thought it was a pretty obvious move to cull a few of those tokens out ASAP, but the way the system applies restricitons on how you to earn your tokens, charge them up, and use them is pretty cool.
The board art and such is a bit weak. I almost wrote the game off as "ugly Small World" but gave it a chance and the gameplay won me over.
Also this episode has made me realize that I've made poor choices in the games I've purchased.
(ScRym sucks.)
You're right that the theme is tacked on, but it's not unimportant. While the theme doesn't have much influence on the mechanics, it does serve to aid in remembering cards. With just a couple play-throughs, you'll find it easy to recall the effects of a few favorite cards by name, and the ages help to pinpoint when they'll show up.
The terminology is a bit of a problem because of it's barrier to entry. I remember looking at the newer Iello version of the game, and I seem to remember the terminology being changed to be much more intuitive. If explained properly and upfront, I haven't found the original terminology to be all that difficult for new players. I also tend to give it a pass because it introduces a newish set of mechanics. I figure if you create something new, you get to call it whatever you want. :-)
I think the game is worth trying if you haven't done so. I tend to think every game is worth trying, though.
Speaking of Netrunner, I ran across an interesting podcast the other day where Richard Garfield speaks about Innovation and covers a few things discussed here: http://www.threedonkeys.com/blog/archives/583
I think the production values are very good. I like them doing something different from the That Guy with the Glasses style of MST3K spawn.