THANK YOU! Variability DOES NOT EQUAL Replayability - I have been saying this for years. So glad to hear one of my favorite board game UA-camrs say it.
I was a member of a chess club for 5 years. The rules never changed. There wasn't any catapult expansions. We just played chess. The usual no-randomness setup, perfect information, completely predictable chess. It was great. Chess appears to have enough replay value for at least a few centuries.
For Kickstarter projects always go for second edition. Most of the time you will know that there will be a revised edition. Simply because of the lack of proper play testing, so it’s important to play first editions whenever they appear on your doorstep and dump them onto others after a few plays.
In my opinion the best kind of sequel is one that utilises the framework or gimmick of the previous game and turns it on its head. Like what Sushi Roll does for Sushi Go. I still prefer Go, but it's interesting to see Roll take the same general premise and make essentially a completely new game out of it. It's a logical iteration which exploits what I like about the original, but mechanically distinct enough that both are worth keeping.
Yes, Sushi Roll is a great example of a sequel done right, if it even can be called a sequel. I keep both and have no qualms with that decision, they are comfortably different games.
Yes (especially to the kickstarter over-production). But it helps as a publisher to have a strong brand ... the cash made with it enables experiments and innovative titles.
This is the sort of critical thinking the hobby needs more of; nicely balanced, well articulated, and provides plenty of food for thought. You're being neither a malcontent or snob, nor are you being an overly optimistic afraid-of-saying-anything-negative panderer.
"Amidst the thousands of new games released every year, a sequel is the only one you can guarantee you will enjoy". Untrue. I've been gaming since the 1970s, and, in fact, this is my personal problem with sequels (and expansions), when an original game was good: I certainly *can't* guarantee that I'll enjoy it. Sequels are usually trying simultaneously to be the same game and something new and different. The problem is, if a game was really good, tweaking it to get that "something different" aspect has a very high risk of spoiling the formula that I enjoyed in the first place. The most egregious cases - far too common - suffer from the sin of adding complexity without improving, or even at the expense of, playabilty. And personally, I like tight, clean games. It's not a hard and fast rule - there have been plenty of sequels over the years that have been equally good, or even better - but I learned years ago that enjoying one game a lot meant that there was a VERY high chance of my being disappointed by a nominal sequel, and for a while I pretty much stopped buying them, on principle. Nowadays it's not so bad, because the intenet lets me see very fast what sorts of reactions games are getting, and gauge a little better whether it's likely to be worth my investing. But I'm already at the point of "How many copies of this game do I actually need?" - I don't need three versions of the same game, thanks.
At times like this, I’m happy that the South African post system is basically non functional, meaning no Kickstarter that I would back would ever arrive… saving me some money and this have to have it Pavlovian response
On BGG, I use some of the collection status types as labels for my games. If a game is tagged "pre-ordered" it means there's some modular content within the game that I have yet to actually experience. Some games are absolutely keepers for me (like Pandemic + On the Brink) despite the fact that they're still "pre-ordered" (I've never played with the purple disease cubes or the bio terrorist from On the Brink). Other games are keepers and not in pre-order status because I've experience everything they have to offer and still love them (like Skull). It bums me out a bit when I sort my games by that "pre-order" status because it shows me that nearly 1/3 of my games have extra content I've not yet tried out, and then the mental fallacy of "not getting one's money worth" comes creeps into my head because I paid X amount for a game two years ago but I haven't even experienced the whole thing yet.
That's such a cool system! I love the idea of tracking which games have unplayed content. I'm in exactly the same place with On The Brink! Sadly, I use the pre-ordered status for its actual purpose!
What if there is content you don't want to play? Let me clarify: I really really like Orleans Trade and Intrigue expansion. I will always play with the new deeds board because it scales so much better with player count and gives cooler and more varied rewards. The backside of that board is the intrigue board which doesn't appeal at all and every reviewer I heard despises that module of the expansion. Which means it will always stay pre ordered.
It's so funny that I do a similar thing with the "want to play", "trade", and "buy" options for how much I like or want the game. If something is "want to play" I'm slightly interested. But if I have Trade & Buy check marked, I really want to get that game soon.
Your editing and camera work is awesome, Jon - I’m really working to make my videos as slick as this! :) Great script and presentation as well. Keep going - I want to see more commentary like this.
Great vid! RRIC green was my first RRI game. I love being able to play (nearly) original, or new, or with expansions, but I would have also just bought blue if it had been in print. Thanks for the vid!
Very helpful. I was super on the fence about Burgle Bros 2 since I love the original. But I couldn't tell *how* different the sequel was (or if it was different *enough*). Somehow in a very short time, you've convinced me that it's not different enough for me to need both in my collection.... while, at the same time, making me very intrigued to want to try the sequel because of all the fun changes!
To be honest, we've played BB2 4 times, and it's just been a massive disapointment. There's no increasing tension, it doesn't feel like you're pulling a heist. The randomness renders any semblance of plans useless. The finales wreck the flow of the game and add nothing of value. BB1 is just a better game, with a stronger link between the theme, the mechanics and the experience.
I've only played BB2 once in solo mode, but see some of your points. First, I won't ever use the stand to make the 2nd floor so much higher, but I do think just having the extra height of just the box laying flat as the 2nd floor works really well for a visual element. The poker chips are a bit confusing because, if you just peek at a tile, many of them just get discarded and lose their ability, which I guess is fine, but I might actually try just not using them at all. Still haven't tried the end game missions, or whatever they're called, so will be interested in how those work, and if it's ultimately better to just use a house rule of having all characters walk out the front door (hide in plain sight) after cracking the safe, in lieu of getting to the helipad. Of course, if you want to make original Burgle Bros. shorter, there is the variant for just a 2 floor game, as well. Good video covering a common issue with sequels.
Well said!! More stuff in a box results in me never using the extras or not bothering to grab the entire game of the shelve because it’s to much hassle..
@@actualol Any thoughts on the Pandemic expansions? I went through the modules recently and I wonder if they were to do a Pandemic 'Big Box' whether they'd be better off only taking a few bits from each expansion: -All the extra event cards -All the extra roles -The Lab board (maybe the best module of all of them) -The Virulent strain epidemics -Quarantines -The Superbug variant (and the other 24 cube purple disease) also - have 5 player character pawns, with something to slide the role cards in to to link the colour to the pawn so you don't get a few fairly closely coloured pawns at the same time I could actually do without: -The Bio Terrorist -The Hinterlands boards and die -The team vs team version -The Emergency Events and although it's small list it's a decent amount of content in the boxes that I'm probably never going to use
I very much agree, I didn’t back BB2 as I felt it did not offer enough of a new experience. When I look for something new it needs to offer something new in terms of theme or mechanics. Eventually shelf space really does become limited! I do think sequels offer reasons for you to own games that your friends already have though, for example everyone I game with has mysterium, so we never bought it, but when we saw mysterium park it allowed to us own a variation of the game that was more worthwhile to own as non of our friends had that game. Additionally re-themed games also offer something similar for example hero realms vs star realms. Or Marvel splendour. It allows more choice if you have neither.
Great content and point! I held off backing both of these for the reasons you highlighted - have the original and I love them both and I want to try the sequels but as a lover of those games I’d rather invest my money in the designers next projects! Thanks for being honest!
2:30 This is true but a fun game's title becomes like a "brand" and its fans will always be hungry for the next product/upgrade (I'm talking about completionists, sure some will also lose interest). Luckily other good games also gets funded on KS because on the box there is a certain publisher's or designer's name. Sadly some mediocre ones gets funded for the same reason, meanwhile a new title by an unknown designer will struggle to stand out in a crowded market, regardless of what it offers. Conventions are a good place for them to let players try out their game and let it speak by itself... so let's hope that getting back to normality we'll remember to play more original games (together :D)!
One of the positive things to come out of the pandemic is that more games seem to be available to try before buying on Tabletop Simulator, Tabletopia, or even Board Game Arena. I often had trouble getting an opportunity to try games at conventions if they were popular, whereas now I can do it anytime just by gathering a few friends for remote play.
Yesss! And I want a core game that is just a core game, I don't like to have a random science track or something in my first game. I might get a really hard combination that I would like in my 20th game but maybe it makes me feel like 'this game is not working' in the first. I think that's another big problem with kickstarters. They don't test if any of thier card und tile combinations work, they just think 'uh that would be cool and this and we can put these in...' I have no problem with complex games, but I just want one game not an infinite number of them in one box. That was not really part of the Video, but thank for it aswell!!
Ok, wow, that was good stuff. I agree with the philosophy overall. There are a few games I've avoided buying a sequel to (or expansion) because the original was just fine. Paladins of the West Kingdom didn't need an expansion for an already long game that is quite good. Teotihuacan is fantastic without expansions. Cartographers did what it does just fine. There are however some expansions or sequels I'd say add a great deal. Firefly the game has a number of extra that are fantastic. Viticulture is much better with the current expansions (though I'm not sure it needs another). Here is where I will argue with you a bit. Frosthaven. I've played all of Gloomhaven. I've played Forgotten Circles. I've played a few scenarios of Frosthaven. I'd argue that it is quite a bit more challenging and daunting than the Burgle Bros example (imho). I think it (and some other expansions) add enough new experience to the original or on their own that they are worth their own purchase. Now, that being said, I think it would be nice if say, a game like Wingspan, could ship new content in a smaller more succinct package OR just send a bigger box that will encompass all expansions. My 2¢
I didn't mean to criticise Frosthaven, just point out that it's the biggest sequel out there. But yes, I would agree that with a narrative-driven game like that with limited content, more content is always welcomed, and therefore it isn't a problem to have many, many sequels.
@@actualol I have to work through the expansion decision with nearly every game I own. There aren't many that stand alone with no expansions. Quite a few fall into some middling ground I have a hard time truly quantifying their value (Everdell, Tapestry, Rococo Jewelry...though this latter came with the deluxe game). Others I have found bordering on necessary (Scythe, Viticulture, Firefly, Dominion). I think you hit on something pertinent in the industry being the quality of product and how to chose carefully ones investments. It's not easy, and I dread the day when quality disappears in an Ayn Rand sort of way with lesser items taking over the market due to less discerning consumers. I have watched a few great beers disappear from the market due to an attraction for cute labels and odd ingredients (odd ingredients can be ok, but are often gimmicky). Ah well, I could go on quite a useless while...thank you for great and enjoyable content 😎
That's so funny to me because value hoarding has already made videogames drab. Everyone claims to want huge open world games with millions of copy pasted quests, but they forget that concise games with specific mechanics and gameplay loops are what makes games great
The FOMO is so real that I’ve been tempted to buy some of the expansion dice for Railroad Ink, even though I’ve NEVER used the ones included in the box. And what about prequels that share merely a theme, such as Fall of the Mountain King?
I don't personally like it when publishers re-use a theme by releasing a game in the same universe. I think it does a disservice to the second game that it can't stand on its own, and it usually wildly overestimates the popularity, importance and worth of the existing "universe" that they set both games in. BUT, I would say it does not fall in the category of the games I'm talking about. If the gameplay is completely different, then it is perfectly acceptable to own both, and I don't find a problem with its existence. I just wish that publishers were more daring with new, interesting themes. But I totally understand why they are not, because they are trying to capitalise on their existing audience.
I love both games, but I haven't jumped on the sequels for most of the reasons you mention. I'm perfectly content with the basic games as they are, and when teaching new gamers I wouldn't start with extra content anyway so it's going to be rarely played.
I agree with your point of view. I want to add something about the "kickstartification". I loved Burgles Bros 2 but I hate the entire production. One of the best thing about Fowers games was the original but compact packaging. I can keep every single Fowers games in one shelf. BB2 and Sabotage are unnecessarily huge with a ton of useless stuff. I really hope Fowers will change this trend.
Yes, I completely agree. I much prefer the smaller, simpler boxes. But I would imagine the profit margins on the bigger productions are greater, and perhaps it's easier for the company to thrive with these choices. Personally, I think the product design of a game is important for its long-term popularity, and I think Burgle Bros 2 might suffer long term for it. We'll see!
Railroad Ink Challenge is the first board game Kickstarter I ever backed. I see it as a standalone expansion, breathing new life through different mechanics to a game we play a ton. But I totally see you point. This wouldn't be the same case if Railroad Ink wasn't one of our favorite, most played games ever.
@@leandronc To me, those buildings on the board and the goal cards give me just that bit more specific purpose that I apparently need. Without them, I hopelessly overstretched myself because then my goal became too general: to build the perfect all-connecting route.
I'd been considering getting Gloomhaven then Frosthaven came on kickstarter. I felt it allowed the designer to improve many years later on the base game. I've skipped gloomhaven but will go straight to Frosthaven (via JOTL). I do see your concerns though. P. S. Keep up the great work!
Yeah, I only really mentioned Frosthaven because it's the biggest sequel around - it's not a game I have a problem with. As you say, sometimes sequels can be treated as "2nd editions", and if they improve considerably on the original and ultimately replace it, then I don't have a problem with them. I also think the sequel rules don't apply in a campaign/story/legacy game where the game will eventually run out of content.
I disagree with your point of Burgle Bros: One problem of the original version (especially if you were playing 3 floors) is that one player needs to play hide and seek with a bouncer on a lower level where the safe is already open, just to avoid the higher levels to get overcrowded. This makes that player feel they are not contributing much to the game and can be boring. On the other hand, it is a necessary thing to do, if you want more control over the bouncers on the higher levels. Since cooperation is needed between levels in BB2, the players in the lower levels are still engaged. Yes, there are some ambitious and unnecessary stuff in BB2 (like the box acting as a 2nd level), but there is a lot of improvements and well thought iterations over the first version. BB1 is still an amazing game, but I prefer BB2.
In my experience, players in BB2 can also feel left out of the exciting action of the game, because they have to stay downstairs waiting to send dice back up to the safe. It may be improved, but that feeling of doing to the dirty work still exists, for my group at least.
That's why I'm so happy that Keymaster Games shifted from their complicated National Parks series of games to a completely different, super-simple dice-rolling game. It's completely original, not a derivation of their previous work. (I'm talking about Chicken).
This is the best video you have done, tackling an important topic for the hobby with great humour and knowledge. I am realising more and more that the games I play more often are the ones that are not bloated with variability, but clean and simple to get to the table. It makes me feel better about not going all in on the kickstarter hype trains. In some games expansions and sequels work better than others (marvel champions for me), but most games are better slimmed down. And I also agree with what you said about supporting original IPs as well. 👍
Great vid John. I've um'd and ah'd about burgle Bros a few times. Jumped on when I saw the new Kickstarter. I loved finding out that your humour is in it. Also sold railroad ink red and didn't buy there challenge versions. One box is fine.
The somewhat flaw in his "all games being a 1" example is that people do not think of games like that. I massively prefer some games in my collection to others (games I still like enough to keep). By buying the sequel, often you are guaranteeing another amazing game giving you another top notch game.
Totally agree on having Pandemic Iberia and Fall of Rome! They're both different enough variants to justify having them on any discerning gamer's shelf--plus they're just drop dead gorgeous productions.
I thought Pandemic The Cure was different enough from the original its almost a different game - in soem ways I prefer The Cure as the original can be "gamed" with the sequences of cards re-appaearing while the Cure has dice so the randomness is higher...plus a more compact board
Sorry I'm late with this but it's important: dead ends prevent negative points from open routes! Also, they function as stations (see rules page 14). Great discussion overall, as usual.
One factor I don't see addressed in this video (and others on similar topics) is that a sequel like Burgle Bros 2, or a successor to an older game (like Babylonia is to Tigris&Euphrates, Samurai, Through the Desert), fill a hole in the board gaming market since the originals are very expensive and/or difficult to find. Obviously a straight up reprint/new edition might be preferable, but without having more knowledge of the board gaming industry, I wouldn't know how practical getting those done always is.
Soo true. I finally caved with Glen More 2 after playing the original again and thinking what an awesome game. Wish I had expansion content. Marco Polo 2 on the other hand is less appealing and will likely be avoiding my collection indefinitely. Because I already have expansions for Marco Polo and love them.
Maybe it's just me getting defensive because we actually backed Frosthaven after playing years of GH, but I don't think the comparison here is entirely warranted. For one, while most of the core gameplay loop will stay the same from Gloomhaven, there are already quite a lot of changes to it which will alter the way this will play out. Mainly though it will of course have a different setting, mechanics and playable characters which alone will change things up quite a bit. Secondly though, I think GH/FH are much closer to P&P RPGs than they are to Pandemic or RRI. If you finish a DnD campaign after god knows how long, you don't look at another and think "oh do I really need another one of those?". I'm sure they exist, but I'd guess that no many people will play GH and FH at the same time. So FH making GH obsolete feels a lot more true than with the RRI variants. Also, since you mentioned Pandemic variants, I'd love to know what you think about Uwe Rosenberg who has more or less been churning out the same game with some changes and different coats of paint for almost a decade now
Apologies, I only mentioned Frosthaven in passing because it was a very big sequel. But I fully agree, when it comes to narrative-driven games with limited content, then sequels like Frosthaven are entirely warranted. As for Uwe Rosenberg - I'm not particularly fond of those games so I haven't played enough of them to make a judgement. I have actually found his Tetris games to largely be distinctly different to warrant each iteration - they seemed to build on each other. Having said that, I would welcome him trying more completely new ideas - because if he can create something as iconic as Bohnanza, I would like to see him try his hand at other light games.
Burgle Bros 1 is impossible to find where I live, so a sequel helped me get the game, even if it's a slight different version. But a reprint with an expansion would have been the same thing, like other Kickstarters do.
I think for the most part, this is absolutely true, but there are some games that keep the core mechanic of the game while changing up everything else and it creates a game that's entirely different, but still feels familiar. I think I the best example of this I've played is the Forbidden series (Island, Desert, and Sky) which all have a modular board and see you finding a small collection of things that help you escape, but have entirely different mechanics, especially in Forbidden Sky which strays super far from it's predecessors. Also Tsuro did a pretty good job with this, once again, especially in the third one which I don't own myself yet but have played, and while it still has the basic gameplay of, place tile, follow line, don't die, it introduces such different mechanics that change the game entirely.
I have a friend with a risk aversion on Kickstarter games by new publishers and unproven designs... But these days it's more likely to see a sequel than it is to see a reprint. I think part of that is due to Kickstarter's rule that you can't sell the same product twice.
The advantage I see to sequels is, if I haven't bought the original it gives me a chance to buy an improved version. For example, Machi Koro 2. I could buy the original and all the expansions, or buy the new version with better rules, tweaks, etc. That said, there should never be a reason for a third installment of a game.
Great video as always, Jon! I'm curious: do you feel like franchise lines like Pandemic or Azul, which have multiple stand-alone titles that are built on the same framework but otherwise feel like uniquely different games, are exempt from this sequel categorization/problem, or do you see them as more examples of the same issue?
I'd say they are sequels too. But I would judge everything on its individual merits. Is each game different enough? And the answer will be different depending on who you are. I couldn't imagine owning more than one version of Azul (I don't own any!), but I do own Pandemic, Pandemic Iberia and Pandemic: Fall of Rome. I think that both those two sequel bring really interesting changes to the table. However, they do all still feel like Pandemic. Since Pandemic is one of my favourite games, and the designs are SO good, I can partially forgive that. But I am still frustrated by owning multiple sequels of the same franchise. And I am somewhat ashamed that I have encouraged the sequel trend with my purchases. I would rather Matt Leacock was encouraged to use his supreme talents to create something wildly different, but I also can't not fall in love with Pandemic: Fall of Rome just because I have a principle around sequels! It's tough!
@@actualol I want to say that maybe a distinction should be drawn between a 'true' sequel vs when it could be delivered in a better way as an expansion. I've not tried Railroad Ink (roll and writes don't particularly float my boat), but from the descriptions it sounds like you could just have 1 base game, and then sell lots of dice sets for variance (and maybe with a different top half of the player board as that looked different in each version). Burgle Brothers 2 sounds like it switches up a bit too much for it to be handled by swapping a few components in - there it seems a bit more justifiable to sell a complete new game. The Forbidden Island/Desert/Skies family qualify as sequels but all seem to be valid enough to exist even if some people only want to buy one particular member. I don't know if you're a wargamer, but you also could maybe consider the COIN series as a group of sequels. With reskins you can get in to further questions about reaching different markets (and maybe reskins are a video you can do as an addendum to this). SmallWorld and Pandemic have World Of Warcraft versions, and does this make it a good product if it increases the audience for the titles? What about the streamlined versions like Ticket To Ride London, or Pandemic Hotzone? Ultimately, I feel like the only ones I come down hard on is Railroad Ink - while the others seem like offering a variety for people who have a bit more of a specific taste, that one feels a bit more crassly exploitative in that it could have been done in a much simpler fashion for the audience
Hah, the alternative suggestions from the "every audience member" on what to do with your multiple Railroad Ink copies at the start were exactly the answers I was suggesting at the screen, in the same order. Very prescient! I'm not fully in agreement with your arguments - at the very least, there's enough board-games out there that there's room for sequels to exist amongst the wealth of new options currently being produced. But I also don't personally find I have a need to get sequels - having got (all of) Eldritch Horror, I don't need Arkham Horror 3rd Edition, which makes it somewhat easier for me to say "just don't get them!"
Seems only to be a problem for someone who already got his hands on every game. But in today's world they isn't enough capacity left to produce a high enough print run to provide a game for every customer. Without Glenmore II for example, I probably would have never got the chance to play this awesome game at all. So I'm very glad for the sequel. Though I prefer to keep good games in print and add expanions to them, of course.
Ah problem with a lot of these replayabilty type games is the setup of cards. Imperial Settlers was the worst. One point I owned the base game, Atlanteans, Aztecs and 3 separate expansions. It was nearly impossible to create a deck that would be balanced for the new races and their abilities with the expanions together. It takes you a lot of time to sort each card by expansion and then construct a balanced deck that you will have to shuffle for a half hour game (2 people). Then afterwards deconstruct the deck
I suppose I know the feeling. I love King of Tokyo, I love it even more with the Power-up expansion, and I love what King of Tokyo Dark edition adds to the game. Not only do I now have access to all the characters for the Power-up cards, but there's a completely new set of ability cards and a new mechanic that makes otherwise weak rolls more useful. Sure, I could toss out the inserts and one of the boxes and just shove everything into one box, Dark Edition clearly has better art, but then everything will jostle around and I'll have duplicates (albeit with different artwork) of 4 characters, and an extra set of dice, an extra set of energy cubes (Dark Edition's look better), and an extra board (even though Dark Edition's is better). Am I to toss all those? I can probably rework the spare cubes into a different original game, but there's still the problem of everything else.
I have the Kickstarter Big Box of Railroad Ink with all those Mini-expansions and it really brought the game to our table again. I really think that you are wrong in that case. The 4 base games are really ok, but to be honest, the expansions are the meat of the game. and being able to change dice modules, goal cards and "maps" really make it replayable and every game can be different. and you can still always play base game mode with new people. I agree with you, that 4 base boxes are stupid. I store everything in the Expansion box and only have one box on the shelf and its still portable enough.
It could get worse. I was once doing a boardgame demo in a boardgame store. People who live on low income got gift cards from the municipality for this store to buy Christmas presents. A mother came with her 2 children. They already had Monopoly, Uno and Yachtzee. The store owner advised them games like King Domino, Ticket to Ride, Dixit, Qwixx and other gateway family games. They left with Monopoly Harry Potter and Monopoly Starwars because the kids really liked Monopoly.
One of my favourite small card games - Lost Legacy, has only 16 cards, but I can play this game for hours and still be amazed how everything can be unpredictable and doesn't become boring. Also since the game has only 16 cards, different variants aren't that problematic and really make things more interesting
When you said “If we only ever find sequels, why would a publisher try anything new?,” I beware about yo comment comparing it to the current state of film, but you immediately made that same comparison.
Disagree that variability isn't important. One example for myself is Agricola: ACBAS. The original version had ONE variation, and no chance, myself and my partner love it, but a few games in it had no reason to be played again. Then the big box came with hundreds of extra buildings, making each setup different. Since then we've played it so many times ( close to 50 ) and each time there's been something we haven't seen before. It was a dead game until that version because we knew what the other would do.
The green version of Ink Challenge is the only one I own. So far I've actually only played it *as* the basic Railroad Ink though, telling people to ignore the extra stuff. It kinda feels like the basic game itself is redundant when you can just do that?
The foundation of replayability is strategic variance, not simply more components or extensions. Strategic variance means you play the game each time with some actual different style or approach. Strategy is your plan for winning. Does the game support different plans? Rush versus building up, attack or defend, sacrifices or distractions.
Ricky, you don’t speak for me. Also, I have a suspicion that you’re a Brit pretending to be an American… (John - You’re awesome. I applaud your valiant effort at an American accent. Some words were spot-on! And your annoying in-your-face obnoxiousness was uncomfortably accurate 😳😂🇺🇸 Hooray for new characters!)
@@actualol On second thought, there are so many varieties of an “American” accent… I bet you would fit right in somewhere back in the Northeast (there are several accents in New England alone!) I’m so sorry if my comment was offensive… not intended. Accents are hard! And you do them brilliantly 🙂
@@carols-corner Oh, don't worry! I'm not offended at all. I have always been rubbish at doing accents - American and any other. I'm just happy that people enjoy the videos 🙂
I always combine my games into as few boxes as possible. I bet all those Railroad Ink games will fit in one box. No need to throw anything away. Are you short on junk drawer space? I thought junk drawers were infinite universes.... Also the "box graveyard" that I create from all the empty boxes is extremely useful. It's always great to have empty boxes on hand to re-box stuff (due to sleeving) or for LCG/CCG storage. Also, you're wasting your money. 30 Rails is the exact same game and costs zero dollars.
@@actualol OMG you're not joking around!!! I can't believe it! We played for the first time since the pandemic a few weeks ago and I joked "what if by the end of this game they go "yeah, maybe King's aren't so good, what if we became a matriarch society". Or...due to some story elements, it might make sense (again, I'm not done with the game, but we're pretty far).
Yes! Variability does not equal replayability! That and many other astute observations sweeten this video like chocolate sprinkles on a thought-provoking doughnut, but my favourite line remains, "There is a reason why I still own Pandemic, AND Pandemic Iberia, AND Pandemic Fall of Rome". Yes! I am ultra happy with all three too. ... And Pandemic Rising Tide.
thank you for your honest opinions & for yet another entertaining & informative video! And like the others lol at your portrayal of an american hipster :)
How do you feel about Ticket to Ride Europe vs the original Ticket to Ride? This is a case where I feel the sequel was made well. Yes, it's the same game. Yes, there is the new challenge of ferries, tunnels, and stations. Yes, it's a new map. And yes, they fixed the long routes problem. Both games make it to the table on a regular basis, so I feel that the purchase was worth it. The Century series are perhaps another exception to the rule. While each game is built on the same thematic mechanic of trading in spices for other combinations in order to fulfill goals for points, the secondary mechanics vary between each game. Personally, the second in the series, Eastern Wonders, is my favorite. Otherwise, I'm with you. I see sequels as taking a great game and changing it slightly, often not for the better. Manhattan Project Energy Empire took what was already a great game and made it needlessly complex. I haven't played the 2nd and 3rd games in the Azul series, but honestly, I don't want to / feel the need to.
I disagree with some of this. With some games, variety is a major part of the game, so more variety DOES equal more replayability. Scenario-based games, for example, almost always benefit from a higher number of elements (within reason). And there are plenty of reasons that a publisher might add an expansion during the KS campaign. It could be an early release, encouraging people to back the campaign rather than waiting longer for retail. It could be to entice people who may not quite like certain aspects of the base game (e.g., the expansion may change a specific mechanism of the game). The expansion could actually be the designer's full vision, but it's too much to sell to the uninitiated; or the base game may have been specifically designed to be an introductory version to which multiple expansions can be added on. Or any number of other reasons. That said, I agree that there is a trend to release expansions to games that don't really benefit from them. I think publishers may have actually stolen the idea from video games. Video game sequels are almost always better than the original, because they are based on technology, and technology is constantly improving. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for board games and card games. For them, the gameplay has to carry the entire weight of the expansion, and very often it does not.
I recently got into board games with King of Tokyo Dark Edition as my first purchase. This video is so relevant to my current situation. King of New York is a different game, but it doesn't seem different enough to justify a purchase when there are so many other types of games to buy... while sequels are problematic, I am totally in favor of expansions. If King of New York was just an expansion, I would totally get it.
I've always felt King of Tokyo was more streamlined and more fun than King of New York. Sequels tend to add bloat or extra complication to justify their existence.
Every game has infinite replayability (except story games like detectives). Imagine not playing a game because it always feels the same. No sport would exist. Is soccer always the same? Yes. Yet there are hundreds of matches everyday throughout the world. It's the outcome that is unpredictable not the gameplay.
Thank you, i was about to buy Railroad Ink Collectors Edition without playing the game once. I think i will buy the blue and orange version first.... Thank you for saving me 100€
A fantastic video about a real issue. I enjoyed my play of Burgle Bros 2, but I agree with your comments. I adore BB1, and feel that 2 doesn't do much to fix issues, but instead adds new elements. Like, if BB1 plays a little long for you, just play over two floors instead of three. I don't own any sequels in my collection apart from BB2.
"... and now I have four versions of the same game." LOL. We love playing 5-Minute Dungeon, so my MCU-fanatic kids were excited about 5-Minute Marvel ... for about five minutes. They'd rather play 5-Minute Dungeon every time. I went back to your Best of 2018 video (ua-cam.com/video/hF4WGHgV5F8/v-deo.html), but I still don't have the answer to this question: which version of Railroad Ink should be my first? Blue? Red? One of the Challenge versions?
That's what happens when people with too much money get into hobby like boardgames. They throw cash at everything that looks nice but not necessarily is good.
I've never played Clank In Space, partly because I was never interested in a sequel to an already great game - so I expect I would say the same. But without playing it, I can't be certain. Perhaps it improves on the original so much that it should be regarded as the definitive Clank!, but I doubt it!
Clank In Space is a gamery version of Clank. It takes a fairly streamlined game and bogs it down gating players. It also takes a lot of the teeth out of another player exiting the "dungeon" first. There's far less risk of death with In Space which means the right deck can churn points for several turns by stalling at an exit. It's also about 30 minutes longer to play. The only good aspect of Clank In Space is the card synergy. Many of the cards in the market row have factions. A faction's cards sometimes will syngergize with other cards of that faction. It means you can build towards a faction specific deck and benefit from it. Although, really, if you don't own Clank, then you should just buy the legacy version. You're getting a legacy game with all the fun that entails. But, you end up with a version of Clank with an expansion of content at the end. Plus, your version will be unique to your group with a slightly different board, some custom cards, and your own corporation. Just don't be afraid to use stickers and destroy cards.
THANK YOU!
Variability DOES NOT EQUAL Replayability - I have been saying this for years. So glad to hear one of my favorite board game UA-camrs say it.
I was a member of a chess club for 5 years. The rules never changed. There wasn't any catapult expansions. We just played chess. The usual no-randomness setup, perfect information, completely predictable chess.
It was great.
Chess appears to have enough replay value for at least a few centuries.
"Please take my career choices seriously, you're not my dad" hahaha that hits close to home
Thanks man! Your points on variability and innovation are a huge help. Helps me feel a bit safer about taking risks
For Kickstarter projects always go for second edition. Most of the time you will know that there will be a revised edition. Simply because of the lack of proper play testing, so it’s important to play first editions whenever they appear on your doorstep and dump them onto others after a few plays.
In my opinion the best kind of sequel is one that utilises the framework or gimmick of the previous game and turns it on its head. Like what Sushi Roll does for Sushi Go. I still prefer Go, but it's interesting to see Roll take the same general premise and make essentially a completely new game out of it. It's a logical iteration which exploits what I like about the original, but mechanically distinct enough that both are worth keeping.
Yes, Sushi Roll is a great example of a sequel done right, if it even can be called a sequel. I keep both and have no qualms with that decision, they are comfortably different games.
I also prefer Go. But Go is a weird one to compare to Sushi Go and Sushi Roll. :-p
Pandemic The Cure
"Variability does not equal replayability." Exactly. I see them conflated a lot, but not all variability affects the game overall.
Yes (especially to the kickstarter over-production). But it helps as a publisher to have a strong brand ... the cash made with it enables experiments and innovative titles.
That's a great point. Thanks for your insight Klemens!
This ⬆️⬆️
This is the sort of critical thinking the hobby needs more of; nicely balanced, well articulated, and provides plenty of food for thought. You're being neither a malcontent or snob, nor are you being an overly optimistic afraid-of-saying-anything-negative panderer.
Wow, this is fantastic! I've never thought about games this way before. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Jon!
I laughed at the new "audience character" which I will now rename to "Boardgame Bro" :D
"Amidst the thousands of new games released every year, a sequel is the only one you can guarantee you will enjoy".
Untrue. I've been gaming since the 1970s, and, in fact, this is my personal problem with sequels (and expansions), when an original game was good: I certainly *can't* guarantee that I'll enjoy it. Sequels are usually trying simultaneously to be the same game and something new and different. The problem is, if a game was really good, tweaking it to get that "something different" aspect has a very high risk of spoiling the formula that I enjoyed in the first place. The most egregious cases - far too common - suffer from the sin of adding complexity without improving, or even at the expense of, playabilty. And personally, I like tight, clean games.
It's not a hard and fast rule - there have been plenty of sequels over the years that have been equally good, or even better - but I learned years ago that enjoying one game a lot meant that there was a VERY high chance of my being disappointed by a nominal sequel, and for a while I pretty much stopped buying them, on principle. Nowadays it's not so bad, because the intenet lets me see very fast what sorts of reactions games are getting, and gauge a little better whether it's likely to be worth my investing. But I'm already at the point of "How many copies of this game do I actually need?" - I don't need three versions of the same game, thanks.
At times like this, I’m happy that the South African post system is basically non functional, meaning no Kickstarter that I would back would ever arrive… saving me some money and this have to have it Pavlovian response
Railroad Ink Challenge is on App Store in a wonder implementation. So I’d recommend that.
On BGG, I use some of the collection status types as labels for my games. If a game is tagged "pre-ordered" it means there's some modular content within the game that I have yet to actually experience. Some games are absolutely keepers for me (like Pandemic + On the Brink) despite the fact that they're still "pre-ordered" (I've never played with the purple disease cubes or the bio terrorist from On the Brink). Other games are keepers and not in pre-order status because I've experience everything they have to offer and still love them (like Skull). It bums me out a bit when I sort my games by that "pre-order" status because it shows me that nearly 1/3 of my games have extra content I've not yet tried out, and then the mental fallacy of "not getting one's money worth" comes creeps into my head because I paid X amount for a game two years ago but I haven't even experienced the whole thing yet.
That's such a cool system! I love the idea of tracking which games have unplayed content. I'm in exactly the same place with On The Brink! Sadly, I use the pre-ordered status for its actual purpose!
What if there is content you don't want to play?
Let me clarify: I really really like Orleans Trade and Intrigue expansion. I will always play with the new deeds board because it scales so much better with player count and gives cooler and more varied rewards.
The backside of that board is the intrigue board which doesn't appeal at all and every reviewer I heard despises that module of the expansion. Which means it will always stay pre ordered.
It's so funny that I do a similar thing with the "want to play", "trade", and "buy" options for how much I like or want the game. If something is "want to play" I'm slightly interested. But if I have Trade & Buy check marked, I really want to get that game soon.
Your editing and camera work is awesome, Jon - I’m really working to make my videos as slick as this! :) Great script and presentation as well. Keep going - I want to see more commentary like this.
Thanks Adam! And I'm glad to see you back making videos - I love hearing your designer's perspective.
Great vid! RRIC green was my first RRI game. I love being able to play (nearly) original, or new, or with expansions, but I would have also just bought blue if it had been in print. Thanks for the vid!
Very helpful. I was super on the fence about Burgle Bros 2 since I love the original. But I couldn't tell *how* different the sequel was (or if it was different *enough*).
Somehow in a very short time, you've convinced me that it's not different enough for me to need both in my collection.... while, at the same time, making me very intrigued to want to try the sequel because of all the fun changes!
Glad I could help! But yes, I can see the dilemma! There are some fun additions you don't get with the original.
To be honest, we've played BB2 4 times, and it's just been a massive disapointment. There's no increasing tension, it doesn't feel like you're pulling a heist. The randomness renders any semblance of plans useless. The finales wreck the flow of the game and add nothing of value. BB1 is just a better game, with a stronger link between the theme, the mechanics and the experience.
I've only played BB2 once in solo mode, but see some of your points. First, I won't ever use the stand to make the 2nd floor so much higher, but I do think just having the extra height of just the box laying flat as the 2nd floor works really well for a visual element. The poker chips are a bit confusing because, if you just peek at a tile, many of them just get discarded and lose their ability, which I guess is fine, but I might actually try just not using them at all. Still haven't tried the end game missions, or whatever they're called, so will be interested in how those work, and if it's ultimately better to just use a house rule of having all characters walk out the front door (hide in plain sight) after cracking the safe, in lieu of getting to the helipad. Of course, if you want to make original Burgle Bros. shorter, there is the variant for just a 2 floor game, as well. Good video covering a common issue with sequels.
Well said!! More stuff in a box results in me never using the extras or not bothering to grab the entire game of the shelve because it’s to much hassle..
I feel that. Recently, I've given away expansions for games I love because of the added hassle they bring.
@@actualol exactly! I love buying expansions because I love the base games, but I hardly ever use allot of them in the end 😅
@@actualol Any thoughts on the Pandemic expansions? I went through the modules recently and I wonder if they were to do a Pandemic 'Big Box' whether they'd be better off only taking a few bits from each expansion:
-All the extra event cards
-All the extra roles
-The Lab board (maybe the best module of all of them)
-The Virulent strain epidemics
-Quarantines
-The Superbug variant (and the other 24 cube purple disease)
also
- have 5 player character pawns, with something to slide the role cards in to to link the colour to the pawn so you don't get a few fairly closely coloured pawns at the same time
I could actually do without:
-The Bio Terrorist
-The Hinterlands boards and die
-The team vs team version
-The Emergency Events
and although it's small list it's a decent amount of content in the boxes that I'm probably never going to use
I very much agree, I didn’t back BB2 as I felt it did not offer enough of a new experience. When I look for something new it needs to offer something new in terms of theme or mechanics. Eventually shelf space really does become limited!
I do think sequels offer reasons for you to own games that your friends already have though, for example everyone I game with has mysterium, so we never bought it, but when we saw mysterium park it allowed to us own a variation of the game that was more worthwhile to own as non of our friends had that game.
Additionally re-themed games also offer something similar for example hero realms vs star realms. Or Marvel splendour. It allows more choice if you have neither.
That's an interesting perspective about owning the version your friends don't have - that makes a lot of sense.
Great content and point! I held off backing both of these for the reasons you highlighted - have the original and I love them both and I want to try the sequels but as a lover of those games I’d rather invest my money in the designers next projects! Thanks for being honest!
2:30 This is true but a fun game's title becomes like a "brand" and its fans will always be hungry for the next product/upgrade (I'm talking about completionists, sure some will also lose interest). Luckily other good games also gets funded on KS because on the box there is a certain publisher's or designer's name. Sadly some mediocre ones gets funded for the same reason, meanwhile a new title by an unknown designer will struggle to stand out in a crowded market, regardless of what it offers. Conventions are a good place for them to let players try out their game and let it speak by itself... so let's hope that getting back to normality we'll remember to play more original games (together :D)!
One of the positive things to come out of the pandemic is that more games seem to be available to try before buying on Tabletop Simulator, Tabletopia, or even Board Game Arena. I often had trouble getting an opportunity to try games at conventions if they were popular, whereas now I can do it anytime just by gathering a few friends for remote play.
Yesss!
And I want a core game that is just a core game, I don't like to have a random science track or something in my first game.
I might get a really hard combination that I would like in my 20th game but maybe it makes me feel like 'this game is not working' in the first.
I think that's another big problem with kickstarters.
They don't test if any of thier card und tile combinations work, they just think 'uh that would be cool and this and we can put these in...'
I have no problem with complex games, but I just want one game not an infinite number of them in one box.
That was not really part of the Video, but thank for it aswell!!
Ok, wow, that was good stuff. I agree with the philosophy overall. There are a few games I've avoided buying a sequel to (or expansion) because the original was just fine. Paladins of the West Kingdom didn't need an expansion for an already long game that is quite good. Teotihuacan is fantastic without expansions. Cartographers did what it does just fine. There are however some expansions or sequels I'd say add a great deal. Firefly the game has a number of extra that are fantastic. Viticulture is much better with the current expansions (though I'm not sure it needs another). Here is where I will argue with you a bit. Frosthaven. I've played all of Gloomhaven. I've played Forgotten Circles. I've played a few scenarios of Frosthaven. I'd argue that it is quite a bit more challenging and daunting than the Burgle Bros example (imho). I think it (and some other expansions) add enough new experience to the original or on their own that they are worth their own purchase. Now, that being said, I think it would be nice if say, a game like Wingspan, could ship new content in a smaller more succinct package OR just send a bigger box that will encompass all expansions. My 2¢
I didn't mean to criticise Frosthaven, just point out that it's the biggest sequel out there. But yes, I would agree that with a narrative-driven game like that with limited content, more content is always welcomed, and therefore it isn't a problem to have many, many sequels.
@@actualol I have to work through the expansion decision with nearly every game I own. There aren't many that stand alone with no expansions. Quite a few fall into some middling ground I have a hard time truly quantifying their value (Everdell, Tapestry, Rococo Jewelry...though this latter came with the deluxe game). Others I have found bordering on necessary (Scythe, Viticulture, Firefly, Dominion). I think you hit on something pertinent in the industry being the quality of product and how to chose carefully ones investments. It's not easy, and I dread the day when quality disappears in an Ayn Rand sort of way with lesser items taking over the market due to less discerning consumers. I have watched a few great beers disappear from the market due to an attraction for cute labels and odd ingredients (odd ingredients can be ok, but are often gimmicky). Ah well, I could go on quite a useless while...thank you for great and enjoyable content 😎
That's so funny to me because value hoarding has already made videogames drab. Everyone claims to want huge open world games with millions of copy pasted quests, but they forget that concise games with specific mechanics and gameplay loops are what makes games great
The FOMO is so real that I’ve been tempted to buy some of the expansion dice for Railroad Ink, even though I’ve NEVER used the ones included in the box.
And what about prequels that share merely a theme, such as Fall of the Mountain King?
I don't personally like it when publishers re-use a theme by releasing a game in the same universe. I think it does a disservice to the second game that it can't stand on its own, and it usually wildly overestimates the popularity, importance and worth of the existing "universe" that they set both games in. BUT, I would say it does not fall in the category of the games I'm talking about. If the gameplay is completely different, then it is perfectly acceptable to own both, and I don't find a problem with its existence. I just wish that publishers were more daring with new, interesting themes. But I totally understand why they are not, because they are trying to capitalise on their existing audience.
I love both games, but I haven't jumped on the sequels for most of the reasons you mention. I'm perfectly content with the basic games as they are, and when teaching new gamers I wouldn't start with extra content anyway so it's going to be rarely played.
Yes, the extra rules teach means that I end up always opting for simpler versions.
Applaud! Fun and informative. I need to look up that Burgle Bro game right now!
I agree with your point of view. I want to add something about the "kickstartification".
I loved Burgles Bros 2 but I hate the entire production. One of the best thing about Fowers games was the original but compact packaging. I can keep every single Fowers games in one shelf. BB2 and Sabotage are unnecessarily huge with a ton of useless stuff. I really hope Fowers will change this trend.
Yes, I completely agree. I much prefer the smaller, simpler boxes. But I would imagine the profit margins on the bigger productions are greater, and perhaps it's easier for the company to thrive with these choices. Personally, I think the product design of a game is important for its long-term popularity, and I think Burgle Bros 2 might suffer long term for it. We'll see!
Railroad Ink Challenge is the first board game Kickstarter I ever backed. I see it as a standalone expansion, breathing new life through different mechanics to a game we play a ton. But I totally see you point. This wouldn't be the same case if Railroad Ink wasn't one of our favorite, most played games ever.
On the other hand, I did not enjoy Railroad Ink at all. But I backed Challenge, and I love it.
@@RadishTheFool Really? That's unexpected. What is the major difference between OG and Challenge, you think?
@@leandronc To me, those buildings on the board and the goal cards give me just that bit more specific purpose that I apparently need. Without them, I hopelessly overstretched myself because then my goal became too general: to build the perfect all-connecting route.
I'd been considering getting Gloomhaven then Frosthaven came on kickstarter. I felt it allowed the designer to improve many years later on the base game. I've skipped gloomhaven but will go straight to Frosthaven (via JOTL). I do see your concerns though. P. S. Keep up the great work!
Yeah, I only really mentioned Frosthaven because it's the biggest sequel around - it's not a game I have a problem with. As you say, sometimes sequels can be treated as "2nd editions", and if they improve considerably on the original and ultimately replace it, then I don't have a problem with them. I also think the sequel rules don't apply in a campaign/story/legacy game where the game will eventually run out of content.
I disagree with your point of Burgle Bros:
One problem of the original version (especially if you were playing 3 floors) is that one player needs to play hide and seek with a bouncer on a lower level where the safe is already open, just to avoid the higher levels to get overcrowded. This makes that player feel they are not contributing much to the game and can be boring. On the other hand, it is a necessary thing to do, if you want more control over the bouncers on the higher levels.
Since cooperation is needed between levels in BB2, the players in the lower levels are still engaged.
Yes, there are some ambitious and unnecessary stuff in BB2 (like the box acting as a 2nd level), but there is a lot of improvements and well thought iterations over the first version.
BB1 is still an amazing game, but I prefer BB2.
In my experience, players in BB2 can also feel left out of the exciting action of the game, because they have to stay downstairs waiting to send dice back up to the safe. It may be improved, but that feeling of doing to the dirty work still exists, for my group at least.
That's why I'm so happy that Keymaster Games shifted from their complicated National Parks series of games to a completely different, super-simple dice-rolling game. It's completely original, not a derivation of their previous work. (I'm talking about Chicken).
This is the best video you have done, tackling an important topic for the hobby with great humour and knowledge. I am realising more and more that the games I play more often are the ones that are not bloated with variability, but clean and simple to get to the table. It makes me feel better about not going all in on the kickstarter hype trains. In some games expansions and sequels work better than others (marvel champions for me), but most games are better slimmed down. And I also agree with what you said about supporting original IPs as well. 👍
I only have one version of Railroad Ink. I knew there must be base version but I was unaware of the other versions.
Great vid John.
I've um'd and ah'd about burgle Bros a few times. Jumped on when I saw the new Kickstarter. I loved finding out that your humour is in it.
Also sold railroad ink red and didn't buy there challenge versions. One box is fine.
Oh, the next Burgle Bros.?! You mean BB3?!!!! ; )
Hahaha! See you there for day 1 of the Kickstarter!
The somewhat flaw in his "all games being a 1" example is that people do not think of games like that. I massively prefer some games in my collection to others (games I still like enough to keep).
By buying the sequel, often you are guaranteeing another amazing game giving you another top notch game.
I just bought Burgle Bros I and II and was looking for a teach.
Great point of view! Love it
Totally agree on having Pandemic Iberia and Fall of Rome! They're both different enough variants to justify having them on any discerning gamer's shelf--plus they're just drop dead gorgeous productions.
I thought Pandemic The Cure was different enough from the original its almost a different game - in soem ways I prefer The Cure as the original can be "gamed" with the sequences of cards re-appaearing while the Cure has dice so the randomness is higher...plus a more compact board
I understand your point, but *don't you dare attack Frosthaven like that*
It's also a story game, it doesn't count (lol 3:08)
Sorry I'm late with this but it's important: dead ends prevent negative points from open routes! Also, they function as stations (see rules page 14).
Great discussion overall, as usual.
One factor I don't see addressed in this video (and others on similar topics) is that a sequel like Burgle Bros 2, or a successor to an older game (like Babylonia is to Tigris&Euphrates, Samurai, Through the Desert), fill a hole in the board gaming market since the originals are very expensive and/or difficult to find. Obviously a straight up reprint/new edition might be preferable, but without having more knowledge of the board gaming industry, I wouldn't know how practical getting those done always is.
I'm the guy with only one copy of Railroad Ink. And it's blue. 😁
Soo true. I finally caved with Glen More 2 after playing the original again and thinking what an awesome game. Wish I had expansion content. Marco Polo 2 on the other hand is less appealing and will likely be avoiding my collection indefinitely. Because I already have expansions for Marco Polo and love them.
I played both, and I think that Marco Polo 2 is the better game for us. (Marco Polo one just feels worse now. Sooooo restrictive)
Maybe it's just me getting defensive because we actually backed Frosthaven after playing years of GH, but I don't think the comparison here is entirely warranted. For one, while most of the core gameplay loop will stay the same from Gloomhaven, there are already quite a lot of changes to it which will alter the way this will play out. Mainly though it will of course have a different setting, mechanics and playable characters which alone will change things up quite a bit.
Secondly though, I think GH/FH are much closer to P&P RPGs than they are to Pandemic or RRI. If you finish a DnD campaign after god knows how long, you don't look at another and think "oh do I really need another one of those?".
I'm sure they exist, but I'd guess that no many people will play GH and FH at the same time. So FH making GH obsolete feels a lot more true than with the RRI variants.
Also, since you mentioned Pandemic variants, I'd love to know what you think about Uwe Rosenberg who has more or less been churning out the same game with some changes and different coats of paint for almost a decade now
Apologies, I only mentioned Frosthaven in passing because it was a very big sequel. But I fully agree, when it comes to narrative-driven games with limited content, then sequels like Frosthaven are entirely warranted.
As for Uwe Rosenberg - I'm not particularly fond of those games so I haven't played enough of them to make a judgement. I have actually found his Tetris games to largely be distinctly different to warrant each iteration - they seemed to build on each other. Having said that, I would welcome him trying more completely new ideas - because if he can create something as iconic as Bohnanza, I would like to see him try his hand at other light games.
Anyone paying attention to the entertainment industry as a whole should not be surprised in the least (TV, movies, Comics, Music, etc)
Burgle Bros 1 is impossible to find where I live, so a sequel helped me get the game, even if it's a slight different version. But a reprint with an expansion would have been the same thing, like other Kickstarters do.
GREAT VIDEO! Once again! I am a great fan of your nuanced views! Well done :)
My problem is that I never know which to get
It's a classic debate that you have started..But one that will never get sorted.
Why did the British Guy talk like Foghorn Leghorn in that movie?
What a fantastic format for a video. Loved the tone and discussion on an industry wide ‘issue’. Thanks Jon 🙂
Excellent as always. And as a new publisher, this is a really good perspective for me to hear.
I think for the most part, this is absolutely true, but there are some games that keep the core mechanic of the game while changing up everything else and it creates a game that's entirely different, but still feels familiar. I think I the best example of this I've played is the Forbidden series (Island, Desert, and Sky) which all have a modular board and see you finding a small collection of things that help you escape, but have entirely different mechanics, especially in Forbidden Sky which strays super far from it's predecessors. Also Tsuro did a pretty good job with this, once again, especially in the third one which I don't own myself yet but have played, and while it still has the basic gameplay of, place tile, follow line, don't die, it introduces such different mechanics that change the game entirely.
I have a friend with a risk aversion on Kickstarter games by new publishers and unproven designs... But these days it's more likely to see a sequel than it is to see a reprint. I think part of that is due to Kickstarter's rule that you can't sell the same product twice.
@@Spearca Or a soundtrack. Creators can do a full reprint by adding a generic soundtrack.
The advantage I see to sequels is, if I haven't bought the original it gives me a chance to buy an improved version. For example, Machi Koro 2. I could buy the original and all the expansions, or buy the new version with better rules, tweaks, etc. That said, there should never be a reason for a third installment of a game.
Great video as always, Jon! I'm curious: do you feel like franchise lines like Pandemic or Azul, which have multiple stand-alone titles that are built on the same framework but otherwise feel like uniquely different games, are exempt from this sequel categorization/problem, or do you see them as more examples of the same issue?
I'd say they are sequels too. But I would judge everything on its individual merits. Is each game different enough? And the answer will be different depending on who you are. I couldn't imagine owning more than one version of Azul (I don't own any!), but I do own Pandemic, Pandemic Iberia and Pandemic: Fall of Rome. I think that both those two sequel bring really interesting changes to the table. However, they do all still feel like Pandemic. Since Pandemic is one of my favourite games, and the designs are SO good, I can partially forgive that. But I am still frustrated by owning multiple sequels of the same franchise. And I am somewhat ashamed that I have encouraged the sequel trend with my purchases. I would rather Matt Leacock was encouraged to use his supreme talents to create something wildly different, but I also can't not fall in love with Pandemic: Fall of Rome just because I have a principle around sequels! It's tough!
@@actualol I want to say that maybe a distinction should be drawn between a 'true' sequel vs when it could be delivered in a better way as an expansion. I've not tried Railroad Ink (roll and writes don't particularly float my boat), but from the descriptions it sounds like you could just have 1 base game, and then sell lots of dice sets for variance (and maybe with a different top half of the player board as that looked different in each version). Burgle Brothers 2 sounds like it switches up a bit too much for it to be handled by swapping a few components in - there it seems a bit more justifiable to sell a complete new game. The Forbidden Island/Desert/Skies family qualify as sequels but all seem to be valid enough to exist even if some people only want to buy one particular member. I don't know if you're a wargamer, but you also could maybe consider the COIN series as a group of sequels.
With reskins you can get in to further questions about reaching different markets (and maybe reskins are a video you can do as an addendum to this). SmallWorld and Pandemic have World Of Warcraft versions, and does this make it a good product if it increases the audience for the titles? What about the streamlined versions like Ticket To Ride London, or Pandemic Hotzone?
Ultimately, I feel like the only ones I come down hard on is Railroad Ink - while the others seem like offering a variety for people who have a bit more of a specific taste, that one feels a bit more crassly exploitative in that it could have been done in a much simpler fashion for the audience
Hah, the alternative suggestions from the "every audience member" on what to do with your multiple Railroad Ink copies at the start were exactly the answers I was suggesting at the screen, in the same order. Very prescient!
I'm not fully in agreement with your arguments - at the very least, there's enough board-games out there that there's room for sequels to exist amongst the wealth of new options currently being produced. But I also don't personally find I have a need to get sequels - having got (all of) Eldritch Horror, I don't need Arkham Horror 3rd Edition, which makes it somewhat easier for me to say "just don't get them!"
Seems only to be a problem for someone who already got his hands on every game.
But in today's world they isn't enough capacity left to produce a high enough print run to provide a game for every customer.
Without Glenmore II for example, I probably would have never got the chance to play this awesome game at all. So I'm very glad for the sequel.
Though I prefer to keep good games in print and add expanions to them, of course.
Ah problem with a lot of these replayabilty type games is the setup of cards.
Imperial Settlers was the worst. One point I owned the base game, Atlanteans, Aztecs and 3 separate expansions. It was nearly impossible to create a deck that would be balanced for the new races and their abilities with the expanions together.
It takes you a lot of time to sort each card by expansion and then construct a balanced deck that you will have to shuffle for a half hour game (2 people). Then afterwards deconstruct the deck
Very interesting, and well-presented as always. Many thanks!
I suppose I know the feeling. I love King of Tokyo, I love it even more with the Power-up expansion, and I love what King of Tokyo Dark edition adds to the game. Not only do I now have access to all the characters for the Power-up cards, but there's a completely new set of ability cards and a new mechanic that makes otherwise weak rolls more useful. Sure, I could toss out the inserts and one of the boxes and just shove everything into one box, Dark Edition clearly has better art, but then everything will jostle around and I'll have duplicates (albeit with different artwork) of 4 characters, and an extra set of dice, an extra set of energy cubes (Dark Edition's look better), and an extra board (even though Dark Edition's is better). Am I to toss all those? I can probably rework the spare cubes into a different original game, but there's still the problem of everything else.
I have the Kickstarter Big Box of Railroad Ink with all those Mini-expansions and it really brought the game to our table again. I really think that you are wrong in that case. The 4 base games are really ok, but to be honest, the expansions are the meat of the game. and being able to change dice modules, goal cards and "maps" really make it replayable and every game can be different. and you can still always play base game mode with new people. I agree with you, that 4 base boxes are stupid. I store everything in the Expansion box and only have one box on the shelf and its still portable enough.
It could get worse. I was once doing a boardgame demo in a boardgame store.
People who live on low income got gift cards from the municipality for this store to buy Christmas presents. A mother came with her 2 children. They already had Monopoly, Uno and Yachtzee. The store owner advised them games like King Domino, Ticket to Ride, Dixit, Qwixx and other gateway family games.
They left with Monopoly Harry Potter and Monopoly Starwars because the kids really liked Monopoly.
very thoughtful analysis. good job!
One of my favourite small card games - Lost Legacy, has only 16 cards, but I can play this game for hours and still be amazed how everything can be unpredictable and doesn't become boring. Also since the game has only 16 cards, different variants aren't that problematic and really make things more interesting
Agreed 100%! Sometimes less is more!
When you said “If we only ever find sequels, why would a publisher try anything new?,” I beware about yo comment comparing it to the current state of film, but you immediately made that same comparison.
Disagree that variability isn't important. One example for myself is Agricola: ACBAS. The original version had ONE variation, and no chance, myself and my partner love it, but a few games in it had no reason to be played again. Then the big box came with hundreds of extra buildings, making each setup different. Since then we've played it so many times ( close to 50 ) and each time there's been something we haven't seen before. It was a dead game until that version because we knew what the other would do.
I've played Burgle Bros over TTS multiple times and I'll probably buy the sequel IRL and not the original
The green version of Ink Challenge is the only one I own. So far I've actually only played it *as* the basic Railroad Ink though, telling people to ignore the extra stuff. It kinda feels like the basic game itself is redundant when you can just do that?
The foundation of replayability is strategic variance, not simply more components or extensions. Strategic variance means you play the game each time with some actual different style or approach. Strategy is your plan for winning. Does the game support different plans? Rush versus building up, attack or defend, sacrifices or distractions.
Ricky, you don’t speak for me. Also, I have a suspicion that you’re a Brit pretending to be an American…
(John - You’re awesome. I applaud your valiant effort at an American accent. Some words were spot-on! And your annoying in-your-face obnoxiousness was uncomfortably accurate 😳😂🇺🇸 Hooray for new characters!)
Haha! "Some" words! I'll take it! 😂
@@actualol On second thought, there are so many varieties of an “American” accent… I bet you would fit right in somewhere back in the Northeast (there are several accents in New England alone!)
I’m so sorry if my comment was offensive… not intended. Accents are hard! And you do them brilliantly 🙂
@@actualol ALSO… I spelled your name wrong! I’m so sorry! (My 3 year old is named John. You are Jon. 👍)
@@carols-corner Oh, don't worry! I'm not offended at all. I have always been rubbish at doing accents - American and any other. I'm just happy that people enjoy the videos 🙂
Going "what problems???" at burgle bros 1 is the funniest shit to me, ngl
I always combine my games into as few boxes as possible. I bet all those Railroad Ink games will fit in one box. No need to throw anything away. Are you short on junk drawer space? I thought junk drawers were infinite universes.... Also the "box graveyard" that I create from all the empty boxes is extremely useful. It's always great to have empty boxes on hand to re-box stuff (due to sleeving) or for LCG/CCG storage.
Also, you're wasting your money. 30 Rails is the exact same game and costs zero dollars.
But seriously, kings dilemma 2: queens dilemma would be rockin.
We haven’t quite finished KD, but love it.
Queens Dilemma just got announced today! 😂
@@actualol OMG you're not joking around!!! I can't believe it! We played for the first time since the pandemic a few weeks ago and I joked "what if by the end of this game they go "yeah, maybe King's aren't so good, what if we became a matriarch society". Or...due to some story elements, it might make sense (again, I'm not done with the game, but we're pretty far).
Yes! Variability does not equal replayability! That and many other astute observations sweeten this video like chocolate sprinkles on a thought-provoking doughnut, but my favourite line remains, "There is a reason why I still own Pandemic, AND Pandemic Iberia, AND Pandemic Fall of Rome". Yes! I am ultra happy with all three too. ... And Pandemic Rising Tide.
thank you for your honest opinions & for yet another entertaining & informative video! And like the others lol at your portrayal of an american hipster :)
let's all just take a moment to appreciate your american accent lol
It’s absolutely legendary
But Jon!
Accentualol?
I can't help if that's exactly how they speak! 😂😂😂😂
I come to this channel to avoid American accents 😆
How do you feel about Ticket to Ride Europe vs the original Ticket to Ride? This is a case where I feel the sequel was made well. Yes, it's the same game. Yes, there is the new challenge of ferries, tunnels, and stations. Yes, it's a new map. And yes, they fixed the long routes problem. Both games make it to the table on a regular basis, so I feel that the purchase was worth it.
The Century series are perhaps another exception to the rule. While each game is built on the same thematic mechanic of trading in spices for other combinations in order to fulfill goals for points, the secondary mechanics vary between each game. Personally, the second in the series, Eastern Wonders, is my favorite.
Otherwise, I'm with you. I see sequels as taking a great game and changing it slightly, often not for the better. Manhattan Project Energy Empire took what was already a great game and made it needlessly complex. I haven't played the 2nd and 3rd games in the Azul series, but honestly, I don't want to / feel the need to.
I disagree with some of this. With some games, variety is a major part of the game, so more variety DOES equal more replayability. Scenario-based games, for example, almost always benefit from a higher number of elements (within reason).
And there are plenty of reasons that a publisher might add an expansion during the KS campaign. It could be an early release, encouraging people to back the campaign rather than waiting longer for retail. It could be to entice people who may not quite like certain aspects of the base game (e.g., the expansion may change a specific mechanism of the game). The expansion could actually be the designer's full vision, but it's too much to sell to the uninitiated; or the base game may have been specifically designed to be an introductory version to which multiple expansions can be added on. Or any number of other reasons.
That said, I agree that there is a trend to release expansions to games that don't really benefit from them. I think publishers may have actually stolen the idea from video games. Video game sequels are almost always better than the original, because they are based on technology, and technology is constantly improving. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for board games and card games. For them, the gameplay has to carry the entire weight of the expansion, and very often it does not.
I recently got into board games with King of Tokyo Dark Edition as my first purchase. This video is so relevant to my current situation. King of New York is a different game, but it doesn't seem different enough to justify a purchase when there are so many other types of games to buy... while sequels are problematic, I am totally in favor of expansions. If King of New York was just an expansion, I would totally get it.
I've always felt King of Tokyo was more streamlined and more fun than King of New York. Sequels tend to add bloat or extra complication to justify their existence.
I'm American, and this makes me disgusted by us. We're annoying.
Every game has infinite replayability (except story games like detectives). Imagine not playing a game because it always feels the same. No sport would exist. Is soccer always the same? Yes. Yet there are hundreds of matches everyday throughout the world. It's the outcome that is unpredictable not the gameplay.
Next video - spin-offs, the Pandemic and Clank versions. Are they worth owning!? Tell me Jon!
I can't! I don't know! I own Iberia and Fall of Rome - but am I making a mistake? Maybe!
Excellent video and discussion! Appreciate it! :)
Fluff = Red Flag
Yaaass
Great video, totally agree with you
Thank you, i was about to buy Railroad Ink Collectors Edition without playing the game once. I think i will buy the blue and orange version first.... Thank you for saving me 100€
What about games like Ticket to Ride? I have 2 versions of it... but they fit different needs and groups to play with.
A fantastic video about a real issue. I enjoyed my play of Burgle Bros 2, but I agree with your comments. I adore BB1, and feel that 2 doesn't do much to fix issues, but instead adds new elements. Like, if BB1 plays a little long for you, just play over two floors instead of three. I don't own any sequels in my collection apart from BB2.
thank you, Ricky, for speaking for me.
"... and now I have four versions of the same game." LOL. We love playing 5-Minute Dungeon, so my MCU-fanatic kids were excited about 5-Minute Marvel ... for about five minutes. They'd rather play 5-Minute Dungeon every time.
I went back to your Best of 2018 video (ua-cam.com/video/hF4WGHgV5F8/v-deo.html), but I still don't have the answer to this question: which version of Railroad Ink should be my first? Blue? Red? One of the Challenge versions?
Fury of Dracula 2: This Time It's Personal
😂😂
How about... Fury of Dracula 2: What We Do in the Shadows
great video and excellent thoughts
That's what happens when people with too much money get into hobby like boardgames. They throw cash at everything that looks nice but not necessarily is good.
Lol that Murican accent 🤣
I see an Actualol vid, I like and comment, and then I watch.
would you say the same for clank and clank in space?
I've never played Clank In Space, partly because I was never interested in a sequel to an already great game - so I expect I would say the same. But without playing it, I can't be certain. Perhaps it improves on the original so much that it should be regarded as the definitive Clank!, but I doubt it!
Clank In Space is a gamery version of Clank. It takes a fairly streamlined game and bogs it down gating players. It also takes a lot of the teeth out of another player exiting the "dungeon" first. There's far less risk of death with In Space which means the right deck can churn points for several turns by stalling at an exit. It's also about 30 minutes longer to play.
The only good aspect of Clank In Space is the card synergy. Many of the cards in the market row have factions. A faction's cards sometimes will syngergize with other cards of that faction. It means you can build towards a faction specific deck and benefit from it.
Although, really, if you don't own Clank, then you should just buy the legacy version. You're getting a legacy game with all the fun that entails. But, you end up with a version of Clank with an expansion of content at the end. Plus, your version will be unique to your group with a slightly different board, some custom cards, and your own corporation. Just don't be afraid to use stickers and destroy cards.