Thank you so much, Lionel! Few people want such long discussions but I figure if you want a nice concise short review there are plenty of those to go around :) -jesse
We got our copy just in time for Thanksgiving break. First play through we misinterpreted some of the rules (for 3p) so won. After that we had a few losses even on easy mode, but once we realized some of the strategy combined with chance we got a few wins. Overall, family greatly enjoyed it. As a science teacher I'm looking into how I can create a lesson with it.
Ouch. I do mostly agree with the fungible point. But, that's basically the whole point of the game. Reduce emissions and/or increase emission sequestors. (Is it to teach people that there's no one answer to solving this global issue and anything we can do is net plus???) However, the different types of emissions do change who is affected by various crises. Anyway, I only played it once and after over 160 plays of the pandemic family, it's nice to play a co-op that doesn't suck that my wife will play and that I haven't played out yet. Yes, Pandemic is here favorite game. I think the card play mechanic is very clever, I enjoy using it, and hope some other games consider adopting it.
Played this game 16 times on BGA so far with 1-3 players and these are my takes on the negatives: 1. Fiddlyness: can't say since playing on BGA streamlines the experience a lot. The issue mentioned about counting all the different tokens for every player seems like it could be solved by having each player physically have each player take the carbon cubes for their emissions and add them to the group emissions and then subtract for sequestration. 2. Lack of cooperation: I agree to a certain extent. There are subtle differences in the starting countries that affect how the players can cooperate. For example, US has the best starting setup to be able to dig into the deck for cards and give said card to players that need to solve a specific problem (most likely energy/resilience). The Majority World player can struggle with their +3 demands if not aided by the US/China player. There's also discussion on who should contribute cards to activate the Global Projects or to negate Crisis. I think the bigger issue is, the game is generally too easy that the cooperation becomes unnecessary because players can often just brute force their way into draw down unless multiple players aren't doing anything productive. 3. All fungible: I can see your point but at the same time, I think this is a plus for me since this lets you tackle a problem from different angles and it makes the cardplay smoother since different cards can combo together. Also there are enough differences in the country setup that affect player decisions in the game. 4. Randomness: this is the main point I don't really agree with. There are randomness in any card game and I've found that the randomness in this game can be heavily mitigated by player decisions. There are so many ways to draw cards in the game that it's pretty easy to find something that can solve whatever problem the players have. The crisis cards generally care about the same things so they're also easy to mitigate. And the disaster tracks have minimal impact on the game that they're mostly negligible. Overall, the cardplay in this game is very enjoyable and keeps me coming back. The coop aspect of it is definitely secondary to the optimization puzzle so would not recommend to players who are primarily looking for an involved cooperative experience.
Thanks for posting your thoughts Alexander. I can definitely see how the optimization puzzle can be fun even with other issues. The one piece of randomness that really rubbed me the wrong way was the face down crisis cards.
That is a great point about Pandemic - even plain old base/vanilla Pandemic: It is "self-balancing" to use your term. That self-balancing dynamic makes Pandemic delightfully intuitive. Players can calculate risks and take them knowingly. There is an empowering beauty in that design that makes the game worth playing over and over and over.
For most cooperative games if you win too often that not a good sign.. but maybe you are still enjoying the optimization puzzle. Don't miss the page in the rulebook where it suggests you can play with different countries to increase the difficulty.
Thanks for the kind words, Jeffrey!! Don't hesitate to let me know about any cooperative kickstarters you think I should take a look at. Since I don't take review copies it's unlikely I'll get any early access but I can keep my eyes open for them. -jesse
Game play aside, I really appreciate the effort they put in to producing a more sustainable and eco-friendly box. I hope they learned enough to pass on to other developers so we can get some of the plastic and energy waste out of this one specific industry as it starts to take off. Great review! Thanks!
Terraforming Mars Ares Expedition Crisis expansion offers a coop mode ( you just mentioned the fan made coop mode in TM). Also Ares is twice faster than TM, so maybe in the realm of this game in terms of length.
I think there's a comparison to be made with Wingspan. Some of the value comes from how the gameplay takes a backseat to the source material. That said, I agree that there's not a lot of cooperation, but I kind of expected a little competition as well. Part of the problem with climate change in the real world is that all the steak holders have different things to gain or lose. It's not simply a given that everyone is trying to solve the problem. There's no aspect of a prisoner's dilemma in Daybreak, and I think that would have made the gameplay a lot more interesting. Having some "competition" would have been an opportunity to explore another real-world dimension, albeit at the cost of being less optimistic.
this seems really interesting, except that if I am a scientist and aspects of the game; i can associate with my daily life such as my job, I dont think it is a game I'd like to play for fun then... it will feel like I'm bringing my work into a board game, as opposed to a different time setting...
Well I heard that some actual fire fighters play Flash Point Fire Rescue so... maybe not? It depends on your style of gaming, I guess and your own personal take on work life balance.
Yeah I think you are describing a not uncommon experience. Sometimes people will be given a game as a gift because it is in same field that they work in. But often a doctor may want to spend his time off playing a game about farming -- wheras a farmer might want to spend his day off playing a game about exploring outer space. Games let us escape our daily realities. -jesse
Yeah it's true that the rating feels high for a game with so many negatives. I normally try to just assign a rating that reflects my personal tastes, but then sometimes it feels like a game is just not for me but probably deserves a bit of a higher rating because I can see it being just what some people are looking for. I think also being a shorter game goes a long way to making it more appealing to me than another game. I hope I conveyed some of that in the review when I was giving my rating.
@@COOPFORTWO I disagree that you should bump up the rating just because some niches who aren't the game's primary audience (hobbyist co-op gamers) might like it better. And you also apparently didn't actually evaluate the game in any depth from the perspective of those niches, i.e. actually play it solo or ask the opinion of a science teacher who had students play it. Otherwise, thanks for giving a well-reasoned negative review.
Good video ty. I've played twice, lost twice and loved it both times. I find it interesting that a lot of your negatives (fiddliness, swinginess, etc) feel very climate change.
@@COOPFORTWO which would not be an excuse for making a bad game, of course. There I think you're very fair in your review. They are issues. They could well be reasons the game doesn't work for someone. For me the unmamageable runaway collapses have been quick enough that losing had been fun rather than too painful.
Sounded really interesting but I'm glad i saw this negative review before purchasing. I don't mind shorter games but don't like games saved by being short. Also i think i might be too cynical to believe in this dream of counties happily working together for the greater good...
I'm afraid not... We were set to record one but had an unrelated youtube-induced friendship purgatory danger zone and decided instead to turn off the camera and just focus on enjoying the game. I do hope Gregg gets a chance to convey his thoughts on it because his take was a little bit different than mine. I will say that the multi-player solitaire nature, combined with the focus on optimizing your hand and tableau, using cards with lots of small point text, means that this is probably a game where what would benefit viewers the most would be one of those highly edited high-production quality videos where someone can actually talk you through their turns and let you see the cards being played. I understand the game can be played online at BoardGameArena and maybe someone can record a playthrough there where you can more easily see people's hands, etc. -jesse
Essentially it's code for "we got into a disagreement about filming". Sometimes trying to film things interferes with the fun of gaming and we are trying to choose fun over filming.
Thank you for giving a well-reasoned negative review. But there just is no way that a game that you argue has many flaws in its gameplay (randomness, lack of actual cooperation, pacing) should be rated an 8. Based on what you said, this game should be at most a 6. If you give it an 8 then your rating scale skews too high. And I think the rating should not be influenced by niches (solo gamers, education) that are clearly not the game's target audience: hobbyist co-op players.
I should have noted that you can play Daybreak online(!) at BoardGameArena: en.boardgamearena.com/gamepanel?game=daybreak
Very impressed with the depth and thoroughness of your review, you've got yourself a new subscriber. Looking forward to watch more of your channel
Thank you so much, Lionel! Few people want such long discussions but I figure if you want a nice concise short review there are plenty of those to go around :) -jesse
We got our copy just in time for Thanksgiving break. First play through we misinterpreted some of the rules (for 3p) so won. After that we had a few losses even on easy mode, but once we realized some of the strategy combined with chance we got a few wins. Overall, family greatly enjoyed it. As a science teacher I'm looking into how I can create a lesson with it.
I can definitely see how this would be a great game for kids to learn science and have fun at the same time.
Ouch.
I do mostly agree with the fungible point. But, that's basically the whole point of the game. Reduce emissions and/or increase emission sequestors. (Is it to teach people that there's no one answer to solving this global issue and anything we can do is net plus???)
However, the different types of emissions do change who is affected by various crises.
Anyway, I only played it once and after over 160 plays of the pandemic family, it's nice to play a co-op that doesn't suck that my wife will play and that I haven't played out yet. Yes, Pandemic is here favorite game.
I think the card play mechanic is very clever, I enjoy using it, and hope some other games consider adopting it.
Played this game 16 times on BGA so far with 1-3 players and these are my takes on the negatives:
1. Fiddlyness: can't say since playing on BGA streamlines the experience a lot. The issue mentioned about counting all the different tokens for every player seems like it could be solved by having each player physically have each player take the carbon cubes for their emissions and add them to the group emissions and then subtract for sequestration.
2. Lack of cooperation: I agree to a certain extent. There are subtle differences in the starting countries that affect how the players can cooperate. For example, US has the best starting setup to be able to dig into the deck for cards and give said card to players that need to solve a specific problem (most likely energy/resilience). The Majority World player can struggle with their +3 demands if not aided by the US/China player. There's also discussion on who should contribute cards to activate the Global Projects or to negate Crisis.
I think the bigger issue is, the game is generally too easy that the cooperation becomes unnecessary because players can often just brute force their way into draw down unless multiple players aren't doing anything productive.
3. All fungible: I can see your point but at the same time, I think this is a plus for me since this lets you tackle a problem from different angles and it makes the cardplay smoother since different cards can combo together. Also there are enough differences in the country setup that affect player decisions in the game.
4. Randomness: this is the main point I don't really agree with. There are randomness in any card game and I've found that the randomness in this game can be heavily mitigated by player decisions. There are so many ways to draw cards in the game that it's pretty easy to find something that can solve whatever problem the players have. The crisis cards generally care about the same things so they're also easy to mitigate. And the disaster tracks have minimal impact on the game that they're mostly negligible.
Overall, the cardplay in this game is very enjoyable and keeps me coming back. The coop aspect of it is definitely secondary to the optimization puzzle so would not recommend to players who are primarily looking for an involved cooperative experience.
Thanks for posting your thoughts Alexander. I can definitely see how the optimization puzzle can be fun even with other issues. The one piece of randomness that really rubbed me the wrong way was the face down crisis cards.
Whoooooooooo, hooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 💥 I have been looking forward to this!
That is a great point about Pandemic - even plain old base/vanilla Pandemic: It is "self-balancing" to use your term. That self-balancing dynamic makes Pandemic delightfully intuitive. Players can calculate risks and take them knowingly. There is an empowering beauty in that design that makes the game worth playing over and over and over.
Yeah I really feel like Pandemic needs someone to write a serious academic book about why everything works together so well.
@@COOPFORTWO Now don't go tempting me with side projects. :)
i am so glad youtube showed me this channel
Thank you for saying so :)
This is my favourite game of 2023. We have yet to lose a game though so need to ramp up the difficulty!
For most cooperative games if you win too often that not a good sign.. but maybe you are still enjoying the optimization puzzle. Don't miss the page in the rulebook where it suggests you can play with different countries to increase the difficulty.
Subscribed, very in-depth review ! Please review more freshly arrived KS games as I find the market lacking
Thanks for the kind words, Jeffrey!! Don't hesitate to let me know about any cooperative kickstarters you think I should take a look at. Since I don't take review copies it's unlikely I'll get any early access but I can keep my eyes open for them. -jesse
Game play aside, I really appreciate the effort they put in to producing a more sustainable and eco-friendly box. I hope they learned enough to pass on to other developers so we can get some of the plastic and energy waste out of this one specific industry as it starts to take off. Great review! Thanks!
Yeah, the packaging and components are all top notch.
Terraforming Mars Ares Expedition Crisis expansion offers a coop mode ( you just mentioned the fan made coop mode in TM). Also Ares is twice faster than TM, so maybe in the realm of this game in terms of length.
Good point -- I'm a big fan of Terraforming Mars. Have you tried the co-op mode of Ares Expedition? Is it any good? -jesse
@@COOPFORTWO it's not bad, perhaps a bit fiddley, I think I prefer the regular mode.
I think there's a comparison to be made with Wingspan. Some of the value comes from how the gameplay takes a backseat to the source material.
That said, I agree that there's not a lot of cooperation, but I kind of expected a little competition as well. Part of the problem with climate change in the real world is that all the steak holders have different things to gain or lose. It's not simply a given that everyone is trying to solve the problem. There's no aspect of a prisoner's dilemma in Daybreak, and I think that would have made the gameplay a lot more interesting. Having some "competition" would have been an opportunity to explore another real-world dimension, albeit at the cost of being less optimistic.
Dale Yu's review: opinionatedgamers.com/2023/12/08/dale-yu-review-of-daybreak
this seems really interesting, except that if I am a scientist and aspects of the game; i can associate with my daily life such as my job, I dont think it is a game I'd like to play for fun then... it will feel like I'm bringing my work into a board game, as opposed to a different time setting...
Well I heard that some actual fire fighters play Flash Point Fire Rescue so... maybe not? It depends on your style of gaming, I guess and your own personal take on work life balance.
Yeah I think you are describing a not uncommon experience. Sometimes people will be given a game as a gift because it is in same field that they work in. But often a doctor may want to spend his time off playing a game about farming -- wheras a farmer might want to spend his day off playing a game about exploring outer space. Games let us escape our daily realities. -jesse
all great points... @@COOPFORTWO
8 ??? Based on your review I expected you to say 6 or maybe 7. :)
Yeah it's true that the rating feels high for a game with so many negatives. I normally try to just assign a rating that reflects my personal tastes, but then sometimes it feels like a game is just not for me but probably deserves a bit of a higher rating because I can see it being just what some people are looking for. I think also being a shorter game goes a long way to making it more appealing to me than another game. I hope I conveyed some of that in the review when I was giving my rating.
@@COOPFORTWO I disagree that you should bump up the rating just because some niches who aren't the game's primary audience (hobbyist co-op gamers) might like it better. And you also apparently didn't actually evaluate the game in any depth from the perspective of those niches, i.e. actually play it solo or ask the opinion of a science teacher who had students play it. Otherwise, thanks for giving a well-reasoned negative review.
Good, but not great. What a hook, Jesse!
"Good but not great": Story of my life. -jesse
Good video ty.
I've played twice, lost twice and loved it both times. I find it interesting that a lot of your negatives (fiddliness, swinginess, etc) feel very climate change.
Yes it's true that many of the mechanical "problems" with the game seem thematically appropriate for the subject.
@@COOPFORTWO which would not be an excuse for making a bad game, of course. There I think you're very fair in your review.
They are issues. They could well be reasons the game doesn't work for someone.
For me the unmamageable runaway collapses have been quick enough that losing had been fun rather than too painful.
Sounded really interesting but I'm glad i saw this negative review before purchasing.
I don't mind shorter games but don't like games saved by being short.
Also i think i might be too cynical to believe in this dream of counties happily working together for the greater good...
No playthrough?
I'm afraid not... We were set to record one but had an unrelated youtube-induced friendship purgatory danger zone and decided instead to turn off the camera and just focus on enjoying the game. I do hope Gregg gets a chance to convey his thoughts on it because his take was a little bit different than mine.
I will say that the multi-player solitaire nature, combined with the focus on optimizing your hand and tableau, using cards with lots of small point text, means that this is probably a game where what would benefit viewers the most would be one of those highly edited high-production quality videos where someone can actually talk you through their turns and let you see the cards being played. I understand the game can be played online at BoardGameArena and maybe someone can record a playthrough there where you can more easily see people's hands, etc. -jesse
@@COOPFORTWO That's understandable, but still a pity. A Jesse-Gregg playthrough might have been fun to watch, but I fully respect your decision.
@@COOPFORTWO What does youtube-induced friendship purgatory danger zone mean? I fear I cannot follow
Essentially it's code for "we got into a disagreement about filming". Sometimes trying to film things interferes with the fun of gaming and we are trying to choose fun over filming.
@@COOPFORTWO I have zero experience with endeavours. But I can imagine how much of a pain it might be.
Thank you for giving a well-reasoned negative review. But there just is no way that a game that you argue has many flaws in its gameplay (randomness, lack of actual cooperation, pacing) should be rated an 8. Based on what you said, this game should be at most a 6. If you give it an 8 then your rating scale skews too high. And I think the rating should not be influenced by niches (solo gamers, education) that are clearly not the game's target audience: hobbyist co-op players.
I can't really disagree. Probably I should have rated it like 6 and was more afraid that I just trying to correct for having to o high expectations.