A rule change that made a huge difference for me was to have 2 actions in town instead of 1. Then the town is ALMOST as good as adventuring and people aren't rushing the traveling because there might be other good opportunities. I also disagree with the idea that the adventures are unimportant. Every one gets you a flag and flags are otherwise very expensive. You didn't mention that there are more point centered items and more cheap functional items or how your reputation affects what items you can get and how there are items that let you steal from opponents. I'm sick of Near and Far now, but that is after playing through every character's story once and the campaign twice and I'd say it was worth the price of admission.
It is a solid Euro with an adventuring, storytelling theme. It does require some tough choices. You need to be selective about where and when you place your tents. The tents are a great visual timer and reminder of the experience. It is a very well designed game. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed playing it.
I dont mean to be so off topic but does someone know a trick to log back into an Instagram account..? I was stupid forgot my account password. I would love any tips you can give me!
It's funny, I've been watching these Shut Up and Sit Down reviews because they're entertaining but with maybe one or two exceptions it's apparent I have totally different tastes in games than these guys. I love Near and Far, SUSD wasn't too fond of it. I find Tales of the Arabian Nights too long and random and not interesting after the first play or two, SUSD put it in their top 10 best games of all time. They prefer Merchants and Marauders to Xia and I'm the opposite. I really like Terraforming Mars, they didn't like it much. I'm beginning to suspect I should keep watching the videos because they're funny and fun to watch and then just completely ignore their recommendations since it sounds like we have very little in common when it comes to games.
Or, you could watch the reviews in reverse lenses. What they dislike, maybe you should give a go. What they love, avoid because it might not be your tastes? :P
Well, there's someone for every game, even the terrible ones. They admit as much frequently. That said, it sounds like they give enough info for you to make an informed decision for you.
Sounds like you guys played the game *much* differently from the two groups I've been playing it with, and ended up with a very different experience as a result. We did have one game where one player rushed tents, and even though they won they agreed with the rest of us that doing it that way wasn't any fun, so it hasn't been repeated. I think a big part of the joy of Near and Far is pretty explicit in the theme: It's the journey, not the destination. Especially in Campaign (or Character) Mode where everyone is effectively part of the same traveling party, we usually go out of our way not to prematurely end the game, and to try to assist each other with achieving our goals (e.g.: I'll let you finish that trade route if you let me go on this quest.) as much as is reasonable. Sure, we're each still trying to "win", but not at the expense of having a good time *adventuring*.
It's like playing Dominion and go for the money strategy. Sure you can win, but did you have any fun by ignoring the ten piles of (semi-)thematic cards?
Is still a major flaw in any game if pursuing the victory condition in the most effective way results in an unenjoyable session, or you feel obligated to cooperate in an otherwise non-cooperative game in order to fully incorporate all of its content. As SU&SD repeatedly says, there are too many good games out now that get everything right to waste time on ones like this that require players to be forgiving of its many flaws.
I disagree. If you ever played Monty Python and the Holy Grail, in order to win and get the Grail, you only have to click one button. Still a blast of a game though :)
Yeah I think maybe they should have billed this more as a collaborative story telling game akin to tales of arabian nights. That seems to be the type of game category it want to occupy. The tent rush style play is an easy path to victory. It's possible to beat it by buying artifacts, adventuring, and forming trade routes. You need to be practiced at the game and form efficient turns. Adventuring usually gives you a very efficient dump of resources that can be used to buy artifacts and moving far from town helps you complete trade routes. Both of which are a huge dump of points if no one is contesting. I don't think it's as easy as rushing tents and taking low hanging points, but it's possible. Also contesting all the low hanging fruit in the game like the mine spaces and easy threat cards forces the rush style players to slow down and build up. The biggest trap people fall into is you can't spend a ton of time in town. Being in town for longer than you absolutely need to is very inefficient. Get what you need and get out there and adventure. Then repeat as you cycle back to town as your hearts run out. You can't slow play when someone is putting you on a clock like that. All that said the game is much more fun if you don't give a crap about who is winning and are just walking around sharing adventures with each other. Playing this game as a purely competitive race really rings out a lot of the enjoyment. Why spoil the potential experience?
fair enough. I'm just saying it's not a big hurdle to jump over, and some groups may never even encounter a problem. Paul is overstating the problem in my opinion, but clearly that was his experience with the game. Also they have a longer game variant in the rules to give slower strategies more of a chance, and that would directly combat this issue.
Played it with my gaming group last week. I think the review was pretty spot on. It was OK, but nothing ever happens that makes the game very exciting. It's just a lot of going back to town to scrape up some resources to go back out and get a few more resources on the map while shedding tents (building camps). The quests are, meh. One player got his engine up faster than others and was just able to do everything he wanted without any risk, ended the game quickly and was way out in front of everyone in points. I don't think there is enough there to want me to play it over and over in campaign mode. It is a beautifully produced game, but isn't that one of the things that is becoming a problem with Kickstarter? High on production value to entice wallets to open up for a game that no one has really played yet?
Curious how four years later your thoughts about KS as "a problem with Kickstarter? High on production value to entice wallets to open up for a game that no one has really played yet?" it's gotten worse huh haha
The person who initiated the end, placing the last tent hasn't once won yet and we've played six games so far. That's our experience so far. The person who traded in for artifacts have won the most often. Also, amused at every single reviewer of this game refers to the books of maps as a book of maps... has the word atlas been lost to time? Lastly, we love this game. It's a fun Euro style game with stories and a theme.
While I agree with some of your points about Ryan's design choices (I also found the dueling mechanic anti-climatic), I still think N&F is a far better game overall than you would have viewers believe. There are a lot of choices during gameplay (even if some of them are simplistic) which may draw a broader variety of players to the table, and everyone can pick their own path to success based upon their preferences. Multiple modes of play, minimal downtime in-between turns and the impressive components are all great features that you politely dismissed. So while some of your criticisms were fair, I don't agree with your overall conclusion. I am happier that SU&SD is reconsidering the stigma associated with Kickstarter, especially because Red Raven Games (the publisher of Above & Below and Near & Far) consistently produces a well-designed game supported with excellent production values.
Fair review. I think Near and Far is a great game if you're not looking for a super competitive night of gaming. It shines as a choose-your-own-adventure game where scoring and winning are secondary concerns. I may be mistaken, but I think Red Raven Games is focused more on providing experiences rather than super mathy, highly competitive games.
So, how does it compare to Tales Of The Arabian Nights which we picked up at SU&SD's recommendation (and really enjoy on nights when we want to turn off our brains and just have fun storytelling). That game has very little player interaction and whoever wins is actually totally random; but yet you guys loved it. I've not played Near and Far yet but I had thought of picking it up as an alternative to Arabian Nights but with an actual game in there... would I be wrong?
I love the comments that are basically, "How dare they not give a glowing review to a game I love!" It's a review. It's subjective. Stop looking for confirmation about the way you feel about the game. If you love the game then good for you.
It is always an odd experience to read "On Poverty" and "A Year in Stardew Valley" and then watch Paul reviews. It suddenly makes the joy and magic a few pieces of cardboard bring seem so much more important, and why it's important that you know if there's joy and magic in the box before you spend money on it.
Really pleased to see you reading Ann Leckie! I am a big fan of the Ancillary series and got to meet her at a literary festival a couple of years ago. Great lady! Looking forward to her new book (this fall?).
I think Paul brushes up against what's prolly wrong with this (and all of Laukat's recent) game(s) towards the end when he comments on the lack of interaction. The real problem seems to be the GAME itself, in the technical sense. Were there a novel, interesting mechanism underneath all this window dressing-or even simply a bog-standard but well-implemented version of a proven mechanism (e.g. REAL worker placement in the Caylus/Agricola-sense) that produces interaction and tension)-I actually think Laukat's decision to have treasures that aren't total game-changers and/or encounters that involve simple choices and minimal variance would be the *right* way to do those things, and could have produced an overall experience that was really special. (That is a personal opinion from someone who wants to play a GAME, not experience an ameritrashy roll-and-resolve EXPERIENCE [called a "game"].) After all, the more game-changing an acquired treasure or item is for its owner, the harder to balance, and the swingier and more luck-driven the race-to-victory. The twee artwork and vignettes could have worked very well to break (and dress) up a solid underlying game, if one existed. Instead it looks like there's (a) a dominant strategy (b) that's easy and boring to pursue (c) amidst mechanisms that do not IN THEMSELVES produce (a real, organic, emergent-from-the-mechanism) narrative or interesting gameplay (in the strict sense of the word). It's funny: the fact that Paul focuses on what he does (and doesn't really drive home that "no interaction" basically means "no actual game") almost ironically suggests that Laukat's obfuscatory art and "thematic"/reading elements succeeded in doing their obfuscatory work on him, inasmuch as he spends so much of the review wishing thematic stuff had a greater wowie-zowie impact , and doesn't seem to fully grok that (as with Islebound, I suspect) there's very little if any GAME in this "game". (Which isn't to say it might not be a pleasant, "game-esque" way to pass some time.)
"Vignetted" is my new favorite word. "Tents to win the game too" LOL Nice runthrough. It's a shame you didn't enjoy it more than you did. Thanks for the thoughts.
Strange that you recommend Tales of the Arabian Nights and not Near and Far. Near and Far is basically the same thing with actual mechanics. I love TotAN because I read dramatically (I love Above and Below for the same reason) so I was really assuming I would like Near and Far. I'm still going to get it when I can, but your review pooped on my parade just a bit. Cheers anyways?
A&B just edges out ahead for me over N&F. I find N&F more of a racing game to get your tents out and feel it ends too quickly for my tastes. My mind might change though after I play character mode. So far I've only played one offs on the map to teach people how to play.
Just finished a 2 player game, and lost by 3 points. I placed last tent, had more threats, more gems/coins, more rep, tied for treasures/trade routes, but less artifacts. Artifacts are bigger factor than tents. It's a terrific game. A game might end up less fun if all you think about while playing was the technical aspects of video reviewing that game. It turns the fun, social atmosphere of friend and family game night into a work task.
This review is exactly how I felt about Above and Below. Fun game, but it was missing that magic that makes it a repeat, go-to title. Small number of choices, mechanics that make one scoring option far superior to another. I like Ryan Laukat's innovative work, but his games are (after a few plays) just an average experience for me. The hype train pushes them to the front of the BGG website, but there are better games out there. Thanks for the thoughtful review Paul!!
Kai Dreyfus-Ballesi If you haven't heard of Gloomhaven, then you probably haven't heard of BGG. It's the central news hub for all modern board game enthusiasts :)
I think it's difficult to come up with a legacy game from scratch. Pandemic and Risk were successes in great part because they put a huge twist on already familiar and popular games. Seafall's luke warm response illustrates this very well.
This review almost made me avoid this game, but I'm so glad that I didn't. After playing the game 20+ times, I can't help but feel as though Paul must not have played it much before reviewing it... When you're pitching tents across the map, the absolute MOST points that you can get are 16. I consistently get at LEAST double that amount through activating the artifact cards, (there are a couple cards that are worth 15 points BY THEMSELVES). I also don't think that his assessment of the rewards for completing the story challenges is accurate at all. I've never come across a story that gives me something that's not helpful, and I've seen them all. Without the adventures, you can't get banners easily, which are required to activate the high-victory point artifact cards and ultimately win the game. I agree that the action for resolving the stories is very simple, but it's also very functional and otherwise less disappointing. You always have the option to spend hearts to succeed if you have enough, but if you do, it could prevent you from placing a tent the following turn and gain a handful of coins or gems. There is still a meaningful choice to be made. I have found that the stories are absolutely necessary for being a "successful adventurer". Besides that, the stories bring a vibrant color to the game that engages your imagination and brings a feeling of adventure more than any clever mechanic ever could, and that's what this game is aiming for. I agree that it's generally not a good idea to spend too much time in town, (unless you have the Amber Mines expansion, which makes the town SIGNIFICANTLY more interesting and worthwhile), but the whole thrust of this game is travel and adventure. The whole purpose of the town is to equip you for the adventures found on the map. Near and Far is my favorite game. It's a very charming, friendly world while still being exciting and adventurous. It has so much variability between the two campaign modes and the arcade mode. I completely understand that some people aren't charmed by the world that Ryan has made and some people want a straightforward, predictable euro, but I have found this to be the perfect balance of engaging adventure and meaningful strategy. I thoroughly enjoy playing this every time I bring it to the table, and I don't see that changing any time soon.
I totally missed this review. I've been eyeing this game for years. I was actually talking to someone who was looking to sell it last week. I would definitely recommend it for people looking for a laid back euro with a bit more theme going on.
In Story Mode, you don't keep anything besides skills you invested into your character. So you might buy a cheap skill that let's you start with one food, and you'll always get that, but you get rid of items etc.
You're in Vancouver? AND a foreigner? So am I! Care to meet up?... although I must be the gazillionsth person to say so xD Cheers! keep up the good work guys :)
for the amount of gameplay time that will be spent for the campaign mode alone, the lack of interactions is huge. was looking forward to this, but I think i'll wait for a good sale now instead of rushing for it.
TLDR: The art and design in Laukat's games is bold and original. I like earthy and pastel tones and subtler palettes in game art. Anything that conjures up the look of old maps. :) I own Above and Below and it is unique in its design in every way. The art was a little more "cartoonish" than I'm used to, creating a lofty fantasy atmosphere when I usually go for realism, but it really grew on me. I love the boldness of the earth tones, the palettes that Laukat uses in general. This may sound kind of boring or pretentious; but publishers tend to dislike using those old earthy map colors for two very good reasons: 1. It's hard to see earthy tones and pastels in darker environments, making the game annoying to play at a pub or your average teenager's basement, and, 2. Most men have some form of color blindness, if not actual diagnosed color blindness. It's true, with actual sciencey science! I've started to ask people if they can tell what color something is when I game with them, because a lot of people don't know that they are looking at 4 different hues of red, or reddish green, they just don't see the image popping. Those who have never taken a real color test before can get a little defensive about it when you point out invisible colors to them. I have very high color recognition scoring, in the upper 5% of men, or the upper 50% of women (again, there's some cool research behind this stuff). There is nothing wrong with having narrower color focus, and there are simple design decisions that can accommodate all forms of color blindness without sacrificing the look and feel of a game. How this simple quirk of biology may have shaped the world of game art, who can say. I see a lot of reviewers pan games for flat or boring artwork. One game reviewer did so with 2016's Conan (I won't name him, out of respect), calling it flat and boring: boardgamegeek.com/image/2339041/conan?size=original Now, it's not as perfect as Frank Rizetta (my judgment is a little clouded by puberty, maybe), but Adrian Smith is one of the greatest game illustrators in the business. I have seen many reviewers pan his artwork for being "flat" or "dull," including a top reviewer who's kind of a household name in the community. A company like Paizo would see this design decision as risky, and I can't blame them. Totally intend to buy this!!!
*but the dueling drudgery and the deadweight cards thing might need some variant assistance. that don't seem right. It's also kind of sad that the binded booklet adventure stuff wasn't better integrated into this, since it was such a common complaint in the previous box. I don't understand why that problem wasn't solved. Still, fixable with house rules.
@9:04 "...constantly pitching tents as fast as possible." I would have been really good at this game when I was like 16. (Which evidently I still am, given that I giggle at shit like this.)
thanks! you just saved me from buying the game. hate games where you read to each other and break immersion. the key to make that work is interaction and involvement for all at the table. singleplayer solitares is not for me.
To all the people commenting that Paul has missed the point, that the game is more about the experience than being played as a game to be won, let me ask you something. If the purpose is not to play it as a game, but rather a thematic world of wonder to be experienced... why is it a board game and not a movie? Or a book? A play, a tv show, a comic? If you enjoy the game for the art and all the story and narrative elements, wouldn't you rather just have a lovely illustrated novel that you can enjoy? Or a gorgeous animated film?
For your question: Because movies, books, plays, tv shows or comics are not interactive. It turns out that there are different kinds of players, and a lot of us are not manly man men that manly-ly beat their chest and only play games to compete as if one had to win a world cup. Some games are all about winning at all cost regardless of the fun of everyone else on the table, but can't there also be games that don't go for that? Does it hurt you this much for some to exist? This game here is very blatant on what it is. It is presenting itself exactly as what it turns out to be. Getting angry that it's not for competitive players is like being angry that Star Wars has space battles instead of scenes about university students eating lunch.
Looks like the reviewer picked up the game thinking it was a western style "kill the monsters and power up" adventure game. When it really is more of a "wander around and tell a story" game in the "honobono" style of a Hayao Miyazaki anime. Considering he had been following the game for a year via kickstarter, its remarkable how surprised he seemed that the game was exactly as the kickstarter said it would be. And sure, that's not for everyone. But I feel this review is based on some wrong preconception of what the game would be. Note: I don't own the game, because I actually read the kickstarter materials.
Can't we get storytelling games that facilitate storytelling through the ganeplay, though? Seems most of them have TONS of mechanics that do little for the stories in it.
ur channel is one of the greatest things ive found on youtube and you guys are great but would it be too much to ask if you could upload vids more often. I know ur videos take a lot of work so I what about some random lets play and stuff. Cheers
hawkeye137137 Name ONE reviewer that does objective reviews... There are none by the very definition of a review. Trully objective reviews would be called rules overview. SUSD are one of the few reviewers who i consider artists. They are one of the few that actually let the emotions and feelings they felt playing a game that occured come through their reviews. Where others, like Tom Vassel, are very mechanical. They'll tell you why they like or don't like a game, but you won't feel how they felt playing the game. That feeling of Paul during this review where he seemed let down, discouraged maybe, dissapointed by his experience playing the game... that's how he felt playing the game. As such, they are also one of the few reviewers that provide one of the best source of information about games. Because boardgames are all about emotions (else they would not be entertainment medias), this aspect is lacking with most other reviewers. So these so-called subjective reviews are possibly the most informative while others that are more objective on the spectrum are the least (they are all highly subjective anyway). To my knowledge, only SUSD and No Pun Included are this informative, though No Pun's production quality is a bit less than SUSD (microphones and cameras are cheaper and their theatricals a bit less inspired).
Martin Larouche Showing emotions during a review is nice. But when those emotions are all negative and during the whole video, I can't trust that review. When especially many comments I saw on the game on various places is positive. I don't know if SU&SD has a anti-trend policy or something, but they did this at Scythe too. Talked about the negatives of the game during the whole video and talked about its' positives during a half a minute section at the end. That's what I don't like, if they don't like a game strongly they bury it under a review full of negatives. You can still be subjective and do a balanced review, talking positive and negatives of a game at the same time. But SU&SD is sometimes a little too much subjective, almost at an extremist level.
SU&SD in a nutshell. Game they like "its an amazing rollercoaster ride of excitement and jam filled scones that touches you in a slightly naughty way" Game they don't like "It's like a grey morning, drinking cold tea while a lone bagpiper plays a mournful dirge slightly too loud for you to to get comfortable" Repeat those sort of comments for 10-15 minutes over each mechanic. They do entertaining content about boardgames, but they are terrible reviewers in a lot of ways.
Every review is subjective. That's the purpose of a review. What kind of person would have the audacity to suggest that they had an objective viewpoint?? If I am writing a film review and I dislike 90% of it, I have no obligation to spend 50% of my piece expounding on the 10% that I like.
Missing the point slightly, A fully objective review is impossible. But SU and SD are so subjective and labor the point so much through long videos, that their overall opinion of the game colours everything. My examples above are very typical of what they do. Wax lyrical, or moan.
A rule change that made a huge difference for me was to have 2 actions in town instead of 1. Then the town is ALMOST as good as adventuring and people aren't rushing the traveling because there might be other good opportunities. I also disagree with the idea that the adventures are unimportant. Every one gets you a flag and flags are otherwise very expensive. You didn't mention that there are more point centered items and more cheap functional items or how your reputation affects what items you can get and how there are items that let you steal from opponents. I'm sick of Near and Far now, but that is after playing through every character's story once and the campaign twice and I'd say it was worth the price of admission.
It is a solid Euro with an adventuring, storytelling theme. It does require some tough choices. You need to be selective about where and when you place your tents. The tents are a great visual timer and reminder of the experience. It is a very well designed game. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed playing it.
I dont mean to be so off topic but does someone know a trick to log back into an Instagram account..?
I was stupid forgot my account password. I would love any tips you can give me!
It's funny, I've been watching these Shut Up and Sit Down reviews because they're entertaining but with maybe one or two exceptions it's apparent I have totally different tastes in games than these guys. I love Near and Far, SUSD wasn't too fond of it. I find Tales of the Arabian Nights too long and random and not interesting after the first play or two, SUSD put it in their top 10 best games of all time. They prefer Merchants and Marauders to Xia and I'm the opposite. I really like Terraforming Mars, they didn't like it much.
I'm beginning to suspect I should keep watching the videos because they're funny and fun to watch and then just completely ignore their recommendations since it sounds like we have very little in common when it comes to games.
Or, you could watch the reviews in reverse lenses. What they dislike, maybe you should give a go. What they love, avoid because it might not be your tastes? :P
Well, there's someone for every game, even the terrible ones. They admit as much frequently. That said, it sounds like they give enough info for you to make an informed decision for you.
Paul, just heard about this game and this came up in a search. Miss your input in SUSD.
Sounds like you guys played the game *much* differently from the two groups I've been playing it with, and ended up with a very different experience as a result. We did have one game where one player rushed tents, and even though they won they agreed with the rest of us that doing it that way wasn't any fun, so it hasn't been repeated.
I think a big part of the joy of Near and Far is pretty explicit in the theme: It's the journey, not the destination. Especially in Campaign (or Character) Mode where everyone is effectively part of the same traveling party, we usually go out of our way not to prematurely end the game, and to try to assist each other with achieving our goals (e.g.: I'll let you finish that trade route if you let me go on this quest.) as much as is reasonable. Sure, we're each still trying to "win", but not at the expense of having a good time *adventuring*.
It's like playing Dominion and go for the money strategy. Sure you can win, but did you have any fun by ignoring the ten piles of (semi-)thematic cards?
Is still a major flaw in any game if pursuing the victory condition in the most effective way results in an unenjoyable session, or you feel obligated to cooperate in an otherwise non-cooperative game in order to fully incorporate all of its content.
As SU&SD repeatedly says, there are too many good games out now that get everything right to waste time on ones like this that require players to be forgiving of its many flaws.
I disagree. If you ever played Monty Python and the Holy Grail, in order to win and get the Grail, you only have to click one button. Still a blast of a game though :)
Yeah I think maybe they should have billed this more as a collaborative story telling game akin to tales of arabian nights. That seems to be the type of game category it want to occupy.
The tent rush style play is an easy path to victory. It's possible to beat it by buying artifacts, adventuring, and forming trade routes. You need to be practiced at the game and form efficient turns. Adventuring usually gives you a very efficient dump of resources that can be used to buy artifacts and moving far from town helps you complete trade routes. Both of which are a huge dump of points if no one is contesting. I don't think it's as easy as rushing tents and taking low hanging points, but it's possible. Also contesting all the low hanging fruit in the game like the mine spaces and easy threat cards forces the rush style players to slow down and build up. The biggest trap people fall into is you can't spend a ton of time in town. Being in town for longer than you absolutely need to is very inefficient. Get what you need and get out there and adventure. Then repeat as you cycle back to town as your hearts run out. You can't slow play when someone is putting you on a clock like that.
All that said the game is much more fun if you don't give a crap about who is winning and are just walking around sharing adventures with each other. Playing this game as a purely competitive race really rings out a lot of the enjoyment. Why spoil the potential experience?
fair enough. I'm just saying it's not a big hurdle to jump over, and some groups may never even encounter a problem. Paul is overstating the problem in my opinion, but clearly that was his experience with the game. Also they have a longer game variant in the rules to give slower strategies more of a chance, and that would directly combat this issue.
21? Really?
Thought the same, this just made me feel really old.
No it's because it's a dating site. It's a joke
I really like the character art they have for this, makes it reasonable to just have 2D cards to represent them.
And if you want, you can get screen-printed meeples from a third party (MeepleSource)
Played it with my gaming group last week. I think the review was pretty spot on. It was OK, but nothing ever happens that makes the game very exciting. It's just a lot of going back to town to scrape up some resources to go back out and get a few more resources on the map while shedding tents (building camps). The quests are, meh. One player got his engine up faster than others and was just able to do everything he wanted without any risk, ended the game quickly and was way out in front of everyone in points. I don't think there is enough there to want me to play it over and over in campaign mode. It is a beautifully produced game, but isn't that one of the things that is becoming a problem with Kickstarter? High on production value to entice wallets to open up for a game that no one has really played yet?
Curious how four years later your thoughts about KS as "a problem with Kickstarter? High on production value to entice wallets to open up for a game that no one has really played yet?" it's gotten worse huh haha
The person who initiated the end, placing the last tent hasn't once won yet and we've played six games so far.
That's our experience so far. The person who traded in for artifacts have won the most often.
Also, amused at every single reviewer of this game refers to the books of maps as a book of maps... has the word atlas been lost to time?
Lastly, we love this game. It's a fun Euro style game with stories and a theme.
Patrick Moore completely agree with what you said here
While I agree with some of your points about Ryan's design choices (I also found the dueling mechanic anti-climatic), I still think N&F is a far better game overall than you would have viewers believe. There are a lot of choices during gameplay (even if some of them are simplistic) which may draw a broader variety of players to the table, and everyone can pick their own path to success based upon their preferences. Multiple modes of play, minimal downtime in-between turns and the impressive components are all great features that you politely dismissed. So while some of your criticisms were fair, I don't agree with your overall conclusion.
I am happier that SU&SD is reconsidering the stigma associated with Kickstarter, especially because Red Raven Games (the publisher of Above & Below and Near & Far) consistently produces a well-designed game supported with excellent production values.
Much like his Scythe review, I find it disappointing.
Somehow I feel he missed the point of this game.
What is the point of this game?
Yeesss, Ancillary Justice!! (0:38)
Fair review. I think Near and Far is a great game if you're not looking for a super competitive night of gaming. It shines as a choose-your-own-adventure game where scoring and winning are secondary concerns. I may be mistaken, but I think Red Raven Games is focused more on providing experiences rather than super mathy, highly competitive games.
From reviews it looks like Ancient World and City of Iron were more aggressive games by Ryan Laukat
So, how does it compare to Tales Of The Arabian Nights which we picked up at SU&SD's recommendation (and really enjoy on nights when we want to turn off our brains and just have fun storytelling). That game has very little player interaction and whoever wins is actually totally random; but yet you guys loved it. I've not played Near and Far yet but I had thought of picking it up as an alternative to Arabian Nights but with an actual game in there... would I be wrong?
My issue with it is the actual game there isn't very good, and simply distracts from the great storytelling.
I love the comments that are basically, "How dare they not give a glowing review to a game I love!" It's a review. It's subjective. Stop looking for confirmation about the way you feel about the game. If you love the game then good for you.
It is always an odd experience to read "On Poverty" and "A Year in Stardew Valley" and then watch Paul reviews. It suddenly makes the joy and magic a few pieces of cardboard bring seem so much more important, and why it's important that you know if there's joy and magic in the box before you spend money on it.
Really pleased to see you reading Ann Leckie! I am a big fan of the Ancillary series and got to meet her at a literary festival a couple of years ago. Great lady! Looking forward to her new book (this fall?).
The lack of player interaction is sadly a common theme in all of the Red Raven storytelling games I've played.
I think Paul brushes up against what's prolly wrong with this (and all of Laukat's recent) game(s) towards the end when he comments on the lack of interaction. The real problem seems to be the GAME itself, in the technical sense.
Were there a novel, interesting mechanism underneath all this window dressing-or even simply a bog-standard but well-implemented version of a proven mechanism (e.g. REAL worker placement in the Caylus/Agricola-sense) that produces interaction and tension)-I actually think Laukat's decision to have treasures that aren't total game-changers and/or encounters that involve simple choices and minimal variance would be the *right* way to do those things, and could have produced an overall experience that was really special. (That is a personal opinion from someone who wants to play a GAME, not experience an ameritrashy roll-and-resolve EXPERIENCE [called a "game"].) After all, the more game-changing an acquired treasure or item is for its owner, the harder to balance, and the swingier and more luck-driven the race-to-victory.
The twee artwork and vignettes could have worked very well to break (and dress) up a solid underlying game, if one existed. Instead it looks like there's (a) a dominant strategy (b) that's easy and boring to pursue (c) amidst mechanisms that do not IN THEMSELVES produce (a real, organic, emergent-from-the-mechanism) narrative or interesting gameplay (in the strict sense of the word).
It's funny: the fact that Paul focuses on what he does (and doesn't really drive home that "no interaction" basically means "no actual game") almost ironically suggests that Laukat's obfuscatory art and "thematic"/reading elements succeeded in doing their obfuscatory work on him, inasmuch as he spends so much of the review wishing thematic stuff had a greater wowie-zowie impact , and doesn't seem to fully grok that (as with Islebound, I suspect) there's very little if any GAME in this "game". (Which isn't to say it might not be a pleasant, "game-esque" way to pass some time.)
"Vignetted" is my new favorite word. "Tents to win the game too" LOL Nice runthrough. It's a shame you didn't enjoy it more than you did. Thanks for the thoughts.
Strange that you recommend Tales of the Arabian Nights and not Near and Far. Near and Far is basically the same thing with actual mechanics. I love TotAN because I read dramatically (I love Above and Below for the same reason) so I was really assuming I would like Near and Far. I'm still going to get it when I can, but your review pooped on my parade just a bit.
Cheers anyways?
Wonder if he played Sleeping Gods and got the adventure story epic he was looking for.
03:54 That's Bobbin Threadbare!
I thought this was going to replace Above & Below, maybe not? I'll have to play & see. DiceTower liked this more than A&B, different folks I guess.
A&B just edges out ahead for me over N&F. I find N&F more of a racing game to get your tents out and feel it ends too quickly for my tastes. My mind might change though after I play character mode. So far I've only played one offs on the map to teach people how to play.
I'm more interested in the campaign & character modes than the arcade mode, which reminds me of Above & Below.
Just finished a 2 player game, and lost by 3 points. I placed last tent, had more threats, more gems/coins, more rep, tied for treasures/trade routes, but less artifacts. Artifacts are bigger factor than tents.
It's a terrific game. A game might end up less fun if all you think about while playing was the technical aspects of video reviewing that game. It turns the fun, social atmosphere of friend and family game night into a work task.
"Pitching tents as fast as possible" heh...
I've only played Above and Below from this designer and it feels like he made some mistakes there aswell in this vein..
I wonder if Paul knows what Bears are.
This review is exactly how I felt about Above and Below. Fun game, but it was missing that magic that makes it a repeat, go-to title. Small number of choices, mechanics that make one scoring option far superior to another. I like Ryan Laukat's innovative work, but his games are (after a few plays) just an average experience for me. The hype train pushes them to the front of the BGG website, but there are better games out there. Thanks for the thoughtful review Paul!!
An adventure that can be independent maybe involving a platypus? Perhaps you should take a look at 7th Continent if you haven't already.
The Imperial Radch series of books is really good..
Your review expresses how I have felt about almost every Laukat game.
JRufu Did I miss the Imperial Radch reference?
06:16 Think that look sums this game up for me, thanks for this rubbiest of all reviews Paul :)
It's a pity Legacy-style mechanics don't seem to have found much success outside of Pandemic
Apart from Gloomhaven, which everyone seems to be raving about.
I haven't heard of that one. I'll check it out!
Kai Dreyfus-Ballesi If you haven't heard of Gloomhaven, then you probably haven't heard of BGG. It's the central news hub for all modern board game enthusiasts :)
Kai Dreyfus-Ballesi Near and Far is nothing like a legacy game
I think it's difficult to come up with a legacy game from scratch. Pandemic and Risk were successes in great part because they put a huge twist on already familiar and popular games. Seafall's luke warm response illustrates this very well.
This review almost made me avoid this game, but I'm so glad that I didn't. After playing the game 20+ times, I can't help but feel as though Paul must not have played it much before reviewing it...
When you're pitching tents across the map, the absolute MOST points that you can get are 16. I consistently get at LEAST double that amount through activating the artifact cards, (there are a couple cards that are worth 15 points BY THEMSELVES).
I also don't think that his assessment of the rewards for completing the story challenges is accurate at all. I've never come across a story that gives me something that's not helpful, and I've seen them all. Without the adventures, you can't get banners easily, which are required to activate the high-victory point artifact cards and ultimately win the game.
I agree that the action for resolving the stories is very simple, but it's also very functional and otherwise less disappointing. You always have the option to spend hearts to succeed if you have enough, but if you do, it could prevent you from placing a tent the following turn and gain a handful of coins or gems. There is still a meaningful choice to be made. I have found that the stories are absolutely necessary for being a "successful adventurer". Besides that, the stories bring a vibrant color to the game that engages your imagination and brings a feeling of adventure more than any clever mechanic ever could, and that's what this game is aiming for.
I agree that it's generally not a good idea to spend too much time in town, (unless you have the Amber Mines expansion, which makes the town SIGNIFICANTLY more interesting and worthwhile), but the whole thrust of this game is travel and adventure. The whole purpose of the town is to equip you for the adventures found on the map.
Near and Far is my favorite game. It's a very charming, friendly world while still being exciting and adventurous. It has so much variability between the two campaign modes and the arcade mode. I completely understand that some people aren't charmed by the world that Ryan has made and some people want a straightforward, predictable euro, but I have found this to be the perfect balance of engaging adventure and meaningful strategy. I thoroughly enjoy playing this every time I bring it to the table, and I don't see that changing any time soon.
I totally missed this review. I've been eyeing this game for years. I was actually talking to someone who was looking to sell it last week. I would definitely recommend it for people looking for a laid back euro with a bit more theme going on.
Where did you find a badger in Vancouver?
Board games aside, Paul you're starting to look cut dude! Looks like the men and women and B&I, as well as the boxing, is keeping you in good shape.
Can I hug, lol 11:02
It just wouldn't be a Paul video without one of those, would it now? :)
does everything reset in story mode if you go to the next map?
In Story Mode, you don't keep anything besides skills you invested into your character. So you might buy a cheap skill that let's you start with one food, and you'll always get that, but you get rid of items etc.
*cough* First published on Month Day, Year. *cough*
B Mac ?
the description
It's a new video, hence no "first published on".
B Mac it says when its published. 8th of july 2017. Today
yeah, that is the FIRST thing i check on every video, because I've lost track of which are new and old.
What is your (SH&SD's) favorite Ryan Laukat game I wonder?
Not a single reply. Guess none of them..
Fair review.
heck yeah, imperial radch!
Looks like a game that lacks a binding theme.
Wow, this sure could've been good...
What is that mark on the palm of your left hand? It distracted me .
You're in Vancouver? AND a foreigner? So am I!
Care to meet up?... although I must be the gazillionsth person to say so xD
Cheers! keep up the good work guys :)
Love the Brrdgamr (Boardgamer)
for the amount of gameplay time that will be spent for the campaign mode alone, the lack of interactions is huge. was looking forward to this, but I think i'll wait for a good sale now instead of rushing for it.
TLDR: The art and design in Laukat's games is bold and original. I like earthy and pastel tones and subtler palettes in game art. Anything that conjures up the look of old maps. :)
I own Above and Below and it is unique in its design in every way. The art was a little more "cartoonish" than I'm used to, creating a lofty fantasy atmosphere when I usually go for realism, but it really grew on me. I love the boldness of the earth tones, the palettes that Laukat uses in general. This may sound kind of boring or pretentious; but publishers tend to dislike using those old earthy map colors for two very good reasons:
1. It's hard to see earthy tones and pastels in darker environments, making the game annoying to play at a pub or your average teenager's basement, and,
2. Most men have some form of color blindness, if not actual diagnosed color blindness. It's true, with actual sciencey science! I've started to ask people if they can tell what color something is when I game with them, because a lot of people don't know that they are looking at 4 different hues of red, or reddish green, they just don't see the image popping. Those who have never taken a real color test before can get a little defensive about it when you point out invisible colors to them. I have very high color recognition scoring, in the upper 5% of men, or the upper 50% of women (again, there's some cool research behind this stuff). There is nothing wrong with having narrower color focus, and there are simple design decisions that can accommodate all forms of color blindness without sacrificing the look and feel of a game. How this simple quirk of biology may have shaped the world of game art, who can say.
I see a lot of reviewers pan games for flat or boring artwork. One game reviewer did so with 2016's Conan (I won't name him, out of respect), calling it flat and boring:
boardgamegeek.com/image/2339041/conan?size=original
Now, it's not as perfect as Frank Rizetta (my judgment is a little clouded by puberty, maybe), but Adrian Smith is one of the greatest game illustrators in the business. I have seen many reviewers pan his artwork for being "flat" or "dull," including a top reviewer who's kind of a household name in the community. A company like Paizo would see this design decision as risky, and I can't blame them.
Totally intend to buy this!!!
*but the dueling drudgery and the deadweight cards thing might need some variant assistance. that don't seem right. It's also kind of sad that the binded booklet adventure stuff wasn't better integrated into this, since it was such a common complaint in the previous box. I don't understand why that problem wasn't solved. Still, fixable with house rules.
That chest-hair tho...
aka Grover: The Game.
can i hug
Looks nice! ;)
@9:04 "...constantly pitching tents as fast as possible." I would have been really good at this game when I was like 16. (Which evidently I still am, given that I giggle at shit like this.)
Picked this game up at Origins, super excited to play it!
thanks! you just saved me from buying the game. hate games where you read to each other and break immersion. the key to make that work is interaction and involvement for all at the table. singleplayer solitares is not for me.
To all the people commenting that Paul has missed the point, that the game is more about the experience than being played as a game to be won, let me ask you something. If the purpose is not to play it as a game, but rather a thematic world of wonder to be experienced... why is it a board game and not a movie? Or a book? A play, a tv show, a comic?
If you enjoy the game for the art and all the story and narrative elements, wouldn't you rather just have a lovely illustrated novel that you can enjoy? Or a gorgeous animated film?
For your question: Because movies, books, plays, tv shows or comics are not interactive.
It turns out that there are different kinds of players, and a lot of us are not manly man men that manly-ly beat their chest and only play games to compete as if one had to win a world cup.
Some games are all about winning at all cost regardless of the fun of everyone else on the table, but can't there also be games that don't go for that? Does it hurt you this much for some to exist?
This game here is very blatant on what it is. It is presenting itself exactly as what it turns out to be. Getting angry that it's not for competitive players is like being angry that Star Wars has space battles instead of scenes about university students eating lunch.
More footage of being punched, please.
21? lol
Looks like the reviewer picked up the game thinking it was a western style "kill the monsters and power up" adventure game. When it really is more of a "wander around and tell a story" game in the "honobono" style of a Hayao Miyazaki anime.
Considering he had been following the game for a year via kickstarter, its remarkable how surprised he seemed that the game was exactly as the kickstarter said it would be.
And sure, that's not for everyone. But I feel this review is based on some wrong preconception of what the game would be.
Note: I don't own the game, because I actually read the kickstarter materials.
Can't we get storytelling games that facilitate storytelling through the ganeplay, though? Seems most of them have TONS of mechanics that do little for the stories in it.
sounds pretty weak
that's a rocking beard for a 21yr old guy :"))))
ur channel is one of the greatest things ive found on youtube and you guys are great but would it be too much to ask if you could upload vids more often. I know ur videos take a lot of work so I what about some random lets play and stuff. Cheers
they do have a website with written reviews and podcasts which dont go up on youtube, if that can potentially scratch your itch
oh great thanks, ill check it out, though i have to admit I prefer some good old youtube video.
Thats the thing, its quality over quantity.. But yeah, I do wish they give out more, but i rather wait if it means better quality.
You know you're doing great work when the chief complaint is that there isn't more content.
Game sounds lame, cheers Paul
And people get angry to me when I say SU&SD does subjective reviews... Sorry man, but I can't like this video. :P
hawkeye137137 Name ONE reviewer that does objective reviews... There are none by the very definition of a review. Trully objective reviews would be called rules overview.
SUSD are one of the few reviewers who i consider artists. They are one of the few that actually let the emotions and feelings they felt playing a game that occured come through their reviews. Where others, like Tom Vassel, are very mechanical. They'll tell you why they like or don't like a game, but you won't feel how they felt playing the game.
That feeling of Paul during this review where he seemed let down, discouraged maybe, dissapointed by his experience playing the game... that's how he felt playing the game.
As such, they are also one of the few reviewers that provide one of the best source of information about games. Because boardgames are all about emotions (else they would not be entertainment medias), this aspect is lacking with most other reviewers.
So these so-called subjective reviews are possibly the most informative while others that are more objective on the spectrum are the least (they are all highly subjective anyway).
To my knowledge, only SUSD and No Pun Included are this informative, though No Pun's production quality is a bit less than SUSD (microphones and cameras are cheaper and their theatricals a bit less inspired).
Martin Larouche Showing emotions during a review is nice. But when those emotions are all negative and during the whole video, I can't trust that review. When especially many comments I saw on the game on various places is positive. I don't know if SU&SD has a anti-trend policy or something, but they did this at Scythe too. Talked about the negatives of the game during the whole video and talked about its' positives during a half a minute section at the end. That's what I don't like, if they don't like a game strongly they bury it under a review full of negatives. You can still be subjective and do a balanced review, talking positive and negatives of a game at the same time. But SU&SD is sometimes a little too much subjective, almost at an extremist level.
SU&SD in a nutshell.
Game they like "its an amazing rollercoaster ride of excitement and jam filled scones that touches you in a slightly naughty way"
Game they don't like "It's like a grey morning, drinking cold tea while a lone bagpiper plays a mournful dirge slightly too loud for you to to get comfortable"
Repeat those sort of comments for 10-15 minutes over each mechanic.
They do entertaining content about boardgames, but they are terrible reviewers in a lot of ways.
Every review is subjective. That's the purpose of a review. What kind of person would have the audacity to suggest that they had an objective viewpoint?? If I am writing a film review and I dislike 90% of it, I have no obligation to spend 50% of my piece expounding on the 10% that I like.
Missing the point slightly, A fully objective review is impossible. But SU and SD are so subjective and labor the point so much through long videos, that their overall opinion of the game colours everything.
My examples above are very typical of what they do. Wax lyrical, or moan.