Being the designer of the game, I’d like to provide some additional context that might be useful (though I realize it would have been even more so if shared in advance-my apologies for that). A few important premises: - I share this purely to provide context, with the utmost respect for the opinions and judgments of professional reviewers, even when they may not align with my own design choices. I have never been a fan of direct player interaction where one player can freely choose a "take that" effect’s target without consequences. I strongly dislike mechanics that allow a player to decide-without limits or repercussions-whether to attack or hinder Player A or Player B. - Nova Era was never designed as an engine-building game, nor did it aim to be one. Its original title, "Civolution" (which we had to change after a well-known designer announced a game with that very same name), better reflected its core concept: obsolescence. The Core Idea Behind Nova Era Human history is a continuous process of discovery and advancement, where once-groundbreaking technologies, systems, and ways of thinking eventually become obsolete. We no longer write on papyrus, plow fields with oxen, sail in caravels, or wage war with archers and cavalry regiments. Yet, in their time, each of these was the pinnacle of human achievement. Thus, in Nova Era, developing gunpowder will make another player’s archery obsolete, forcing them to discard that technology. Can this set a player back? Absolutely. But the game embodies the principle of "evolve or die." You can’t expect the combos you build in Era I to last until Era III. You can’t ignore impending disasters. You must adapt, anticipate, and even disrupt opponents by limiting their access to technologies that could render yours obsolete. To reinforce this idea, the game even rewards you for making your own technologies obsolete. At its heart, Nova Era reflects the resilience of civilizations-and humanity as a whole. We endure challenges, overcome disasters, and, even in our darkest ages (sometimes of our own making), find ways to push forward. Empires rise and fall, dominant powers decline, and once-indispensable innovations can become irrelevant overnight (horse-drawn carriages vs. cars, for example). The game is built on this premise and aims to capture the reality that no greatness is permanent, and no progress is immune to disruption (and current times feel like a reminder of this). I fully understand that some of these design choices may be controversial, and I respect that Nova Era-like any game-isn’t for every group or every taste. That’s completely natural. I hope this explanation clarifies my approach and helps shed light on the design philosophy behind the game. Respectfully, Andrea
I don't know if you ever played the game "Pioneer Days" Its a dice drafting game that has the similar vibe of whatever dice isn't drafted moves a disaster track and the black die moves all the disasters. Thats what i think when i see the dice drafting part of this game. I think it looks cool, I might get this later, thank you for designing it.
Hearing both positive and negative reviews is the best way to determine whether a game is for me, so this was great. Discounting an opinion because it differs from your own is very shortsighted.
I think the negativity of the game is where the fun and strategy hides. Having to navigate and adapt to constant disasters, be they caused by the game or other players, is what's exciting. So part of the strategy is not just drafting every card you can afford, but rather having a balance between production and scoring cards and instant reward cards because it doesn't hurt at all damaging those instant cards.
I couldn't agree more. I've only had the chance to play this at a 2 player count so the chaos wasn't as bad as described but I like the tension the chaos creates.
A key point that I don’t think they did a good job at explaining was that this game isn’t mean just to be mean. You aren’t picking on another player just to do it. The idea of obsolescence is fascinating to me and I think Nova Era does a great job at portraying it. You cannot get too attached to your tech cards. Your personality cards are going away at the end of the era. You need to understand that going in. It feels like they wanted this game to be an engine building game, which it is not.
I always like when there's a difference of opinion. Maybe it's shallow of me, but it feels like the game has been more explored before and during the review.
Thanks for the candor Milla! I know it’s contrary to the channel’s philosophy (the people who like it most usually do the review). Personally I wish one was the one who liked it most, the other is the one who disliked most and then a third.
I don’t necessarily want a contrarian opinion on every review. But I am always happy to hear one because it gives a wider perspective of the game. Also it makes those reviews that are all good or all bad even more potent. Well done DT Crew!
@@thedicetowerthis comment just made me think of another game a long time ago that I think you said if you'd have reviewed you'd have drove a car over it. I can't remember the name but it was a game where it sounded like Wolfenstein the board game but wasn't. Zee reviewed it cuz he was the one that liked it most even though it wasn't his type of game if that helps remember what game it was.
Think I would likely lean Camilla's way on this one. Especially considering the emphasis Zee & Mike put on 2 player when I hardly ever play 2 player. Our games are usually 3-5p.
I liked the difference in opinion here, it provides various points of view on the game. It seems like I am going to like this at 2 players, so I'll pick it up. Thanks for the review !
My 3 Fav Dice Tower folks! Yeah I def feel like if this was presented more as an empire destroying game vs an empire building game it’d land better. It’s pretty neat at what it does, but I could see lots of people bouncing off of it based on what folks will expect vs what the game does. I won’t bring this to the table for most of my regular play group. I think yeah 2 player will be great but still only for the right players.
I wonder how fun the game is if you house rule the way dice drafting works. Instead of taking one set of dice from one tile, how about using AZUL drafting? Take one color of dice from one of the tile, player by player until your dice slot full. So left over dice still 3 and that's what trigger the danger track. That way no one player has the weigh of choice of which dice set will trigger the danger track.By drafting one or 2 dice on multiple turn, all players contribute to which dice will be left over.
There are quite a few cards that make you immune to one of the disasters. I played this at 2 yesterday and enjoyed it although it did take 2 hours for our first game. Your rules summary was inaccurate on electing a personality. You can use a non black die but you then pay the whole cost in raising unrest.
We are enjoying Nova era and have only played it as a 2 player game so far. The one '2 player' niggle for us was that the purple Territories cards from Era 2 and 3 very rarely came out and if they did, could be unreachable. We're possibly going to house rule putting out a column of Territory cards in the 2nd and 3rd era's.
In my defense, the original name when I designed it in 2018-2019 was Civolution... then it took so long to get published that Feld announced his game with the same name before us, so we had to change our game's name.
@andreachiarvesio3472 omg, that's crazy! It's hard finding uniquely fitting names, that's for sure, no matter what offhand silly comments on youtube say :-D
@@andreachiarvesio3472 I kind of like "Civolescence". Of course you could go with a more high-brow name like "Civilization: The Art of Evolution". In any case, Nova Era looks like an interesting take on a civ game and one that I'd like to try. Thanks! (Oh, BTW, I think the name is fine!)
A) this isn’t an engine building game. It’s a game based on obsolescence B) I don’t know what came Camilla is playing, but I’ve had very positive turns
I'd like to offer another perspective from someone who's played the game at two and three player (so far). No one in our group found the game "mean." I define "mean" as doing something to intentionally harm others. When I teach the game, I explain that obsolescence is part of the thematic experience and to be expected and planned for. It’s strange in some civ games when one side has newer tech while others are still in the Stone Age. Obsolescence, along with "evolutions" (free cards), is one of the most unique mechanics I’ve seen in a civ game. I also like that making your own tech obsolete earns points, and every point matters. It’s a viable strategy. I disagree with the idea that the last player should be forced to take bad dice to avoid disaster. All players have the same chance to prevent disaster by choosing less optimal dice. Expecting the last player to “take one for the team” is unreasonable, especially since they only have two dice sets to choose from. The decision to trigger disasters vs. take desired dice is everyone's choice. While the game is more punishing than expected, everyone had fun because disasters affect all players. There are attack cards, but they’re not game-breaking. I agree with Mike that the game takes longer than expected, probably about 30 minutes per player. Three players may be the sweet spot-two player games would miss out on more cards and excitement. I also agree with Zee that a clearer design for obsolescence would help, though it didn’t slow the game down in our sessions. Overall, everyone enjoyed the game, and I look forward to more plays.
I am usually not a fan of CMON type games, nor their brand personality. I have said it many times and been attacked for it many times - CMON fans are truly some of the most avid/rabid segment of the hobby out there; criticise CMON games at your peril, all that stuff - but I really feel they are the jocks of the board game hobby. Having said that, I expect CMON games to be at least a bit mean and controversial, and the theme in this one actually intrigues me, and I have to give huge props to the designer for handling criticism so professionally, much more so than the fans or even the publisher. It's just unfortunate that I know if I buy this, I 100% won't be able to get it to the table. Despite loving the genre, I have problem even getting dueling and tactical combat games to the table, and this seems like a level above those.
Yeah - it is tough with “kissy-missy” gamers - CIV game would never go as there always will be some conflict per definition. Lucky enough - there are plenty of gamers around me and at conferences who can handle that easily
@@TabletopTurtle I know what you mean though yeah I haven't come across a really avid/rabid Cole Wehrle fan. Some people can get overly invested in this hobby and take things too seriously. Some of the Lacerda fans are like this as well.
If one of the reasons she doesn't like the game is the disasters, at least everone at the Dice Tower knows not to play Pioneer Days with her if anyone there plays it
@@Sir_I.I_WilliamI frequently feel the trouble with the Dice Tower is the balance. When everything gets a 7-8.5 (and a couple outliers above) the scores don’t really mean much.
I wonder if that's why it looks like the wrist brace or whatever. Something bad happened and Camilla punched someone but now has to wear the brace cuz how angry she was when it happened.
i really appriciate that you guys present a review from 3 different perspectives. The fact that a hour+ long game can just be ruined for someone at the table from the beginning (by rng or even worse by someone who didnt want that to happen) is a big detriment to the game. I am amazed that you can give a game with this clear of a flaw 7/10 or even higher...
@milest4214 Didn't happen to you, but clearly did happen to them, and they probably played more then 3 games. It's situation when even if it happens 1 out of 10 times it will be enough to ruin the mood for all people for the whole gamenight
@@TesllaGuyIt seems that the problem arises because the game has been misunderstood. Things are meant to become obsolete and disappear. It’s completely fair if that’s not your preference, but complaining about it is like going to a football/soccer match and complaining that they’re kicking the ball with their feet. That’s kind of the whole point.
@@RichardDicksondlyrch68but they just don’t get it - they want I kiss you you kiss me type of games - and for some reason stumble upon a light civ game - sigh
Care Bear players are so annoying sometimes :) Glad to hear it plays well with 2-players! That's probably how I'll be playing the majority of my games of this anyways ...
Camilla horrible reviewer don't review games you don't the style, like trying to find reasons to hate a game, Review a game to its capabilities not you personal likes and let that bleed into a review. So much anger in a review, eeeww
100% disagree. I'm learning the most from reviews that give polarizing opinions. Because like Mike said, Camilla represents a part of the gamers that will not like this game. Also what nonsense is that review based not based on personal likes?? There are no objective reviews. Every reviewer brings to a game and its review what they like and don't. Also Camilla is a great reviewer and what I appreciate about her is that her taste diversity is wide, there are game I absolutely disagree with her and games that I'm in full agreement. And that's fine and that's how it should be.
Critical reviews just as important as positive ones. Critics that only review positive are "eeeww". People who complain about negative reviews are usually friends or family of those involved with game and take it personal. Otherwise, it's just common sense to support negative reviews (not just positive ones).
@@nirszi I rather not watch a reviewer that is emotionally negative the whole time like the game slapped her and told her, her baby is ugly. The game is fine not great but her and as you 100 % disagree with me i like wise disagree with you and giver her a 3 on this review as a reviewer
Wow, Camilla's thoughts on the game are so strong and so different from Mike's and Zee's that I wonder what's going on here. I rate her review much like she rates the game. There's nothing wrong with having different opinions, but valid opinions are generally backed up by others.
@@demiser21 That's partially true some parts can be subjective but I feel other parts can be objectively scored like clear rules, streamlined gameplay, rulebook, component quality, iconography.
@halveeuro If you like a game but the rules are hard to understand, it makes sense to consider that. But if you hate it, does any of that stuff matter? Should a movie reviewer rate a movie they absolutely hate better just because it's filmed well or the costuming is good?
Played 3 player last weekend, and I felt pretty much exactly like her I gave it a 4, too. I didn't know the cards or really grok how it was going to play out (that's on me), but I also disliked several of the mechanisms and found myself making choices that were not because they were the best for me but rather to try to balance the tracks or forced to hurt someone when i didn't care to (or just getting wiped out myself). Nothing ever felt positive to me or like I was building anything towards the end, It just isn't for me.
Not that different from Mike if you look at it as a multi-player, he gave it a 6 with 3+ players which is how I play games. Frankly I’d put a 4 game and a 6 game in the same place, and that’s a place I’m never going to go to when I want to play a game. Thousands of games are released a year, hundreds of those games score 8+. My game time is too limited to waste an evening subjecting my friends to a game that’s scores 6 or less.
Being the designer of the game, I’d like to provide some additional context that might be useful (though I realize it would have been even more so if shared in advance-my apologies for that).
A few important premises:
- I share this purely to provide context, with the utmost respect for the opinions and judgments of professional reviewers, even when they may not align with my own design choices.
I have never been a fan of direct player interaction where one player can freely choose a "take that" effect’s target without consequences. I strongly dislike mechanics that allow a player to decide-without limits or repercussions-whether to attack or hinder Player A or Player B.
- Nova Era was never designed as an engine-building game, nor did it aim to be one. Its original title, "Civolution" (which we had to change after a well-known designer announced a game with that very same name), better reflected its core concept: obsolescence.
The Core Idea Behind Nova Era
Human history is a continuous process of discovery and advancement, where once-groundbreaking technologies, systems, and ways of thinking eventually become obsolete. We no longer write on papyrus, plow fields with oxen, sail in caravels, or wage war with archers and cavalry regiments. Yet, in their time, each of these was the pinnacle of human achievement.
Thus, in Nova Era, developing gunpowder will make another player’s archery obsolete, forcing them to discard that technology. Can this set a player back? Absolutely. But the game embodies the principle of "evolve or die." You can’t expect the combos you build in Era I to last until Era III. You can’t ignore impending disasters. You must adapt, anticipate, and even disrupt opponents by limiting their access to technologies that could render yours obsolete. To reinforce this idea, the game even rewards you for making your own technologies obsolete.
At its heart, Nova Era reflects the resilience of civilizations-and humanity as a whole. We endure challenges, overcome disasters, and, even in our darkest ages (sometimes of our own making), find ways to push forward. Empires rise and fall, dominant powers decline, and once-indispensable innovations can become irrelevant overnight (horse-drawn carriages vs. cars, for example). The game is built on this premise and aims to capture the reality that no greatness is permanent, and no progress is immune to disruption (and current times feel like a reminder of this).
I fully understand that some of these design choices may be controversial, and I respect that Nova Era-like any game-isn’t for every group or every taste. That’s completely natural.
I hope this explanation clarifies my approach and helps shed light on the design philosophy behind the game.
Respectfully,
Andrea
Thx,👍
Some won't get it...
@@UnimatrixOne thanks to you... it's no problem, there is no such a game that can be liked by everyone :)
Thanks Andrea. I think one thing is clear, this game isn't necessarily going to resonate with "Care Bear players" ...
I don't know if you ever played the game "Pioneer Days" Its a dice drafting game that has the similar vibe of whatever dice isn't drafted moves a disaster track and the black die moves all the disasters. Thats what i think when i see the dice drafting part of this game. I think it looks cool, I might get this later, thank you for designing it.
This is great, thanks for the explanation. If you didn't already, this would be a great design diary entry to put on BGG.
Hearing both positive and negative reviews is the best way to determine whether a game is for me, so this was great.
Discounting an opinion because it differs from your own is very shortsighted.
I think the negativity of the game is where the fun and strategy hides. Having to navigate and adapt to constant disasters, be they caused by the game or other players, is what's exciting. So part of the strategy is not just drafting every card you can afford, but rather having a balance between production and scoring cards and instant reward cards because it doesn't hurt at all damaging those instant cards.
You do love a mean game! One of the many reasons I love your channel.
I couldn't agree more. I've only had the chance to play this at a 2 player count so the chaos wasn't as bad as described but I like the tension the chaos creates.
A key point that I don’t think they did a good job at explaining was that this game isn’t mean just to be mean. You aren’t picking on another player just to do it. The idea of obsolescence is fascinating to me and I think Nova Era does a great job at portraying it. You cannot get too attached to your tech cards. Your personality cards are going away at the end of the era. You need to understand that going in. It feels like they wanted this game to be an engine building game, which it is not.
Pretty sure a gamer like Camilla was never going to like this game in a million years. This game is obviously not for care bears ...
Honestly, that's what I'm excited for. Too many games these days just shower you with rewards. I want to feel that survival game feeling!
I always like when there's a difference of opinion. Maybe it's shallow of me, but it feels like the game has been more explored before and during the review.
Thanks for the candor Milla!
I know it’s contrary to the channel’s philosophy (the people who like it most usually do the review). Personally I wish one was the one who liked it most, the other is the one who disliked most and then a third.
I don’t necessarily want a contrarian opinion on every review. But I am always happy to hear one because it gives a wider perspective of the game. Also it makes those reviews that are all good or all bad even more potent. Well done DT Crew!
I don't think the person who liked it the least was in the review. 'Cuz I kinda hate it. - Tom
@@thedicetowerthis comment just made me think of another game a long time ago that I think you said if you'd have reviewed you'd have drove a car over it. I can't remember the name but it was a game where it sounded like Wolfenstein the board game but wasn't. Zee reviewed it cuz he was the one that liked it most even though it wasn't his type of game if that helps remember what game it was.
Have you seen the King of Tokyo Duel review? Camilla was in it to but in that one I think she was the only one of the three that liked it
@@darkmaster022003 Think it was Reichbusters by Mythic Games?
So take a sharpie, write the word "duel" at the end of the title, and call it a day.
The best reviews are the ones I get polarizing opinions. No better way to learn about a game and its potential audience.
Wow. Looks like a prototype. Looking forward to seeing the finished version.
Think I would likely lean Camilla's way on this one. Especially considering the emphasis Zee & Mike put on 2 player when I hardly ever play 2 player. Our games are usually 3-5p.
I liked the difference in opinion here, it provides various points of view on the game. It seems like I am going to like this at 2 players, so I'll pick it up. Thanks for the review !
I watched the rules a couple weeks back, and it sounds fun to me. I am still interested in giving it a shot for sure
My 3 Fav Dice Tower folks! Yeah I def feel like if this was presented more as an empire destroying game vs an empire building game it’d land better. It’s pretty neat at what it does, but I could see lots of people bouncing off of it based on what folks will expect vs what the game does. I won’t bring this to the table for most of my regular play group. I think yeah 2 player will be great but still only for the right players.
I wonder how fun the game is if you house rule the way dice drafting works. Instead of taking one set of dice from one tile, how about using AZUL drafting? Take one color of dice from one of the tile, player by player until your dice slot full. So left over dice still 3 and that's what trigger the danger track. That way no one player has the weigh of choice of which dice set will trigger the danger track.By drafting one or 2 dice on multiple turn, all players contribute to which dice will be left over.
seems like a pretty huge change in the mechanics of the game
@northwestendometriosisandp8522 not really, mechanics is same: dice drafting. Only how to draft is different.
There are quite a few cards that make you immune to one of the disasters. I played this at 2 yesterday and enjoyed it although it did take 2 hours for our first game. Your rules summary was inaccurate on electing a personality. You can use a non black die but you then pay the whole cost in raising unrest.
We are enjoying Nova era and have only played it as a 2 player game so far. The one '2 player' niggle for us was that the purple Territories cards from Era 2 and 3 very rarely came out and if they did, could be unreachable. We're possibly going to house rule putting out a column of Territory cards in the 2nd and 3rd era's.
Can we have more games though with similar names?
magna roma, nova roma, nova era, pola bera...
In my defense, the original name when I designed it in 2018-2019 was Civolution... then it took so long to get published that Feld announced his game with the same name before us, so we had to change our game's name.
@andreachiarvesio3472
omg, that's crazy!
It's hard finding uniquely fitting names, that's for sure, no matter what offhand silly comments on youtube say :-D
@@andreachiarvesio3472 I kind of like "Civolescence". Of course you could go with a more high-brow name like "Civilization: The Art of Evolution". In any case, Nova Era looks like an interesting take on a civ game and one that I'd like to try. Thanks! (Oh, BTW, I think the name is fine!)
A) this isn’t an engine building game. It’s a game based on obsolescence
B) I don’t know what came Camilla is playing, but I’ve had very positive turns
I was wondering , maybe she's just not great at it.
I'd like to offer another perspective from someone who's played the game at two and three player (so far).
No one in our group found the game "mean." I define "mean" as doing something to intentionally harm others. When I teach the game, I explain that obsolescence is part of the thematic experience and to be expected and planned for. It’s strange in some civ games when one side has newer tech while others are still in the Stone Age. Obsolescence, along with "evolutions" (free cards), is one of the most unique mechanics I’ve seen in a civ game. I also like that making your own tech obsolete earns points, and every point matters. It’s a viable strategy.
I disagree with the idea that the last player should be forced to take bad dice to avoid disaster. All players have the same chance to prevent disaster by choosing less optimal dice. Expecting the last player to “take one for the team” is unreasonable, especially since they only have two dice sets to choose from. The decision to trigger disasters vs. take desired dice is everyone's choice.
While the game is more punishing than expected, everyone had fun because disasters affect all players. There are attack cards, but they’re not game-breaking. I agree with Mike that the game takes longer than expected, probably about 30 minutes per player. Three players may be the sweet spot-two player games would miss out on more cards and excitement. I also agree with Zee that a clearer design for obsolescence would help, though it didn’t slow the game down in our sessions. Overall, everyone enjoyed the game, and I look forward to more plays.
I am usually not a fan of CMON type games, nor their brand personality. I have said it many times and been attacked for it many times - CMON fans are truly some of the most avid/rabid segment of the hobby out there; criticise CMON games at your peril, all that stuff - but I really feel they are the jocks of the board game hobby.
Having said that, I expect CMON games to be at least a bit mean and controversial, and the theme in this one actually intrigues me, and I have to give huge props to the designer for handling criticism so professionally, much more so than the fans or even the publisher. It's just unfortunate that I know if I buy this, I 100% won't be able to get it to the table. Despite loving the genre, I have problem even getting dueling and tactical combat games to the table, and this seems like a level above those.
Yeah - it is tough with “kissy-missy” gamers - CIV game would never go as there always will be some conflict per definition. Lucky enough - there are plenty of gamers around me and at conferences who can handle that easily
@alexanderkrivosheev8368 Yeah 😔 But on one hand I would have a harder time with my board game budget. Pros and cons.
You've never met a Cole Wehrle fan . . .
@@TabletopTurtle I know what you mean though yeah I haven't come across a really avid/rabid Cole Wehrle fan. Some people can get overly invested in this hobby and take things too seriously. Some of the Lacerda fans are like this as well.
I love survival games, I think I'd dig it.
If one of the reasons she doesn't like the game is the disasters, at least everone at the Dice Tower knows not to play Pioneer Days with her if anyone there plays it
How does this compare to Khora?
I havnt played yet but I do like khora.
I was on the fence about this one, but if Zee likes it and Camilla doesn't, i'm sure I'll like it. She's sort of an inverse benchmark for me 😅
i will buy
Camilla actually appears angry at this game 😢
I would have rather heard what Tom had to say about it. Even if he was negative about it, he would have been more balanced about the pros and cons ...
@@Sir_I.I_WilliamI frequently feel the trouble with the Dice Tower is the balance. When everything gets a 7-8.5 (and a couple outliers above) the scores don’t really mean much.
She ruthless lately… good.
I wonder if that's why it looks like the wrist brace or whatever. Something bad happened and Camilla punched someone but now has to wear the brace cuz how angry she was when it happened.
@@darkmaster022003imagine she punch someone with her right - scores will become negative next time
28:18 What Zee says here is so true ...
Where does this rank in the longest Dice Tower reviews ever?
Camilla could have present her negative energy towards a game in more constructive ways, it felt almost unprofessional. Hmmm …
Are you sure that's a seal of approval, Camilla?
i really appriciate that you guys present a review from 3 different perspectives. The fact that a hour+ long game can just be ruined for someone at the table from the beginning (by rng or even worse by someone who didnt want that to happen) is a big detriment to the game. I am amazed that you can give a game with this clear of a flaw 7/10 or even higher...
Played three games and never had this issue personally.
@milest4214 Didn't happen to you, but clearly did happen to them, and they probably played more then 3 games. It's situation when even if it happens 1 out of 10 times it will be enough to ruin the mood for all people for the whole gamenight
@@TesllaGuyIt seems that the problem arises because the game has been misunderstood. Things are meant to become obsolete and disappear. It’s completely fair if that’s not your preference, but complaining about it is like going to a football/soccer match and complaining that they’re kicking the ball with their feet. That’s kind of the whole point.
You can absolutely bury yourself in the first turn of Food Chain Magnate. It's rated at 8.1.
@@RichardDicksondlyrch68but they just don’t get it - they want I kiss you you kiss me type of games - and for some reason stumble upon a light civ game - sigh
Idk why this game has so much hype
The game itself looks boring
And the gameplay looks generic
Ill pass on this one
Care Bear players are so annoying sometimes :)
Glad to hear it plays well with 2-players! That's probably how I'll be playing the majority of my games of this anyways ...
Camilla horrible reviewer don't review games you don't the style, like trying to find reasons to hate a game, Review a game to its capabilities not you personal likes and let that bleed into a review. So much anger in a review, eeeww
100% disagree. I'm learning the most from reviews that give polarizing opinions. Because like Mike said, Camilla represents a part of the gamers that will not like this game. Also what nonsense is that review based not based on personal likes?? There are no objective reviews. Every reviewer brings to a game and its review what they like and don't. Also Camilla is a great reviewer and what I appreciate about her is that her taste diversity is wide, there are game I absolutely disagree with her and games that I'm in full agreement. And that's fine and that's how it should be.
Critical reviews just as important as positive ones. Critics that only review positive are "eeeww". People who complain about negative reviews are usually friends or family of those involved with game and take it personal. Otherwise, it's just common sense to support negative reviews (not just positive ones).
@@nirszi I rather not watch a reviewer that is emotionally negative the whole time like the game slapped her and told her, her baby is ugly. The game is fine not great but her and as you 100 % disagree with me i like wise disagree with you and giver her a 3 on this review as a reviewer
@@fabaliciousdefinition787 Tom is 10x more emotional about the games he dislikes so channel probably not for you.
Care Bear players can be so annoying ...
Wow, Camilla's thoughts on the game are so strong and so different from Mike's and Zee's that I wonder what's going on here. I rate her review much like she rates the game. There's nothing wrong with having different opinions, but valid opinions are generally backed up by others.
Games are art, what works for some doesn't work for others. There isn't an objective correct score.
@@demiser21 That's partially true some parts can be subjective but I feel other parts can be objectively scored like clear rules, streamlined gameplay, rulebook, component quality, iconography.
@halveeuro If you like a game but the rules are hard to understand, it makes sense to consider that. But if you hate it, does any of that stuff matter? Should a movie reviewer rate a movie they absolutely hate better just because it's filmed well or the costuming is good?
Played 3 player last weekend, and I felt pretty much exactly like her I gave it a 4, too. I didn't know the cards or really grok how it was going to play out (that's on me), but I also disliked several of the mechanisms and found myself making choices that were not because they were the best for me but rather to try to balance the tracks or forced to hurt someone when i didn't care to (or just getting wiped out myself). Nothing ever felt positive to me or like I was building anything towards the end, It just isn't for me.
Not that different from Mike if you look at it as a multi-player, he gave it a 6 with 3+ players which is how I play games. Frankly I’d put a 4 game and a 6 game in the same place, and that’s a place I’m never going to go to when I want to play a game. Thousands of games are released a year, hundreds of those games score 8+. My game time is too limited to waste an evening subjecting my friends to a game that’s scores 6 or less.