Mercado de Lisboa Review - with Chris
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2024
- Chris Yi takes a look at a marketplace, grid game based on a mechanism featured originally in the much larger Lisboa.
Support The Dice Tower at www.dicetowerk...
Support the channel by becoming a member!
/ @thedicetower
Subscribe to our newsletter, "The Dice Tower Digest": dicetowerdigest...
Check out the friendliest conventions on Earth!
Dice Tower Cruise - www.dicetowercr... (Q1 2022)
Dice Tower West - www.dicetowerwe... (Q1 2022)
Dice Tower East - www.dicetowerea... (Summer 2022)
Dice Tower Retreat - www.dicetowerre... (September 8-12, 2021)
Buy great games at www.GameNerdz.com
Find more reviews and videos at www.dicetower.com
Get a great game table here! www.rathskelle...
BGG Link: boardgamegeek....
Whenever I see Chris on camera I think one thing…
What a pro! You are a natural! Great job!
Chris is very clear and, more importantly, sharp (like Tom). He doesn't have obvious opinions and can often spot important aspects of games. Love his content!
A lot of the things you dislike, is the reason I like the game! The art is nice and I don’t think it’s to busy or hard to see which side of the shop that is grey or not. Or when the end game is triggered. You are just focusing on the board, nothing else. If you’re snoozing, then the game maybe will surprise you.
I’ve only played this at two, and I think that’s the best player count. And the tension in a two player game is great! You can block, but also easily miss an opportunity for scoring. Or it can sneak up on you. You have to have an eye on the customers, to see what you want and what you opponent is eying.
The problem you have with the economics, I see as engine building. It’s a part of the strategy, and can help you end the game sooner.
If you haven’t played the game a lot, you get high points. When you and your opponents learn it, you will probably get a lower score because of blocking and understanding of the game.
Nice fine game 7.5/10. Muuuuuch better than Azul 😊
Lol. I was critical of the review above, it I kind of agree that the board can be busy as it fills up and we’ve played this a lot but still sometimes forget about the game-end condition. We also occasionally mistake a face down restaurant tile with gave up as the board gets more full. So I think those can be issues for some people. It doesn’t bother us and once you know you do have to always keep it in mind, which is unintuitive and I think can be a negative for some. We love Mercado and Azul and both games scratch that “thinly filler” role for when you want something quick and short but still with done depth and interesting choices to make.
Like the background set up here - peaceful colors!
I really appreciate your review style. Also enjoying your inclusions on the 4 Squares and Top 10 lists. Great work.
Amazing voice!! Thank you Tom for adding Chris to the line-up.
Well done review. I played it at 4 and it felt like the game ended right when we were about to start making important strategic choices.
Also, I know you guys are still getting the studios set, but there was a lot of extraneous noise I could hear. Most of it was at the beginning of the video and it so seemed to be talking that was happening in the hall. I don't want to sound harsh, but it was kinda distracting. Like I said, I know you guys are still getting setup, but I just wanted to add that.
Thanks for all the videos and content you guys make.
Thanks for that straight shooting review! Please keep recording reviews Chris!
We played it at 2 and my partner hated it. We did have the same play pattern you saw - it was slow and very limited for a few turns, then I got a big score - 24 I think - and from then on I could do what I liked. She never managed the same level and ended up with about half as much money as me. I'll try it at 3 or 4, but I'm worried now it's not going to be great.
appreciate your honest critique.
I’m with you Chris. You echoed a lot of my issues I had with it.
A fair review. Although, I do have this game and I give it a 5/10. 1st play was not so good. 2nd and subsequent plays much better (2-players and 4-players) Played with family (12 & 15) they got on with it OK (sometimes that's enough) but TBH, Chris is right it is a bit limited and may work better with 3 players, but can I really be bothered to try when there are so many other good things out there? It will get a couple more visits to the table and then a judgment will be made. Celebrate or Sell-it-on? Time will tell...
PS (edit) Chris's comments about the design of the restaurant chips is spot on. The differentiation is terrible and is for me the biggest #fail of the game. It actually ruins the whole experience. It would have been so easy to have put a yellow and black "under construction" around the outer edge of the incomplete restaurants. Then they would have popped out on the board, making it easy to count the number of unfilled spaces.
When are we getting a Chris and Wendy Yi top 100??? Nice review man!
How interesting! I bought this last week and haven’t got it to the table yet. I was excited to play...
Question
Most of the games that you like at the DT is games with very little player interaction which. Heads down games, only thinking about your own score. And yet here you list it as a con in 3 or 4 player games. Why is that?
I agree beer goes with anything
I appreciate hearing which games are good, and I more appreciate hearing which games are bad. There's a lot of content out there, and it's great knowing what to skip. Thank you!
Great, honest review. Need more!
Thanks for great review!
I like all of Vital Lacerda's other games, so was disappointed when I thought this game was uninteresting.
Wow, harsh score that I feel isn’t really supported by the comments provided. I’m a big Lacerda fan and my wife and I both really enjoy this one because it does have depth but it plays super quick. We can sit and play twice in an hour and it’s always engaging. I don’t see how someone can not pay attention or not care what others are doing and do well because you need to be blocking others while also setting yourself up for scoring customers as much as possible. Saying you were doing “your own thing” seems weird for a game so focused on positioning and working around others. Also money is points and kept secret, and therefore maximizing your profits each turn is key.
To be fair, I’ve only played 2p which you seem to say is the best for you. I’ve never played solo and don’t care to personally. But as a quick, interactive, thinkier game, this will likely be our go-to “quick game” for a while.
I guess my only “critique” here is I would’ve liked to know what you hoped to get out of the game, and why it was a miss with you. You kind of just explain the game, say it didn’t work for you (which is fine) but don’t provide reasons , so the 4/10 score is going to feel like you played a different game from people who play it and liked it. Because that explanation of what you would have liked to see more of, or done different, etc, is missing. We are left with “I didn’t care what happened” and “I did my own thing” and that you didn’t like it. Which will open you up to the inevitable “you didn’t play right or understand it” responses from the mobs.
Thanks for the review, but I hope Tom or Zee reviews as well for comparison. I’d be interested in their take.
Well, my take might be worse than Chris. I HATED this game.
@@thedicetower fair enough. It’s surprising to me as it’s the first DT review ever where I love a game you guys really dislike. A 4 is basically a “fail” but i wasn’t clear from the review itself why such a strong reaction/dislike. I don’t have to agree, but I like to at least understand why a reviewer gives a game a certain score. Those “reasons” are typically what people use to decide if a game would be good for them or not, based on the review more so than just the score. When I watch a review from Tom or Zee, they go into detail of what worked for them or not, and I’ve seen them enough over the years so I have a better idea of their tastes and whether I’d like a game or not regardless of their thoughts. I guess I just left this review feeling like the explanation wasn’t there so it’s hard to understand the “why”. Hope that makes sense.
@@hermithouse You're not the only person who mentioned the score didn't seem to fit with my explanation, so I'll try to be a little bit more clear in the future. Though I did explain many points as to why this game was, for me, a fail. That includes how the game was especially limited at 3-4 players, high luck of the solo game, obvious decisions on most turns, lack of any real tension once you get some money, and visual clarity of the board. I never taught it once to anybody who enjoyed it more than me, and I didn't enjoy it that much. Whether or not I gave a numbered score at the end, I feel like those points should be an indictment.
@@hermithouse On the other hand I think he expressed his points pretty well.
@@DTChrisYi I get that you said those things but for me there was a disconnect. The solo example is a good one. You said it wasn’t good because there are certain rules you have no real control over. So “only scoring to tomatoes” but then you never get tomatoes because of how the tiles come out makes that mode not fun. I’ve never played the solo mode and I understood why that could be real frustrating and annoying.
But i don’t understand why you say there is no tension when you start making money. This seems to suggest that limited money is the only source of tension in the game. Considering this is a tile laying game and blocking, timing and placement are everything, So the money=tension seems to completely ignore the majority of the game. I’m sure that wasn’t the intention, but that’s what I took from it.
I’ve only played 2p and you stated the game was too cut throat for you at that count. Totally fair point. I disagree but this is a clearly subjective opinion that speaks to your tastes. But suddenly when the game goes from 2 to 3 players it goes from way too tight and cut throat to boring? Your explanation here is you didn’t care what was happening, didn’t pay attention to what other players were doing and just did your own thing to get money. This is a behavioural example and doesn’t give me - someone who has never played at that count - an idea of why you had those issues. Maybe I missed it. You said you didn’t feel like the decisions were interesting but since you also said that getting lots of money takes the tension away, i would have assumed an extra player or two adding more limitations to your ability to get money would increase tension. Instead for some reason it went the other way and was so boring you didn’t pay any attention to what was happening. Which a “tight”, “cut throat” tile laying game with limited space, seems like paying attention is important? If not, the reasons weren’t explained.
I thought maybe you just had some off games and that resulted in not liking it. But then you say literally nobody else you played with liked it either. In fact they hated it. So it can’t be that. So I thought maybe you were expecting more Lisboa-light and didn’t get that so you felt disappointed... but you compliment the game up front for doing what it set out to do. So that can’t be it either. So in the end I’m left with: the game is too tight and too cut throat, but also boring. That despite being a fast and short tile laying game with limited space, the only tension comes from how limited your money is but that quickly goes away once you have more money. These feel to me like random and contradictory reasons the game didn’t work for you, and I think that is the result of my confusion and possibly others as well.
Tile laying games are all about timing and positions and blocking or working around the others. You never mention any of that after the initial gameplay overview or provide examples explaining why these were issues for you. You only talk about money and now paying attention.
I believe what you are going for is, “this game was much to simple and boiled down and short for me to really get into. There isn’t a whole lot you do on your turn - you just chose a tile and play it - and when you play with anything more than 2p, the game will end before you can really do much of anything. The 2p game is ok, but often too limiting and cut throat for my tastes. The solo mode is also tacked on and not very well thought out. Over all, this game was a miss for me at all levels so I just can’t recommend it. 4/10”. I THINK this is what you are saying but I don’t feel like the reasons you have describe that problem. Instead I heard a lot of talk about money and how you didn’t pay attention...so the game gets a 4/10.
I appreciate the time and effort it takes to do reviews like this and I look forward to watching more of your reviews in the future. I find understanding someone’s tastes is important context for any review and being a newer DT reviewer, I don’t ha e a good sense of your tastes yet. So that may also be why the disconnect for me. Thanks for your time and hopefully my comments didn’t come off as being attacking or trying to tell you your opinion was wrong, etc. That wasn’t my intent. I just believe a review - negative or positive - should give the viewer a good idea of whether the game and its play and mechanisms would work for others regardless. I’m not sure that piece was there for me personally. Thanks for listening to my overly long explanation!
I found the game OK (5/10) to play at 2P and solo but this at 4 players the other day... oh boy ... can’t believe how bad the experience was. Non-sense.
Dang... that was rough. To those watching, I enjoy azul. I actually enjoy this game but agree the artwork could have been better. It is much better than a 4/10 game though.... I would give it a 7. I would say if you feel it is boring it is because you don’t understand the strategy of the game that becomes apparent after multiple games. Thank you for their thoughts
Nah, I agree with Chris. Game is just boring.
this review reminded me of the time kingdom builder got hated on because it only gave you one card and therefore no choices.
which of course is nonsense and totally misses the point of the game/why this is done and the interesting decisions and options this creates.
this review also feels a little like it's missing the point.
first, tension does flat out not come from money.
second, saying you didn't care what other players did shows me that you missed what makes this game interesting. not caring what others do and not trying to capitalize on it, is to be playing the game the wrong way. sorry.
for anyone who dissmises this game based on this review, i would recommend watching rahdo's final thoughts, because even though he never played the game with 3 or 4 players, you can tell from his explanation of the game's choices and workings that he 'gets' the game.
cool game for what it wants to be that ends at the right time, because were it to go on much longer the brain-burniness would just be too much.
I've noticed that we only "miss the point" on reviews when we don't like the game. Perhaps we simply don't like a game as made?
@@thedicetower well, if you like something despite 'missing the point', then i guess there is less reason to 'complain'. because you still like the game, just for the wrong reasons ;-D
yes, of course it is possible to just not like a game. however, in this context it only makes sense when you aknowledge certain vital gameplay things about a game, but just don't like it. ok, fair play.
but when you don't aknowledge certain things, and then list negative points that have nothing to do with what the game is trying to be/do...that is what gives the feeling that you 'missed something'.
like the one card in kingdom builder doesn't limit you. the trick is to play in a way that no matter what card you get, you have plenty of options going round. it's a great puzzle, and the game doesn't play you.
when you aknowledge this, but say you don't like, that's fine. fail to aknowledge this, and it feels like something was missed.
the same here is the case with this review, that fails to mention the great options and choices you get when playing off of your competition. no mention was given to this in this review, just the statement that he didn't care about what others were doing. that is ignoring one of the vital points of the game, so it feels like something was missed.