I've only tried this solo but the solo ai presents an interesting puzzle like challenge to defeat because it essentially takes the max number of tiles possible with each movement. This forces you to balance getting tiles for your own scoring purposes and trying to keep the ai from getting tiles that helps them score.
8:00 I'm reminded of Upwords here. Upwords is "optimized" for 3-4 players, but we play it with 5, so we ended up buying a 2nd set and adding the tiles to extend the game. There's a bit more variance. but games are more satisfying.
I can understand Tom not feeling like its his game, but in that case : why didn't they review it in the "4 squares" format ? My 10 cents below (my 5 cents are free - Eminem Dixit): The tiles sticking together is not the end of the world, they'll eventually give and separate easier. They are quite thick and resistant and so far I've been very happy on how they feel. Gamewise I found that the game ramps up in power but also in intensity, very depending on the objective set of the rounds. You have to be extra careful not to ruin your score, or to hinder your opponent(s). The last round feels quite different because the choices can be easier (if you want to pick few tiles) or harder (if you need more tiles to score). As for the KS version, they included multi language cards and instructions, which makes teaching this game a breeze and was a very nice touch. With variants (for scoring rotating round objectives a la "cartographers", the wildcards, and the variety of round objectives) I think this has quite a bit of life on my shelves. As a non-native, this was much appreciated.
My problem with it is you got to get lucky and get the good plays. One of the players went for more diversified and could get more combos in later rounds and it looked like it may have a shot at working but doubtful. He ended up low on the score board because he couldn't keep up with the players fighting for the two 2 point tiles.
you need to play the game with the "Seasons of Change" rules variant. It came on a small card with the goal cards. This changes it so that you draw 4 goal cards, and each round the 2 goals that you are working on are different. By the end of the game, you have played using 4 different unique goal combos. Our first game we played with the basic rules for goals, and I was disappointed like you mentioned. but then subsequent games, we have played the advanced rules with the rotating goals, and it made the game much, much better. I would never play with the same 2 goals for the entire game ever again. In fact, I wish they had not even included that simpler rule as I think it really ruins the game some and makes it more boring as you stated.
Reading this I can't imagine why they didn't go for those rotating goals as the base! That would add so much more. It reminds me of isles of Skye, where it is very intuitive and fun.
Sorry to hear you didn’t like this, Tom. I have only played it as a two-player game with my mom, but we really like it a lot. I normally don’t like games which require a third dummy mechanism (when playing with only two players), but found this one worked just fine. We play with the added dragon (wild) tiles, and find the endings of the game can be quite tense, based on the goal cards. We like this game a lot, but then again, that’s why Baskin Robbins makes 31 flavors of ice cream. 😊
Wow, couldn’t disagree more with Tom’s final verdict. The strategy definitely ramps up the more you play. Tiles sticking together is a bummer but not enough to hate the game by far.
@@MassEffectFan113 Maybe but in this case the components are not sub par at all. Even Tom commented about the quality of the components. The tiles just nest together in the bag while drawing tiles but it also means they don’t come disconnected and spill all over the board.
@@MassEffectFan113 i bought the game. the components are of quality. and every review online other that dummy on here complimented the quality of the puzzle and the included components. i played the game solo against the AI and it was a challenging addicting delight. i have not seen a single bad review of the game yet except for mr fussy whiny pants
Just by watching this overview, I noticed lots of resemblances to "Mandala Stones", game play wise. first you move a piece to a spot and collect adjacent pieces according to a specific rule determined by the piece you just moved. then you put the collected pieces in the five spots of your personal board. then there are these scoring conditions based on the heights of stacks. in my opinion if Mandala Stones was a math problem, then Gorinto is the same problem with the numbers changed...and according to Tom here, not even in a clever way apparently. just to be clear, I'm not calling Gorinto a rip off! it was just a simple observation.
I have Mandala Stones and noticed the similarities straight away as well. If I didn’t have Mandala Stones I would probably get this one but they are a bit sameish to have both.
EXCELLENT REVIEW. I’m so glad you were honest about this game - I was super close to getting it because I LOVE abstract games and thought this was original in its mechanics. It certainly has a nice table presence to it, but I’ve noticed a lot of new abstract games fall short because they’re simple to learn, which is desirable, but offer no deepness when it comes to strategy. They’re simple - and shallow. Thanks for saving me some hard earn cash...
I too love abstract games. Could you perhaps recommend me some more? I already have Hive, Hnefetafl, Backgammon, Squadro, Quantik, Quarto, Mandala (Not to be confused with Mandala stones), Noctiluca, Azul, Calico, Photosynthesis and Gorinto.
We all know that Tom has a negative bias toward abstract games. So I won't consider this review as fair, this is not a review with Tom but the review of Tom.
I usually like your reviews Tom, but this is not a good one. Sorry, but you clearly have not played the game enough times to justify putting out such a review. The part about the final turns being lackluster is totally not true. (Although I suppose it could depend on the scoring cards that are out there for that game.) It can be become quite cuthroat and tense at the end as players realize that the tiles they must take are actually going to hurt their score. I will say though that the thing with the tiles sticking together when pulling them out the bag bothers me more than you. lol
@@thedicetower I think he's saying it's a little odd to make a review for a game you've only played twice. Although the harsh decrease in choice and strategy end-game is definitely a thing, even if the goal cards try to mitigate that. I think I may try to house rule more tiles in the set-up phase...
How many times do you need to play a game before you confirm that you really don't like a mechanic? Why isn't two enough? Especially for an abstract game like this, which in my experience give you the impression just how much more depth there is to try to master or explore. Even if it's a game that opens up after playing XX number of games, if it's not particularly engaging at the first play(s), then it's doomed to sit on the shelf. It tends to be particularly difficult to get people to learn a game that they won't enjoy for the first few games. I certainly won't bother with a game if it's something where the first plays aren't enjoyable. I don't have any obligation to slog through a number of hours with a game for it to open up or become interesting, especially when there are so many games in any given genre that do have interest and fun at the first play - and still open up for interest in later plays. I mean, if you enjoy the game, great, but it's not an issue for a reviewer to come to a conclusion for his experience after a game or two.
Brice, I agree with you. If any of us, as gamers, have even played a game one single time and after that felt that we would not play it again... Why a reviewer cannot tell us that was exactly his feeling about a particular one? I find this kind of reviews quit useful. That being said, I found this game interesting, despite Tom's final judgement.
I've only tried this solo but the solo ai presents an interesting puzzle like challenge to defeat because it essentially takes the max number of tiles possible with each movement. This forces you to balance getting tiles for your own scoring purposes and trying to keep the ai from getting tiles that helps them score.
Dang that was a rough final conclusion. I decided not to back the Kickstarter as I had concerns about the game.
Great review Tom
8:00 I'm reminded of Upwords here. Upwords is "optimized" for 3-4 players, but we play it with 5, so we ended up buying a 2nd set and adding the tiles to extend the game. There's a bit more variance. but games are more satisfying.
I can understand Tom not feeling like its his game, but in that case : why didn't they review it in the "4 squares" format ?
My 10 cents below (my 5 cents are free - Eminem Dixit):
The tiles sticking together is not the end of the world, they'll eventually give and separate easier.
They are quite thick and resistant and so far I've been very happy on how they feel.
Gamewise I found that the game ramps up in power but also in intensity, very depending on the objective set of the rounds.
You have to be extra careful not to ruin your score, or to hinder your opponent(s).
The last round feels quite different because the choices can be easier (if you want to pick few tiles) or harder (if you need more tiles to score).
As for the KS version, they included multi language cards and instructions, which makes teaching this game a breeze and was a very nice touch.
With variants (for scoring rotating round objectives a la "cartographers", the wildcards, and the variety of round objectives) I think this has quite a bit of life on my shelves.
As a non-native, this was much appreciated.
We didn't do the 4 Squares format because 1.) I didn't feel this was a "big" enough game to deserve it and 2.) I liked the game the best of everyone.
Look like the same tiles used in older versions of Upwards.
Just because Tom didnt like the game doesnt mean the game is bad. Seeing a lot of people getting angry at someone's opinion.
My problem with it is you got to get lucky and get the good plays. One of the players went for more diversified and could get more combos in later rounds and it looked like it may have a shot at working but doubtful. He ended up low on the score board because he couldn't keep up with the players fighting for the two 2 point tiles.
you need to play the game with the "Seasons of Change" rules variant. It came on a small card with the goal cards. This changes it so that you draw 4 goal cards, and each round the 2 goals that you are working on are different. By the end of the game, you have played using 4 different unique goal combos. Our first game we played with the basic rules for goals, and I was disappointed like you mentioned. but then subsequent games, we have played the advanced rules with the rotating goals, and it made the game much, much better. I would never play with the same 2 goals for the entire game ever again. In fact, I wish they had not even included that simpler rule as I think it really ruins the game some and makes it more boring as you stated.
Reading this I can't imagine why they didn't go for those rotating goals as the base! That would add so much more. It reminds me of isles of Skye, where it is very intuitive and fun.
Sorry to hear you didn’t like this, Tom. I have only played it as a two-player game with my mom, but we really like it a lot. I normally don’t like games which require a third dummy mechanism (when playing with only two players), but found this one worked just fine. We play with the added dragon (wild) tiles, and find the endings of the game can be quite tense, based on the goal cards.
We like this game a lot, but then again, that’s why Baskin Robbins makes 31 flavors of ice cream. 😊
Wow, couldn’t disagree more with Tom’s final verdict. The strategy definitely ramps up the more you play. Tiles sticking together is a bummer but not enough to hate the game by far.
Components that are subpar? Seems like a reason to pass on the game to me.
@@MassEffectFan113 Maybe but in this case the components are not sub par at all. Even Tom commented about the quality of the components. The tiles just nest together in the bag while drawing tiles but it also means they don’t come disconnected and spill all over the board.
@@MassEffectFan113 i bought the game. the components are of quality. and every review online other that dummy on here complimented the quality of the puzzle and the included components.
i played the game solo against the AI and it was a challenging addicting delight. i have not seen a single bad review of the game yet except for mr fussy whiny pants
Just by watching this overview, I noticed lots of resemblances to "Mandala Stones", game play wise. first you move a piece to a spot and collect adjacent pieces according to a specific rule determined by the piece you just moved. then you put the collected pieces in the five spots of your personal board. then there are these scoring conditions based on the heights of stacks. in my opinion if Mandala Stones was a math problem, then Gorinto is the same problem with the numbers changed...and according to Tom here, not even in a clever way apparently. just to be clear, I'm not calling Gorinto a rip off! it was just a simple observation.
I have Mandala Stones and noticed the similarities straight away as well. If I didn’t have Mandala Stones I would probably get this one but they are a bit sameish to have both.
Isn't this the game with the problematic design diary about the "far off land of Indonesia"?
EXCELLENT REVIEW. I’m so glad you were honest about this game - I was super close to getting it because I LOVE abstract games and thought this was original in its mechanics. It certainly has a nice table presence to it, but I’ve noticed a lot of new abstract games fall short because they’re simple to learn, which is desirable, but offer no deepness when it comes to strategy. They’re simple - and shallow. Thanks for saving me some hard earn cash...
I too love abstract games. Could you perhaps recommend me some more?
I already have Hive, Hnefetafl, Backgammon, Squadro, Quantik, Quarto, Mandala (Not to be confused with Mandala stones), Noctiluca, Azul, Calico, Photosynthesis and Gorinto.
@@uroskra77 Be sure to check out ALL of the Gipf Project games. Highly recommended. :)
I agree with your final thoughts. I can see this getting boring really fast. Very samey.
We all know that Tom has a negative bias toward abstract games. So I won't consider this review as fair, this is not a review with Tom but the review of Tom.
A negative bias, huh? I love a LOT of abstract games. YINSH, Pentago, Santorini, Blokus, Onitama, Quarto, etc., etc.
I usually like your reviews Tom, but this is not a good one. Sorry, but you clearly have not played the game enough times to justify putting out such a review. The part about the final turns being lackluster is totally not true. (Although I suppose it could depend on the scoring cards that are out there for that game.) It can be become quite cuthroat and tense at the end as players realize that the tiles they must take are actually going to hurt their score. I will say though that the thing with the tiles sticking together when pulling them out the bag bothers me more than you. lol
Maybe the end being lackluster is an opinion thing? I don't think I lied.
@@thedicetower I think he's saying it's a little odd to make a review for a game you've only played twice. Although the harsh decrease in choice and strategy end-game is definitely a thing, even if the goal cards try to mitigate that. I think I may try to house rule more tiles in the set-up phase...
How many times do you need to play a game before you confirm that you really don't like a mechanic? Why isn't two enough? Especially for an abstract game like this, which in my experience give you the impression just how much more depth there is to try to master or explore.
Even if it's a game that opens up after playing XX number of games, if it's not particularly engaging at the first play(s), then it's doomed to sit on the shelf. It tends to be particularly difficult to get people to learn a game that they won't enjoy for the first few games. I certainly won't bother with a game if it's something where the first plays aren't enjoyable. I don't have any obligation to slog through a number of hours with a game for it to open up or become interesting, especially when there are so many games in any given genre that do have interest and fun at the first play - and still open up for interest in later plays.
I mean, if you enjoy the game, great, but it's not an issue for a reviewer to come to a conclusion for his experience after a game or two.
Brice, I agree with you. If any of us, as gamers, have even played a game one single time and after that felt that we would not play it again... Why a reviewer cannot tell us that was exactly his feeling about a particular one? I find this kind of reviews quit useful. That being said, I found this game interesting, despite Tom's final judgement.
Stay mad