Deal with the Devil Review: The Devil Wears Vlaada
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 лип 2024
- Tom, Wendy, Roy, & Mike take a look at Deal with the Devil!
Intro 0:00
Overview 0:59
Final Thoughts 9:36
Support The Dice Tower at www.dicetowerkickstarter.com
Support the channel by becoming a member!
/ @thedicetower
Subscribe to our newsletter, "The Dice Tower Digest": dicetowerdigest.com
Buy great games at www.GameNerdz.com
Check out the friendliest conventions on Earth!
Dice Tower Cruise - www.dicetowercruise.com (January 15-21, 2023)
Dice Tower West - www.dicetowerwest.com (March 8 - 12, 2023)
Dice Tower East - www.dicetowereast.com (July 5-9, 2023)
Find more reviews and videos at www.dicetower.com
Get a great game table here! www.rathskellers.com/
BGG Link: boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3... - Ігри
We had a totally different first experience - everyone at the table loved it. You need to be fine with taking some debt though - without it you won't get through the game (when Wendy said she couldn't build a building first turn, I'm sure she could've with some debt). Buildings are essential, and you need to somehow collect enough resources to build them. Yes, sometimes it means dealing your soul to the devil (or the cultist), which is what makes the game an interesting puzzle for everyone. :)
Thats exactly my experience. I mean, you cant say that its the games fault that it doesnt work when you dont try to be efficient. You are always able to build a building round 1 whatever, take a look at the cards and take a debt. The benefit per Gold spend on buildings round 1 is more than those 0.25 interest per Gold, you dont have to be a genius to get that straight. And the point here is, again, they should have played that again. At least because CGE has a reputation and every game is at last average and that should make them concern wether they are wrong after one game or the whole development team were wrong in publishing it and creating that app.
I looked at every possible start building composition and every possible Ressource distribution at the start: You are ALWAYS i mean ALWYAYS able to build something turn one. Maybe you need a loan but you can still can build and it is worth it!
Yeah, it's unfortunate when someone plays a game wrong and then negatively reviews it based on their own errors. Of course you take a little debt at the beginning, that's why it's there.
This review is a little surprising though I haven’t watched the live play. I demoed this at GenCon and everyone at the table loved it. Definitely a euro game but with enough interesting twists that I really want this one despite it being 4 player only. I felt it was the most thematic euro I’ve played in a while. The inquisition was a blast, no one was suspecting that. The way you gained and lost piety points, the tricky decisions you have to make in order to do what you want to do, it was great! We had lots of wheeling and dealing and lots of buildings being built. The social deduction aspect played a huge part in our game bc some of us lost points for guessing wrongly at the end which gave the devil just enough points to win. Then four total strangers had a hilarious discussion about who thought what and why. It was by far my best demo at GenCon. My only real complaint was that despite the big player screens and the cool chests you’re passing around, it still felt difficult to keep you resources and offerings hidden. This would best be played on a square table, not a rectangular demo table. Thanks for your thoughts DT!
Was the inquisition Spanish? If so, it's no wonder it wasn't suspected.
Okay I’ve played this 3x and this is my favorite game of the year. I think the entire system is wonderful and very fun to figure out. I’ve been the devil, mortal, and cultist and each has a unique strategy. I’ve also won as Devil and mortal. Caveat is I’m a very heavy gamer.
I second that
Same for me after the first game you understand why certain things make sense and why you should or shouldn't give away a piece of soul. To rate this game after one play in which they made crucial rule mistakes which then translated into negative points (Wendy who complained nobody was making deals with her while they never spoke about what everybody needs before they made any deals for example) is just not okay.
I’m going to add I’m not mad or have anything negative to say about the review. I just felt people could benefit from seeing a genuine love of the game in the comments with a few plays under their belt.
@@jesuszockt3531 They were clear about their one play. It's not like they tried to bury the lede.
If you don't like the review, you should find one that makes you more comfortable
@@LegoAssassin098 I still appreciate their opinion, I just think you shouldn't judge a game after one playthrough, especially games that really need at least a second game to understand what is going on.
The app and hidden chests for trading is cool. It seems like it was the initial idea then the whole rest of the game was added on to try give the trading mechanism a purpose... I hope this design triggers some more interesting games based around this concept
We had a BLAST playing this at Gen Con!
The devil wears vlaada 🤣🤣🤣
They kept answering their own complaints. "Resources are so hard to get" "why would anyone ever sell their soul?" At the beginning of the game demand for resources is high and there isn't an inquisition for quite some time so the demand for souls is low. If the devil or the cultists are offering a good number of resources, then sell a soul piece so you can start building your engine!
But by the sound of it the punishment for selling your soul is high...
@@tonkabeanicecream5698 bingo
@@tonkabeanicecream5698 It isn't you only can get punished for it when you get accused during the witchhunt from other players. Otherwise the only downside is you have less pieces to ignore inquisitors (who can get bribed so you don't necessarily need a soul) and during the end because with them the devil gets more points.
If you watched their playthrough they got punished harshly due to selling their soul. The devil got 3 pieces of soul. If you sell your soul it helps the devil in some later phases and hurts you during the inquisition.
@@jauggy Of course you should think carefully about selling pieces of your soul but it isn't like you absolutely should never sell a piece because the consequences are too bad.
If the devil has 3 pieces of soul when the first witchhunt occurs, the other players obviously sold too many. Also I didn't understand why they pointed at Tom in their playthrough, he never had extremly high amounts of ressources, I would have understand if they choose Mike.
Also no one tried to bribe Inquisitors, when they could have taken debt to do so. Yes they would have get minus points for doing so but far less as when they ignore the Inquisition.
Before everything else the soul thing is hard to grasp in your first playthrough. How much it actually is worth can't be determined during the first play.
I've played this twice now (2× different groups of 4) and it's gone down really well both times. Not only that, I've really enjoyed both plays personally, particularly as the devil and trying to tempt souls from people. And yes, I got a 2 soul piece trade too. I offered 2× glass, 1× wheat and 9× coins....
I will confess I do enjoy games with a punishing aspect, and dragging myself out of that hole I find really fulfilling, AND I love games with trading AND I love games with a personal screen, so maybe I'm in the wheelhouse for this game, but I just wanted to say there are people out there who really enjoy this.
3 hours seems about right for this however, which is a tad long in some situations alas
It's possible this game lost points due to the theme in this particular review case... Don't know of course but would not have been the first time ;-)
@@kepo8113 that's a fair point, and honestly, when Tom first said he had no interest in playing it again, I actually thought it was theme related
Honestly I wonder how did you get that much resources for trading taking into account that you need to trade them all the time to gather enough souls. SECOND and more important thing - why would you trade for the souls anyway!? Its really hard to get 3 or 4 souls. Grabbing 5 or more means basicly that your team gave almost all but one. Now first - WHERE did you get all that resources if you kept spending all of them for souls? Devil's gets a boost at a start only and that is it. And finally have you seen final scoring!? This is just trash and misunderstanding. I played as a devil and I got 3 souls totally, which gave me... 4 points total at the end. ROTFL!! And I had to pay sick amount of resources to get them, because with lower amount players were simply not interested in selling their souls (good for them!). This game is just a mistake. Unbalanced, mechanics seems like they have been hardly tested... The only thing about it which grants it credits is the app. The app works really well. No bugs, helps a lot, looks nice.... But the rest is no more than 3-3,5 out of 10 for me... Glad you and your group liked it. Cheers!
@@pks-bisqp2677 there are lots of buildings and events that give you resources. It's possible to generate a small engine to generate resources, especially for money, and money is excellent in this game as it's always appealing despite the change ration being pretty terrible.
As for why trade your soul pieces, it's because to the humans, the souls are seemingly useless. Someone waves a bunch of resources under your nose for something useless to you, it's pretty tempting.
I accept the game can completely fall over if the humans just flat out decide not to trade their souls, even at the detriment to their own game, but that seems like an odd way to play it tbh
@@ErmacFellwalker Thanks for the answer. Souls are comepletly useless for humans?? You are sure you have played the same game?? What about Witchcraft stage? What about Inquisitors and HUGE amount of points they take from you TWICE if you dont have soul shard to show. This was the main reason my fellow human players did not want to trade their souls unless the price was really high (.. which left me with little to no resources to expand). From what you are writing I really have a strong impression we have played different games or someone misread the rules pretty badly.
I have checked some cards and as you said - it is possible to build "small engine" to generate resources. But "some" resources is not enough to develop AND buy back souls from humans. You can go other way round and dont bother buying souls ... and go hard on buildins (only first round!!) but then you are totally exposed as a devil to the humans. Either way you are always screwed.
Check dice tower review about this game. This is essentially what happened to my gaming group. After first play - we all agreed 100% that the game is painful not fun, underdelivers on the MAIN concept (trading souls) because its either not appealing, not efficient and easily skippable by players. Further more it is not balanced, seems like it was not tested enough and some mechanics work badly. As simple as that. Our common verdict on this game was unanimous - NEVER again. And mind that we are 4 pretty different types of players.
I appreciate the integrity of the DT to honestly share their impression and thoughts on games even when negative and applaud you for that, thank you. Definitely trying this one nonetheless. 👌🏼
Thank you for your first impressions. Seems like you played DON'T Deal With the Devil and missed what the game is about (loosen up the tightness by, well ...).
"the devil wears vlaada..." ha! Sounds like something Chris would come up with.
I'm actually kicking myself that it wasn't me. All credit goes to Mike.
Appreciate the transparency about one play, but I think this is the type of game that needs more than one, especially since you were learning while playing. Something that comes to mind during your play through was that you didn't realise that you could request specific resources for trade. I think even this one change would change the dynamic in a huge way.
I love the dice tower! But I'm gonna take these scores with a grain of salt.
if the first experience was meh it gets difficult to get a second game , the game just end up taking shelf space and there's always something more fun beside that will end up being played
The game competes with games that are fun out of the gate. Making itself hard to like is not a good idea.
There have been plenty of times where I've been learning a game and there has been a dawning realisation of what you need to be doing, this makes me want to play it again with this new knowledge.
@@CaptainYoul that's fair enough, but I think that because certain rules were missed, it didn't really get a fair shake. I mean, if one play is enough to rate a game, then why ever play a game more than once to review it. This is definitely a first impressions - just like Tom said
Hmm, the single play experience seems a bit off for this review, but thanks for your thoughts
Disagree, every game should be fun since the first time. Like Tom said, is not about how good you do at the game, that could be improved as plays go by, but if it lacks fun, what is the point of keep playing???
@@xabulense If you don't understand a game and have a first bad play, that's not necessarily an indictment against the game. Punishing games are for some people, they inherently result in "worse" first experiences until you learn them.
@@xabulense No Vital game is fun the first time ...
@@xabulense - not true. Some games have nuances that arent apparant the first game Many games I have played have been MUCH more fun the 2nd or 3rd time. Like Brass Birmingham.
@@DannyvanHolten well, in my opinion it's the opposite
Haha, I am so getting this game, despite your protestations, looks awesome! Ty for the review.
That title is freakin' GENIUS.
Very interesting. Saying you don’t like it much and then explaining the game in a way that sounds extremely fun to me. I do like the dreadful feel of some games so I think I’ll check it out.
It's a great game, they just don't like debt and didn't really understand that you must take a bit to get started, then pay it off. One of the best games I have played in a long long time.
While I might no like it, I´ll defend and respect your right to make a review after just one play.
... but the sentiment that "A game needs to shine right out of the gate" will only lead to less game diversity, since it significantly limits the available design space.
I mean its interesting topic, a boardgame might be art as much as it is a product I guess, I can get behind both point of view. In the end the power more or less comes from the individuals who buy the games. As with everything mosts accessible stuff are often then not having a bigger market and more money, but theres always weird stuff coming out.
I think the issue is that this game - because it needs exactly 4 heavy euro players - will rarely get to the table so it needs to be a hit from the start.
With so many games out there I think most games should work right out the gate or why would you want to play it again. Now I think it is okay to lose, but if you think about the game afterward in a positive light then it is good experience. This is especially true for very long games because if it is a bad experience and it lasts a long period of time then I don’t want to have to go through that experience again. I have a ton of other games I enjoy so it would have to be a hard go through that process again.
I don't think they meant that no game shouldn't be fun on the first play. I think they meant that for them, a game that isn't fun out of the gate isn't for them.
You can understand why they'd say that in the context of them being people who play huge numbers of different games and therefore can't have patience with games that might grow on you. Some people may only buy a small number of games per year and so can afford the experience to develop. Solo aside, I only get to play multiplayer once or twice a week, and so I'm never going to be interested in something like Root.
Really liked the secret chest idea, very clever and cool use of components, but seems there is too many things going on at once, just adding complexity for no reason.
It's a euro game with a clever theme and trading mechanism. If you love heavy euro games you'll like this. If you're only interested in the trading mechanism but don't fancy heavy euro games, this game isn't for you. And of course you need exactly 4 players. There's no unnecessary complexity. The game is very well designed and balanced. The only factor here is how much you like heavy euro games. If you don't you'll find the complexity "unnecessary."
I wish I had watched this review before playing and then my expectations would have been better set. Other reviews I watched were misleading. 100% agree with this review. This was my experience today. I was looking forward to the social deduction and trading part but it fell flat and took up most of the game. We played for 5+ hours and I’ll never play it again. Extremely disappointed to say the least.
Played this game recently and I totally agree with Tom and the gang. It was long, convoluted, and much to do about nothing like Mike said.
And before you ask, yes we did lots of trading, yes we used the loan mechanism, and yes we played correctly.
That said if a game NEEDS to be played multiple times AND played a specific way just so it can be "appreciated" then may be the game has a problem not the Dice Tower.
Appreciate the first impressions, but sure looked to me like conservative play led to a less fun experience. Maybe it doesn't work, but it's clever and intriguing enough that I will definitely be giving this a shot!
I watched their playthrough and the play felt normal. What was conservative about it?
@@jauggy It seemed Wendy was making a pretty standard (fair) offer...based on the games recommendations, and not a single person took that offer. So either it was the other players being conservative and not taking "fair" offers, or Wendy was being conservative by just repeatedly putting the same offer out there over and over, even though it was being rejected every time. I do see that there are issues with the game, but if people aren't trading almost every chance they get, it seems like things will stagnate. And seems like you definitely need to use the debt mechanic, which everyone seemed deathly afraid of. Sure it's punishing, but it also seems fairly manageable.
ideas of each machanic look intreaging and do well, but it seams like with all them at same time just don't work well together. imagine the chest idea phone but inside of a simple game idea of sherif Nottingham..
21:00 I fully expect to be one of those people, Mike - even with all the criticisms others have.
The fact that the ratings are so low here might be problematic for the game's future. I normally don't mind, most of my collection is based on Tom's, Sam's and Zee's reviews. But in this case, because I think Alchemists is an incredible design and this is only the second game from this designer (after so many years), I feel like something is weird here. Almost as if the reason everyone gave it a 4 is because everyone was playing it wrong or something. It's probably simply hard to believe that this is just a poorly designed game. Some games are really deceiving, sometimes because of the theme or the artwork - in case of CGE's games it's very often the case. Alchemists, Dungeon Petz, The Prodigals Club - they are all complex euros, some more than others, and they look silly and light. They often have a great theatrical/fantasy/ theme that is just forgotten under the weight and complexity of the game. In most cases it's just too many little rules that make it hard to grasp the entire concept and more often than not they are vital. To name a few; in Prodigals Club: Lady Beatrice, a little extra place that uses a different rule every turn utilizing tiles that you have to check with the rulebook every single time, the extra board used to track how you break with friends giving you infinite possibilities and being heavier to sort out optimally than the entire rest of the game altogether; in Alchemists: the place where you sell potions to the adventurers which is like an entire new game in itself (it would benefit from being streamlined, being more accessible and having a separate board instead of being a typical action spot- maybe, just my opinion), the reputation modifiers for selling potions and many more. I think despite these traits Alchemists manage to feel consistent and never fail to feel thematic, as the mechanisms represent what you're theoritically doing so well. And somehow I suspect, that Deal with the Devil is as some mentioned very fragile despite how good it might be. That it demands so much from players in contrast to most medium-light or pseudo-heavy games, both in understanding the rules and the concept of how to play to make the game work properly that it might leave very poor impression if not played as specifically intended cause the flow just isn't there. And I feel like the less intuitive games can sometimes be much more rewarding if you decide to spend more time with them. I brought the example of Brass but I feel like maybe Vital Lacerda's or 18XX games would be better examples, or maybe even Age of Steam or Dominant Species. A rating of 4 means the game is just bad. It's just very, very surprising for me. It's going to be interesting to see what other reviewers are going to say about this game because it seems like it doesn't have exactly bright future after this review.
The game took years to make (there is a designer interview on youtube) and CGE is very well known for crafting their games properly. It´s the players. Either a question of taste (which is fine) or maybe the game is hard to judge after just one playthrough.
@@galaxytrucker1212 Yeah, a little disappointing to see a review of a game after one play where everyone in the review seems to have been in the same game.
As I'm sure they would say themselves, you're vastly overestimating the importance of Dice Tower reviews on a game's success or failure commercially.
@@brianblessednn Well, I hope that's actually true. Although if the bgg ratings are not too high I tend to lose faith in games that Tom says are garbage and here all four say that. But still, because of Alchemists I'm very interested in this one.
I appreciate the transparency about 1 play. Personally, if I don't have fun after a first play I won't play it again.
Understandable, but you'll miss out on a lot of games you would have ended up enjoying. Thankfully there's only about 10,000 other games to take their place.
I really doubt that anyone would miss out on a lot of enjoyable games that way. A few, maybe - but that has to be worth not sitting through multiple plays of games that you were right about the first time in the vague hope that there was something you missed.
@@brucebush5744 Maybe "a lot" was a little much...but I figure if you've already invested the money to buy a game, giving it one more shot isn't much of a time investment.
True that more plays might change one’s opinions on it but frankly with so many games out there, I can understand how it would just be easier to spend your time on something else. Hence the necessity of having to shine right out of the gate. So many games so little time!
How does not liking debt and liking Q.E. go together? :-)
There's no debt or interest in Q.E., it's just overspending till bankruptcy, but with the hope that the others would be intimidated by your wild spending and overspend you by the end of the game. It's like an opposite of being in debt.
Interesting game...but had a small seasure when i looked at all of the boards during first play... But after round 3 it started to be interesting...
I feel like the resources are kept intentionally scarce to encourage trading. Understandably, trading feels like it's the core of the game.
This is probably why there is no burn a worker for a resource or coin action. Desperation encourages trading off your soul. Seems thematic to me, honestly.
You have to play feed the kraken!
I wish they played THIS ONE more than once but I understand the commitment. This is a tough one so even getting a video up is important. Thanks for the commitment and demonstrating how to show professionalism and clarity.
How many times should a game (or anything really) get to make a first impression?
@@TorIverWilhelmsen I usually give a game two plays, there have been a few times when I've played a game and I've not been in the best frame of mind and disliked it, then I've played it again in a better mental state and really enjoyed it.
@@TorIverWilhelmsen this is a tough one to make a call on because of the play commitment, but I wanted to mire than a first impression on this title specifically from the DT. They did a great job regardless
@@TorIverWilhelmsen The video is titled "review" not "first impression" and I think that´s exactly what´s wrong with it.
@@galaxytrucker1212 How many times does a movie reviewer watch a movie? How many times does a book reviewer read a book? Restaurant reviews? Why should this be different?
Board game fans need to start accepting that others can dislike something they like.
Congrats to the video title. Bravo!
Apparently it's Mike who came up with it!
This game had so much buzz behind it, I can't believe the consensus is so savage.
DT consensus is not overall consensus. It's a really good game, this crew just fell flat on their faces playing it
This game won't be for everyone. I love Alchemists (especially with the Kings Golem). This game I imagine is EXTREMELY group dependent. DT back in the day also didn't like Dungeon Lords because its punishing but thats the challenge IMO. This and Woodcraft are my 2 games I am excited about from Essen and after reading the rules I am still stoked to play this. I watched their play through and I think there was definitely some issues. Also this game won't take my group 3 hours so hopefully we get to try it at BGGCon!
Just want to chime support for being able to rate a game after 1 play. I’m guessing a score could move with more plays, but if you can actively say “I don’t want this”. This also seems like it will have a lot of diverse opinions based on your group, and respect that it doesn’t work for the DT.
I also hate playing a game additional times just to have a perfect understanding of why I don’t like it.
I think the issue with playing this once is that people can go into this treating it the way you would another heavy euro, but there are some things that, if you do it that way, make it feel miserable.
For instance, refusing to bribe inquisitors and instead being punished a losing more points as a result. Giving in to the first deal with the devil set a baseline for Roy on how much a soul was worth to the table, etc.
I agree 1 play reviews are absolutely welcome! And for someone like the dice tower necessary because they play everything and wouldn't have the time. Just make sure its disclosed that you only played once and maybe address what might change with more plays.
I could tell from the live play that this is how you guys would fall on it. I am yet to play it but having read the rulebook from cover to cover I do agree with the notion that this game is fragile. It needs a really good long teach to capture imagination and enthuse the importance of niche stuff. No easy task.
I struggle to enjoy games that are as group dependent as this one is. It's not even one of those "if you don't like euros you wont like this. It's far more layered and requires a very niche group to have it really pop off.
They're all down on this game, but I have to say, this game looks cool as hell!
I disagree with the fact that trading is not as consequential...it is. But I agree that the "euro" part of the game feels too simple, it's just building buildings. I wish the two phases were better integrated.
Loved this review. This was one of the most anticipated games for me at Essen as well, but it looked like too much just like Alchemists was. So glad I didn’t waste the suitcase space. I hope someone takes this theme and the soul trading and does something interesting with it and strips everything else out.
I won the CGE contest at BGG and I got to select which of their new releases be sent to me. I would have selected this game, but I only seldom get specifically 4 players at a gaming night. I selected Starship Captains. I hope that was a good decision.
Edit: Oof. Seems like it was a good decision then!
Starship Captains is a great game. A lot lighter, but still great. At Essen, I made the same choice as I could only afford one of them.
It hurts me so much that exactly 4 players :(
We usually 3 or 5 when we sit down in the game club playing :(
But I'm very interested in this game :(
aaaa and now this is on discount, should I buy it or not? :(
Okay I have purchased it, because This is a very awesome game!!!! :D
I really like dice tower. But if they didn't want to play it again even after alot of people say they weren't playing it right, and it's better when you do (asking for certain resources and dealing more). They shouldn't have reviewed it. Dice towers reviews matter to some people and its someone's livelihood. Doesn't seem fair. Felt a bit like that when they kept mentioning 2 rounds in 3000 scoundrels. Gamers shouldn't play that game for 2 rounds only it's really a 3 round game. Almost feels like they are trying to rush through the new releases as so many just now. I'm really sorry to write this as you guys are great, just trying to give some constructive criticism I suppose.
In their playthrough they did realise late in the game you could ask for resources using the cards. However, it didn't seem to make much difference as people couldn't give up the resources others' wanted.
I think they would have played it more if they had enjoyed it. And they were clear to take their opinions with a grain of salt so to speak because it was based on one play.
I don't see the problem when they are up front about it.
They aren't saying other people won't like it - and even said that there's a lot of people that do - they're just saying that they don't like it.
And people always need to take care to remember that.
I can understand their sentiment. 3000 Scoundrels for me I’ve played twice, both two rounds because the rulebook recommends that so I tend to go with the suggestions of the creators (for your first game, etc.). I do not like that game at all. If it gets fun in the third round, I don’t care because every other game I play is fun for me the whole time, not just 1/3.
A rules mistake is different because you didn’t play the game correctly so it might not be fair to judge it but they seem pretty confident they don’t like the game which is okay.
Deal with the devil sounds great to me though. Everything they described sounded super fun.
The point is some people won't take the opinions with a grain of salt they will just look at the ratings so not buy the game. It shouldn't be called a deal with the devil review. It should've been a deal with the devil first impressions (Like some other channels sometimes do)then that would've been fine. This will effect sales, there's no doubt about that. That's why it's unfair on cge. It's not the fact it's negative, it's that they called it a review
@@1979kubala I appreciate this view point, but I disagree with it. As much as it would be nice to see more foundation to the review, I don't blame them for not wanting to suffer through another 3 hours of a game they really despise.
In my opinion, people often forget that all reviews are subjective. The reviewer isn't responsible for their audiences viewing habits. If they just find out the scores and don't buy it, that's on the individual, not the reviewer. DT was very clear that it was off of one play, and that many people online really like this game.
This is impossible. How on earth, despite Tom liking Alchemists, this only got such low ratings? I don't think it's possible that the designer of Alchemists (a masterpiece) just designed a poor game (and it took him 7 years)... Considering Brass would probably also get a low rating here it might just be the heaviness. Anyway, I love Dice Tower but I'm not buying this review - I'll buy the game and see for myself.
Brass is my #1 favorite game of all time and I still give this a 4.
@@peterpan444 but I honestly haven't met any people who enjoyed Brass after one play, especially if they approached it by treating it like other euros.
@@peterpan444 Hmm... ok, so it's concerning then. I loved Brass after first play and the only game I appreciated but had really hard time enjoying was Dominant Species, my 2-3 first games of it actually.
Maybe this game is very unintuitive then? Interesting.
@@kylemartin7871 I played the old version of Lacashire and only thought it was ok, but when Birmingham came out I fell in love.
@@Prolkiern Brass is full of amazing decisions and the ability to plan ahead. Each round you can read the board and adjust strategy based on what others are doing. There's always something productive possible on a turn, even if it is taking out two loans. In Deal with the Devil, it has a rough mix of tight but lucky economy, the engine build is a slognto get going, and then the game gets extremely punishing during the inquisitions. Both the type of economy and the forms of player interaction are different in Brass and Deal with the Devil. I love the one and did not like the other. In the end though, what really matters is what type of games/mechanics you like. Maybe this will be for you 😊
Does this game have anything to do with Vlaada other than shared publisher? I tuned in expecting his newest game and was disappointed.
65 individuals have buyer's remorse.
I didn't pick it because of the 4 only player limit, we are most of the times 3 and sometimes 5 but 4 is hardly ever, so I'm glad I dodged this bullet.
I have no feelings towards this game one way or the other because this is the first time I'm even hearing of it, and it's not really my thing, so I doubt I'll ever play it. That said, I don't think you should be reviewing/scoring a game after only one play. I have no problem with a video where you discuss it after just one play, but there should be some kind of editorial standard in place where you say "we're not comfortable giving this a proper review and score after only one play, but we would like to talk about it anyway."
And I completely understand the idea of "I've played it once and I know it's not for me." but that doesn't mean you're fit to give it a proper review or score -- not wanting to play a game again and giving it a full review/score are two different things. I'm not saying you need to play a game a certain number of times before reviewing it, but the idea that your thoughts couldn't possibly ever change after more than one play is just foolish.
I just think there should be some small level of editorial standard in place here. Making a video saying you hated it and couldn't play it more than once is completely fine, but reviews should be held to a some kind of standard, especially when you're arguably the biggest name in board game coverage. Maybe the goal shouldn't always be to just pump out tons of reviews so you can say you have tons of reviews on the channel.
I disagree with you.
They were very up front about how it was their opinion, based off of one play and that many people are lauding this game. They didn't hide it. Reviews are always subjective. People need to stop taking reviews as fact.
If you don't like the review, find someone else with one that you feel more comfortable with. Honestly no one should take Dice Tower as their only source of reviews anyway for any game.
I think its important to find people who really like a game and people who really don't for a variety of opinions. 99% of the time DT is the former.
It's pretty rare for a game to get better the more times you play if you don't like it the first time. Not impossible, but very rare. They've been very candid on this issue for years.
They were clear about the limitations of the review. Rarely will they play something they hated when there are dozens of other games they may like that still need reviews.
@@LegoAssassin098 You're making a ton of assumptions about me and making comments suggesting I said something when I didn't. I also see you removed your comment about me being cynical, which made no sense anyway. I guess I'll reply to each comment though.
- I never said or implied that reviews aren't subjective. That's a completely pointless statement to make. Obliviously all reviews are subjective and someone's a opinion.
- I never said I don't like the DT or their reviews, I just said there should be some sort of editorial standard here where they shouldn't be comfortable giving a game a review after one play. Again, I never said I only take the DT as my only source for reviews, so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up.
- To say it's pretty rare for your mind to change after one play of a game is super, super subjective. That may be the case for you, and that's fine, but maybe your mind and your play experience is just different. I have been in this hobby for many years, and I've introduced many board games to both old and new players, and have seen many people's minds change after one play. Your experience is different, but that's irrelevant because we're talking about a review from a editorial outlet, not our subjective experiences.
- I never implied or outright said they weren't "clear about the limitations of the review." I just think there should be some level of standards to a review. I'm not going to go over my original comment again and repeat myself, but I just think this should have been a video (like Tom has done many times in the past) where they talk about why a game isn't good. I'm not saying you can't give out bad reviews, but there just should be a better standard for what is or isn't valid to review. Any reputable review outlet has an editorial standard for content.
@@MrNood1e If you don't like the review, find another one. That's pretty much it.
I bet if you polled the audience, you'd see it's pretty rare for a game to get better.
Again, there's no problem with having a review after one play. There's a problem with having one play and not being clear about that.
There's dozens of other games they have recieved to review. They didn't like this one.
They decided that it wasn't enjoyable enough to suffer another THREE HOURS through so they reviewed it. I don't blame them.
You also do have a pretty cynical perspective, suggesting that they did this just to have many reviews on their channel. You literally said this. "Maybe the goal shouldnt always be to pump out reviews just so you can say you have tons of reviews on the channel".
That assumes that having a lot of reviews is the reason they put these out. You have no idea on their process. Don't act like you do.
If you don't like the review, find another one.
There's nothing wrong about discussing this topic on how much is enough to review a game, but to suggest there's some sort of nefarious conduct going on or that they have too low of standards is quite frankly rediculous.
@@LegoAssassin098 I don't think reading comprehension is your strong suit, but I never said I don't like the review; I said that it shouldn't even be a review, it should just be a video about how they didn't like the game.
You can't "bet" anything because that's a completely nonsensical point. Just because you "think" the audience would agree with you, that doesn't mean they do. That is a absurd claim.
The amount of time they played it isn't the point. I'm not saying you need to play 20 games of Twilight Imperium before it's a valid review. The point is, there should be editorial standards for when a proper review is warranted or not, but one game certainly isn't enough to give a full proper review ---- you're having a real difficult time understanding this.
It's not a cynical perspective. I've been watching DT for a very, very long time and Tom has on many, many occasions talked about he'd much rather get through a ton of games and review tons of games rather than spending too much time on one game. He has bragged about doing 10-12 reviews a week and has said on multiple occasions that he just enjoys getting through as many games as he can. And you're really struggling with reading here - I never implied that it was nefarious or that they were doing this for money (again, reading comprehension would help a lot); I did, however, say that maybe their standards for reviews are low because they're more concerned about just pumping out review videos, regardless of quality.
Again, Tom has been pretty open about the process, so yeah, if you're a long-time viewer like me, then you most certainly do have an idea of their process.
"If you don't like the review, find another one." - This is just a dumb statement. "Liking" a review isn't the issue. I just think it shouldn't have been a proper review, and was a bad call on their part.
And again, you're having a really hard time reading, but I never once implied or suggested anything nefarious was going on. Learn to read. It's okay to bring constructive criticism to a channel that I've spent a ton of hours over many years watching.
@@MrNood1e
No one said its wrong to bring constructive criticism. You suggested that they have a goal that's just to have a lot of reviews, regardless of quality.
That's not constructive criticism. That's a huge assumption. You're extrapolating a lot of things out of this review that make no sense.
There's nothing wrong about discussing how much foundation it takes to make a review. But to then suggest his standards are low and they're just in it for the amount of reviews is more like a tabloid hit piece than actual criticism.
You assume they have no standards for reviews, and you just don't know that.
And ad hominems don't help your credibility.
My problem is not your criticism, it's your framing and assumptions. There's a huge difference between "I wish you had played more before a review or done something different" and suggesting DT has no standards, just in it for the money and don't care about quality of reviews.
I was out at four people only, but then add the app and I'm not even watching this review.
Whoa, what a slam across the board. Seems to be a very divisive game.
Didnt sound like they were divised to me
High reviews do exist on BGG though.
@@rb4551 DT vs other groups
@@ormhaxan Oh sure, but I mean, they do for Monopoly too. Look at literally any game and it is divisive game based on that criteria.
@@rb4551 a 7.5 on average is pretty high. Your comment is just a troll here.
You played the game once, in that constellation. I mean, i am far from beeing a professional reviewer but usually i can see why a game is good or is not good. I liked the game quite a bit! And i hardly ever have had such a different opinion. I mean a 6 is an average game ranking-wise but the game worked very well for me and is not in that 4 rating category.
Are you sure this is not a group dynamic problem? Was it late? Did you play too much games before? Were there problems with the rules?
So many things you have to consider before you call it a review after one session. Sorry, you missed my expectations.
I've had games that I know are well designed, but I think the design is also miserable to experience (Friedrich jumps to mind). A 4 for me is perfectly fair in those cases for something that all works well, but the play space it creates isn't fun, and it seems pretty clear no one had any fun.
@@KissellMissile the main problem is they played that once. Group dynamic is quite negative here. From that one (!) play with whatever negative influences, they form a review from those 4 players. Dont know. It shouldnt be a review bit a play session report or something.
As i said, i am far from a professional reviewer but i own about 2000 games and i am a long time BGG Member. I dont always agree with every opinion here but usually get their point. Giving that game a 4.3 is nowhere near that game quality, please watch/read other reviews or form your own opinion.
He said multiple times in the video that this was based on one play because he has no desire to play it again, and also that it’s entirely possible it was due to factors unique to the group/that one play.
Viewers can use that information to weigh this review as they see fit in helping decide if this game is for them.
Bear in mind that this is a game that's a nightmare to get to the table as you need:
4 players
All heavy gamers
Preferably watched a video on the game before hand
Are interested in the theme/setting
Like tight/punishing games
Are cool with using apps.
To get 5-10 plays of this would be difficult for anyone.
You can watch the playthrough and decide if it's a group dynamic issue. And answer the rest of your questions too.
The "Lost Ruins of Arnak" box, at the bottom of the screen, threw me for a loop.
That's probably the inner part of the "Deal with the Devil" box with ads on the outside. I hate it when publishers do that.
I watched the full playthrough, I strongly recommend it to those hardcore enough to watch a 3 hour video of a euro game being played. It's so funny. They played so badly, never took good deals and then complained about lack of resources. Mike especially was hilarious. He thought he understood the game, thought he knew who everyone was, was wrong about everything and then gave it a bad grade. I mean, I respect everyone's opinion but do try to understand a game before you grade it. lol. Honestly, I'm pretty sure only Roy kind of understood the subtleties and tempo of the game. I guess it's because he played the easiest role. Tom played the hardest so I'm not surprised it left a bitter taste.
Yes, their whole playthrough is hilariously bad. Of course they didn't like it, they played it just wrong.
This game is being positively rated on BGG. I played it once with my group and it was a solid 7 across the table so I’m wondering if you got the rules right. Something feels off
They didn't make deals, and they didn't take much debt. They skipped so many core parts of the mechanics, its hilarious. Its a great game
Too
Much
Cardboard
The 4 player mandatory requirement tied to the 3 hour commitment, and complex sgartup around a small board were enough id have assumed it was terrible
Awesome review, thank you very much for the information, a very limiting game in every way.
I hope this production and the app scanning gimmick gets used in a better game - because it seems very pretty but also relatively functional.
Appreciate the honest review.
When I read about this game, the rigidity, the length, the weight, etc... It was pretty clear I should stay away...
Hmm I've only heard bad things about this game but.. I can't help to feel that the players simply were not good enough
Huh, I expected better scores than that…
This game rules. You guys didn't take debt like you should have. Yet again another DT review that's way off base, but to each their own I guess
I'm glad you enjoy it!
It's such a good game, I doubt you guys will try it again but you really should give it another chance, and this time don't be afraid of debt and don't shun the deals! @@thedicetower
I'm on board with everything that the dice tower said. This game is not fun and feels so convoluted for what? I don't see the excited drive to want to do what it takes to win at the game. Also, being a 4 player only game is a tight requirement on top of that.
So you played it and didn't like it?
Deal with the Devil is the Best Games i never want to play.
Vlaada Chavtil Games are always very Grand Designs with astonishing Qualitity and it is always hard to play them because they are so involved and hard to teach. How they could justify actually printing this i dont understand. Not a lot of people will be able to ever play it.
This might be one of my biggest disagreements with you guys for a review. Not because I like the game (since I haven't played it yet), but because you guys are some of the biggest reviewers out there and are giving a full harsh review after one bad play. If you are serious about "why would you ever sell your soul?", play that. There are plenty of games that are quite heavy entry, and require the work to get into (didn't you do a whole top 10 about that?).
I'm not saying you should like the game, and I do appreciate negative reviews. But I think that negative reviews probably should be more earned than positive ones. If you don't want to play a game again after one game, give it a "first impression" without formal scores. But there are plenty of things you missed like how debt can let you build anything turn 1, and this was too harsh based on that.
You go Wendy!
This doesn't look fun. I like fun in my games. Thank you for the review.
I watched the game and i coils tell no one was having fun.
I'm interested in the idea of this game buy I'm out based on the theme alone.
It sounds like this has the same flaw that Alchemists has, namely that the core idea of the game is cool and could probably make for a great 30 minute game but it's saddled down with this big Euro game structure that has nothing to do with what you actually are probably looking for out of it. Alchemists never gets to the table in my groups because, despite the logic puzzle element being interesting, it's buried under the weight of what feels like this kind of totally separate Euro game on top of it.
And Deal with the Devil really sounds like that but even worse. The core idea of a trading game where you aren't entirely sure who you're trading with and one person is the Devil trying to entice people to give up soul pieces sounds like a terrific idea for a 30 minute game! But then all that ends up being just shoved under this other Euro game that isn't really probably what you're looking for out of the game in the first place.
This is a good example of where "Less is More" could be true. If someone took that trading mechanic and just made THAT the game without the rest of it then it could be fun. If someone took the Alchemists logic puzzle and just made THAT the game it could be fun. I kind of wish CGE would learn that lesson at some point.
Play the game for yourself and have your own opinion. CGE usually does good games and according to 100 Ratings on BGG, this game is on at last. And i like it quite a lot.
@@marcelp.7907 I do have my own opinion on Alchemists like I said. And no, I'm not going to just go and buy a game that I can already tell from the rules description that it would have the same issues.
@@Bodyknock The game is nothing alike tbh. You might still not like it .... but to tell from the rules description it has the same issues is bollocks
@@DannyvanHolten Considering my gut impression seems to match all four of the dicetower opinions I don’t think it’s “bollocks”.
@@shortydancer The feature is the flaw.
Is it me, or The Dice Tower purposefully say bad things about Czech Games Edition games all the time?
It's you.
4 / 10 really lol? The weak arguments do show its from people with 1 play under their belt and who probably didnt use the loan mechanic or plain missed it! Maybe it was just not the right group for the game (the tongue in cheek humor and critique of the clergy and cruel wanderings of the christian church is oozing everywhere); But 4 is not only harsh but the arguments are incoherent with other reviews they usually do... The non intrusive very light hidden roles mechanic and deal system brillantly does what few big euros fail to do: which is to make the game crazy fun... Its even a contender for game of the year for originality, theme integration and the very clever use of standard goods to VP mechanics, in my book... Anyway not that reviewers have responsablities but when you are the Dice Tower and give a game 4, you know you are sending it to the discount bins and here I am sorry but no, the arguments dont work and I could list probably hundreds of more than very meh games you guys rate 7 and plus... I am and will continue to be a great fan of yours, keep up the awesome work, but here it is very uncalled for to a point where I question myself on the motivations... Anyway!
Or, and hear me out, perhaps it's just that we have a difference of opinions. There are no motivations here, other than us giving thoughts on a game.
Sure no harm here - Again, just that 4 is really baaaaaaaad ... With the monumental and deserved respect, authority and prominence of the Dice Tower in the hobby, the early review murdered the game.... To be fair I wasnt implying anything profondly bad, just that I believe Mr Vasel was/is involved with the church... What message would a 9.5 send with that theme? Again, I am not saying the intention was bad. But look am a huge fan of yours, really ... That wont change! Keep up the good work!
Tom your rating seems too high to be honest ;). I expected something even lower after what you said.
Uh oh............this was one of my most anticipated games of the year........but these criticisms are big concerns. Potentially too much fath with too much punishing Euro-ness...... also how do you not like heavy Euros that are crazy punishing and yet like Eclipse? :P
How can you have too much punishing euro-ness?
Tom dropped his rating on sentinels of the multiverse. You can’t trust him anymore the broken meeple.. hehe.
Too much fath?
My most anticipated game as well, and I would take this review with a grain of salt based on the playthrough.
@@LeeStoneman Not sure on spelling but it's a slang term, basically too much fiddliness or messing around with little things.
IMO this is one of those games where you know once you see it if it's for you. Definitely not my type of game, looks incredibly unfun.
I agree, although I'm probably on the other end of the spectrum. I'm optimistic I'll have a blast with it.
@@ThaineFurrows I hope you love it!
This review is terrible. You can build on turn one with debt. You guys played it one game and you played it wrong. You didn't mention the cultist role at all except to show their chest. I genuinely hate this review, don't waste our time after playing a single game. Horribly lazy "review", this is a first impression not a review.
Unsurprised, the playthrough was entertaining in spite of the game (which looked miserable)
I love the DT and i am a fan since like 2010 but this simply concerns me. How can you review such a deep game after one play?! It should be called „first impressions” or smth but not a „review”… 4 is a really harsh rating and it can really affect the games future. I dont feel you did the game justice. This just seems really rushed to me. Hope this doesnt become a trend for the DT.
LOL cry more
good lord, this game looks fiddly AF, and those structures will eventually break and become useless after a few plays. I think ill pass.
I have the game and can tell you "these structures" are pretty sturdy.
you lost me at 1 minute in with "you have to use this app." automatically not interested.
Seriously, you guys make me laugh. As soon as this is not KoOl MaRvEl StUfF or a game that heads a bit towards a different direction than your casual euro, then it's not in your alley... maybe you guys should get a more diverse panel instead of making some meaningless criticism. It really becomes on the verge of being pathetic.
I really expect more meaningful thoughts from Dice Tower, especially for games like this that have the audacity of trying something different
How would you define a "more diverse panel"?
@@DTChrisYi I imagine one of two things: 1) put someone who likes this game on there, which would defeat the purpose of being objective or 2) Vincent himself would like to replace your seat, Chris. From there, he will attempt a coup from inside The Dice Tower having successfully made a deal with the Devil.
@@jonathanklabunde6639 you understand completely my evil plan! I'll gladly deal with the devil!
@@DTChrisYi firstly, the games mostly reviewed are the popular ones. I didn't see anyone going further with, say, underground Asian titles (Natsumemo or Rumble Nation being two titles I'm thinking of).
Secondly, there is no mention of games coming from, say, Ion Game Design, Splotter Spellen or Werhle Gig. Even 18xx nor wargames are just not mentioned at all! And this review clearly shows that this game was not designed for the four guys who reviewed it.
There is a huge audience for these games that Dice Tower is completely putting on the rack. With the budgets you guys have, it would be so easy to hire someone who can talk about those heavier, more niche titles.
I respect people's taste, and I like the fact that you guys are being honest. But there is a definite need for more diversity.
I love when people say the app which is absolutely essential to play the game is “free”. It isn’t really- you need to pay for the device that can run the app as a first off, and then I suspect the app developers didn’t give their time, labour and expertise gratis- their costs will be rolled into the other costs for the game.
Yeah I also always buy a phone just for my boardgames.
@@jesuszockt3531 not everyone can afford fancy smart phones, thereby excluding those on low incomes from the game completely, such that a once fairly easily accessible and inexpensive hobby becomes the preserve of those on higher incomes. The main point I was making is the fact that it is not “free”. It is an expensive luxury item that most of us, especially at this time with soaring inflation, fuel prices and basic foodstuffs becoming unaffordable cannot purchase. Of course I am not expecting board game companies to run as charities. That would be silly.
I'm pretty sure if you can't afford basic foodstuffs, you shouldn't be buying Deal with the Devil. You're making a straw argument here.
@@tozmom615 Of course the costs of making the app are integrated into the price of the game. But this game isn't really more expensive than comparable games without apps. Games are more expensive nowadays because they are far better produced than 20 or 30 years ago. And if you struggle with your money you shouldn't buy boardgames anyway as they are a luxury.
Didn’t realise I would upset so many folk with money. I, personally am doing financially ok thanks- but I buy board games for people in my local community who would otherwise not be able to engage with our hobby so they can spend their money on food and fuel etc. it’s something I like to do - it’s good for teaching socialisation and other higher order cognitive skills, but I can’t afford to buy mobile phones for the kids. I’m not made of money.
When did board gaming become such an unwelcoming hobby?