One of the things I really like about Dice Tower reviews is that even when someone likes or dislikes something about a game, they almost always spell out their reasons well enough that I can decide whether or not it is a good fit for me. I particularly like the 4 Squares Reviews with multiple people for that reason. The Dice Tower has put together a great team of people for individual and group reviews.
@Gankatron 5000 he played more than the rest, who played once This is a game that experienced players discard after one game. But enjoy more after subsequent plays. I already saw 2 of my 5 usual players do this ;). But they don't love it, jut like it
@@Polovene I recently (FINALLY) got this to the table, twice in a row even, and had a similar experience, where there was some floundering in the first game, then for the second I chose a more complex rogue and put the "boring" townsfolk back in the box, then it seemed like everyone enjoyed that second game so much more. Don't think I'll ever use the "basic" setup again.
Totally on board with Mike here. I think Tom and Zee's scores reflect a short amount of time with the game. There is much more control to the main board than they let on. Plus there are a ton of variants to suit your play style. My wife loves multiplayer solitaire and I found each mini game to be a fun puzzle. And I also think it's important to note that when you know how other merchants play, it is possible to try and send a different boat to dock knowing it will take your opponent longer to adjust than you. And we found the game to be a relatively easy teach. I was even able to get my parents to play this one. We're loving it!
They all have great opinions, but I really appreciate how clear and concise Chris Yi is with his expressing himself. He’s good at avoiding extra words and repetition.
I knew I liked you, Mike! Lol. Love this game at 2 players- quick, speedy, little downtime. For those who are not interested in something like Root or a COIN game, this is a perfect balance. Much lighter and easier barrier to entry.
I totally agree, Jenn. I've played all four characters from the base game and had a blast with them. This is a game to watch, especially with the variety to be had here. This design is so unique that it offers a number of mechanics but only focuses the players on one major mechanic at a time. For some that might be boring, but for others it might be just enough that it's not overwhelming.
I thought the review portion was great, I skipped the overview but will rewatch it. Really see where people fall into how much they like it. As for me, well, Mike's stick together I initially rated MC 8.5. I think for solo theres great control over the main board when placing and trying to deny the Peddler. I'll get this a multipler game in soon, just want to learn the boards for a smoother teach.
Central game actually reminds Imhotep a lot: very similar mechanic of "different players choose the contents of the boat, and it can sail once it's filled". It seems either Tom's tastes changed from the time he reviewed Imhotep, or here this decision has far more consequences. I think this is a great game to teach different mechanics to people, and to play it several times in one evening, where everyone is switching roles. I'd say it's a decent "next step" (not quite gateway, but the one after that) game, but probably not for hardcore gamers.
Agree. The boat mechanism and the strategy behind WHEN you dock, with which customer composition, and where you dock it, is generally what people love most. How you run your shop and produce goods is directly tethered to that strategy too. If other people dock, you need to adjust. And you’ve also got the townsfolk and guild halls to consider. So that was the most surprising negative feedback for me personally. We’ve been finding that 1st time players focus a lot on their personal shop and almost find the market strategy to be secondary or just “going through the motions” but that’s how you lose ;). Granted that’s a fair critique of the design too, if that’s what’s happening to first time players. So I am taking that in to my brain.
So happy to hear feedback like this. Definitely was hoping that households and newer game groups could sit down and find their favorite merchants and have an accessible light weight euro experience, and something with a unique twist. Obviously the low scores from Tom and Zee sting a bit but we are so happy this is finding a warm reception with players. Thank you Mike for digging down a couple layers in to the more subtle main board / market strategy and fun factor of the “gimmick.” ;)
I agree with Mike, there are some cleverness, someee..... interactions with the meeples for the boats, we love playing Merchants Cove- once you play, it's not too complex, but fair not everyone enjoys it.
So weird. Zee said the components were "servicable" and didn't really like them. Great cardboard stands and boats, gems, amazing art, minis, great insert, screen printed meeples... What are we expecting these days? Wow, hard to please.
I've played this game three times, and Tom is dead wrong about the main board game play. The pull of the meeples from the bag caused great hilarity, especially when I made sure that no grey (rogue) meeple went to the black market dock, thereby closing it. You have to pay attention to what everyone else is doing.
I think expectations were pretty high for some. When talking about asymmetry, most will think of Root or Vast which are much more difficult to teach than this one. Also goes to show that certain games aren't for everyone. I do understand the negativity but the boat manipulation adds that certain tension as you know what goods the other merchants have. Do you fill the boat that could benefit them by selling them 2 red goods for the 3 red meeples on that dock? That may make you change the way you use your merchants to produce goods. I'm with Mike here. The game has its uniqueness and charm to it. Maybe it's because I like The Mico's art. I do like how each merchant plays. Thanks for the review guys.
Agree with Mike love this game. Just so much fun having to do something new each play. Some people I play games with will do the same thing every play of a certain game. This makes you view it differently every time. I am usually where Zee and Tom are with wanting a deep experience, but this was just a blast.
But what about after you have had a coupe of games with each "side"? Would you rate the different characters differently as a fun factor? I really dislike the idea of 3 people having fun but the 4th one being bored out of his mind.
@@zippystar well that can happen with any game with starting powers or goals. Scythe my favorite game of all time has them and there are two I prefer and a couple that are a hard pass. I of course enjoy the game more when I get the ones I prefer. That does not mean I like the game less because of it.
One of my most anticipated games and this doesn't tarnish that at all... I think my family is going to love it as much as Mike. Mine is still in shrink wrap, but should hit the table soon.
This was interesting because I actually think this game is pretty thematic for a euro. I fall in Mike’s camp but do certainly understand the criticisms from Zee and Tom mostly. This game has an expectations problem.
I didn't have a hard time teaching that game to others. I explained the main mechanism and then went to the less experienced player to explain him his merchant. In the meantime the other players read their rules and so we could start really quick with the first round. And the people really liked that game. Even more than the other games we played at that evening. They especially liked the randomness of the customers and the influence the merchants could have on the boats with the rogue cards. The turns are fast and when everyone knows the game, you could play it in just 1 hour. And with 7 Merchants everyone could find a favorite. I'm personally like the Dragon Rancher, The Oracle and The Chronomancer. I also just used the main box and one expansion box for all components, but I agree with Zee about the components. That cardboard stuff isn't that good and I was a little disappointed in that.
Saying it's not Terra Mystica makes it more appealing! Sounds like something I'd play but not buy, but I'll see after I get a chance to try it once we have meetups again.
Absolutely. This game to me is anti Terra mystica: it's gorgeous, quick, light and fun Terra mystica is a game for those who feel that want to show they are 'smart players'.. Then when they play a lot, they do bidding for first player and ban races. That says plenty
On team Mike/Chris for this game. I got to play it once at a convention and was sold. I only knew about the asymmetry going in, so I didn't have any expectations to be disappointed by. Yes, i wish the time track was more interesting but with only 3 short rounds to the game it feels good to work out those back-to-back turns.
It's so weird how many comments there are saying that Tom/Zee are "wrong" or that Mike is "right" when none of them really counter anything that they identify as a negative to them. They gave solid reasons for their opinions. Heck, Mike even said he agreed with their points. If those things don't bother you, that's awesome, but it doesn't make their opinions "wrong".
This is an absolutely fantastic game and we agree with Mike all the way. This game is not “Meh” or “Flat”. There is a great deal of content, great replay-ability and awesome mechanics. We respect others opinions but these are ours.
After looking at characters, I just linked the how to play video to my players with their chosen characters. Made the game smoother, but not without some road bumps.
In spite of Tom's and Zee's ratings, this looks like a game I would enjoy a lot. I'm regretting not backing the Kickstarter. If Mike likes the solo mode, I'll likely pick up the retail version.
I would much rather see the inverse of a game - the central board being full of different mini games. Maybe playing as the customers coming to the Cove and interacting with these diverse merchants would be much better?
My head is spinning! This review surprised me more than any review I've watched lately, I need to try this game a couple times. Most games I feel like I know what I'm getting going in whereas after watching gameplay and hearing the opinions of everyone I'm intrigued/skeptical at the same time so I'll try it first if I get a chance. Loved the mixed message and I'm not being sarcastic I don't think. Obviously left me a bit confused but Tom has a tendency to have that effect on me, it's a good thing.
I can understand how Zee and Tom may have been missold by the promise of this game, but I also don't think it was ever positioned as being "4 heavyweight euros in a box". The art alone, I think, tells you this is a casual experience and not "buckle up, you're about to Terra Mystica". To me it seems a great learning tool, helping people to know which mechanics they enjoy and thus what game they should play next. I was never really sold on Potion Explosion, perhaps this game will change my mind, perhaps it wont.
Good comments. As someone who likes potion explosion and this, I would say, If you didn't like potion explosion, this wont change that. It's, like they said, a "mini game" version. I agree though, their expectations wrecked it for them. It was what I expected, and I loved it.
I don't understand the negativity surrounding the rules. This game is really easy to teach. I give any new player a character I've played before and most of what you need to follow is on the player board.
I really like the game. I found it relatively easy to learn and I learned the base game, all the merchants (base and expansion). It's a fun, lightweight game with fun mechanics for each player. My family has enjoyed this quite a bit :D
I’d like this twice if I could. I love hearing all the stories of this being a hit with families. That was a big design goal, that it would be accessible for a wide range of players. I didn’t set out to design a “gimmick” of course, I wanted to provide a new experience for a broad base. Thank you 🙏.
Seems like a game that would be really good for groups that like to play the same game a bunch of times but if your group is constantly switching games it might be a bit hard to get into after long hiatuses
As far as storage, I have packed the game plus expansions in the main box plus the Secret Stash box (smaller, 7 Wonders Duel size), so doesn't fill up too much space. I have also enjoyed the game and have to admit that some of it is the meta of the design, appreciating the multiple individual board mechanisms. I think Chris's mini-game comment is spot on, but not a negative to me. I would have liked a bit more interaction on the main board, so I wouldn't go 8.5, but it is a solid 7 to me. Question on the ratings, though. Tom, do you need to go back to your rating on 504? It is at a 6, but this game, which you stated is not as much of a turkey as 504, is at 5?
I seem to have an easier time with Mikes rules explenation than Toms. Tom feels a little rushed and Mike is a little more in depth which is what I prefer. I have been watching Toms reviews for a long time and for some reason there are points that I don't catch. I like the four square reviews though. Keep up the good work.
The arguments that the other characters don't matter that they are different is a bit weird to me. Sure another player playing different character doesn't matter to other players in the game, but it does make _your_ separate games different for _you_ . I can play marbles today, and dice placement tomorrow.
They have to matter on a per game basis for it to make sense. Look at Root for instance. Otherwise they have to make sure each "mini-game" stands up on its own without player interaction and while being worth the much more difficult teach, and that's an extremely difficult task they're not likely to achieve.
@@corvus418 It is a more difficult game to teach, and maybe it's not a game for casual groups that want to play game once and be done with it. But for a group that plays the games multiple times this also give everyone a bit different way to play the game each time.
Indeed but I can see their point about the multiplayer solitaire problem. Having four very distinct factions that don't interact at all does dilute the necessity to have them be different in the first place. And if each faction is just essentially a mini version of a game that's already done it and possibly better, what else do you focus on?
@@TheBrokenMeeple The main market / boats / townsfolk / clock / guildhall are all points of interaction, of varying degrees. When you pull meeples (the clock), where you place them and how you dock them, reacting to others doing the same, building up your tableau and shop engine with the townsfolk, and unlocking sponsorships to best match the guild hall populations (both positive points and negative / corruption points). Much of the secret stash content will ramp this up, and also help adjust luck / agency factors to various tastes. The point of the mini games being different is because it's fun, not necessary. One of the unique elements that players like most about the game is exploring the various merchants, their mini games, and seeing who can win the most with each merchant within the main market. Some will say that's a gimmick (fair), but the intent was innovative fun. Personally I think excessive arbitrary minis are a gimmick, some love them. ;) No, it's not a heavy weight. It not a wargame, and the merchants can't ransack other shops or impact opposing shops directly (lots of people would find that unfun).
Best description for the deviation in scores summed up by Zee at 26:00. Here is the reason for the lower scores; the game has X and Y, we wanted more X so it got a lower score. They liked the Y to carry the game with a higher score.
It’s sad to see Asymmetric games seen in so many of the same ways. Games like this require multiple plays for full enjoyment (not for me though, I enjoy them from first play) and people just want a new game too soon that these can be passed up. For those that don’t think the game has strategy or isn’t “deep” I will beat them with my Dragon Rancher 😂 good review!
Yeah, but multiple plays within the exact same group of people, in this day and age, that's not an easy thing to manage. Frequently you'll have new players or have to take time between games and the inherent nature of a true assymetrical game is that if one player doesn't know what they're doing, the balance is thrown off. It's one I want to try, but I wasn't hyped for it.
I kinda agree with the gang here, based on all the info I collected. Wonderful production values, great variety regarding individual mini-games, but it just doesn't seem to work as a cohesive whole.
I feel like the game would have been more interesting if the different "shops" interacted more with the main board. Only the inkeeper (If I rememember correctly) has a mechanism that involve people on the boats going to their shop or something. I love Root and was very interested in this one at first for its asymmetry and theme, but none of the mini games got me excited when watching videos of it...most reviews say the same thing...a lighter than expected "ok" game
I don’t understand everybody’s issue with the seals, as though somebody else not enjoying the game as much invalidates Mike’s enjoyment?? The more seals the merrier, they help grow the hobby. Why does it matter so much to viewers, as though what they gain from the whole video stands or falls on the last five seconds when the seal appears on the screen. I’m really grateful to get four valuable opinions on the game, including the opinions from the three that didn’t enjoy it as much because without the 4 squares review you wouldn’t get to hear those other three. The only improvement would be to do 5 squares reviews!! Next time?
I think all four had valid points which left me interested but not ready to spend the cash on a pretty expensive game. I was really intrigued by the time mechanic. Are there any other good games that do something similar?
just want to say this is by far my favorite intro music and intro graphic set from the dice tower formats. kudos as I always enjoy the entry to this series. :)
Great review... It weird Tom complaint about teaching each people the mini game while he seems to have no issue with Root the game which is more complex to teach.
I'll admit that I was initially drawn to this game entirely by the gimmick. Asymmetric games are really not all that common and don't have a lot of prestige other than things like Root. But at the same time, I find a lot of eurogames to be incredibly dry and bland and flat. Regardless of the depth of the gameplay, I don't find the theme or the presentation all that exciting. This, to me, just screams colorful fun, and has a kind of lighthearted whimsy that really grabs me. And while the central market manipulation board can be heavily under the thumb of randomness, that can be said of a lot of games. You still have the power to work your own personal mechanics to make the best of what randomness gives you. And if other people fill up a boat, you can go for filling up a different one. You plan, and then you adapt. Definitely in Mike's camp on this one.
Tom has discussed this in a previous 4 Square comment. If Mike were to review this on his own and gave it a Seal of Excellence, you wouldn't know what everyone else's score was. We don't average any other reviews. I ga e On Mars a 9, everyone else doesn't even want to play it. What should that average out to? Haha
@@DTChrisYi Honestly, it comes down to the level of trust we have in the process. If we accept Mike as trustworthy of distinguishing what deserves a Seal of Approval vs a Seal of Excellence (and we do accept that), and Mike truly believes in his heart of hearts that this deserves the rare diasctintion of the Seal of Excellence, then so be it. But flip it around, what if you had three high scores and one really low one? The low score wouldn’t prevent the Seal being given. Why does the high score win in this case, but the low score doesn’t also stop it? Given this disparity, it’s hard to accept that outlier high scores be counted as such in this context (emphasis on “in this context”). I think given that you are four people who are doing a four-person review, it needs a four-person score. Or at the very least, the final slate on your video should be couched with the dice cartoon face of each person and their rating including any seals as applicable. That context would help.
@@DullDishwater The high score wins out in both of your cases, so that's how we've decided to make things consistent. I know it can't be consistent in all ways, but it still feels useful to the viewer. We do show the scores as each person gives them, so viewers can see who gives each score there. It's fairly close to your recommendation, so people can see who particularly gave it which score.
@@DullDishwater... its impossible to please everyone. If you think a game deserving of a SoE needs to have the majority of Dice Tower employees rating it high, when TDT is already a small group of people in a subsection of a niche of a hobby... I don't know what to tell you. Really in the grand scheme of things with millions of gamers, how much of a difference is it between 1 person saying "Excellent!" instead of 3 saying it?
@@keel1701 perhaps it’s just the disparity in the different rankings here that give me pause. Three quarters of them say it was ok at best and one says it’s amazing and therefore one of the most influential groups in the hobby label it amazing? Just…odd.
Yeah I don't get why a multiplayer solitaire needs to be asymmetrical if it doesn't matter at all what the others are doing. The whole point of Root is the player interactions that arise from the asymmetrical factions.
The point of Merchants Cove =/= the point of Root. They are radically different approaches to asymmetry. I love Root, but we weren't trying to do what Root does. One of the goals of the design was to be able to play without knowing how your opponent works, but still being able to interact with them via a shared market dynamic. This game 100% cannot be played as an optimization game - you must adapt and respond to the shared market.
@@drakevillareal7772 Okay, makes sense! My first thought was that the asymmetry is sort of "wasted" if everyone is normalized before interacting at the market, but I get what you're saying and it would be quite a hurdle (like it is in Root) if you had to first learn how everyone else works. Thanks for the reply and sorry for sounding a bit rude.
It does matter what the others are doing. Tom and Zee must have been playing poorly by letting their opponents control the ships, therefore the market. The central board is entirely player interaction. Timing your actions can absolutely halt what your opponents are trying to do and help your strategy.
This video plays out like an after game discussion between the one guy who backed the game for over $100 and his three friends who he invited over to play.
Really think I'd fall into the Tom/Zee camp on this one. Looks boring and rather light/random for the length of time required and especially taking into account that every player has to become familiar with a new set of rules/mechanisms when picking a new starting character. Doesn't appeal to me at all. Which is good since there are already too many games out there that interest me! Enjoy the 4 square reviews because of the varied perspectives and discussion.
3 vs 1 and to be honest, the criticisms that the other 3 have are EXACTLY what i predicted this game would suffer from based on its concept. I get that it's trying to be clever, but that's not enough by itself, that's a trap! However I'm seeing this is getting a ton of buzz as well online. I think this will be a polarizing title for 2021.
Yes, and people keep watching on smaller and smaller screens. We'd like to do 4K, but there isn't a huge outcry for it, and it would cause our upload and rendering time to be 5x as long.
Even in a video where you have people saying it is a good game and people saying it is a meh game you still have dislikes on the video. Humans, man: not even once.
I think I will not buy it because I heard it's a multiplayer solitaire, where everyone playing his own (boring) minigame and at the end someone wins (no interaction). I will surely try it out if someone brings it on the table, but buy it? I guess no.
Hmm this seems like a game that most experienced players will discard after 1 play for not being 'demanding' enough. They would not try those extra modules that are crucial to make the most satisfying decisions with those customers/boats I think many newer gamers will like it and it could be a great entry to assymetrical games
Okay... what is with the scores of: 5, 5, 6.5, and 8.5 equaling the Dice Tower Seal of excellence!? I get that the seal rating is subjective too, but that seems an odd conclusion given the scores just before it!
This is how it always works. Think if Mike had done the review by himself, and given it the seal. You wouldn't have thought twice about it. Just because three other people showed up doesn't negate his rating.
I so nervous! I backed the all in b/c this seems so innovative, seemed like Root, but to hear there is barely interaction, my asymmetry isn’t directly played out onto the board, and these are just mini games I’m not sure how I’ll enjoy this. I hear Tom and not getting a chance to manipulate the boats may lead to him losing but I hate how my game can be messed up and I had no control over that; personally thinking of Tiny Towns and Quacks. Maybe I will be like Mike and despite some of these critiques I will like the mini games enough to keep playing idk. Seems like after you play each character 2-3 times they would be stale. You may say well that is 3x6 (idk how man characters with expansions) that is 18 plays and what game today gets 18 plays, let alone 18 close enough you remember everything perfectly enough for it not to feel new. Idk.
Being blunt, if you are expecting a heavy game, or a wargame like Root, it may not be your cup of tea. The Innkeeper, Dragon Rancher, and Chronomancer will have the most agency but the "higher luck" characters will - as intended - often have lower floors and higher ceilings. The hope was to let players rotate, experiment, and find their "mercantile jam," while letting fun balance disputes percolate. ;) Whether or not you like the central interactions around the loading, docking, and adjustment to boats - I do not know, but in our experience lots of people do. When and where you dock, and how you adjust to other people loading and docking (by running your shop!) is the central game. You also need to grab the right Townsfolk to build a proper tableau, and adjust to the guildhalls populations. If the boat-loading feels too random for your tastes, or you want more boat manipulation, we've built lots of ways to adjust that in the Secret Stash. There are some good convos on BGG around that occurring too. Hope you end up liking.
It sounds like Tom was too focused on his mini-game and not paying attention to the timing of his actions on the main board. Your own actions dictate when you people on a boat. There are times you need to focus on when other players get ahead of you and might rigger the end of the round. That’s where the true interaction is.
Sounds like someone was trying to capitalize on the Root hype, but they missed the memo on the fact that the asymmetrical factions are only interesting because their differences are interwoven in the interaction.
Ok, sorry on beating on the dead horse: but I am going to call it out again. Tom: "Amazing idea but boring and didn't enjoy playing it" 5 , basically same or worse comments for Red Raising gets 6.5, Chris: "good not great" 6.5 Red Raising: "could be good" get 6.5... I guess the logo on the box gets more points. Otherwire stellar discusion, but these ratings have been irking me for quite some time. Here is a maybe a fun suggestion/challange. Do a review like this and don't mention your rating at the end. But ask people what they think you would rate the game based on what has been said in the video and compare. Again sorry for the criticism, I know these discrepancies have been around for quite some time, but lately they just hit me where I notice them more.
As for me giving both a 6.5, I'd play both again. I've had amazingly fun games of Red Rising, and I've had real clunkers. The game could be really good, but it ebs between a great play and a really rough play. How do you exactly compare that to a game that is consistently good but not great? Both are 6.5s, but that number is not the end-all-be-all of the review. I'd hope the discussion throughout matters more :)
@@DTChrisYi Thank you for the responce and setting my mind at ease. As I said love the discussion and you all hit on the right subjects/objects and I wholeheartedly agree that is what matters more.
@@thedicetower I can agree with that logic :D I just wanted both of these games to be so good... but both failing... Then again I want all games to be great :D. Thanks for taking time to respong to me. Can't wait fot the next 4 squares!
@@thedicetower That's as may be. But the first 5 minutes of Final Thoughts are still pretty much a critique of basically every asymmetrical game out there. I mean it's a fair point to say "Hey it's an asymmetric game, so be prepared for everything that goes with that" but to level criticism for 5 minutes at *this* specific title, just for being asymmetric, is a little baffling?
@@guyblin But I disagree with that! This game's schtick (as I see it) is that it IS asymmetrical. That's it! It's not so much about the game, it's about the fact that it's asymmetrical. Since it is the fundamental selling point of the game, I'm simply saying that isn't enough! I need a good game besides the fact that it's asymmetrical.
@@thedicetower Yeah and that's FINE to say that. But that's not what was said. Instead it was "hey, you have to, like, teach everyone different things!" or "Hey, you only get to play ONE asymmetric mechanic per game! What's with that?". The "schtick" isn't that it's asymmetric, it's that the mechanics are radically so. It has (on the face of it) "something for everyone", whether you're a fan of dice placement, roll'n'write, marble-fiddling... whatever. The actual gameplay isn't really that asymmetric at all - you're all producing small or large items of different colours for the same overall purpose. But the trick (witchcraft?) of any asymmetrical game is to balance the asymmetry, and they seem to have done that, haven't they? I think you all agreed on it. Maybe by being too simplistic for your tastes in the implementation of the mechanics... but the more complex you make that asymmetry in mechanical terms, the harder the whole will be to balance. And there are 7 overall traders (incl expansions - actually 8 if you include the one in the Sectret Stash), which is no mean feat, considering the mechanics at work. And surely too, with more complexity the problems of "teaching all these different things" will become even *more* of a problem? Like you, I like asymmetrical games, and I'm looking forward to playing this (in fact I like the fact it's not *too* complex as my regular group these days isn't hugely euro-experienced), but in a critique I'm looking for observations like your "I think perhaps they concentrated too much on the mechanics and gameplay suffered" or "I just find the main game boring" - that's fair play. But to criticise generic elements of asymmetrical games simply because you see that as the game's schtick is... a little irrelevant?
5, 5, 6.5, 8.5 with a Seal of Excellence? I understand the Seals are given based on the highest but the Seals are gonna lose their value entirely if this is how they're given out.
I appreciate this format and that I could see three other reviewers' opinion on the game. In the usual format, only Mike would've reviewed the game, given it a Seal of Excellence and there wouldn't have been any debate about it in the comments really other than people sharing their own experiences and opinions. In my opinion, it's fair to give the game (that it is not universally disliked) the Seal... and from what I see in the comments here, a lot of people agree with Mike. For them, the game IS excellent. Me personally, I'm relieved I didn't back it based on the other reviewers' experience. At the time that was a difficult decision as I find any game with The Mico's art very tempting. I would still like to try it based on Mike's experience.
Tom has discussed this in a previous 4 Square comment. If Mike were to review this on his own and gave it a Seal of Excellence, you wouldn't know what everyone else's score was. We don't average any other reviews. I gave On Mars a 9, everyone else doesn't even want to play it. What should that average out to? Haha.
One of the things I really like about Dice Tower reviews is that even when someone likes or dislikes something about a game, they almost always spell out their reasons well enough that I can decide whether or not it is a good fit for me. I particularly like the 4 Squares Reviews with multiple people for that reason. The Dice Tower has put together a great team of people for individual and group reviews.
@Gankatron 5000 he played more than the rest, who played once
This is a game that experienced players discard after one game. But enjoy more after subsequent plays. I already saw 2 of my 5 usual players do this ;). But they don't love it, jut like it
💯
@@Polovene I recently (FINALLY) got this to the table, twice in a row even, and had a similar experience, where there was some floundering in the first game, then for the second I chose a more complex rogue and put the "boring" townsfolk back in the box, then it seemed like everyone enjoyed that second game so much more. Don't think I'll ever use the "basic" setup again.
Totally on board with Mike here. I think Tom and Zee's scores reflect a short amount of time with the game. There is much more control to the main board than they let on. Plus there are a ton of variants to suit your play style. My wife loves multiplayer solitaire and I found each mini game to be a fun puzzle. And I also think it's important to note that when you know how other merchants play, it is possible to try and send a different boat to dock knowing it will take your opponent longer to adjust than you.
And we found the game to be a relatively easy teach. I was even able to get my parents to play this one. We're loving it!
I am so happy I listened to Mike. I just played it with 3 other people. We all LOVED it!!!
They all have great opinions, but I really appreciate how clear and concise Chris Yi is with his expressing himself. He’s good at avoiding extra words and repetition.
I knew I liked you, Mike! Lol. Love this game at 2 players- quick, speedy, little downtime. For those who are not interested in something like Root or a COIN game, this is a perfect balance. Much lighter and easier barrier to entry.
I totally agree, Jenn. I've played all four characters from the base game and had a blast with them. This is a game to watch, especially with the variety to be had here. This design is so unique that it offers a number of mechanics but only focuses the players on one major mechanic at a time. For some that might be boring, but for others it might be just enough that it's not overwhelming.
I thought the review portion was great, I skipped the overview but will rewatch it. Really see where people fall into how much they like it.
As for me, well, Mike's stick together I initially rated MC 8.5.
I think for solo theres great control over the main board when placing and trying to deny the Peddler. I'll get this a multipler game in soon, just want to learn the boards for a smoother teach.
Central game actually reminds Imhotep a lot: very similar mechanic of "different players choose the contents of the boat, and it can sail once it's filled". It seems either Tom's tastes changed from the time he reviewed Imhotep, or here this decision has far more consequences.
I think this is a great game to teach different mechanics to people, and to play it several times in one evening, where everyone is switching roles. I'd say it's a decent "next step" (not quite gateway, but the one after that) game, but probably not for hardcore gamers.
Agree. The boat mechanism and the strategy behind WHEN you dock, with which customer composition, and where you dock it, is generally what people love most. How you run your shop and produce goods is directly tethered to that strategy too. If other people dock, you need to adjust. And you’ve also got the townsfolk and guild halls to consider. So that was the most surprising negative feedback for me personally.
We’ve been finding that 1st time players focus a lot on their personal shop and almost find the market strategy to be secondary or just “going through the motions” but that’s how you lose ;).
Granted that’s a fair critique of the design too, if that’s what’s happening to first time players. So I am taking that in to my brain.
This is why I love your videos guys, many different points of view, there’s no bad board games, only different tastes.
Well there are definently bad games. If a board game had me chucking a rock at the other players to score points, think we can say its bad.
Candyland, but the theme is the Holocaust?
Love the back and forth in this review
I love the accidental 3 vs 1 seating.
Mike just taking his rightful place at the head of the table.
Very helpful review. The four of you work well together. Appreciated the friendly disagreement. Hope this style continues.
Gotta say, Mike you are so right and the others, well this game has been a massive winner in my house.
So happy to hear feedback like this. Definitely was hoping that households and newer game groups could sit down and find their favorite merchants and have an accessible light weight euro experience, and something with a unique twist. Obviously the low scores from Tom and Zee sting a bit but we are so happy this is finding a warm reception with players. Thank you Mike for digging down a couple layers in to the more subtle main board / market strategy and fun factor of the “gimmick.” ;)
Great overview, Mike. Glad you dug in enough to see the magic too. Keep up the great work 🤠👍
I agree with Mike, there are some cleverness, someee..... interactions with the meeples for the boats, we love playing Merchants Cove- once you play, it's not too complex, but fair not everyone enjoys it.
Have to agree with Mike here. After one play I went out and bought this. Yes it isn’t the deepest game on the planet but we had lots of fun.
So weird. Zee said the components were "servicable" and didn't really like them. Great cardboard stands and boats, gems, amazing art, minis, great insert, screen printed meeples... What are we expecting these days? Wow, hard to please.
I've played this game three times, and Tom is dead wrong about the main board game play. The pull of the meeples from the bag caused great hilarity, especially when I made sure that no grey (rogue) meeple went to the black market dock, thereby closing it. You have to pay attention to what everyone else is doing.
I think expectations were pretty high for some. When talking about asymmetry, most will think of Root or Vast which are much more difficult to teach than this one. Also goes to show that certain games aren't for everyone. I do understand the negativity but the boat manipulation adds that certain tension as you know what goods the other merchants have. Do you fill the boat that could benefit them by selling them 2 red goods for the 3 red meeples on that dock? That may make you change the way you use your merchants to produce goods.
I'm with Mike here. The game has its uniqueness and charm to it. Maybe it's because I like The Mico's art. I do like how each merchant plays. Thanks for the review guys.
This is a great example of why I find the 4 Square Reviews so valuable. Keep up the good work!
Agree with Mike love this game. Just so much fun having to do something new each play. Some people I play games with will do the same thing every play of a certain game. This makes you view it differently every time. I am usually where Zee and Tom are with wanting a deep experience, but this was just a blast.
But what about after you have had a coupe of games with each "side"? Would you rate the different characters differently as a fun factor? I really dislike the idea of 3 people having fun but the 4th one being bored out of his mind.
@@zippystar well that can happen with any game with starting powers or goals. Scythe my favorite game of all time has them and there are two I prefer and a couple that are a hard pass. I of course enjoy the game more when I get the ones I prefer. That does not mean I like the game less because of it.
Awesome review! So good to see different perspectives!
One of my most anticipated games and this doesn't tarnish that at all... I think my family is going to love it as much as Mike. Mine is still in shrink wrap, but should hit the table soon.
This was interesting because I actually think this game is pretty thematic for a euro. I fall in Mike’s camp but do certainly understand the criticisms from Zee and Tom mostly. This game has an expectations problem.
I didn't have a hard time teaching that game to others. I explained the main mechanism and then went to the less experienced player to explain him his merchant. In the meantime the other players read their rules and so we could start really quick with the first round.
And the people really liked that game. Even more than the other games we played at that evening.
They especially liked the randomness of the customers and the influence the merchants could have on the boats with the rogue cards.
The turns are fast and when everyone knows the game, you could play it in just 1 hour. And with 7 Merchants everyone could find a favorite. I'm personally like the Dragon Rancher, The Oracle and The Chronomancer.
I also just used the main box and one expansion box for all components, but I agree with Zee about the components. That cardboard stuff isn't that good and I was a little disappointed in that.
Wow never disagreed with both Tom and see in the same video before lol Mikes right on this one.
Saying it's not Terra Mystica makes it more appealing! Sounds like something I'd play but not buy, but I'll see after I get a chance to try it once we have meetups again.
Agree hate Terra mystica
Absolutely. This game to me is anti Terra mystica: it's gorgeous, quick, light and fun
Terra mystica is a game for those who feel that want to show they are 'smart players'.. Then when they play a lot, they do bidding for first player and ban races. That says plenty
On team Mike/Chris for this game. I got to play it once at a convention and was sold. I only knew about the asymmetry going in, so I didn't have any expectations to be disappointed by. Yes, i wish the time track was more interesting but with only 3 short rounds to the game it feels good to work out those back-to-back turns.
It's so weird how many comments there are saying that Tom/Zee are "wrong" or that Mike is "right" when none of them really counter anything that they identify as a negative to them. They gave solid reasons for their opinions. Heck, Mike even said he agreed with their points. If those things don't bother you, that's awesome, but it doesn't make their opinions "wrong".
This is an absolutely fantastic game and we agree with Mike all the way. This game is not “Meh” or “Flat”. There is a great deal of content, great replay-ability and awesome mechanics. We respect others opinions but these are ours.
After looking at characters, I just linked the how to play video to my players with their chosen characters. Made the game smoother, but not without some road bumps.
In spite of Tom's and Zee's ratings, this looks like a game I would enjoy a lot. I'm regretting not backing the Kickstarter. If Mike likes the solo mode, I'll likely pick up the retail version.
I would much rather see the inverse of a game - the central board being full of different mini games. Maybe playing as the customers coming to the Cove and interacting with these diverse merchants would be much better?
Tom with the greatest closing line, "Have fun... selling stuff" 😂
I’m definitely in Mike’s camp on this one. It’s an 8 or better as a solo or a multiplayer game.
My head is spinning! This review surprised me more than any review I've watched lately, I need to try this game a couple times. Most games I feel like I know what I'm getting going in whereas after watching gameplay and hearing the opinions of everyone I'm intrigued/skeptical at the same time so I'll try it first if I get a chance. Loved the mixed message and I'm not being sarcastic I don't think. Obviously left me a bit confused but Tom has a tendency to have that effect on me, it's a good thing.
Zee is BACK! WooHoo!!!
I can understand how Zee and Tom may have been missold by the promise of this game, but I also don't think it was ever positioned as being "4 heavyweight euros in a box". The art alone, I think, tells you this is a casual experience and not "buckle up, you're about to Terra Mystica". To me it seems a great learning tool, helping people to know which mechanics they enjoy and thus what game they should play next. I was never really sold on Potion Explosion, perhaps this game will change my mind, perhaps it wont.
Good comments. As someone who likes potion explosion and this, I would say, If you didn't like potion explosion, this wont change that. It's, like they said, a "mini game" version. I agree though, their expectations wrecked it for them. It was what I expected, and I loved it.
I don't understand the negativity surrounding the rules. This game is really easy to teach. I give any new player a character I've played before and most of what you need to follow is on the player board.
Love the 4 Squares... keep up the great work! Super curious game especially to see what the expansions bring to the mix!
I really like the game. I found it relatively easy to learn and I learned the base game, all the merchants (base and expansion). It's a fun, lightweight game with fun mechanics for each player. My family has enjoyed this quite a bit :D
I’d like this twice if I could. I love hearing all the stories of this being a hit with families. That was a big design goal, that it would be accessible for a wide range of players. I didn’t set out to design a “gimmick” of course, I wanted to provide a new experience for a broad base. Thank you 🙏.
I agree with Mike on this one.
I think Mike would be the only one of these 4 that I would enjoy playing a game with.
I was expecting more a 6 from Zee and Tom than a 5 based on what they said but it's just a number.
I agree with Mike here.....I have a weakness for assymetrical games. I've played it in on TTS and was enought to get me to preorder.
Seems like a game that would be really good for groups that like to play the same game a bunch of times but if your group is constantly switching games it might be a bit hard to get into after long hiatuses
This
I am really excited about this game, I think the replay ability is a huge seller.
totally agree with Mike, 8.5
As far as storage, I have packed the game plus expansions in the main box plus the Secret Stash box (smaller, 7 Wonders Duel size), so doesn't fill up too much space. I have also enjoyed the game and have to admit that some of it is the meta of the design, appreciating the multiple individual board mechanisms. I think Chris's mini-game comment is spot on, but not a negative to me. I would have liked a bit more interaction on the main board, so I wouldn't go 8.5, but it is a solid 7 to me. Question on the ratings, though. Tom, do you need to go back to your rating on 504? It is at a 6, but this game, which you stated is not as much of a turkey as 504, is at 5?
I seem to have an easier time with Mikes rules explenation than Toms. Tom feels a little rushed and Mike is a little more in depth which is what I prefer. I have been watching Toms reviews for a long time and for some reason there are points that I don't catch. I like the four square reviews though. Keep up the good work.
The arguments that the other characters don't matter that they are different is a bit weird to me. Sure another player playing different character doesn't matter to other players in the game, but it does make _your_ separate games different for _you_ . I can play marbles today, and dice placement tomorrow.
They have to matter on a per game basis for it to make sense. Look at Root for instance. Otherwise they have to make sure each "mini-game" stands up on its own without player interaction and while being worth the much more difficult teach, and that's an extremely difficult task they're not likely to achieve.
@@corvus418 It is a more difficult game to teach, and maybe it's not a game for casual groups that want to play game once and be done with it. But for a group that plays the games multiple times this also give everyone a bit different way to play the game each time.
Indeed but I can see their point about the multiplayer solitaire problem. Having four very distinct factions that don't interact at all does dilute the necessity to have them be different in the first place. And if each faction is just essentially a mini version of a game that's already done it and possibly better, what else do you focus on?
@@TheBrokenMeeple The main market / boats / townsfolk / clock / guildhall are all points of interaction, of varying degrees. When you pull meeples (the clock), where you place them and how you dock them, reacting to others doing the same, building up your tableau and shop engine with the townsfolk, and unlocking sponsorships to best match the guild hall populations (both positive points and negative / corruption points). Much of the secret stash content will ramp this up, and also help adjust luck / agency factors to various tastes. The point of the mini games being different is because it's fun, not necessary. One of the unique elements that players like most about the game is exploring the various merchants, their mini games, and seeing who can win the most with each merchant within the main market. Some will say that's a gimmick (fair), but the intent was innovative fun. Personally I think excessive arbitrary minis are a gimmick, some love them. ;) No, it's not a heavy weight. It not a wargame, and the merchants can't ransack other shops or impact opposing shops directly (lots of people would find that unfun).
Agree with Mike on this one!
Best description for the deviation in scores summed up by Zee at 26:00. Here is the reason for the lower scores; the game has X and Y, we wanted more X so it got a lower score. They liked the Y to carry the game with a higher score.
Love the big spread, more games ya'll disagree on please!
Never clicked on a review that quick xD Been waiting to hear your opinions ...and for the game to arrive...for ages xD
It’s sad to see Asymmetric games seen in so many of the same ways. Games like this require multiple plays for full enjoyment (not for me though, I enjoy them from first play) and people just want a new game too soon that these can be passed up. For those that don’t think the game has strategy or isn’t “deep” I will beat them with my Dragon Rancher 😂 good review!
Yeah, but multiple plays within the exact same group of people, in this day and age, that's not an easy thing to manage. Frequently you'll have new players or have to take time between games and the inherent nature of a true assymetrical game is that if one player doesn't know what they're doing, the balance is thrown off. It's one I want to try, but I wasn't hyped for it.
I think like mike. Its a great kind if game
Damn. That's dispointed. I was really hoping to see this game of the year contender.
I still need to play it
I kinda agree with the gang here, based on all the info I collected. Wonderful production values, great variety regarding individual mini-games, but it just doesn't seem to work as a cohesive whole.
I feel like the game would have been more interesting if the different "shops" interacted more with the main board. Only the inkeeper (If I rememember correctly) has a mechanism that involve people on the boats going to their shop or something.
I love Root and was very interested in this one at first for its asymmetry and theme, but none of the mini games got me excited when watching videos of it...most reviews say the same thing...a lighter than expected "ok" game
I don’t understand everybody’s issue with the seals, as though somebody else not enjoying the game as much invalidates Mike’s enjoyment?? The more seals the merrier, they help grow the hobby. Why does it matter so much to viewers, as though what they gain from the whole video stands or falls on the last five seconds when the seal appears on the screen. I’m really grateful to get four valuable opinions on the game, including the opinions from the three that didn’t enjoy it as much because without the 4 squares review you wouldn’t get to hear those other three. The only improvement would be to do 5 squares reviews!! Next time?
I think all four had valid points which left me interested but not ready to spend the cash on a pretty expensive game. I was really intrigued by the time mechanic. Are there any other good games that do something similar?
Since nobody has replied to you I’ll jump in. Thebes and Auztralia come to mind for games I like that have a time track.
Glen More is an excellent time track game.
just want to say this is by far my favorite intro music and intro graphic set from the dice tower formats. kudos as I always enjoy the entry to this series. :)
Great review... It weird Tom complaint about teaching each people the mini game while he seems to have no issue with Root the game which is more complex to teach.
For me it(s in my top 10. I really love it.
I'll admit that I was initially drawn to this game entirely by the gimmick. Asymmetric games are really not all that common and don't have a lot of prestige other than things like Root. But at the same time, I find a lot of eurogames to be incredibly dry and bland and flat. Regardless of the depth of the gameplay, I don't find the theme or the presentation all that exciting. This, to me, just screams colorful fun, and has a kind of lighthearted whimsy that really grabs me.
And while the central market manipulation board can be heavily under the thumb of randomness, that can be said of a lot of games. You still have the power to work your own personal mechanics to make the best of what randomness gives you. And if other people fill up a boat, you can go for filling up a different one. You plan, and then you adapt.
Definitely in Mike's camp on this one.
What if after every merchant/selling phase everyone switches factions. That way you could play 3 different mini games?
Does it get an excellence seal cause of mikes vote? I thought i´d be a medium point between rates!
So there was a Pre-Merv/Post-Merv Zee. Is there now a Pre-Merchants Cove/Post-Merchants Cove Mike?
Great review guys
This game is bag of new games.... and Mike is an cult of the new junky :D
Mike delicious is the voice of my people.
Love the 4 Squares Reviews, but does one person rating it highly qualify it for a Seal of Excellence? Why not a median or average score?
Tom has discussed this in a previous 4 Square comment. If Mike were to review this on his own and gave it a Seal of Excellence, you wouldn't know what everyone else's score was. We don't average any other reviews. I ga e On Mars a 9, everyone else doesn't even want to play it. What should that average out to? Haha
@@DTChrisYi Honestly, it comes down to the level of trust we have in the process. If we accept Mike as trustworthy of distinguishing what deserves a Seal of Approval vs a Seal of Excellence (and we do accept that), and Mike truly believes in his heart of hearts that this deserves the rare diasctintion of the Seal of Excellence, then so be it.
But flip it around, what if you had three high scores and one really low one? The low score wouldn’t prevent the Seal being given. Why does the high score win in this case, but the low score doesn’t also stop it? Given this disparity, it’s hard to accept that outlier high scores be counted as such in this context (emphasis on “in this context”). I think given that you are four people who are doing a four-person review, it needs a four-person score.
Or at the very least, the final slate on your video should be couched with the dice cartoon face of each person and their rating including any seals as applicable. That context would help.
@@DullDishwater The high score wins out in both of your cases, so that's how we've decided to make things consistent. I know it can't be consistent in all ways, but it still feels useful to the viewer. We do show the scores as each person gives them, so viewers can see who gives each score there. It's fairly close to your recommendation, so people can see who particularly gave it which score.
@@DullDishwater... its impossible to please everyone. If you think a game deserving of a SoE needs to have the majority of Dice Tower employees rating it high, when TDT is already a small group of people in a subsection of a niche of a hobby... I don't know what to tell you.
Really in the grand scheme of things with millions of gamers, how much of a difference is it between 1 person saying "Excellent!" instead of 3 saying it?
@@keel1701 perhaps it’s just the disparity in the different rankings here that give me pause. Three quarters of them say it was ok at best and one says it’s amazing and therefore one of the most influential groups in the hobby label it amazing? Just…odd.
Yeah I don't get why a multiplayer solitaire needs to be asymmetrical if it doesn't matter at all what the others are doing. The whole point of Root is the player interactions that arise from the asymmetrical factions.
The point of Merchants Cove =/= the point of Root. They are radically different approaches to asymmetry. I love Root, but we weren't trying to do what Root does. One of the goals of the design was to be able to play without knowing how your opponent works, but still being able to interact with them via a shared market dynamic. This game 100% cannot be played as an optimization game - you must adapt and respond to the shared market.
@@drakevillareal7772 Okay, makes sense! My first thought was that the asymmetry is sort of "wasted" if everyone is normalized before interacting at the market, but I get what you're saying and it would be quite a hurdle (like it is in Root) if you had to first learn how everyone else works. Thanks for the reply and sorry for sounding a bit rude.
@@pajander No worries! Thanks for the interest in the game :)
It does matter what the others are doing. Tom and Zee must have been playing poorly by letting their opponents control the ships, therefore the market. The central board is entirely player interaction. Timing your actions can absolutely halt what your opponents are trying to do and help your strategy.
The different characters give it replayabilty
This video plays out like an after game discussion between the one guy who backed the game for over $100 and his three friends who he invited over to play.
Someone needs to design the game, where you combine two of these minigames per player. Then we're talking.
Really think I'd fall into the Tom/Zee camp on this one. Looks boring and rather light/random for the length of time required and especially taking into account that every player has to become familiar with a new set of rules/mechanisms when picking a new starting character. Doesn't appeal to me at all. Which is good since there are already too many games out there that interest me! Enjoy the 4 square reviews because of the varied perspectives and discussion.
I just played this finally as the innkeeper- and loved it - 9 for me ☺️
3 vs 1 and to be honest, the criticisms that the other 3 have are EXACTLY what i predicted this game would suffer from based on its concept. I get that it's trying to be clever, but that's not enough by itself, that's a trap! However I'm seeing this is getting a ton of buzz as well online. I think this will be a polarizing title for 2021.
Was it just me, or was the sound a little off this time? Thanks for the great review again guys. I really love the 4 square format.
You guys need to start uploading 4k videos instead of 1080p...
It's almost 2023....
Yes, and people keep watching on smaller and smaller screens. We'd like to do 4K, but there isn't a huge outcry for it, and it would cause our upload and rendering time to be 5x as long.
Oh well, I saw that coming. Still waiting for Free Radicals though - ten mini games in one box, hopefully more robust then in this one.
You let Zee out of the dungeon?!?!
I do like camping!😉
Even in a video where you have people saying it is a good game and people saying it is a meh game you still have dislikes on the video.
Humans, man: not even once.
Seal of excellence?
For $110 + shipping you can't go wrong
Definitely not something I am interested in, but a neat idea.
I think I will not buy it because I heard it's a multiplayer solitaire, where everyone playing his own (boring) minigame and at the end someone wins (no interaction). I will surely try it out if someone brings it on the table, but buy it? I guess no.
Tom tends to dislike games that he doesn't win 🤔 😂 Great opinions all around. Looking forward to trying it out!
Heh, certainly not true, or I would rate almost all games a very low score.
@@thedicetower 😂
Hmm this seems like a game that most experienced players will discard after 1 play for not being 'demanding' enough. They would not try those extra modules that are crucial to make the most satisfying decisions with those customers/boats
I think many newer gamers will like it and it could be a great entry to assymetrical games
Okay... what is with the scores of: 5, 5, 6.5, and 8.5 equaling the Dice Tower Seal of excellence!? I get that the seal rating is subjective too, but that seems an odd conclusion given the scores just before it!
This is how it always works. Think if Mike had done the review by himself, and given it the seal. You wouldn't have thought twice about it. Just because three other people showed up doesn't negate his rating.
The seal is not an average of the scores.
I so nervous! I backed the all in b/c this seems so innovative, seemed like Root, but to hear there is barely interaction, my asymmetry isn’t directly played out onto the board, and these are just mini games I’m not sure how I’ll enjoy this. I hear Tom and not getting a chance to manipulate the boats may lead to him losing but I hate how my game can be messed up and I had no control over that; personally thinking of Tiny Towns and Quacks. Maybe I will be like Mike and despite some of these critiques I will like the mini games enough to keep playing idk. Seems like after you play each character 2-3 times they would be stale. You may say well that is 3x6 (idk how man characters with expansions) that is 18 plays and what game today gets 18 plays, let alone 18 close enough you remember everything perfectly enough for it not to feel new. Idk.
Being blunt, if you are expecting a heavy game, or a wargame like Root, it may not be your cup of tea. The Innkeeper, Dragon Rancher, and Chronomancer will have the most agency but the "higher luck" characters will - as intended - often have lower floors and higher ceilings. The hope was to let players rotate, experiment, and find their "mercantile jam," while letting fun balance disputes percolate. ;) Whether or not you like the central interactions around the loading, docking, and adjustment to boats - I do not know, but in our experience lots of people do. When and where you dock, and how you adjust to other people loading and docking (by running your shop!) is the central game. You also need to grab the right Townsfolk to build a proper tableau, and adjust to the guildhalls populations. If the boat-loading feels too random for your tastes, or you want more boat manipulation, we've built lots of ways to adjust that in the Secret Stash. There are some good convos on BGG around that occurring too. Hope you end up liking.
It sounds like Tom was too focused on his mini-game and not paying attention to the timing of his actions on the main board. Your own actions dictate when you people on a boat. There are times you need to focus on when other players get ahead of you and might rigger the end of the round. That’s where the true interaction is.
I would have been tricked into buying this game. I love root, I love Thebes, I like Euros. But this game looks bad. Thank you for your review.
After Gnomopolis, that's the second time that I disagree with Tom. Great video though
No more lockdowns or masks in Florida I guess. So lucky!
Sure! But also, we are all vaccinated.
Sounds like someone was trying to capitalize on the Root hype, but they missed the memo on the fact that the asymmetrical factions are only interesting because their differences are interwoven in the interaction.
Ok, sorry on beating on the dead horse: but I am going to call it out again. Tom: "Amazing idea but boring and didn't enjoy playing it" 5 , basically same or worse comments for Red Raising gets 6.5,
Chris: "good not great" 6.5 Red Raising: "could be good" get 6.5... I guess the logo on the box gets more points.
Otherwire stellar discusion, but these ratings have been irking me for quite some time. Here is a maybe a fun suggestion/challange. Do a review like this and don't mention your rating at the end. But ask people what they think you would rate the game based on what has been said in the video and compare. Again sorry for the criticism, I know these discrepancies have been around for quite some time, but lately they just hit me where I notice them more.
If you ask me to play Red Rising, I would. If you ask me to play Merchant' Cove, I'd pass. No discrepancy.
As for me giving both a 6.5, I'd play both again. I've had amazingly fun games of Red Rising, and I've had real clunkers. The game could be really good, but it ebs between a great play and a really rough play. How do you exactly compare that to a game that is consistently good but not great? Both are 6.5s, but that number is not the end-all-be-all of the review. I'd hope the discussion throughout matters more :)
@@DTChrisYi Thank you for the responce and setting my mind at ease. As I said love the discussion and you all hit on the right subjects/objects and I wholeheartedly agree that is what matters more.
@@thedicetower I can agree with that logic :D
I just wanted both of these games to be so good... but both failing... Then again I want all games to be great :D.
Thanks for taking time to respong to me. Can't wait fot the next 4 squares!
Wow - first 5 mins of final thoughts is more like a mass whinge at asymmetric games in general rather than this one?
Not really. I like asymmetrical games.
@@thedicetower That's as may be. But the first 5 minutes of Final Thoughts are still pretty much a critique of basically every asymmetrical game out there. I mean it's a fair point to say "Hey it's an asymmetric game, so be prepared for everything that goes with that" but to level criticism for 5 minutes at *this* specific title, just for being asymmetric, is a little baffling?
@@guyblin But I disagree with that! This game's schtick (as I see it) is that it IS asymmetrical. That's it! It's not so much about the game, it's about the fact that it's asymmetrical. Since it is the fundamental selling point of the game, I'm simply saying that isn't enough! I need a good game besides the fact that it's asymmetrical.
@@thedicetower Yeah and that's FINE to say that. But that's not what was said. Instead it was "hey, you have to, like, teach everyone different things!" or "Hey, you only get to play ONE asymmetric mechanic per game! What's with that?".
The "schtick" isn't that it's asymmetric, it's that the mechanics are radically so. It has (on the face of it) "something for everyone", whether you're a fan of dice placement, roll'n'write, marble-fiddling... whatever. The actual gameplay isn't really that asymmetric at all - you're all producing small or large items of different colours for the same overall purpose.
But the trick (witchcraft?) of any asymmetrical game is to balance the asymmetry, and they seem to have done that, haven't they? I think you all agreed on it.
Maybe by being too simplistic for your tastes in the implementation of the mechanics... but the more complex you make that asymmetry in mechanical terms, the harder the whole will be to balance. And there are 7 overall traders (incl expansions - actually 8 if you include the one in the Sectret Stash), which is no mean feat, considering the mechanics at work. And surely too, with more complexity the problems of "teaching all these different things" will become even *more* of a problem?
Like you, I like asymmetrical games, and I'm looking forward to playing this (in fact I like the fact it's not *too* complex as my regular group these days isn't hugely euro-experienced), but in a critique I'm looking for observations like your "I think perhaps they concentrated too much on the mechanics and gameplay suffered" or "I just find the main game boring" - that's fair play. But to criticise generic elements of asymmetrical games simply because you see that as the game's schtick is... a little irrelevant?
5, 5, 6.5, 8.5 with a Seal of Excellence? I understand the Seals are given based on the highest but the Seals are gonna lose their value entirely if this is how they're given out.
Absolutely, should be an average of the results.
Yeah that really confused me! 1 opinion out of 4 is not enough for a Seal. If it was even 2 out of 4 I'd be hesitant.
I appreciate this format and that I could see three other reviewers' opinion on the game. In the usual format, only Mike would've reviewed the game, given it a Seal of Excellence and there wouldn't have been any debate about it in the comments really other than people sharing their own experiences and opinions.
In my opinion, it's fair to give the game (that it is not universally disliked) the Seal... and from what I see in the comments here, a lot of people agree with Mike. For them, the game IS excellent. Me personally, I'm relieved I didn't back it based on the other reviewers' experience. At the time that was a difficult decision as I find any game with The Mico's art very tempting. I would still like to try it based on Mike's experience.
Tom has discussed this in a previous 4 Square comment. If Mike were to review this on his own and gave it a Seal of Excellence, you wouldn't know what everyone else's score was. We don't average any other reviews. I gave On Mars a 9, everyone else doesn't even want to play it. What should that average out to? Haha.
An 8, maybe a 7. 😁 It may be hitting the cull pile due to the obscene complexity and teaching nightmare.