วีดีโอ

comment part 1.5: this is still a comment

comment: this is a comment

NOT LOT'S POOR SALTY WIFE ☠️💀

I suspect that people have just looked at underused mechanics and made it a challenge run to make a game with it.

The Great Split, Icing on the Cake and Charcuterie make great use of this mechanic imho

Please do a playthrough video!! 🥰

While with time and delays, I tend to lose interest in some games, with Tabletop inc, it's quite the opposite, and seeing this board, with the right explanations, makes me want to present it on my table! Thanks for this video!

EPIC! This all looks so awesome, can't wait to play with my copy 😁

Love the voice over shouting "Mumen" 😂

Looks Great

Looks great! Loved the concept from the start and it’s great to see it in physical form at last. Well done.

Looks great. Looking forward to getting mine

Beautiful components, good work!

At 15:57 it suggested there would be later video detailing more about the Golden Pair expansion. Did that video ever get made? Also why is there no listing for that expansion on BGG?

2:08

Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game seems to have a more tasteful use of victory points. Only one of the four victory conditions uses it. The economic victory requires you to get 15 victory points (coins), and you can get coins from pursuing any path. Some techs allow you to get coins theough certain conditions (e.g., winning battles or spending different types of yields, such as trade and culture). Certain great people, which you get on your way to a culture victory, also provide coins. The other three victory types have fixed win conditions that aren't reliant on victory points. The domination victory requires you to conquer (destroy) another player's capital city. The culture victory requires you to spend a lot of cultuee. The science victory requires you to research the tier 5 tech of space flight.

I feel like this mechanic must predate even Keydom. Age of Empires (PC video game, released 1997) had a worker placement mechanic, which I wouldn't be surprised to learn came from something else before Age of Empires.

When I get my copy, I plan to print out a box sized picture of a meeple with the words Meeple Inc beneath it and attach it to the box face.

This is a seriously GORGEOUS looking game! I can't wait to get Tabletop to my tabletop! ;)

The printing on those cards looks spot on and so crisp and vibrant amazing job

Mumans! Haha, nice. Love the clearly distinguishable pose, too...

Did you get sued by Hans im Glück for using the word meeple or is there another reason you changed the title? Either way, looks very cool! Congrats on the funding <3

Mechanism = a process, method or means to derive an outcome Mechanic = a person that works in a garage

Thank you so much for this great video. While I was making the game, I had written down the rules like this: Something on my phone, something on my notebook, something in another notebook, something on a piece of cardboard while it came to my mind at work. But now it's easier for me to put it all together. :)

Great Video thanks:) one question… After initiate the First Event, did the 6 original Corporation cards Stay on Game or be changed ? And the the value also stay or Go back on the White Space ? Thx Christophe 😊

Actually, the majority of people do not know the rules to monopoly. They play with house rules and never opened the rulebook for long enough to learn the actual rules. Note how many people put the money they pay on free-parking only for the next person to land on it to pick it up (artificially extending the game) and let's not forget about the people who either build hotels directly or use replacements when hotels and houses run out (according to the rules they're a finite resource).

Pandemic's example of "Cure 4 diseases" is victory points, there's just only 4 of them. Same with Scythe's 6 stars.

Omg this is my favorite mechanics. Just played a stock market game with this mechanic. I call it the cookie cutter method. You cut the cookie, I pick the side I want

Greet approach sure but yes...victory points sucks

Actually american games do improve on the mechanics of their games via expansions even thou they are more themematic out of the gate, and thru these expansions they can be better than eurogame level mechanic wise. It is this level quality that makes them so expensive yet so worth it because it increase the replayablity of said game

How am I just discovering this channel? Fantastic deep dive into board game history! I can’t wait to see more

good video!

I don't have words for so many of these comments.... I have lost what words I did have.

I think legacy games originated with wargame campaigns and then roleplaying games. In an RPG we can have a shared world, published or created by the players. The palters may leave the game and the game story may reach a conclusion. The changes in the world, however, stay in its history. New players can be introduced to a known world but still learn of what happened in the past 10 years of game time, famous NPCs have been eliminated or retired, new powers rise as old fall, and the names of the previous players become part of the lore. It seems like this is what you are aiming for with this project. A big task to put into a board game. I am going to look into it.

Thanks for this Vid!

"Which do you think should be more important" Yes

Vp works fine for me. Not anti climactic. Doesnt feel dated either. Usually, that's a deeper fault pf a game. Plenty of extremely thematic games that have vp.

thank you

Thanks for this video. It made me it even clearer to me why I dislike victorypoints, will never use them in my own games, or play games that has them. (A big part of the problem with VPs is that it's often a stretch to call anyone a winner or loser by the end. -Say for exemple that 3 players scored around 20 VPs in one session, but around 100 in another. Why should the player who got 25 points in the first game win, and the one who got 95 in the second game loose? Is the game trying to tell us that you win if your Zoo is just a little less shitty than the "competition", instead of that everybody wins if there are 3 great Zoos on the continent? The games with VPs I've played often didn't have any explenation to this. Instead it was like saying that "this land won in Europe beacuse they had a little more resorces for two months". That kind of ending isn't conclusive at all, and certainly nothing to be proud of if you won by playing solitare for 5 ours and were just as surprised as your opponents when you where declared winner.

I tend not to like "point-salad" designs.

I can answer the initial question thusly: Victory points are delicious. Especially with a side order of my opponents tears of defeat. Yum.

Good (victory) points your making here. I notice that it's usually a drag for people who aren't attuned to counting in their heads. But tallying up the scores seems for seems hardly ever the issue. Though games that are scoring during play do seem more thrilling, but some added hidden scoring adds to the surprise winning possibilities (come back victory). I agree with most things you mention, and I am very happy with the subject. However the microphone that changes colors in combination with the cuts in edit, are very distracting. If at all possible, please turn off the changing of colors in your microphone while filming :) Also the transitions between cuts are distracting as well. Please make more use of no transitions, or script more. Because what you have to say is very interesting and added graphics are entertaining and useful. But the distractions keep making me scroll back to actually hear what you had to say. But I like the subject and what you had to say on the matter, so keep it up!

Strange that this came out the same day as the Fun Problems episode with a rant against victory points!

I'm just bored so i decided to make a game 😂

I agree that VPs don't suck but I don't quite follow some of your arguments. You mention that VPs allow alternate strategies, alluding to 'point salad' games, but those different tracks could feed into each other. Still, I would agree it's easier to design with VPs than building an interconnected engine of various options that feed back into a single path towards victory. It was the bit around 7min where you suggest that VPs can lower the luck that made me comment. I'm not even sure there's a correlation, let alone a causation! So many 'Ameritrash' games feature lots of dice rolling and still come down to points. Are you saying that VPs inherently lower luck in a game? But overall, I do agree that VPs have a strong utility in diversifying the number of possible games. Great vid overall.

This is a great point.. Something like final girl, with a thematic victory or defeat feel so much better than having to do accounting at the end of a game.

We talk about the endings of board games except Monopoly x"D

Game designer here. I think that victory points have a lot of potential that just doesn't get realized. Victory points rarely ever have an ingame effect and are just a tally.

I don't see why there is so much emphasis in these debates about victory points. First, we have to keep in mind that victory criteria are one thing and end-of-game criteria are another. Sometimes victory points can be used for both, but that is not a rule. But both are used to "drive" the player actions/decisions to an end. We can give victory points several thematic names: - Whoever collects the most money (victory points) wins; - At the end of 9 rounds, whoever is most famous (victory points) wins; - You will manage wineries and the one with the most prestige (victory points) wins. The point is that every game will have an end and a criterion to determine who is the winner. What makes the game interesting and makes us enjoy that game are the challenges that are proposed during the game, so that players can think of how to combine things/actions/resources in a more efficient way than their opponents. How or what to do to overcome the opponents is what makes the game good, not the name given to the victory conditions.

I think this question comes down to how each player thinks about board games. I really need a good narrative or story in a game to buy into it, so I tend to not like victory points. But I know and see lots of other players who think about games more as problems to solve, for whom I'm guessing victory points don't matter as much. I do agree with Scott Westerfeld's original premise, in that game designers should more strongly consider thematic victory conditions instead of knee-jerk defaulting to victory points because "that's how games end nowadays".