This video is again a PERFECT example, why the dice tower the best source for reviews. Very critical, alot of viewpoints, no sugar coating and the videos are not too entertaining to distract from the pure accessment.
Yes, but they still gave it a seal of Excellence in spite of going with a spread of 8.5 down to six. It's almost like the fact that somebody scored it 8.5 and they bestowed upon it the Seal of Excellence allows them to be more free in their critiques.
Sthunderrocker's Vids If any reviewer on the channel gives it an 8.5 or higher, it gets the seal of excellence because if that one person had been the only one to do the review, it would have gotten the seal. I'd like to think we all feel free to give our critiques no matter what anybody else scores it. Especially since we don't know each other's scores before going into the review, so that's not what happened. ~Chris
@@Sthunderrocker Tom looked so surprized after Camillas score that I think they fexed their ratings before telling each other. The Seal isn´t as important as the video in total. i´m not getting the game, just because the lenght of it, while a video of only Camilla might have pursuaded me to do so.
@@thedicetower I do agree with that approach when you mix and match between reviewers, or a couple of people on the channel, I think it starts to be an issue with 4 squares. The more people reviewing it more the highest score is likely to be a seal, what if all 8 people from the two teams review it? It becomes almost a given someone will like it that much. This is only a small disagreement with your process and I love what you do but it becomes the seals become more meaningless to people who look to your reviews. To take an extreme example I could look at bgg ratings and take the highest single rating, almost every game in existence would be a 10.
Thank God for Tom and even Mike for giving caveats with his score. They spend the longest part of the video talking about how long it is, how it overstays it's welcome and the set up and tear down is a beast and Tom and Mike score it according to the overall feeling of the video. Chris was right, gotta just not watch the scores. As you watch the rules setup and explanation you're gonna know if this game is for you or not, the scores can only confuse things if the caveats don't match up with the score. Great review, and nice to see a balanced overview.
To be fair, Camilla, who gave the game the highest rating of the bunch, didn’t get as much time in this review to express many of her feelings of the game since the others seemed to dominate the conversation. I am confused a little by Zee’s ranking though since he was vocally critical during the review but then came away with a high rating.
@@alecgalbraith5604 and Zee said he'd rate it higher with caveats. I don't care how he rates it if that's how he felt as he did say exactly why the game may not be for everyone. I've had a discussion with Chris Yi on a different video regarding these four square reviews. I personally think they've gone very tame, and considering who the designer is of this game I can completely see why they would. I do think I preferred the old Miami dice better, but I'm not sure if that's because Sam was just as critical as Tom on certain games, or if it was simply the thumb system which made their ratings on the game a little less specific. I do feel some of the new panel has a hard time being difficult on specific designers.
@@MattD007 Dont understand why you think they are "Tame" Tom gave the game a 6 and Mike was not much Higher. They clearly show the pitfalls and things they loved about the game (especially the combat system). They were very critical of the game length and how mechanical it becomes at certain points. That leaves Zee and Camilla. She was hard on the time it takes as well but she also mentioned that she is excited to bring it to the table. And I think no one could accuse Zee of going easy or tame on any game. His critiques are very nuanced and some of the best in Board gaming, he did mention his issues with time, and but did say he views this as a greatest hits. I really think its weird to make that accusation that they are being tame on the game due to it being Ryan Laucat.
@@relativelyboard9959 I think the implication isn't being tame in terms of what they actually say, but rather the rankings. There's a pretty clear suggestion with these reviews where 5-6 are "low" scores. Except how does that work if your scale is 1-10? A low score would be like 2-4. I think there's video game group think going on with the rankings where 7 is considered average. There's no point in having a 1-10 scale system if the only numbers that matter are 5-10. Just to be clear, I am not in any way claiming that the Dice Tower crew are doing this on purpose or are trying to be dishonest in anyway. But I do agree that IF you're going to be giving a ranking, it needs to make sense for what you're actually trying to convey. I think part of the other problem is 1-10 is just kind of a shit ranking system. Especially for someone like Tom. I've played maybe 300 unique board games, and the 1-10 still has some meaning in distinguishing my preference. However, if I played 5000 unique board games, I'm not sure there's enough granularity anymore to make the distinction meaningful. Like if I rank 200 games 8/10, how do I actually distinguish which one of those 200 is the top of that pile. I could start doing the whole 8.12345 blah blah, but then that feels like swinging too far the other way.
@@eatings Sure, a 5 can be considered average and can stil be a decent game, but since there are thousands of games and hundreds of excellent games, why would you ever choose to play or recommend anything that you consider to be less than a 6 or 7? That's why these scales are never actually linear. Even Tom kinda sorta liked the game, so he couldn't really rate it below average. A 3 would probably not even be worth reviewing, unless it's some big hyped up game. But yeah, 1-10 is not very meaningful anyway. 1-3 would be enough: 1 for a nope (1-5), 2 for a good game with some bigger or smaller caveats (6-8) and 3 for an excellent one (9-10). I guess that's how their thumbs up system worked, actually.
Played this yesterday, and I have to agree with Tom on the building aspect. I struggled for 2-3 rounds getting enough money to build, and the only way to really get any money is to build buildings with production. The way in which the tiles are laid out can really impact this too. If you're lucky enough get have cheaper tiles near each other, it can make getting more of them out sooner a lot easier. I didn't have such luck. Now, there is a spot on the board, the Hermit's Hut, that can allow to swap two tiles. Since this was our first game, we were unaware of that ability. It definitely would have helped. I also agree that the length was far too long. However, I'd be willing to try the game again with one of the shortened variants. Otherwise, I'll just stick to Above and Below for my Lauket fix.
Just finished a solo game of this! What a treat! Almost no additional rules to play solo, easy to table, and a blast! You get to explore the mechanisms at your leisure and there are so many solid ones! Combat, level up system, building management, tension in disappearing resources, and trying to manage your quests throughout your travels. I think this is an excellent solo experience, loved it!
When you say, "easy to table," do you mean you are motivated to bring it out and play it frequently or that it is quick and easy to set up? The second seems to be against what Mike was saying. I would probably be playing this primarily solo, at least at first, so I was really lostening to what Mike had to say.
@@jameswoodard4304 I’d say both! I’m both motivated to pull it out and play and the set up isn’t bad at all. You can put most of the components in random draw bags so there’s no reason to fiddle with set up. The biggest set up is your own player area, but it’s nothing too troubling. And the solo components are literally a small stack of cards with almost no maintenance on their end. I’m loving this solo and I think Mike is incorrect on the set up being an issue with the solo mode.
Also, I just want to finally take the time to say that I enjoy hearing the old "Miami Dice" intro being repurposed for these Four Squares reviews. That latin trumpet vibe + Mr. Summerer's intro is great and even a little nostalgic for me.
Really great review guys...told me almost everything I wanted to know about this title and gives me plenty of information to inform my decision of getting it or not. The only thing potentially missing is if this is the best of the trilogy or not. Tom disclosed that but would love to know that...sounds like it's good IF you already love the series and have a LOT of time on your hands.
Whether it's the best of the trilogy a very personal decision based on taste. Tom said that Near or Far is his favourite and scores it several points above this one. Zee rates this one higher I believe. And then others in this chat have said they love Above and Below. So the best game in the trilogy isn't a fact they can state. 😁
I finally got it to the table last night and played through the "Standard" version of the game. Solid 8 out 10 for me. I am assuming though the story will bump that score.
I'm surprised that the whole group was so fond of the combat system! Almost makes me wonder if I missed some rules. It's pure roll to resolve (and push your luck in choosing what monster to fight), and the only mitigating is in upgrading your abilities beforehand. I thought it was fine, but I do miss the combat from Sleeping Gods - so puzzly!
I'm curious to hear what people's scores are for SOLO. It hit the shelves here in Australia a few weeks ago but there were hardly any reviews mentioning the solo mode on BGG.
I think any game with a dedicated solo mode should get solo reviews right off the bat, because the difference between standard and solo is usually considerably bigger than that between the various standard player counts. Saying of a game that's 2-4 players, "X is how you play the game, and btw, this is generally how it scales," makes sense. You can lump the various player counts together. But dedicated solo modes are usually enough different of a beast, that they deserve their own review, or at least dedicated section of a review, right off the bat. They are, really, a different *version* of the game, and one that will determine whether or not a large proportion of gamers should buy a given game or not. It really is important information to get out and get out early.
It's a 9.5 for me. I feel like this is the game everything else he's done promised me: It cleaned up Above and Below's building mechanism and made it more engaging with the puzzle aspect of buying and placing, made the Near and Far exploration and narrative more concise, and only kept the best parts of the other Arzium games.
I agree completely, Now or Never feels like the culmination of his work on game mechanisms over the past decade. He's taken the best parts of Above and Below, Islebound, and Near and Far, and made a single great game. It's really fantastic.
After watching this review and reading the comments, I'm now sold on Now or Never when it hits retail near me. I've played both Above and Below and Near and Far with my favourite being the former. The negatives listed are positives for me. I'm primarily a solo gamer, have a large table, and loves playing longer games. My 2 most played games at the moment are Eldritch Horror (105 plays) and Mage Knight (98 plays) Thanks for the honest feedback. Excited to get my hands on a copy. Engage Virtue: Patience
I wonder if the building tiles were double sided with a built side and unbuilt side and they started on your board unbuilt then you flipped them when building. Still following the same rules for expanding if that would’ve been better but then that removes the puzzle of where to place buildings so idk
I'm someone who still thinks Above & Below is the best of this series (Near & Far was too loose and often it felt like playing it well meant ignoring the story bits so it kind of fell apart in my group and Sleeping Gods had a crushingly dull gameplay loop for me) so with the somewhat mixed reception this one is getting I'm curious to try it out. I always felt that the more macro level story of a town that Above & Below went for was a better fit for the kind of games Laukat designs than the individual hero going out an adventuring and it seems like this game takes a similar approach?
I was thinking the other day what Ryan would say/think he would do to Above & Below to “fix” it (plenty say it’s swingy, no consequences etc). Interesting this game is seen as a mesh of a few of his other titles, or in another way a more developed A&B in some ways.
Haven't played it yet, just received it in the mail this weekend, so i cant speak to the length. But did everyone see that Ryan Laukat himself posted a Shorter & Medium length variant on BGG?! I fully anticipated this game being long just given the progression of Above and Below to Islebound to Near and Far, i assumed this would be the biggest and longest of the 3. Im still super excited to play it!
Given the emphasis on length, how prohibitive it is, and the curve of the game/rounds, one could speculate that the scores would probably be higher with the new rules to shorten the game. I mean, Tom specifically mentions 5 rounds instead of 6 (medium variant) and Mike said it had potential for 8.5/9 as opposed to his 7 if it was shorter. Sure, they probably should have been in the rulebook already, or maybe 5 rounds should have been the default, but if the ramp/length is what is holding you back from enjoying the game, it might be worth revisiting. Obviously if the mechanics do not work for you shortening the game will not help. In saying that, given they only came out a few hours ago I have not had a chance to play with them, so will be very keen to see feedback on them (although the 5 round medium variant will be my new default)
Well the official variant makes me a bit more interested to play the game. The game sounds like it has a everdellish ramp up and could you imagine that game being 6 rounds. 😀. I am very particular on length of play and I usually like to keep my plays under 90 minutes max so it sounds like these variants could shave a considerable amount of time. I wonder why this was not brought up during play testing? Seems like an oversight that could have been addressed with an extra page in the rule book.
I don't get why game length is always such an issue with these guys. You're spending your whole life playing games anyway, so why would an occasional four or six or eight hour game be a problem? Why is it inherently better to play four mediocre small games that leave you feeling very meh (which they almost always do) instead of one good one?
@@pajander That is a matter of opinion. For me the length of the game does not inherently make it good or bad, but I tend to want to play games that are under 60 minutes. Again that is my opinion. I have played wonderful “filler games” that I thought were far superior than full length games. In addition I don’t believe the length of games in general are a problem for them, but the length of “this” game is. Some games just overstay their welcome and evidently this is one of them. As another point for them time does matter because they have so many games to play and review that length of the game probably has to be considered at some point.
@@Therisktaker3 I mean yeah, you don't have to like or prefer long games, but sometimes it seems like it's a weird dealbreaker for them. Like, "this is an excellent game, but I will never play it again because it's too long", or in this case, "I will never play it again with more than two players". Personally I haven't really found any filler games that offer anything close to that experience that long games offer, but to be fair I haven't played that many games yet.
Out of all the components this game has, I'm kind of sad there isn't a score pad in the box. It seems like there's a lot of things at the end of the game that score points and it would be nice if there was a way to track. I mean granted I can just write up on a notepad or something and that's probably what I'll do but it's just an odd thing that wasn't there.
Our copy arrived in the mail this week and my husband is chomping at the bit to get into it. We are “two-player only” gamers at the moment. This week is vacation, where we traditionally just play the heck out of a single game. So a long Now or Never game is *exactly* what we’re looking for.
Fun game to play solo and 2 player but the more you play it and understand its locations and systems it will become much faster. I think it’s a shame that all the location descriptions are in the back of the book, mainly coz there are spaces that aren’t immediately obvious. The one where you can switch the placement of two tiles in your grid should have been much more upfront in the location descriptions. Otherwise it’s a solid 8.5 for me after 5 plays (shortest was 45 mins) then it and still the story mode to do so it could possibly go up or down haha 🙂
Nice to hear. Tom’s feedback doesn’t bother me. He focuses on one issue (length) and you just need to evaluate your own sensitivity to that (I like long games, more than long rule walk-throughs). If he’s going critical, he also tends to overkill. You can reasonably add a point back, making it a 7 and an issue I don’t care about, so a throw-away. I don’t really follow Zee’s tastes, but his evaluations are more reasoned and consistent.
Can someone explain what's so great about the combat? Haven't played, but looking over the rules, nothing really stands out to me such that they'd fawn over it like that.
Yeah I think these are all the games that are technically part of Arzium 1. Above and below 2. Near and far 3. City of Iron 4. Roam 5. Islebound 6. Now or never
Really hate when games are longer than they should. A long game needs to have multiple paths and an arc through the rounds. If you're doing the same, at some point every game can feel like a chore. A bummer cause this was in my anticipated list, the game looks georgous with solid gameplay
We played a game for 3.5 hours, my friend who played it for the first time thought we played for 1.5hours. The lenght is not an issue because it goes by so fast.
My partner really likes this series of games, I wasn't keen on either of the previous 2. I suspect I'll be forced to play this eventually but I'm probably going to agree with Tom that the combat system looks fun but everything else doesn't really fit well. Guess I'll see :P
I really dislike the track for resources, and with that many on one track (along with the funky shapes Tom mentioned) it seems like a pain. I hated tracking resources in tapestry for the same reasons - it's too easy to bump the markers into each other or off the track.
"Hold my mysterious orange beverage." Seriously, it looks like he went back in time and found a container of Tang! somewhere. Maybe it's just orange soda and he drinks it out of a different kind of closable container to avoid product placement and spillage. Maybe he's a health nut drinking specially-prepared juice...Maybe I am just weird for focusing on what Zee is drinking. I'm pretty sure the latter is the safest bet.
Ryan stated years ago there would be three of these. 100% this is the official third in a trilogy. Will he pull a Douglas Adams? I guess we'll find out!
Unrelated to this specific video: Is there a reason Dice Tower uses lav mics instead of a shotgun boom? There's always so much mic noise in both these and their livestreams that would be totally solved with a different style of recording.
They have said that one of the major goals of the funding they are getting via the recent Kickstarter was to completely overhaul their outdated sound system and try to hire an actual sound engineer. They admitted, I don't remember if it was in this or a different recent video, that they got a bunch of sound equipment years ago and have just never upgraded even while DT has grown, and they were past due for a complete revamp which has already been planned. So, they know it's an issue and are in the process of fixing it.
Really enjoyed this video and it brings to light a very interesting topic: the difference between a reviewer’s personal rating and the rating that reviewer should give the public. I think in many cases those ratings will be different. Splendor is a 5 for me because other games have replaced it and I will never ask to play it for myself, but I think as a game it’s an 8 and I would highly recommend it to others.
What triggered the thought is when Zee said if he was rating it for himself he’d give it a higher score, but as a recommendation to others he had to settle on an 8. I respect that.
After 5 plays we play it at 45minutes per player, it can be done. In standard mode, havent started the story yet. Complaints are kinda weird, I love playing at 3 and 4 players, yes it is 3 or 4 hours, but it goes by so fast, and that to me is a sign of a great game. If I can play Star Trek Ascendancy for 6 hours and TI:4 for 8 hours, why not this for 4? Yes I can play Near and Far in 2 hours, but this is a completely different game. Yes, the setup is a bit long, and its a table hog, but I have so many games that are also like that and I still love them. Love the way you build your town, love moving and questing and fighting on the map, love using other peoples specialists, this game has so many great things in it. It's a strong 8/10 for me, and I'm strict with my ratings. When the forteller app gets done for this, I'm playing the story and the rating might go up
The complaints are kinda weird because it seems not to bother you. I have a weekly game night limited to about 3 hours, I do most of the setup and tear down to maximize game time, and my gaming table isn't huge. So even if the game does "feel" fast, I won't be able to play this at 4-player due to their raised concerns especially when my group would want to play the story mode which would only take longer. I appreciate their complaints because I am now considering playing this only at 2-player with my wife with the game left setup in our office which will suit my situation.
Maybe I'm just a control freak, but am I the only one that thinks rolling a die to see which combat action *my character* will use seems weird. I know that's not an unusual way to do combat, it just personally seems like an odd thing to make random. It's probably just me and is my brain coming at this from an RPG direction rather than a Euro+story direction. This seems more like following the story of what happens *to* a character than me *being* a character. Which is fine if that was the design intent. For me, the reason to play a story-having board game rather than just reading a book comes down to personal immersion connected to the actual process of forming the story. If it is just "choose which story line Character X will take" + gamery mechanics, I'd rather just either read a book about what happens to certain characters, or play an immersive video game or other kind of RPG where I *am* the character. This seems like an odd middle ground. Completely personal preferences though, and it's hard to judge because I've *still* yet to play any Laukat games.
This game is a good example of why it’s better to give individual scores and not an average. Averaging the scores would dilute the fact that some people are going to be able to overlook some things about this game and some people will not
The statistics tell the story for this game: the median is 7.5, the arithmetic mean is 7.375, the geometric mean is 7.3103, and the mode doesn’t exists because all the ratings were different!
I really appreciate these reviews and the banter herein. I think we would benefit from a tweak to the Seals system for 4-square reviews. When any one person can push it to a seal of excellence when the rest pan the game, seems like the system is wrong. I get Chris's point, that if she would have done a solo review, then the game would have also gotten a seal under the old system, but she isn't doing solo reviews yet, and that argument presumes that the person giving the highest score would have been the one chosen every time to review the game, since this 4-square system ensures that the highest score among the 4 is the one that "matters" and determines what endorsement the game gets. I believe using something like the mean, a 2/4 plurality system, or an average of any 2 being over the threshold requirement, would be a good compromise to ensure that games don't get what appears to be a resounding recommendation from the whole dice tower, when in reality a considerable part of the dice tower wouldn't give the game such an endorsement and the part that does, barely does. Here it got a 6, three 7s (counting Tom's kids), 8, and a single 8.5 but that one is enough. Feels like the seal-awarding will get inflated.
In the end it is a matter of opinion. Watching the rules explanation is typically enough for me. Sometimes something they say will be more impactful than the rating or seal, for instance game length. I pre-ordered the game snd am still interested to try it. I understand that the seal may throw people off and maybe the system should be reviewed, but at least for this game the average was still around a 7.5 so maybe not excellent, but still really good.
Historically games are given to the person most likely to enjoy the game because Tom doesn't want to make people play games they dont like. So generally the Dice Tower person giving the solo review has been the person who would give it the highest score. Obviously this wouldn't always work, for example as Near and Far is one of Tom's favourite games he might have taken this game to solo review and been disappointed. But basically past reviews have always been slightly biased upwards because of the chosen reviewer.
If I 'm going to play a ryan lauket game solo I'm going to play this. sleeping gods? did he forget it, or is he saying this is one of the best solos ever made
@@LeeKenshin7 Sleeping Gods is an increíble solo experience. The characters are more of resources, so it’s not really managing a character that you control and take actions with. I strongly recommend Sleeping Gods for solo, made my top of 2021 for solo only.
@@SideGameLLC Thanks for the rec. I won't shy from playing it solo but it's next in line after my wife and I complete Roll Player Adventures. We are looking forward to it.
Rahdo calls the building mechanism a "wonderful tribute to Goa" while Tom hated it, 30:45. I'm really curious to try this. The board and art look great, perhaps this is hot garbage for Tom.
@@thedicetower You were going to give it a 5 but, gave it a sympathy point at the last minute. I imagine for someone who's played thousands of games for more that 25 years, outside of a review, a 6 (or 5) might not get played ever again. Hot garbage is too strong of a term for the mediocre stuff.
5 games of Euro, non-story mode and they all came in at 3 hours with teach each time... all 4 players. 45 minutes per player is accurate. It's a long game and it's worth all of it, IMO.
I'm curious.. Since the primary concern is the game length, would it really still feel complete and balanced if the game was made shorter? Should Twilight Imperium be rated lower because of the game length? Is it just because the game length is longer compared to the other titles of the series'? Would we rate a book by how long it take us to read it? I guess it is different when it to games but this is still a narrative game.
I don’t think they have problem with long games, but for some reason it sounds like this game over stayed its welcome. Things like waiting for other players turns to complete is sometimes what makes a game feel longer. I mean I have played some 15 minute games that over stayed their welcome. They sort of mentioned the sand box nature of the game contributed to this. They also mention story vs standard which when you compare them makes one feel more drawn out. They also mentioned reported game time on the bid was misleading so I think all of those items contributed to their reasoning.
This is a minor thing but why are the review scores all oddly orientated. I get that they're kinda angled towards the reviewer, but they're not aligned horizontally at all.
Glad i watched this. I did not enjoy above and below at all but love rhe art and know people love him. This is definitely not the game to choose. Hard pass for me.
In my review I gave it a 7 barely and I mean "barely" - it's fine enough, but Near & Far is easier to get to the table and yet provides the same level of enjoyment as this one does. The building mechanic doesn't make thematic sense and it's 95% multiplayer solitaire so playing this outside solo play doesn't really make sense to do. But it's fun to play every now and then, but probably not a keeper and I 100% agree that the time length in story mode is impossible to make 45min per player and even solo is lengthy. I see 9's and 9.5's going round and I do wonder how some of the flaws definitely inherent in this game are being so easily overlooked. Length, component/graphical weirdness, the building mechanic, skewed balance towards building/villagers for points, those are big issues. Kind of surprised to see 8.5's, I think Camilla is too forgiving - the caveats mentioned are important considerations, not something to be "iffy" about - A game that is not fun/playable with 3-4 players due to the insane length is a fundamental flaw. Definitely on Tom's side here, this isn't worthy sadly of a Seal of Excellence compared to his other previous title.
I feel like everyone has different varying opinions. that’s why these reviews are good. Some games are just not for some people. The length seems to be a flaw. Some won’t mind it. So Camilla seems to have just enjoyed it more which is awesome! No use in saying she was forgiving. She knows what she likes.
@@typerk2388 haha you weren’t playing the game with her. Lol why would I listen to your opinion of what she enjoys? She knows what she likes better than you do. That’s what I was saying. This whole panel just shows varying opinions. I’ve seen quite a few people have zero issue with gamelength. So it’s not an issue for everyone.
I have resisted buying Sleeping Gods because I know I won't enjoy the puzzle-combat system and even though the exploration and story drives Sleeping Gods, combat is for sure a part of it. I wish SO BAD that the combat from Now or Never was the same in Sleeping Gods. That blend would probably be a 10/10 for me!!
This game is Ryan unleashed with no regard for your time, nor table space. Everything is sized differently and it kind of looks like the mess of a cardboard hoarder who wants you to look at pictures. The replayability is okay in some aspects (ie. stories) but there is a noticeable repeat in the specialists, upgrades and buildings every game. It’s good and we’ll play it sometimes but its too long and overwhelming to get frequent play.
It's a shame they use a standard d4, the single most unfun dice in existence. If I got this game I'd probably replace that with a cylindrical d4, or an eight-sided d4. The game might even have been more interesting with a weighted d6 (eg. 1,1,2,2,3,4).
@@GamesOffTheShelf A score is a personal thing that isnt necessarily tied to the negatives. Imagine Twilight Imperium reviews, that game is LONG. It could get a good score and a negative could still be how long it is. This means, that despite negatives, they still loved the experience.
Above and below was terrible for me, just because these "stories" were all very random and boring, just because the desicions gave no tension, but just "ressources"- For that I don't need stories. The same here, I am afraid. This is a pass for me.
I'm absolutely flabbergasted at the relatively low ratings this got. I've played Above & Below, Near & Far, and Islebound; those are all great games, but Now or Never knocked it out of the park for me. It is long and a "table hog", no argument there, but I had so much fun that I didn't mind the length. It's incredibly engaging to determine how best to balance your specialist and hero actions. I love roaming across the board, battling monsters and getting upgraded gear. I'm fine with the town grid, even if it does extend the table space. I have to spend more time playing through the story but from a purely mechanical standpoint I think this could be Ryan's best Arzium game.
Because of the different ways Laukat has chosen to balance the various story and mechanical aspects of these games from one game to the next, there seems to be a pretty wide and very individual variation on which people tend to think is best. I'm not surprised to hear that what a large number of people might consider to be his weakest game (relatively speaking), also has a good number of others saying it is his best. I suspect that the spread between peoples' personal rankings of these games will be unusually high and diverse.
Seal of excellence 🤨🧐 It’s the perfect time to fix the way you (Dice Tower) give the seals. Better sooner than later. Doesn’t make sense that the seals depend on the person who made the review first. Tom showed us many times that he doesn’t want to be the big boss who wants to control everything and decide everything. And that’s a smart thing , i applaud that. But the Dice Tower should decide if the Seals are more a personal flavour or more a technical review like the Oscars or the Spiel des Jahres, like how Zee rated today). At the moment they are personal opinions but not in the right way unfortunately.
You said they needed to decide if they are for one person or not, and they are, and then you say that they are a mark of one person's review but in the wrong way. What in the world would make it the "right" way? They're board game reviewers giving a score and opinion, not a prize, and the seal simply denotes if a game meets one of the reviewers' standards. I fail to see how this is in any way problematic. The seal isn't determined by the first person, but the highest rating of those that reviewed it, that's all. Not sure where the "first to review it" comes into play when there are 4 people reviewing it at the same time.
@@bricelory9534 It’s not a big problem off course and at the end they do whatever they want. The wrong way is just my opinion. I think it’s wrong because for example if 3 reviewers give a rate between 3 and 5 and a fourth person gives a 10 then what will be the Dice Tower rating for that game? Again this is just an opinion for them to improve. I think they are the best in the world on what they do. And they have potential to grow up even more. But on other hand, just like you said, they are “just” board game reviewers.
Yeah, it doesn't make sense to give it based on the highest review any more than it would off the lowest review. Surely the median review would make more sense, or something. The point is more that from a consumer perspective people rely on The Dice Tower, but if they don't watch the review they will assume that this is reliably a great game, even though only one out of the four reviewers gave it sufficient score for the seal of approval, and the others scored it with heavy caveats. Not what a consumer would get from the seal if they see it on the shelf. One fix would be to put the little dice character in the seal so that people can see "oh, zee gave this a seal of approval, I have similar tastes to him" or "I tend to disagree with Roy so I probably won't like this" or whatever. But it's probably more effort than it's worth. Personally it doesn't really matter to me as I do watch the reviews and don't tend to browse in game shops and buy based on the box, but I do think if the seal is for the sake of consumers, then it is misleading if the majority of reviewers don't recommend it. It comes down to the difficulty that a reviewer faces between being an individual critic who can take liberties because their name is synonymous with their reviews (someone like Space Biff) or a company like the Dice Tower where they have to walk a finer valance between subjective personal opinions and more broader objective opinions, which is difficult, but necessary
@@seansteel328 You should never buy games you havent done research on, no one person likes every game. One of the top rated games on BGG for years was twilight struggle, that has a seal of excellence. If someone is only buying on seals they are going to be disappointed, even on universally acclaimed games. No game is for everyone, do your research.
I (Tom Vasel) review a lot of games by myself. I give games I like a lot a seal of approval, and games I love a seal of excellence. Those seals are given by one person. Sometimes, other people in the studio HATE the game I love. Who cares? I post my review, and give it a seal. So if others join me in a review, how does any of that change? We believe that every person in the Dice Tower studios (and this includes my daughters) can give a seal of approval or excellence. We don't think any one person's opinion is more valid than another's. And we feel that if we averaged out our opinions on games, we would be a boring, sterile site. And the important thing is, the seal shouldn't affect you at all. You (the person making the comment) obviously watched the video! So you have four different opinions of the game. The WORDS are what is important, not the rating. This is something I believe very strongly in, and will never change.
![คุณอาเรียโต๊ะข้างๆ พูดรัสเซียหวานใส่ซะหัวใจจะวาย ตอนที่ 4 [ซับไทย] 【Ani-One Thailand】](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_vK_cden2f8/mqdefault.jpg)
This video is again a PERFECT example, why the dice tower the best source for reviews. Very critical, alot of viewpoints, no sugar coating and the videos are not too entertaining to distract from the pure accessment.
Yes, but they still gave it a seal of Excellence in spite of going with a spread of 8.5 down to six. It's almost like the fact that somebody scored it 8.5 and they bestowed upon it the Seal of Excellence allows them to be more free in their critiques.
Sthunderrocker's Vids If any reviewer on the channel gives it an 8.5 or higher, it gets the seal of excellence because if that one person had been the only one to do the review, it would have gotten the seal. I'd like to think we all feel free to give our critiques no matter what anybody else scores it. Especially since we don't know each other's scores before going into the review, so that's not what happened. ~Chris
@@Sthunderrocker Tom looked so surprized after Camillas score that I think they fexed their ratings before telling each other. The Seal isn´t as important as the video in total. i´m not getting the game, just because the lenght of it, while a video of only Camilla might have pursuaded me to do so.
@@thedicetower either way its a win. No problem. Good video.
@@thedicetower I do agree with that approach when you mix and match between reviewers, or a couple of people on the channel, I think it starts to be an issue with 4 squares. The more people reviewing it more the highest score is likely to be a seal, what if all 8 people from the two teams review it? It becomes almost a given someone will like it that much.
This is only a small disagreement with your process and I love what you do but it becomes the seals become more meaningless to people who look to your reviews. To take an extreme example I could look at bgg ratings and take the highest single rating, almost every game in existence would be a 10.
Thank God for Tom and even Mike for giving caveats with his score.
They spend the longest part of the video talking about how long it is, how it overstays it's welcome and the set up and tear down is a beast and Tom and Mike score it according to the overall feeling of the video.
Chris was right, gotta just not watch the scores. As you watch the rules setup and explanation you're gonna know if this game is for you or not, the scores can only confuse things if the caveats don't match up with the score. Great review, and nice to see a balanced overview.
To be fair, Camilla, who gave the game the highest rating of the bunch, didn’t get as much time in this review to express many of her feelings of the game since the others seemed to dominate the conversation. I am confused a little by Zee’s ranking though since he was vocally critical during the review but then came away with a high rating.
@@alecgalbraith5604 and Zee said he'd rate it higher with caveats. I don't care how he rates it if that's how he felt as he did say exactly why the game may not be for everyone.
I've had a discussion with Chris Yi on a different video regarding these four square reviews. I personally think they've gone very tame, and considering who the designer is of this game I can completely see why they would.
I do think I preferred the old Miami dice better, but I'm not sure if that's because Sam was just as critical as Tom on certain games, or if it was simply the thumb system which made their ratings on the game a little less specific.
I do feel some of the new panel has a hard time being difficult on specific designers.
@@MattD007 Dont understand why you think they are "Tame" Tom gave the game a 6 and Mike was not much Higher. They clearly show the pitfalls and things they loved about the game (especially the combat system). They were very critical of the game length and how mechanical it becomes at certain points. That leaves Zee and Camilla. She was hard on the time it takes as well but she also mentioned that she is excited to bring it to the table. And I think no one could accuse Zee of going easy or tame on any game. His critiques are very nuanced and some of the best in Board gaming, he did mention his issues with time, and but did say he views this as a greatest hits. I really think its weird to make that accusation that they are being tame on the game due to it being Ryan Laucat.
@@relativelyboard9959 I think the implication isn't being tame in terms of what they actually say, but rather the rankings. There's a pretty clear suggestion with these reviews where 5-6 are "low" scores. Except how does that work if your scale is 1-10? A low score would be like 2-4. I think there's video game group think going on with the rankings where 7 is considered average. There's no point in having a 1-10 scale system if the only numbers that matter are 5-10. Just to be clear, I am not in any way claiming that the Dice Tower crew are doing this on purpose or are trying to be dishonest in anyway. But I do agree that IF you're going to be giving a ranking, it needs to make sense for what you're actually trying to convey.
I think part of the other problem is 1-10 is just kind of a shit ranking system. Especially for someone like Tom. I've played maybe 300 unique board games, and the 1-10 still has some meaning in distinguishing my preference. However, if I played 5000 unique board games, I'm not sure there's enough granularity anymore to make the distinction meaningful. Like if I rank 200 games 8/10, how do I actually distinguish which one of those 200 is the top of that pile. I could start doing the whole 8.12345 blah blah, but then that feels like swinging too far the other way.
@@eatings Sure, a 5 can be considered average and can stil be a decent game, but since there are thousands of games and hundreds of excellent games, why would you ever choose to play or recommend anything that you consider to be less than a 6 or 7? That's why these scales are never actually linear. Even Tom kinda sorta liked the game, so he couldn't really rate it below average. A 3 would probably not even be worth reviewing, unless it's some big hyped up game. But yeah, 1-10 is not very meaningful anyway. 1-3 would be enough: 1 for a nope (1-5), 2 for a good game with some bigger or smaller caveats (6-8) and 3 for an excellent one (9-10). I guess that's how their thumbs up system worked, actually.
Played this yesterday, and I have to agree with Tom on the building aspect. I struggled for 2-3 rounds getting enough money to build, and the only way to really get any money is to build buildings with production. The way in which the tiles are laid out can really impact this too. If you're lucky enough get have cheaper tiles near each other, it can make getting more of them out sooner a lot easier. I didn't have such luck. Now, there is a spot on the board, the Hermit's Hut, that can allow to swap two tiles. Since this was our first game, we were unaware of that ability. It definitely would have helped.
I also agree that the length was far too long. However, I'd be willing to try the game again with one of the shortened variants. Otherwise, I'll just stick to Above and Below for my Lauket fix.
Just finished a solo game of this! What a treat! Almost no additional rules to play solo, easy to table, and a blast! You get to explore the mechanisms at your leisure and there are so many solid ones! Combat, level up system, building management, tension in disappearing resources, and trying to manage your quests throughout your travels. I think this is an excellent solo experience, loved it!
When you say, "easy to table," do you mean you are motivated to bring it out and play it frequently or that it is quick and easy to set up? The second seems to be against what Mike was saying. I would probably be playing this primarily solo, at least at first, so I was really lostening to what Mike had to say.
@@jameswoodard4304 I’d say both! I’m both motivated to pull it out and play and the set up isn’t bad at all. You can put most of the components in random draw bags so there’s no reason to fiddle with set up. The biggest set up is your own player area, but it’s nothing too troubling. And the solo components are literally a small stack of cards with almost no maintenance on their end. I’m loving this solo and I think Mike is incorrect on the set up being an issue with the solo mode.
@@SideGameLLC ,
Okay, thanks for adding your opinion to help balance things out.
@@jameswoodard4304 you’re so welcome!
Also, I just want to finally take the time to say that I enjoy hearing the old "Miami Dice" intro being repurposed for these Four Squares reviews. That latin trumpet vibe + Mr. Summerer's intro is great and even a little nostalgic for me.
I still like above and below more then near and far. Loved how you choose what resources scored in which order.
The irony Zee liking a long game more than Tom. 😂
For me this is the best lineup at the Dice Tower. I like the others but this group has the best chemistry and most diverse opinions.
Empires or the void still my fav . Love above and below ancient empire . The length and table space massive make this a pass for me .
Really great review guys...told me almost everything I wanted to know about this title and gives me plenty of information to inform my decision of getting it or not. The only thing potentially missing is if this is the best of the trilogy or not. Tom disclosed that but would love to know that...sounds like it's good IF you already love the series and have a LOT of time on your hands.
Whether it's the best of the trilogy a very personal decision based on taste. Tom said that Near or Far is his favourite and scores it several points above this one. Zee rates this one higher I believe. And then others in this chat have said they love Above and Below.
So the best game in the trilogy isn't a fact they can state. 😁
I finally got it to the table last night and played through the "Standard" version of the game. Solid 8 out 10 for me. I am assuming though the story will bump that score.
Thanks for the review!
Well played, Zee! Well played!
I'm surprised that the whole group was so fond of the combat system! Almost makes me wonder if I missed some rules. It's pure roll to resolve (and push your luck in choosing what monster to fight), and the only mitigating is in upgrading your abilities beforehand. I thought it was fine, but I do miss the combat from Sleeping Gods - so puzzly!
Thanks for the review.
Zee! Pure gold with that boar joke. Thumbs up acquired! :)
The interaction between players of using other players specialists sounds so good
I'm curious to hear what people's scores are for SOLO.
It hit the shelves here in Australia a few weeks ago but there were hardly any reviews mentioning the solo mode on BGG.
I think any game with a dedicated solo mode should get solo reviews right off the bat, because the difference between standard and solo is usually considerably bigger than that between the various standard player counts. Saying of a game that's 2-4 players, "X is how you play the game, and btw, this is generally how it scales," makes sense. You can lump the various player counts together. But dedicated solo modes are usually enough different of a beast, that they deserve their own review, or at least dedicated section of a review, right off the bat. They are, really, a different *version* of the game, and one that will determine whether or not a large proportion of gamers should buy a given game or not. It really is important information to get out and get out early.
It's a 9.5 for me. I feel like this is the game everything else he's done promised me: It cleaned up Above and Below's building mechanism and made it more engaging with the puzzle aspect of buying and placing, made the Near and Far exploration and narrative more concise, and only kept the best parts of the other Arzium games.
I agree completely, Now or Never feels like the culmination of his work on game mechanisms over the past decade. He's taken the best parts of Above and Below, Islebound, and Near and Far, and made a single great game. It's really fantastic.
What's your favourite player count?
Solo, 2, 3, or 4? 🙂
Thanks. Good to hear.
@@shaneannigans Solo or 2 :)
After watching this review and reading the comments, I'm now sold on Now or Never when it hits retail near me. I've played both Above and Below and Near and Far with my favourite being the former.
The negatives listed are positives for me. I'm primarily a solo gamer, have a large table, and loves playing longer games. My 2 most played games at the moment are Eldritch Horror (105 plays) and Mage Knight (98 plays)
Thanks for the honest feedback. Excited to get my hands on a copy. Engage Virtue: Patience
I wonder if the building tiles were double sided with a built side and unbuilt side and they started on your board unbuilt then you flipped them when building. Still following the same rules for expanding if that would’ve been better but then that removes the puzzle of where to place buildings so idk
I'm someone who still thinks Above & Below is the best of this series (Near & Far was too loose and often it felt like playing it well meant ignoring the story bits so it kind of fell apart in my group and Sleeping Gods had a crushingly dull gameplay loop for me) so with the somewhat mixed reception this one is getting I'm curious to try it out. I always felt that the more macro level story of a town that Above & Below went for was a better fit for the kind of games Laukat designs than the individual hero going out an adventuring and it seems like this game takes a similar approach?
Great Review!
I was thinking the other day what Ryan would say/think he would do to Above & Below to “fix” it (plenty say it’s swingy, no consequences etc). Interesting this game is seen as a mesh of a few of his other titles, or in another way a more developed A&B in some ways.
Haven't played it yet, just received it in the mail this weekend, so i cant speak to the length. But did everyone see that Ryan Laukat himself posted a Shorter & Medium length variant on BGG?! I fully anticipated this game being long just given the progression of Above and Below to Islebound to Near and Far, i assumed this would be the biggest and longest of the 3. Im still super excited to play it!
I would like a follow up from the gang after trying the shorter and medium variants!
Wow! Thanks.
I wish he'd write these things in the rules.
Cheers, ☕
Hard to see the board in the overview. Wish we could have some zoomed in shots.
Given the emphasis on length, how prohibitive it is, and the curve of the game/rounds, one could speculate that the scores would probably be higher with the new rules to shorten the game. I mean, Tom specifically mentions 5 rounds instead of 6 (medium variant) and Mike said it had potential for 8.5/9 as opposed to his 7 if it was shorter.
Sure, they probably should have been in the rulebook already, or maybe 5 rounds should have been the default, but if the ramp/length is what is holding you back from enjoying the game, it might be worth revisiting. Obviously if the mechanics do not work for you shortening the game will not help.
In saying that, given they only came out a few hours ago I have not had a chance to play with them, so will be very keen to see feedback on them (although the 5 round medium variant will be my new default)
Well the official variant makes me a bit more interested to play the game. The game sounds like it has a everdellish ramp up and could you imagine that game being 6 rounds. 😀. I am very particular on length of play and I usually like to keep my plays under 90 minutes max so it sounds like these variants could shave a considerable amount of time. I wonder why this was not brought up during play testing? Seems like an oversight that could have been addressed with an extra page in the rule book.
Thanks for bringing this point up. An official update on these points makes a big difference in my consideration of this game.
I don't get why game length is always such an issue with these guys. You're spending your whole life playing games anyway, so why would an occasional four or six or eight hour game be a problem? Why is it inherently better to play four mediocre small games that leave you feeling very meh (which they almost always do) instead of one good one?
@@pajander That is a matter of opinion. For me the length of the game does not inherently make it good or bad, but I tend to want to play games that are under 60 minutes. Again that is my opinion. I have played wonderful “filler games” that I thought were far superior than full length games. In addition I don’t believe the length of games in general are a problem for them, but the length of “this” game is. Some games just overstay their welcome and evidently this is one of them.
As another point for them time does matter because they have so many games to play and review that length of the game probably has to be considered at some point.
@@Therisktaker3 I mean yeah, you don't have to like or prefer long games, but sometimes it seems like it's a weird dealbreaker for them. Like, "this is an excellent game, but I will never play it again because it's too long", or in this case, "I will never play it again with more than two players".
Personally I haven't really found any filler games that offer anything close to that experience that long games offer, but to be fair I haven't played that many games yet.
Out of all the components this game has, I'm kind of sad there isn't a score pad in the box. It seems like there's a lot of things at the end of the game that score points and it would be nice if there was a way to track. I mean granted I can just write up on a notepad or something and that's probably what I'll do but it's just an odd thing that wasn't there.
Our copy arrived in the mail this week and my husband is chomping at the bit to get into it. We are “two-player only” gamers at the moment. This week is vacation, where we traditionally just play the heck out of a single game. So a long Now or Never game is *exactly* what we’re looking for.
Fun game to play solo and 2 player but the more you play it and understand its locations and systems it will become much faster. I think it’s a shame that all the location descriptions are in the back of the book, mainly coz there are spaces that aren’t immediately obvious. The one where you can switch the placement of two tiles in your grid should have been much more upfront in the location descriptions.
Otherwise it’s a solid 8.5 for me after 5 plays (shortest was 45 mins) then it and still the story mode to do so it could possibly go up or down haha 🙂
I wonder if a streamlined version is possible, similar to Empires of the Void 1 and 2 or an alternate rule set.
Someone said yes there’s a short and medium tule set out
In early for the video! Great review
The Pigmen are Intelligent... Evolved Passed "Boardom" ---- LMAO! Priceless!
Nice to hear. Tom’s feedback doesn’t bother me. He focuses on one issue (length) and you just need to evaluate your own sensitivity to that (I like long games, more than long rule walk-throughs). If he’s going critical, he also tends to overkill. You can reasonably add a point back, making it a 7 and an issue I don’t care about, so a throw-away. I don’t really follow Zee’s tastes, but his evaluations are more reasoned and consistent.
Can someone explain what's so great about the combat? Haven't played, but looking over the rules, nothing really stands out to me such that they'd fawn over it like that.
Waiting for the retail release
My favorites from red raven games is The ancient world and Empires of the void 2
Yeah I think these are all the games that are technically part of Arzium
1. Above and below
2. Near and far
3. City of Iron
4. Roam
5. Islebound
6. Now or never
Ugh, now I want to dig out my arcade stuff and fire up Dig Dug...thanks Zee!!! ;p
Really hate when games are longer than they should. A long game needs to have multiple paths and an arc through the rounds. If you're doing the same, at some point every game can feel like a chore.
A bummer cause this was in my anticipated list, the game looks georgous with solid gameplay
We played a game for 3.5 hours, my friend who played it for the first time thought we played for 1.5hours. The lenght is not an issue because it goes by so fast.
My partner really likes this series of games, I wasn't keen on either of the previous 2. I suspect I'll be forced to play this eventually but I'm probably going to agree with Tom that the combat system looks fun but everything else doesn't really fit well. Guess I'll see :P
I really dislike the track for resources, and with that many on one track (along with the funky shapes Tom mentioned) it seems like a pain. I hated tracking resources in tapestry for the same reasons - it's too easy to bump the markers into each other or off the track.
Ryan posted a link to shorter game variants in a thread on BGG if you guys wanna check that out...
You can get the same voice acting for Above and Below. Not sure about Near and Far.
Tom: "Don't make dumb jokes about the title, I've heard them all"
Zee: Hold my beer
🤣
"Hold my mysterious orange beverage."
Seriously, it looks like he went back in time and found a container of Tang! somewhere.
Maybe it's just orange soda and he drinks it out of a different kind of closable container to avoid product placement and spillage. Maybe he's a health nut drinking specially-prepared juice...Maybe I am just weird for focusing on what Zee is drinking.
I'm pretty sure the latter is the safest bet.
Ryan stated years ago there would be three of these. 100% this is the official third in a trilogy. Will he pull a Douglas Adams? I guess we'll find out!
Wow I came to the coments to say that was a really good joke by Zee there at the end. Very apropos
Unrelated to this specific video: Is there a reason Dice Tower uses lav mics instead of a shotgun boom? There's always so much mic noise in both these and their livestreams that would be totally solved with a different style of recording.
They have said that one of the major goals of the funding they are getting via the recent Kickstarter was to completely overhaul their outdated sound system and try to hire an actual sound engineer. They admitted, I don't remember if it was in this or a different recent video, that they got a bunch of sound equipment years ago and have just never upgraded even while DT has grown, and they were past due for a complete revamp which has already been planned.
So, they know it's an issue and are in the process of fixing it.
@@jameswoodard4304 It is wild to me that board games are still so niche that Dice Tower isn't a financial goliath in the game.
Such a good joke, Zee!
Really enjoyed this video and it brings to light a very interesting topic: the difference between a reviewer’s personal rating and the rating that reviewer should give the public. I think in many cases those ratings will be different. Splendor is a 5 for me because other games have replaced it and I will never ask to play it for myself, but I think as a game it’s an 8 and I would highly recommend it to others.
Nah. The ratings we give are our ratings. We aren't trying to "objectively" rate games.
What triggered the thought is when Zee said if he was rating it for himself he’d give it a higher score, but as a recommendation to others he had to settle on an 8. I respect that.
After 5 plays we play it at 45minutes per player, it can be done. In standard mode, havent started the story yet.
Complaints are kinda weird, I love playing at 3 and 4 players, yes it is 3 or 4 hours, but it goes by so fast, and that to me is a sign of a great game. If I can play Star Trek Ascendancy for 6 hours and TI:4 for 8 hours, why not this for 4? Yes I can play Near and Far in 2 hours, but this is a completely different game. Yes, the setup is a bit long, and its a table hog, but I have so many games that are also like that and I still love them.
Love the way you build your town, love moving and questing and fighting on the map, love using other peoples specialists, this game has so many great things in it.
It's a strong 8/10 for me, and I'm strict with my ratings. When the forteller app gets done for this, I'm playing the story and the rating might go up
The complaints are kinda weird because it seems not to bother you. I have a weekly game night limited to about 3 hours, I do most of the setup and tear down to maximize game time, and my gaming table isn't huge. So even if the game does "feel" fast, I won't be able to play this at 4-player due to their raised concerns especially when my group would want to play the story mode which would only take longer. I appreciate their complaints because I am now considering playing this only at 2-player with my wife with the game left setup in our office which will suit my situation.
It states on the back of the box that this is the 3rd in the trilogy.
Surprised by the higher scores, the way they were talking, they sounded more like they were in the 7 range.
10:35 - Combat
I will say I wish I got to hear more from Camilla on this and her thoughts and experience!
Maybe I'm just a control freak, but am I the only one that thinks rolling a die to see which combat action *my character* will use seems weird. I know that's not an unusual way to do combat, it just personally seems like an odd thing to make random.
It's probably just me and is my brain coming at this from an RPG direction rather than a Euro+story direction. This seems more like following the story of what happens *to* a character than me *being* a character. Which is fine if that was the design intent.
For me, the reason to play a story-having board game rather than just reading a book comes down to personal immersion connected to the actual process of forming the story. If it is just "choose which story line Character X will take" + gamery mechanics, I'd rather just either read a book about what happens to certain characters, or play an immersive video game or other kind of RPG where I *am* the character. This seems like an odd middle ground. Completely personal preferences though, and it's hard to judge because I've *still* yet to play any Laukat games.
Yeah. I don't like it when there's a such a big disconnect between the mechanics and theme/story.
THE BIG 4!!!
Coming next: Above and Beyond, where the world has evolved to spacefaring and comes full circle with Empires of the Void.
This game is a good example of why it’s better to give individual scores and not an average. Averaging the scores would dilute the fact that some people are going to be able to overlook some things about this game and some people will not
The statistics tell the story for this game: the median is 7.5, the arithmetic mean is 7.375, the geometric mean is 7.3103, and the mode doesn’t exists because all the ratings were different!
I really appreciate these reviews and the banter herein.
I think we would benefit from a tweak to the Seals system for 4-square reviews.
When any one person can push it to a seal of excellence when the rest pan the game, seems like the system is wrong.
I get Chris's point, that if she would have done a solo review, then the game would have also gotten a seal under the old system, but she isn't doing solo reviews yet, and that argument presumes that the person giving the highest score would have been the one chosen every time to review the game, since this 4-square system ensures that the highest score among the 4 is the one that "matters" and determines what endorsement the game gets.
I believe using something like the mean, a 2/4 plurality system, or an average of any 2 being over the threshold requirement, would be a good compromise to ensure that games don't get what appears to be a resounding recommendation from the whole dice tower, when in reality a considerable part of the dice tower wouldn't give the game such an endorsement and the part that does, barely does.
Here it got a 6, three 7s (counting Tom's kids), 8, and a single 8.5 but that one is enough. Feels like the seal-awarding will get inflated.
In the end it is a matter of opinion. Watching the rules explanation is typically enough for me. Sometimes something they say will be more impactful than the rating or seal, for instance game length. I pre-ordered the game snd am still interested to try it. I understand that the seal may throw people off and maybe the system should be reviewed, but at least for this game the average was still around a 7.5 so maybe not excellent, but still really good.
Historically games are given to the person most likely to enjoy the game because Tom doesn't want to make people play games they dont like. So generally the Dice Tower person giving the solo review has been the person who would give it the highest score.
Obviously this wouldn't always work, for example as Near and Far is one of Tom's favourite games he might have taken this game to solo review and been disappointed.
But basically past reviews have always been slightly biased upwards because of the chosen reviewer.
The like is for zee's pun.
If I 'm going to play a ryan lauket game solo I'm going to play this. sleeping gods? did he forget it, or is he saying this is one of the best solos ever made
Totally agree Robin.
If I remember correctly, they don't recommend Sleeping Gods solo because one player having to manage all the roles.
@@LeeKenshin7 Sleeping Gods is an increíble solo experience. The characters are more of resources, so it’s not really managing a character that you control and take actions with. I strongly recommend Sleeping Gods for solo, made my top of 2021 for solo only.
@@SideGameLLC Thanks for the rec. I won't shy from playing it solo but it's next in line after my wife and I complete Roll Player Adventures. We are looking forward to it.
@@LeeKenshin7 Excellent! If you enjoy Roll Player Adventures then you will LOVE Sleeping Gods!
Rahdo calls the building mechanism a "wonderful tribute to Goa" while Tom hated it, 30:45. I'm really curious to try this. The board and art look great, perhaps this is hot garbage for Tom.
Rahdo is glowingly positive about a game shocker! 😁
I don't think a "6" is hot garbage.
@@cthulwho8197 To be fair I believe he stated it was a paid review.
@@thedicetower You were going to give it a 5 but, gave it a sympathy point at the last minute. I imagine for someone who's played thousands of games for more that 25 years, outside of a review, a 6 (or 5) might not get played ever again. Hot garbage is too strong of a term for the mediocre stuff.
@@thedicetower Great review by all BTW, it has me wanting to try it with such diverse opinions I'm curious.
Why doesn't Tom like board games?
5 games of Euro, non-story mode and they all came in at 3 hours with teach each time... all 4 players.
45 minutes per player is accurate. It's a long game and it's worth all of it, IMO.
Great review! Not a game for me.
I'm curious.. Since the primary concern is the game length, would it really still feel complete and balanced if the game was made shorter? Should Twilight Imperium be rated lower because of the game length? Is it just because the game length is longer compared to the other titles of the series'? Would we rate a book by how long it take us to read it? I guess it is different when it to games but this is still a narrative game.
I don’t think they have problem with long games, but for some reason it sounds like this game over stayed its welcome. Things like waiting for other players turns to complete is sometimes what makes a game feel longer. I mean I have played some 15 minute games that over stayed their welcome. They sort of mentioned the sand box nature of the game contributed to this. They also mention story vs standard which when you compare them makes one feel more drawn out. They also mentioned reported game time on the bid was misleading so I think all of those items contributed to their reasoning.
@@Therisktaker3 Point taken. Ryan also acknowledge this and posted a shorter variant to address it.
This is a minor thing but why are the review scores all oddly orientated. I get that they're kinda angled towards the reviewer, but they're not aligned horizontally at all.
Glad i watched this. I did not enjoy above and below at all but love rhe art and know people love him. This is definitely not the game to choose. Hard pass for me.
In my review I gave it a 7 barely and I mean "barely" - it's fine enough, but Near & Far is easier to get to the table and yet provides the same level of enjoyment as this one does. The building mechanic doesn't make thematic sense and it's 95% multiplayer solitaire so playing this outside solo play doesn't really make sense to do. But it's fun to play every now and then, but probably not a keeper and I 100% agree that the time length in story mode is impossible to make 45min per player and even solo is lengthy.
I see 9's and 9.5's going round and I do wonder how some of the flaws definitely inherent in this game are being so easily overlooked. Length, component/graphical weirdness, the building mechanic, skewed balance towards building/villagers for points, those are big issues. Kind of surprised to see 8.5's, I think Camilla is too forgiving - the caveats mentioned are important considerations, not something to be "iffy" about - A game that is not fun/playable with 3-4 players due to the insane length is a fundamental flaw. Definitely on Tom's side here, this isn't worthy sadly of a Seal of Excellence compared to his other previous title.
I feel like everyone has different varying opinions. that’s why these reviews are good. Some games are just not for some people. The length seems to be a flaw. Some won’t mind it. So Camilla seems to have just enjoyed it more which is awesome! No use in saying she was forgiving. She knows what she likes.
@@LordoftheBoard Nah. He's right. She gave a seal of excellence to a game she seemed to kind of like.
@@typerk2388 haha you weren’t playing the game with her. Lol why would I listen to your opinion of what she enjoys? She knows what she likes better than you do. That’s what I was saying. This whole panel just shows varying opinions. I’ve seen quite a few people have zero issue with gamelength. So it’s not an issue for everyone.
I think Tom and Zee skew towards a 'fun per minute' metric. And Camilla and other folks just don't mind game length as much. Totally valid either way.
@@riclacy3796 agreed entirely
I have resisted buying Sleeping Gods because I know I won't enjoy the puzzle-combat system and even though the exploration and story drives Sleeping Gods, combat is for sure a part of it. I wish SO BAD that the combat from Now or Never was the same in Sleeping Gods. That blend would probably be a 10/10 for me!!
This game is Ryan unleashed with no regard for your time, nor table space. Everything is sized differently and it kind of looks like the mess of a cardboard hoarder who wants you to look at pictures. The replayability is okay in some aspects (ie. stories) but there is a noticeable repeat in the specialists, upgrades and buildings every game.
It’s good and we’ll play it sometimes but its too long and overwhelming to get frequent play.
How did it get a seal of excellence???
It's a shame they use a standard d4, the single most unfun dice in existence. If I got this game I'd probably replace that with a cylindrical d4, or an eight-sided d4. The game might even have been more interesting with a weighted d6 (eg. 1,1,2,2,3,4).
pigmen hunting boars is like humans hunting monkeys, so it's not that unusual
Seems like scores from Camilla and Zee especially don’t match what they said about it. Tom and Mike’s scores are more consistent with their comments.
Agreed. The way the video started I thought for sure they would be 7s or lower for all four of them.
@@GamesOffTheShelf A score is a personal thing that isnt necessarily tied to the negatives. Imagine Twilight Imperium reviews, that game is LONG. It could get a good score and a negative could still be how long it is. This means, that despite negatives, they still loved the experience.
Sooo Mage Knight is better than this, I get.
I think the character standees are lame. Is there a miniatures upgrade available?
This one didn’t seem as interesting to me. Kinda looks like a hit and a miss 😕
Above and below was terrible for me, just because these "stories" were all very random and boring, just because the desicions gave no tension, but just "ressources"- For that I don't need stories. The same here, I am afraid. This is a pass for me.
What did you think of Near & Far?
@@robertcrist124 I haven't played this one, but other Laukat games I really enjoyed.
Ancient World and Empires of the Void are wonderfull!
Humans have hunted other primates so it makes sense I guess.
Tom, Zee, and Mike have been great, but that 4th seat has been iffy. Great group!
I'm absolutely flabbergasted at the relatively low ratings this got. I've played Above & Below, Near & Far, and Islebound; those are all great games, but Now or Never knocked it out of the park for me. It is long and a "table hog", no argument there, but I had so much fun that I didn't mind the length. It's incredibly engaging to determine how best to balance your specialist and hero actions. I love roaming across the board, battling monsters and getting upgraded gear. I'm fine with the town grid, even if it does extend the table space.
I have to spend more time playing through the story but from a purely mechanical standpoint I think this could be Ryan's best Arzium game.
Because of the different ways Laukat has chosen to balance the various story and mechanical aspects of these games from one game to the next, there seems to be a pretty wide and very individual variation on which people tend to think is best. I'm not surprised to hear that what a large number of people might consider to be his weakest game (relatively speaking), also has a good number of others saying it is his best. I suspect that the spread between peoples' personal rankings of these games will be unusually high and diverse.
This actually looks horrible to me, definitely a pass. Just a bloated version of above and below.
It's too long...
Seal of excellence 🤨🧐
It’s the perfect time to fix the way you (Dice Tower) give the seals. Better sooner than later.
Doesn’t make sense that the seals depend on the person who made the review first.
Tom showed us many times that he doesn’t want to be the big boss who wants to control everything and decide everything. And that’s a smart thing , i applaud that. But the Dice Tower should decide if the Seals are more a personal flavour or more a technical review like the Oscars or the Spiel des Jahres, like how Zee rated today).
At the moment they are personal opinions but not in the right way unfortunately.
You said they needed to decide if they are for one person or not, and they are, and then you say that they are a mark of one person's review but in the wrong way. What in the world would make it the "right" way?
They're board game reviewers giving a score and opinion, not a prize, and the seal simply denotes if a game meets one of the reviewers' standards. I fail to see how this is in any way problematic.
The seal isn't determined by the first person, but the highest rating of those that reviewed it, that's all. Not sure where the "first to review it" comes into play when there are 4 people reviewing it at the same time.
@@bricelory9534
It’s not a big problem off course and at the end they do whatever they want. The wrong way is just my opinion. I think it’s wrong because for example if 3 reviewers give a rate between 3 and 5 and a fourth person gives a 10 then what will be the Dice Tower rating for that game?
Again this is just an opinion for them to improve.
I think they are the best in the world on what they do. And they have potential to grow up even more. But on other hand, just like you said, they are “just” board game reviewers.
Yeah, it doesn't make sense to give it based on the highest review any more than it would off the lowest review. Surely the median review would make more sense, or something. The point is more that from a consumer perspective people rely on The Dice Tower, but if they don't watch the review they will assume that this is reliably a great game, even though only one out of the four reviewers gave it sufficient score for the seal of approval, and the others scored it with heavy caveats. Not what a consumer would get from the seal if they see it on the shelf. One fix would be to put the little dice character in the seal so that people can see "oh, zee gave this a seal of approval, I have similar tastes to him" or "I tend to disagree with Roy so I probably won't like this" or whatever. But it's probably more effort than it's worth. Personally it doesn't really matter to me as I do watch the reviews and don't tend to browse in game shops and buy based on the box, but I do think if the seal is for the sake of consumers, then it is misleading if the majority of reviewers don't recommend it. It comes down to the difficulty that a reviewer faces between being an individual critic who can take liberties because their name is synonymous with their reviews (someone like Space Biff) or a company like the Dice Tower where they have to walk a finer valance between subjective personal opinions and more broader objective opinions, which is difficult, but necessary
@@seansteel328 You should never buy games you havent done research on, no one person likes every game. One of the top rated games on BGG for years was twilight struggle, that has a seal of excellence. If someone is only buying on seals they are going to be disappointed, even on universally acclaimed games. No game is for everyone, do your research.
I (Tom Vasel) review a lot of games by myself. I give games I like a lot a seal of approval, and games I love a seal of excellence.
Those seals are given by one person. Sometimes, other people in the studio HATE the game I love. Who cares? I post my review, and give it a seal.
So if others join me in a review, how does any of that change? We believe that every person in the Dice Tower studios (and this includes my daughters) can give a seal of approval or excellence. We don't think any one person's opinion is more valid than another's. And we feel that if we averaged out our opinions on games, we would be a boring, sterile site.
And the important thing is, the seal shouldn't affect you at all. You (the person making the comment) obviously watched the video! So you have four different opinions of the game. The WORDS are what is important, not the rating.
This is something I believe very strongly in, and will never change.
no one:
Tom Vasel: 🤔
Are you new to the internet?
Those scores by Mike and Tom are criminal. This game is an easy 9, bumping up to 9.5 with a proper insert!
So twilight imperium is a bad game and so gloomhaven, eclipse ecc. are too long ..... Bleh ....