While I usually find similarity with my views and Tom's, I have a very different view on Unfair. I played a game of it this weekend and thoroughly enjoyed it...even though I finished last. Sure, there are opportunities for your opponents to go after you...and you can do the same, but that's kind of expected in the title of the game. And during my game (granted its a sample size of one game) the players didn't spend all of their events attacking other players...first of all there was fear of reprisal (because you could do the same to them); rather then just attacking for no reason, the events going after other players were done very strategically...preventing a run away leader or preventing you from shutting down parts of their parks. I will agree for a game like this you have to know upfront what to expect and mileage may vary depending on your tastes...but for me this game was a blast!
This is a great game in my opinion. I have so many board games and, every time friends pass by, the want to play this instead of many of other, maybe more pretentious, games that I have. And, after the 100th time, it is still wonderful and fun.
I just bought this game after watching a play through. The event cards have an "or" between the top and bottom part of the card. So you usually have to make a decision to hurt someone or to better yourself. I think that's balance in itself, because the game allows some very good positives, but they don't hold the same weight depending on how early / late you acquire them. Sometimes the best move is not to play anything, and hold on to a certain card. While hurting someone is fun for some, and not for others, it's sometimes needed when someone is running away with the game and you can't do anything to stop them. If your strategy is to completely rely on a single ride / staff member combo per say, then you should really take precaution to protect it. If it's clearly obvious that your "machine" is 2x or 3x better than other players, you're only making yourself a target. Rightfully so if you ask me. I think this game has a wonderful theme, and after watching the full play through, I can't wait to bust this out next time and have a blast. Very happy to add this to my list of games despite this review.
I backed Unfair (partially because of theme and partially because it's Australian designed) and later played a demo with the designer. I had no regrets and was thrilled to receive my copy a couple of days ago. I have a different perspective because I tend to like highly interactive ('take that') games and dislike games that don't have it. Unfair is quite interesting in that there is an opportunity cost for playing those 'attacks'. If you play them, you aren't playing the postive effect for yourself. Another important point is that when you draw from decks as an action, you usually draw two and keep one, which mitigates some of the luck associate with getting better or worse cards (especially Blueprints), so I think Tom overstated the randomness a bit.
Michael Pittman I totally agree! There is so many ways to mitigate the randomness. I really like this game my wife did and everyone that we played with loves it.
I'm kind of the same, I don't mind "take that" in a game... I can really take it or leave it, but my boyfriend and many of my friends don't like games that don't have "take that" interaction, so it's great for my group.
Honestly think the event cards are balanced a free build but is a minus 2 to your hand.... grabbing a card in the market so no one else can get it is so strong especially the turn your going last... problem people have in unfair is knowing what cards to save and ones not to save
I feel that there's a need for a medium-heavy Euro that's about building and managing an amusement park. Hopefully it'll be done one day. Glad I didn't back this. I saw it as a long, take-that style game (which is great in a 30-60 minute game), and knew I wouldn't like it.
Tom's infuriated "Final Thoughts" sold me on this. I love games that enrage players and for someone as laid back as Tom to get so frustrated tells me this game is for me.
Man, I really don't understand the negative reaction to this game. Your favorite game Cosmic Encounter is full of negative take that actions that don't benefit yourself, except that if you think about it they are helping you. You are possibly preventing someone else from winning. It's a great balancing mechanic to have to evaluate each event card to figure out if it is better to play the top part or the bottom part based on the current state of the game. Oh well, to each their own, but I can't understand hating on this game for the reason that you dislike the take that actions.
Obviously I'm not Tom but I think the fundamental difference is the appeal of Unfair for Tom and many people is building your own cool amusement park/engine and watching it run (like Rollercoaster Tycoon) and having someone come in and destroy the thing you've been building all game isn't fun for them as it is antithetical to what they like about the game . By comparison Cosmic Encounter is all about stabbing people in the back. You have no connection to the planets you're occupying or the ships you control in Cosmic so losing them doesn't mean anything. The whole point of that game is being a duplicitous jerk so it doesn't feel personal when someone attacks you.
Thanks for the review Tom. And thanks for pointing out that many other reviewers loved Unfair and that many players will too, even if you didn't. Just a few quick things for people who want to investigate more: The game clearly signals from its title and back of the box that it is a building game with some elements which allow you to mess with each other. Unfair is modular - you can choose theme packs with low Unfairness ratings to tailor each game to your groups style (eg more or less messing with each other) or mood. As we release more expansions this modularity will increase. Our successful Kickstarter added 2 more advanced and potentially aggressive theme packs into the game (Ninja and Tom's favourite - Gangster). But for your first game of Unfair we strongly advise you not to play with these theme packs, but to follow the setup instructions for the themes to play first. see boardgamegeek.com/thread/1739809/important-suggested-first-game-setup-please-read Player's Event cards can be played for a generally unstoppable positive top half, and combined into powerful combos too. Players can play events for their bottom half negative effects - at an opportunity cost of the unstoppable top half / combos. But the bottom half of effects can be blocked, copied back at the aggressor for greater effect, played around with redundancy strategies, and mitigated in various ways by other event cards. Players may defend with event cards that can block, or stockpile them for top half combos that may outstrip losses. So players who just attack for no reason will generally find this is not an optimal strategy for winning the game, specially if they are not aiming at players ahead of them on the victory curve. Players quickly learn that it is generally rewarding to attack only when trying to peg back a clear leader or to get hold of something you desperately need. We dive deep into the strategy and experience of Unfair's event play here boardgamegeek.com/thread/1753030/unfair-experience-what-should-you-expect The World Peace card is a game changer card that completely nurfs player based take that for those that might want to ease into the game softly softly for family play etc. But most gamers will likely tune the game to their mood through theme pack selection and discover strategies as they explore event play. Event play gets you thinking and has plenty of room for mastery in Unfair. Those interested may read a little more about it and other aspects of the game in our Unfair strategy guide - unfair-game.com/strategy Thanks again.
Good Games Publishing Well said. My wife and I really enjoyed this game. Everyone we played with really enjoyed the game as well. All of us played pretty nicely because it was beneficial for ourselves. That being said we did do the bottom actions at times when it would help us take the lead.
Good Games Publishing I completely agree! Your description of the strategic value of using top/bottom parts of the event card actions is exactly the experience I had in my playthrough. Players were very deliberate about using the bottom/negative actions of the cards...done to either stop a major move/points scoring opportunity or to set themselves up for a similar move by creating an opportunity by stymying the other player. The game is very well designed and offers a lot of strategy...and is loads of fun on top of having stunning art/graphic design. Bring on the theme expansions!
Good Games Publishing yes well said! I just received my copy and spoke with the designer at Gencon....I belive it was him. Anyways, I loved the theme and take that elliment...seriously Tom I love your videos and reviews but unfair does in fact say it all. over the course of pack releases I can see how this game can easily offer a more "fun fair experience". I suppose my friends grew up around munchkin so there is that. great quality and for my friends and family a high fun rating!
Jonas - many other reviewers and backers love Unfair. Give the game 2 or 3 plays starting with the suggested first game (see my post above) and then form your own opinion and let us know what you think. Does that sound fair?
Really need to work on the blurry camera/poor focus when showing something up close to the camera. Happens in a lot of Dice Tower videos, but was especially bad in this one.
After playing this 6-7 times now, I can say pretty confidently that Tom's complaints here are pretty much nonsense. If events weren't valuable, nobody would ever take them; it wouldn't be a viable choice in the game. If there was no take that element, it would just be a race to build your park without any means of slowing down a runaway leader. It would literally come down to whoever drew a good synergy combo first, it would be totally boring and this game would vanish off the radar entirely very quickly. He really oversells the take that element too; taking that option means you aren't helping yourself, and especially at higher players counts where you have more targets, hurting one person might not be worth losing a lot of money or card draw. Dismissing this game based solely on Tom's review would be a mistake. Try if you get the chance.
I accept the point about the perhaps over-aggressive nature of the game, but I'm still looking forward to it! Side note: there will ultimately be 26 theme decks available for the game, so I'm sure they can use those to create different gaming systems within the same engine.
Well, if Dice Tower review bombs this game, there will probably not be anymore theme decks, which sucks because I was really looking forward to Aliens and Zombies.
I was both surprised and not surprised at Toms review. He don't seem to enjoy games that give lots of opportunity to mess with other players but i thought that this might have been the game to change that. While i always enjoy, appreciate and often look for Toms reviews i don't always agree and hope that this game will be as fun as it looks and be popular enough to support a bunch of cool theme expansions!
"He don't seem to enjoy games that give lots of opportunity to mess with other players" Yeah, right. Check his all time top 5 game, and think about it again.
I have been watching the Dice Tower for a long time and I have always loved it and respected your views. However, one thing I noticed over the years is that you guys underrate the beauty of Take That games. What's wrong with a bit of viciousness or being mean to other players? They are still just games, come on :)
As someone who absolutely despises 'take that' games, perhaps I can offer some perspective. I have no problem with the general concept of negative interaction between players - this can really add tension and fun to a game, and, as you point out, it's just a game. What 'take that' does, however, is it separates the negative interaction from the general flow of the game, making it arbitrary and unpreventable. Take that play doesn't advance one's own goals in pursuit of the game; it simply hammers down the player who has been skillful enough to be doing well. It's the strongest form of 'bash the leader' that there is, and it leads to extremely arbitrary game outcomes. Where negative interaction really works is when it's in the service of the player who is interacting negatively forwarding their own position to actually win the game. In this way, it can be foreseen and prevented, and it doesn't come off as arbitrary or personal. Simply drawing a card and smashing other player's stuff is lazy game design, and unsatisfying in that doesn't enhance or reward player skill.
I personally don't like take that games because I want everyone playing to come away with a positive experience. When the goal of the game is to essentially put it to the player such as sorry then the game just isn't compelling to me and more often than not it breeds a negative experience and interaction. Another part of this game that I don't like is the randomness. I was originally going to back this game but in the end passed on it based on other reviews of the randomness and take that mechanism. I hate games where superior tactics and strategy are completely dismissed due to chance. This is especially true if it is hard or impossible to mitigate these situations. I so wanted to like this game, but this is definitely a hard pass for me.
He likes Cosmic Encounter. I think that has Take That in the game.... Arbitrary take that is a big turn off. I like plenty of duelling card games (which are all take that) but just randomly choosing players to disadvantage....
"Take that" is just not a very fun mechanic for me either. Most the time they are just too random, if people pick on someone more than others, the game is not fun for that person.
Or Steve Fratus, maybe you are just a soulless, lifeless blob. Some games are frustrating, some games are even designed to be frustrating. Believing otherwise could mean you are dead inside.
Steve Fratus But everyone keeps saying "of course the game is like that, it's called Unfair, duh". So surely if you play it without the take that cards you are not playing the game of Unfair? If the whole point of the game is the Unfairness how can you leave that part out? It's like saying you should play Risk without ever invading a territory held by another player.
Steve Fratus - Oh right sorry. I didn't know that was the bottom line. I shall immediately change my own opinion, and I am sure that everyone else who has expressed negative views will do likewise as well. Thanks for letting me know.
rob taylor just as an FYI, they have the original Rollercoaster Tycoon (a mix of 1 and 2) available on phones now, called Rollercoaster Tycoon classic, Ive been loving it!
I wonder if a few solid house rules could fix it? Shouldn't have to do that, but it might work.. For instance 3 blueprints tuned face up at all times letting you choose?
Played my first game last night. Can't say I totally agree with Tom's critique but I can kinda relate a little. I do like "take that" games, this is "take that extreme" lol .The game can be brutal, however it's called unfair so you know what your getting yourself in to from the get go. A few house rules though and you could almost eliminate that element if you wanted to. Can someone explain the "Quality" cards as I found them a waste unless you got to play the card free. $15 to buy for just 1star when some upgrades are $4 for the same star rating. I thought the "Quality cards" should start at 3stars considering the cost. I did run into a problem when i decided to work on a blueprint which required me to build a food outlet and upgrade it, only to discover that the card I had couldn't be upgraded and the only other food outlet left that could be upgraded in the deck was already owned by my opponent. I wasn't happy about losing points for that blueprint. I now know not to pick a blueprint unless I can get it done or at least look at the deck to see how many copies of each card there are, a first game lesson. I did enjoy the game and will probably like it even more after few more play throughs.
Quality cards are great if you want to earn some extra points for your attractions. The reason why they cost so much is you can have any amount which can sky rocket your added points. By the end of the game, a player should have a decent money engine going to turn it into points on upgrades. Of course, there are ways to not for pay for them ;) Sometimes, blueprints is a way to get some extra points that has some risk. You can focus on them as a strategic point, or just go one or two. Every theme deck has ways to remove blueprint cards so you might want to spend a few park actions to look for them. I like to get them from the very beginning, but if things don't look right, might as well get rid of them.
Cardboard Stacker you'll have to explain the Quality card usefulness in more detail, I still don't get why they cost so much for little gain e.g. $15 for 1star. I don't think you can get rid of blueprints because they're not in your hand, they're in your play area. Unless an event card allows you to discard. Am I right or wrong?
To be more clear, you're not looking for stars on Quality cards but to add to the ride's size (upgrade type symbol on the left such as theme, Thrill Ride, Feature, & Guest Services.) The more you have, the more points you'll get. If you're limited in finding different upgrades, it's a great way to grab some extra points. The reason why they cost a lot of money is simply they have no restraints and be put onto any attraction and as many as you want. You're not looking to get a lot money from these. Showcases, park, and event cards can also help getting quality upgrades. Spending actual money on a quality card should be last resort keeping in mind that money is worth 2 or 1 point at the end. Some event cards you want to look for are "Renovation" and "Unusual bequest." If you're playing with the Robot theme, buying the "Robot Theme" will get you an upgrade for free. Blueprints can be gotten rid by the "Project Management" event cards which are found in all decks.
I agree. A lot. Why not focus in the fun part? I retreat for Kickstarter campain after watching all the take that! stuff. This kind of games end badly. Killjoy or ever the players will end bitter.
You are hurting other people to bring them down, which at the same time either brings you closer to the top, or makes you go even further ahead. I don't understand the hate for take that. You go to game knowing there are take that elements, someone can destroy your ride, so maybe, just maybe don't put all your eggs in one basket. You need to play around the other people! Take that games are the polar opposite of multiplayer solitaires. You have to be aware of other people, play in a way you don't over expose yourself, you have guards in place, and know when to hit the other players. Maybe the other reviewers didn't think they were playing a Castles of Mad King Ludvig, the amusement park edition, but a solid mean competitive game where you have to be on the edge.
If you spend your resources to hurt one person at the table, you've now wasted those resources and brought one person down. The other players who weren't involved profit the most, not you.
Thanks for the review Tom. Almost kickstarted it, almost preordered it, ultimately decided not to. I love love love the park theme, reminiscent of RCT which I love. But hearing it has such 'take that' elements, it's prolly not good for us. I'm a bad enough sore loser, lol, and hubby gets so annoyed by it. This will likely cause nothing but problems. Such a shame, cause I had such high hopes for the theme. Thanks for saving me a few bucks, and a disagreement LOL.
Oh my goodness, same. Having a game night tonight and this was the game chosen; I’m on here trying to emotionally prepare myself to not feel personally attacked lol
I haven't played the game yet, and I respect the review. I, too, am not a big fan of "take that" games. However, I understand the "take that" is the balancing of kind of a "press your luck" element. Briefly looking at the event cards, it seems that any cards that destroy an attraction, are just one attraction. If you have an attraction with 25 icons on it, yeah that's 310 points. So, there is the temptation to build that one awesome attraction to go for the big points. However, that can be shut down by one event card. It seems safer to build many attractions, but that gives you fewer points. So part of the "take that" seems avoidable if you don't make yourself a target. Am I wrong on this?
Kent, the destructive attacks almost all affect only a single upgrade card, not the entire attraction. There is one event in one theme pack (Ninja) that allows demolishing an entire attraction, but it is limited by its rule to attractions that are no more than 5 icons tall - so your 25 icon ride cannot be demolished with that event, or by any other event in the game. It is possible to close tall attractions, but closure just means the ride is inoperative for one round, it doesn't take away any pieces of the ride. Destructive effects all have limits or can be blocked; this isn't meant to be a game where the park you have at the end is a giant smoking hole in the ground :)
I almost backed this on Kickstarter but when I realized it had what seemed to be a big "take that" element I decided not to. Thanks Tom for this review. I get that people like take that elements but I'm not a big fan of it. If I don't like it in Smash Up, there is no way I'd like this game.
i playtest that game last gen con and i was sooo disapoint and never got the "hype" i was really waiting for this review and you did point at all the problem we had glad im not alone!
don't agree with the bottom of the the event cards having no benefit apart from to hurt other players. you are taking points away from them by removing parts of their rides.
What he means is, other than knocking down their points, it doesn't advance your agenda. Yes, if I'm at 10 points and you're at 12, it helps me to cut you down to 4 points. However, what kind of experience is that? I hurt you, but gained nothing. You were hurt and lost everything you were working on. Also, it's important to note that it's bad strategy. If we're playing a 2 player game then it doesn't matter beyond your bad experience of feeling like your time was wasted. But, if we're playing a 3 or 4 player game and I use my turn to negate what you did on your turn, then all I did was give the other two players an extra turn. It is always more beneficial to help yourself rather than hurt a single player in a game with more than 2 players.
Uh, is taking points from other players not "hurting" them? It sounds like you just said, "The event cards don't just hurt other players, they actually hurt other players."
Phil D you may want to re-read my comment. your not just being mean to other players for the sake of it. you're helping yourself by taking away their points
No, I see your comment. You stealing points from one player just hurts that players ability to win, there's still other players at the table who aren't getting hurt. You getting points would actually help you. In fact, spending resources to hurt someone hurts you (by the loss of resources) AND them, and benefits everyone else at the table.
I have to disagree with this review. I've played this game 4 times so far and everyone that I've had played with loved it. I usually don't like Take that Games but this felt different and didn't seem beneficial all the time to use the bottom actions. Everyone of our games we might of each played the bottom action maybe once.
And they have but Tom's review is quite bad in all fairness. Many have the take that elements have options of effecting you or another player. He also is heavily critical of many many games that don't allow him to be isolated from other players.
Cardboard Stacker, there's a lot of discussion about these Event cards without the details actually being mentioned. The Ninja theme pack is the only one with an event that allows demolishing an entire attraction, and it costs the attacker 1 Event card discarded for each 1 icon they destroy. Because of the hand-limit, this means that the maximum size of attraction that can be destroyed is 5 icons tall, and it costs the attacker their *entire hand* of Event cards, which must have been accumulated over two previous rounds, to do it - they have to spend two entire rounds worth of their effort to demolish one small ride, and the simple way to make your attraction immune is to build it 6 icons tall. Tom's review makes it sound like the game just throws bombs in every direction, when in fact the attacks have a carefully considered cost, and plenty of ways to defend against them.
I enjoyed my first play of this game while playing but felt that it might have come down to a couple of lucky cards that determined the winner. This confirms my hunch.
This game plays just fine.. there is "take that" but you usually only get hit one round in the game and it evens out at some point. You only get 3 action a around so there are some goo option to think about each turn.. Sorry, I disagree with this review.
Your critics are exactly why I didn't back the game: it's a take that game, not a tableau/engine building game. If I got hit with random drone strikes while playing Roller Coaster Tycoon, I wouldn't enjoy it either :p
No, it IS a tableau building game. The "take that" barely comes into play. It's a mechanism to keep the game field even, and it typically comes with a steep opportunity cost. I wouldn't say this has any more take that than Imperial Settlers.
It's the cult of the new now. Games have a huge buzz for a few months then woosh. Fall of the face of the planet. Tom makes valid points and I disagree with him most of the time.
Yup, just played this for the first time and it completely winded me. In the last turn after building up my engine a player drew an event card which they used to take out two out of three attractions out of my park . That cost me 50 income on that last turn which equates to 25 points at game end! I lost 105 to 106 (to 79). It wiped out 25% of my entire score based on one card draw (the event card). And you can't really keep back defence cards because there are three ways you an be attacked and you only have a five card limit. So if you hold three defence cards you are kneecapping yourself. The staff member who reopens two rides as an action is therefore completely overpowered and only costs 4 to put out! No hurry to play that again, ever!
I have no problem with take that games that are quick, or take that games where it might cost you a few points here and there. But after an hour and a half building my engine that was such a FU ending to the game.
Wow, you label the game as 'disappointing' because you simply don't like a game that has 'take that' element? yet you review 'unfair' in which you should already know that the game is all about 'take that'. It's the same as food blogger who dislike sushi and try to review a sushi dish (in a sushi restaurant) and label the food as "disappointment".. wth Tom? This review is so "unfair"
lol. wow Tom. Did you really just review a game that explicitly told you it has mechanics you don't like, and then complian about it having those mechanics? The luck and randomness was good to pick out. You seem to leave out explaining that players at the table should know or have an idea in whats in each theme deck though. players can be going for blue prints before they even draw them, and they should have an idea at what event cards could come up so they play around them. but luck is luck. if you draw poorly, you are probably gonna fall behind, and if players gang up on you, I can see this game being "unfun". I got this game on the mail the other day, so I'm curious to see how balanced or un-balanced it is with more plays.
***** imagine you are a food reviewer who dislikes spicy food. You also happen to love hotdogs.... one day, as head of your food review website, you decide to review the menue of a newly opened eatery, Fire HOT hot dogs stand. You go there and you love the way the stands look, the pictures of the food looks awesome! "Omg it looks delicious!" many of your peers have been talking about how they enjoyed their Fire Hot Hot dog experience, and you close your eyes and imagin how it will tast when you take a bite.... then you take a closer look at the menu, and realize.. all or most of the hot dogs are spicy.... "What?".. you bitterly order and eat one. You dont luke it...Then you bitterly eat another, but pick out some ingredients you dislike, you don't understand why sime hotdogs cost more then others if you remove those ingrediants. Then you odorder the mild or none spicy hot dog from the menu, and you realize the mild or plain dog just isn't anything special.wow... what a let down.... then you go on your food blog or what ever, and write about how this experience disopointed you, because the hotdogs stand, that you wanted to love, because you LOVE hotdogs...Turns out to be a spicy experience..... now... people can simply see this review for what it is, a biased review on the Internet... but people can also see this as poor judgment. I like tom, and most of his reviews. This one to me just seemed odd... I'll give him some due respect for being self aware of his bias. He brings it up in the review. But then... I just don't see the point of doing the review... let someone else review the game that isn't bothered by take that style games. They can pick the game apart without spending the beter part of the review talking about how they don't like a core mechanic....
I don't want only positive reviews either. I like toms negative reviews where he points out flaws in the design based on objective criticism. he does that a bit here, pointing out lucky cards and balance. That's what I believe people want to hear about, not a rant of The take that nature of the Unfair cards, which one could argue to be integral to this games experience. criticism.he
I rarely venture out of the cooperative game genre, unless it is a really awesome competitive game. I am not, however, interested in 'take that' games. The real world is cruel enough ... I'd much rather help my fellow players, and I don't really care who wins as long as everyone has a good time. Like Tom, I am very disappointed that a game with a fantastic and under-used theme like amusement parks has to build in an element of pure meanness. I just don't get it.
I'm mystified that after remarking on so many negative things, considering the game unfun and frustrating and imbalanced and "an incredible disappointment", you still gave it a 5 out of 10! Egad! Have some teeth, my man!
This review is very unfair. He built expectations without paying attention to: Title, box description, previews, KS campaign, PnP... It's not like this was hidden or badly promoted.
Tom's said he doesn't usually read or research games before they're out. He heard the hype but you can't blame him for not checking out the kickstarter page, he's reviewing 5 - 10 games every week. He received a copy to review and wanted it to be good and he hated it. That doesn't seem "unfair".
The review is not unfair, although I would say the game is. I see this over and over again especially when people have a different opinion. If you like the game then reading a negative review shouldn't take away from that. If you like take that games then this should not dissuade you, instead this would probably be right up your ally. I don't always agree with Tom or other reviewers, but they are still welcome to their opinion. At least he explains why he does not like the game. If you agree or disagree that is fine, but to call it unfair is your opinion.
Nick Smith all the cards are situational, thus useful at different times. Luck can be avoided with the draw-2-choose-1 or discard-1-draw-5 mechanisms. I played the PnP a lot before backing this and balance is a very strong point in this game, no matter what decks you play with.
I made a movie that is about staring at a tomato. in the movie I stare at a tomato. the tomato is on a white table. since I'm holding the camera you can't see what I'm wearing. the white table and the tomato are in a room with blue walls and no windows. the doorway is behind me so the camera never points at it. I don't say anything for the entire two hour run time. Now having accurately described this movie, is a reviewer required to judge it on the merits of only those movies where a camera points at an object for two hours, or more reasonably I'd argue can the reviewer say the movie is terrible because two hours of footage of a tomato is just a bad idea for a movie.
Tom... you like Galaxy Trucker, a game where you virtually build everything only to watch it destroyed in the end... while Unfair has take that in it, virtually you are destroying everything nonetheless... Is it just the "take that" mechanism that ruins it for you (because it seems like Galaxy Trucker) has a similar plot to it!
Galaxy trucker isn't you building up resources to make progress, you build a ship as fast as possible and the mechanics of the game are it slowly falling apart. Not a comparable feel.
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA Finals D1 | Fall | ยิงต้องโหด ให้เหมือนโกรธกันมาก่อน](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OnTdfGySmds/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Watch Party] RoV Pro League 2024 Winter | ( Bacon Time Vs PSG )](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zM25REvnJW4/mqdefault.jpg)
@Tom Vassel - FunFair is now available for preorder!
While I usually find similarity with my views and Tom's, I have a very different view on Unfair. I played a game of it this weekend and thoroughly enjoyed it...even though I finished last. Sure, there are opportunities for your opponents to go after you...and you can do the same, but that's kind of expected in the title of the game. And during my game (granted its a sample size of one game) the players didn't spend all of their events attacking other players...first of all there was fear of reprisal (because you could do the same to them); rather then just attacking for no reason, the events going after other players were done very strategically...preventing a run away leader or preventing you from shutting down parts of their parks. I will agree for a game like this you have to know upfront what to expect and mileage may vary depending on your tastes...but for me this game was a blast!
This is a great game in my opinion. I have so many board games and, every time friends pass by, the want to play this instead of many of other, maybe more pretentious, games that I have. And, after the 100th time, it is still wonderful and fun.
I just bought this game after watching a play through. The event cards have an "or" between the top and bottom part of the card. So you usually have to make a decision to hurt someone or to better yourself. I think that's balance in itself, because the game allows some very good positives, but they don't hold the same weight depending on how early / late you acquire them. Sometimes the best move is not to play anything, and hold on to a certain card. While hurting someone is fun for some, and not for others, it's sometimes needed when someone is running away with the game and you can't do anything to stop them. If your strategy is to completely rely on a single ride / staff member combo per say, then you should really take precaution to protect it. If it's clearly obvious that your "machine" is 2x or 3x better than other players, you're only making yourself a target. Rightfully so if you ask me.
I think this game has a wonderful theme, and after watching the full play through, I can't wait to bust this out next time and have a blast. Very happy to add this to my list of games despite this review.
I backed Unfair (partially because of theme and partially because it's Australian designed) and later played a demo with the designer. I had no regrets and was thrilled to receive my copy a couple of days ago. I have a different perspective because I tend to like highly interactive ('take that') games and dislike games that don't have it. Unfair is quite interesting in that there is an opportunity cost for playing those 'attacks'. If you play them, you aren't playing the postive effect for yourself. Another important point is that when you draw from decks as an action, you usually draw two and keep one, which mitigates some of the luck associate with getting better or worse cards (especially Blueprints), so I think Tom overstated the randomness a bit.
Michael Pittman I totally agree! There is so many ways to mitigate the randomness. I really like this game my wife did and everyone that we played with loves it.
I'm kind of the same, I don't mind "take that" in a game... I can really take it or leave it, but my boyfriend and many of my friends don't like games that don't have "take that" interaction, so it's great for my group.
Honestly think the event cards are balanced a free build but is a minus 2 to your hand.... grabbing a card in the market so no one else can get it is so strong especially the turn your going last... problem people have in unfair is knowing what cards to save and ones not to save
Unfair, I feel was a very well thought out game.
I can always tell when tom doesn't like a game by him complementing the component quality right out the gate.
mine too... next day they were convex.
I feel that there's a need for a medium-heavy Euro that's about building and managing an amusement park. Hopefully it'll be done one day.
Glad I didn't back this. I saw it as a long, take-that style game (which is great in a 30-60 minute game), and knew I wouldn't like it.
Tom's infuriated "Final Thoughts" sold me on this. I love games that enrage players and for someone as laid back as Tom to get so frustrated tells me this game is for me.
Please, could you name some titles that you love (aside from this one here)?
None of you are invited to my game nights... :)
Man, I really don't understand the negative reaction to this game. Your favorite game Cosmic Encounter is full of negative take that actions that don't benefit yourself, except that if you think about it they are helping you. You are possibly preventing someone else from winning. It's a great balancing mechanic to have to evaluate each event card to figure out if it is better to play the top part or the bottom part based on the current state of the game. Oh well, to each their own, but I can't understand hating on this game for the reason that you dislike the take that actions.
Well said
Obviously I'm not Tom but I think the fundamental difference is the appeal of Unfair for Tom and many people is building your own cool amusement park/engine and watching it run (like Rollercoaster Tycoon) and having someone come in and destroy the thing you've been building all game isn't fun for them as it is antithetical to what they like about the game . By comparison Cosmic Encounter is all about stabbing people in the back. You have no connection to the planets you're occupying or the ships you control in Cosmic so losing them doesn't mean anything. The whole point of that game is being a duplicitous jerk so it doesn't feel personal when someone attacks you.
The video quality is great but the fact that you can't read the cards that are clearly being shown to the camera is annoying.
Expansion for Aliens, B-Movie, Dinosaurs, and Westerns will be out soon enough! Horray! Love this game!
Thanks for the review Tom. And thanks for pointing out that many other reviewers loved Unfair and that many players will too, even if you didn't. Just a few quick things for people who want to investigate more:
The game clearly signals from its title and back of the box that it is a building game with some elements which allow you to mess with each other.
Unfair is modular - you can choose theme packs with low Unfairness ratings to tailor each game to your groups style (eg more or less messing with each other) or mood. As we release more expansions this modularity will increase.
Our successful Kickstarter added 2 more advanced and potentially aggressive theme packs into the game (Ninja and Tom's favourite - Gangster). But for your first game of Unfair we strongly advise you not to play with these theme packs, but to follow the setup instructions for the themes to play first. see boardgamegeek.com/thread/1739809/important-suggested-first-game-setup-please-read
Player's Event cards can be played for a generally unstoppable positive top half, and combined into powerful combos too. Players can play events for their bottom half negative effects - at an opportunity cost of the unstoppable top half / combos. But the bottom half of effects can be blocked, copied back at the aggressor for greater effect, played around with redundancy strategies, and mitigated in various ways by other event cards. Players may defend with event cards that can block, or stockpile them for top half combos that may outstrip losses. So players who just attack for no reason will generally find this is not an optimal strategy for winning the game, specially if they are not aiming at players ahead of them on the victory curve. Players quickly learn that it is generally rewarding to attack only when trying to peg back a clear leader or to get hold of something you desperately need.
We dive deep into the strategy and experience of Unfair's event play here boardgamegeek.com/thread/1753030/unfair-experience-what-should-you-expect
The World Peace card is a game changer card that completely nurfs player based take that for those that might want to ease into the game softly softly for family play etc. But most gamers will likely tune the game to their mood through theme pack selection and discover strategies as they explore event play.
Event play gets you thinking and has plenty of room for mastery in Unfair. Those interested may read a little more about it and other aspects of the game in our Unfair strategy guide - unfair-game.com/strategy
Thanks again.
Good Games Publishing Well said. My wife and I really enjoyed this game. Everyone we played with really enjoyed the game as well. All of us played pretty nicely because it was beneficial for ourselves. That being said we did do the bottom actions at times when it would help us take the lead.
Good Games Publishing I completely agree! Your description of the strategic value of using top/bottom parts of the event card actions is exactly the experience I had in my playthrough. Players were very deliberate about using the bottom/negative actions of the cards...done to either stop a major move/points scoring opportunity or to set themselves up for a similar move by creating an opportunity by stymying the other player. The game is very well designed and offers a lot of strategy...and is loads of fun on top of having stunning art/graphic design. Bring on the theme expansions!
Good Games Publishing yes well said! I just received my copy and spoke with the designer at Gencon....I belive it was him. Anyways, I loved the theme and take that elliment...seriously Tom I love your videos and reviews but unfair does in fact say it all. over the course of pack releases I can see how this game can easily offer a more "fun fair experience". I suppose my friends grew up around munchkin so there is that.
great quality and for my friends and family a high fun rating!
This review will really bring this game down. I Kickstarted it and I have not received it but I kinda regret Kickstarting it now :(
Jonas - many other reviewers and backers love Unfair. Give the game 2 or 3 plays starting with the suggested first game (see my post above) and then form your own opinion and let us know what you think. Does that sound fair?
Really need to work on the blurry camera/poor focus when showing something up close to the camera. Happens in a lot of Dice Tower videos, but was especially bad in this one.
After playing this 6-7 times now, I can say pretty confidently that Tom's complaints here are pretty much nonsense. If events weren't valuable, nobody would ever take them; it wouldn't be a viable choice in the game. If there was no take that element, it would just be a race to build your park without any means of slowing down a runaway leader. It would literally come down to whoever drew a good synergy combo first, it would be totally boring and this game would vanish off the radar entirely very quickly. He really oversells the take that element too; taking that option means you aren't helping yourself, and especially at higher players counts where you have more targets, hurting one person might not be worth losing a lot of money or card draw. Dismissing this game based solely on Tom's review would be a mistake. Try if you get the chance.
I accept the point about the perhaps over-aggressive nature of the game, but I'm still looking forward to it! Side note: there will ultimately be 26 theme decks available for the game, so I'm sure they can use those to create different gaming systems within the same engine.
Well, if Dice Tower review bombs this game, there will probably not be anymore theme decks, which sucks because I was really looking forward to Aliens and Zombies.
That is simply not true.
Steve Fratus. Riiiight, and you're just saying that to me, why?
I was both surprised and not surprised at Toms review. He don't seem to enjoy games that give lots of opportunity to mess with other players but i thought that this might have been the game to change that. While i always enjoy, appreciate and often look for Toms reviews i don't always agree and hope that this game will be as fun as it looks and be popular enough to support a bunch of cool theme expansions!
"He don't seem to enjoy games that give lots of opportunity to mess with other players"
Yeah, right. Check his all time top 5 game, and think about it again.
3 years later Fun Fair is coming out. Lol
haha. You can always tell it's a negative review when he starts in straight away saying nice/neutral things about the components.
I have been watching the Dice Tower for a long time and I have always loved it and respected your views. However, one thing I noticed over the years is that you guys underrate the beauty of Take That games. What's wrong with a bit of viciousness or being mean to other players? They are still just games, come on :)
As someone who absolutely despises 'take that' games, perhaps I can offer some perspective. I have no problem with the general concept of negative interaction between players - this can really add tension and fun to a game, and, as you point out, it's just a game.
What 'take that' does, however, is it separates the negative interaction from the general flow of the game, making it arbitrary and unpreventable. Take that play doesn't advance one's own goals in pursuit of the game; it simply hammers down the player who has been skillful enough to be doing well. It's the strongest form of 'bash the leader' that there is, and it leads to extremely arbitrary game outcomes.
Where negative interaction really works is when it's in the service of the player who is interacting negatively forwarding their own position to actually win the game. In this way, it can be foreseen and prevented, and it doesn't come off as arbitrary or personal.
Simply drawing a card and smashing other player's stuff is lazy game design, and unsatisfying in that doesn't enhance or reward player skill.
He did design "Nothing Personal", but perhaps his tastes have changed, it's the particular form of take that, or the dose that makes the poison.
I personally don't like take that games because I want everyone playing to come away with a positive experience. When the goal of the game is to essentially put it to the player such as sorry then the game just isn't compelling to me and more often than not it breeds a negative experience and interaction.
Another part of this game that I don't like is the randomness. I was originally going to back this game but in the end passed on it based on other reviews of the randomness and take that mechanism. I hate games where superior tactics and strategy are completely dismissed due to chance. This is especially true if it is hard or impossible to mitigate these situations.
I so wanted to like this game, but this is definitely a hard pass for me.
He likes Cosmic Encounter. I think that has Take That in the game....
Arbitrary take that is a big turn off. I like plenty of duelling card games (which are all take that) but just randomly choosing players to disadvantage....
"Take that" is just not a very fun mechanic for me either. Most the time they are just too random, if people pick on someone more than others, the game is not fun for that person.
Gotta say I'm right there with you Tom. Played this at BGG.Con and it started out fun but at the end we were just angry.
Played the same game... Hi Brad! Same reaction.
Or Steve Fratus, maybe you are just a soulless, lifeless blob. Some games are frustrating, some games are even designed to be frustrating. Believing otherwise could mean you are dead inside.
Steve Fratus But everyone keeps saying "of course the game is like that, it's called Unfair, duh". So surely if you play it without the take that cards you are not playing the game of Unfair? If the whole point of the game is the Unfairness how can you leave that part out?
It's like saying you should play Risk without ever invading a territory held by another player.
Steve Fratus - Oh right sorry. I didn't know that was the bottom line. I shall immediately change my own opinion, and I am sure that everyone else who has expressed negative views will do likewise as well. Thanks for letting me know.
I love these very emotive reviews! Thanks for a glimpse into this game Tom! Will take all these deets into account before jumping into this one 😊
Please please bring a good, roller coaster tycoon style board game out.
I used to love pressing on the ducks, so they quaked.
Some day ... instagram.com/p/BL44_vQhv43/?taken-by=merelygamers
rob taylor just as an FYI, they have the original Rollercoaster Tycoon (a mix of 1 and 2) available on phones now, called Rollercoaster Tycoon classic, Ive been loving it!
I lol'ed at the disappointing hammersmash at the end!
Has Tom reviewed Funfair yet? Hopefully he'll like that one better :)
He does like it!
That version is for kids lol, this one is waaaaaaaaaay better
I can hear it now: This game is Unfair!!!
I wonder if a few solid house rules could fix it? Shouldn't have to do that, but it might work.. For instance 3 blueprints tuned face up at all times letting you choose?
Epic rant from Tom at the end!
Played my first game last night.
Can't say I totally agree with Tom's critique but I can kinda relate a little. I do like "take that" games, this is "take that extreme" lol .The game can be brutal, however it's called unfair so you know what your getting yourself in to from the get go. A few house rules though and you could almost eliminate that element if you wanted to.
Can someone explain the "Quality" cards as I found them a waste unless you got to play the card free. $15 to buy for just 1star when some upgrades are $4 for the same star rating. I thought the "Quality cards" should start at 3stars considering the cost.
I did run into a problem when i decided to work on a blueprint which required me to build a food outlet and upgrade it, only to discover that the card I had couldn't be upgraded and the only other food outlet left that could be upgraded in the deck was already owned by my opponent. I wasn't happy about losing points for that blueprint. I now know not to pick a blueprint unless I can get it done or at least look at the deck to see how many copies of each card there are, a first game lesson.
I did enjoy the game and will probably like it even more after few more play throughs.
Quality cards are great if you want to earn some extra points for your attractions. The reason why they cost so much is you can have any amount which can sky rocket your added points. By the end of the game, a player should have a decent money engine going to turn it into points on upgrades. Of course, there are ways to not for pay for them ;)
Sometimes, blueprints is a way to get some extra points that has some risk. You can focus on them as a strategic point, or just go one or two. Every theme deck has ways to remove blueprint cards so you might want to spend a few park actions to look for them. I like to get them from the very beginning, but if things don't look right, might as well get rid of them.
Cardboard Stacker you'll have to explain the Quality card usefulness in more detail, I still don't get why they cost so much for little gain e.g. $15 for 1star.
I don't think you can get rid of blueprints because they're not in your hand, they're in your play area. Unless an event card allows you to discard. Am I right or wrong?
To be more clear, you're not looking for stars on Quality cards but to
add to the ride's size (upgrade type symbol on the left such as theme,
Thrill Ride, Feature, & Guest Services.) The more you have, the more
points you'll get. If you're limited in finding different upgrades,
it's a great way to grab some extra points. The reason why they cost a
lot of money is simply they have no restraints and be put onto any
attraction and as many as you want. You're not looking to get a lot
money from these. Showcases, park, and event cards can also help getting
quality upgrades. Spending actual money on a quality card should be
last resort keeping in mind that money is worth 2 or 1 point at the end.
Some event cards you want to look for are "Renovation" and "Unusual
bequest." If you're playing with the Robot theme, buying the "Robot
Theme" will get you an upgrade for free.
Blueprints can be gotten rid by the "Project Management" event cards which are found in all decks.
Cardboard Stacker thx for the tip mate👍🏻.
I agree. A lot. Why not focus in the fun part? I retreat for Kickstarter campain after watching all the take that! stuff. This kind of games end badly. Killjoy or ever the players will end bitter.
You are hurting other people to bring them down, which at the same time either brings you closer to the top, or makes you go even further ahead.
I don't understand the hate for take that. You go to game knowing there are take that elements, someone can destroy your ride, so maybe, just maybe don't put all your eggs in one basket. You need to play around the other people! Take that games are the polar opposite of multiplayer solitaires. You have to be aware of other people, play in a way you don't over expose yourself, you have guards in place, and know when to hit the other players.
Maybe the other reviewers didn't think they were playing a Castles of Mad King Ludvig, the amusement park edition, but a solid mean competitive game where you have to be on the edge.
If you spend your resources to hurt one person at the table, you've now wasted those resources and brought one person down. The other players who weren't involved profit the most, not you.
Give this one to Rahdo!
So, taking a blueprint card feels a bit like drawing a ticket card in TtR. Of course, you can chkose from 3. But sometimes all are bad :)
Thanks for the review Tom. Almost kickstarted it, almost preordered it, ultimately decided not to. I love love love the park theme, reminiscent of RCT which I love. But hearing it has such 'take that' elements, it's prolly not good for us. I'm a bad enough sore loser, lol, and hubby gets so annoyed by it. This will likely cause nothing but problems. Such a shame, cause I had such high hopes for the theme. Thanks for saving me a few bucks, and a disagreement LOL.
Oh my goodness, same.
Having a game night tonight and this was the game chosen; I’m on here trying to emotionally prepare myself to not feel personally attacked lol
I played this last night. I liked it but as a mean tableu game I'd rather play seasons.
I haven't played the game yet, and I respect the review. I, too, am not a big fan of "take that" games. However, I understand the "take that" is the balancing of kind of a "press your luck" element. Briefly looking at the event cards, it seems that any cards that destroy an attraction, are just one attraction. If you have an attraction with 25 icons on it, yeah that's 310 points. So, there is the temptation to build that one awesome attraction to go for the big points. However, that can be shut down by one event card. It seems safer to build many attractions, but that gives you fewer points. So part of the "take that" seems avoidable if you don't make yourself a target. Am I wrong on this?
Kent, the destructive attacks almost all affect only a single upgrade card, not the entire attraction. There is one event in one theme pack (Ninja) that allows demolishing an entire attraction, but it is limited by its rule to attractions that are no more than 5 icons tall - so your 25 icon ride cannot be demolished with that event, or by any other event in the game. It is possible to close tall attractions, but closure just means the ride is inoperative for one round, it doesn't take away any pieces of the ride. Destructive effects all have limits or can be blocked; this isn't meant to be a game where the park you have at the end is a giant smoking hole in the ground :)
I almost backed this on Kickstarter but when I realized it had what seemed to be a big "take that" element I decided not to. Thanks Tom for this review. I get that people like take that elements but I'm not a big fan of it. If I don't like it in Smash Up, there is no way I'd like this game.
i playtest that game last gen con and i was sooo disapoint and never got the "hype" i was really waiting for this review and you did point at all the problem we had glad im not alone!
don't agree with the bottom of the the event cards having no benefit apart from to hurt other players. you are taking points away from them by removing parts of their rides.
What he means is, other than knocking down their points, it doesn't advance your agenda. Yes, if I'm at 10 points and you're at 12, it helps me to cut you down to 4 points. However, what kind of experience is that? I hurt you, but gained nothing. You were hurt and lost everything you were working on.
Also, it's important to note that it's bad strategy. If we're playing a 2 player game then it doesn't matter beyond your bad experience of feeling like your time was wasted. But, if we're playing a 3 or 4 player game and I use my turn to negate what you did on your turn, then all I did was give the other two players an extra turn. It is always more beneficial to help yourself rather than hurt a single player in a game with more than 2 players.
Uh, is taking points from other players not "hurting" them? It sounds like you just said, "The event cards don't just hurt other players, they actually hurt other players."
Phil D you may want to re-read my comment. your not just being mean to other players for the sake of it. you're helping yourself by taking away their points
No, I see your comment. You stealing points from one player just hurts that players ability to win, there's still other players at the table who aren't getting hurt. You getting points would actually help you. In fact, spending resources to hurt someone hurts you (by the loss of resources) AND them, and benefits everyone else at the table.
Thanks for the review, it doesn't look like a game I would enjoy.
I have to disagree with this review. I've played this game 4 times so far and everyone that I've had played with loved it. I usually don't like Take that Games but this felt different and didn't seem beneficial all the time to use the bottom actions. Everyone of our games we might of each played the bottom action maybe once.
I love your criticism! You are my #1 go to for seeing if I will like a game or not. Keep it up!
So how does this compare to Steam Park?
WAIT VASEL THERE'S A WORLD PEACE CARD IN THE GAME
Yay, blurry cards!
That's a shame maybe they can create a sequel called funfair?
And they have but Tom's review is quite bad in all fairness. Many have the take that elements have options of effecting you or another player. He also is heavily critical of many many games that don't allow him to be isolated from other players.
Tom, despite on your stance on the game, what was your favorite theme deck?
Mobster
Lol, of course.
Which has an unfairness rating of 4/5.
I run away from the Ninja theme deck if I had, too. 5/5 unfairness on that. I don't mind a couple upgrades lost here and there, but full rides.
Cardboard Stacker, there's a lot of discussion about these Event cards without the details actually being mentioned. The Ninja theme pack is the only one with an event that allows demolishing an entire attraction, and it costs the attacker 1 Event card discarded for each 1 icon they destroy. Because of the hand-limit, this means that the maximum size of attraction that can be destroyed is 5 icons tall, and it costs the attacker their *entire hand* of Event cards, which must have been accumulated over two previous rounds, to do it - they have to spend two entire rounds worth of their effort to demolish one small ride, and the simple way to make your attraction immune is to build it 6 icons tall. Tom's review makes it sound like the game just throws bombs in every direction, when in fact the attacks have a carefully considered cost, and plenty of ways to defend against them.
I enjoyed my first play of this game while playing but felt that it might have come down to a couple of lucky cards that determined the winner. This confirms my hunch.
I have yet to play mine, but this video sort of makes me not want to play it.......
Standing in front of galaxy trucker.
Tom, it's ET-cetera, not EK-cetera. You're driving me crazy!
UNFAIR. Tom, read the box cover.
Tyvan TV - So if a game was called "Terrible Game" a reviewer wouldn't be allowed to say it was terrible even if it was? 😁
Oops props for this and Rails and Sails
This game plays just fine.. there is "take that" but you usually only get hit one round in the game and it evens out at some point. You only get 3 action a around so there are some goo option to think about each turn.. Sorry, I disagree with this review.
Your critics are exactly why I didn't back the game: it's a take that game, not a tableau/engine building game. If I got hit with random drone strikes while playing Roller Coaster Tycoon, I wouldn't enjoy it either :p
No, it IS a tableau building game. The "take that" barely comes into play. It's a mechanism to keep the game field even, and it typically comes with a steep opportunity cost. I wouldn't say this has any more take that than Imperial Settlers.
You marked your board up at 16:44 with that damn gavel...
Yeah, tom doesn't hold back when he's upset.....one of the reasons I trust his review style. I may still give this a look but I'm hesitant.
Great review Tom. And I have to admit, the game is unfair. And at that point, why not play Fluxx or Munchkin instead. It's cheaper. Avoiding this.
Your loss.
Not really. The game will be pretty much forgotten by next year. So not much of a loss.
Might be forgotten by the DT sheeple, but not by those of us who can think for themselves and love it.
It's the cult of the new now. Games have a huge buzz for a few months then woosh. Fall of the face of the planet.
Tom makes valid points and I disagree with him most of the time.
@MassEffectFan113 I would just like to point out the expansion's recently (very) successful Kickstarter campaign
Yup, just played this for the first time and it completely winded me. In the last turn after building up my engine a player drew an event card which they used to take out two out of three attractions out of my park . That cost me 50 income on that last turn which equates to 25 points at game end! I lost 105 to 106 (to 79). It wiped out 25% of my entire score based on one card draw (the event card).
And you can't really keep back defence cards because there are three ways you an be attacked and you only have a five card limit. So if you hold three defence cards you are kneecapping yourself.
The staff member who reopens two rides as an action is therefore completely overpowered and only costs 4 to put out!
No hurry to play that again, ever!
I have no problem with take that games that are quick, or take that games where it might cost you a few points here and there. But after an hour and a half building my engine that was such a FU ending to the game.
Tom was definitely that kid that cried every time someone beat him in a game lmao!
I agree, to much randomness / Luck just destroys a game.
But that is not actually a factor here.
i wish i watched this before i bought it.
Unfair is a great game.
Wow, you label the game as 'disappointing' because you simply don't like a game that has 'take that' element? yet you review 'unfair' in which you should already know that the game is all about 'take that'.
It's the same as food blogger who dislike sushi and try to review a sushi dish (in a sushi restaurant) and label the food as "disappointment".. wth Tom?
This review is so "unfair"
lol. wow Tom. Did you really just review a game that explicitly told you it has mechanics you don't like, and then complian about it having those mechanics?
The luck and randomness was good to pick out. You seem to leave out explaining that players at the table should know or have an idea in whats in each theme deck though. players can be going for blue prints before they even draw them, and they should have an idea at what event cards could come up so they play around them. but luck is luck. if you draw poorly, you are probably gonna fall behind, and if players gang up on you, I can see this game being "unfun". I got this game on the mail the other day, so I'm curious to see how balanced or un-balanced it is with more plays.
It is his job to review all games, even those with mechanics he doesn't like.
***** imagine you are a food reviewer who dislikes spicy food. You also happen to love hotdogs.... one day, as head of your food review website, you decide to review the menue of a newly opened eatery, Fire HOT hot dogs stand. You go there and you love the way the stands look, the pictures of the food looks awesome! "Omg it looks delicious!" many of your peers have been talking about how they enjoyed their Fire Hot Hot dog experience, and you close your eyes and imagin how it will tast when you take a bite.... then you take a closer look at the menu, and realize.. all or most of the hot dogs are spicy.... "What?".. you bitterly order and eat one. You dont luke it...Then you bitterly eat another, but pick out some ingredients you dislike, you don't understand why sime hotdogs cost more then others if you remove those ingrediants. Then you odorder the mild or none spicy hot dog from the menu, and you realize the mild or plain dog just isn't anything special.wow... what a let down.... then you go on your food blog or what ever, and write about how this experience disopointed you, because the hotdogs stand, that you wanted to love, because you LOVE hotdogs...Turns out to be a spicy experience..... now... people can simply see this review for what it is, a biased review on the Internet... but people can also see this as poor judgment. I like tom, and most of his reviews. This one to me just seemed odd... I'll give him some due respect for being self aware of his bias. He brings it up in the review. But then... I just don't see the point of doing the review... let someone else review the game that isn't bothered by take that style games. They can pick the game apart without spending the beter part of the review talking about how they don't like a core mechanic....
Tom has discussed that many reviewers never do negative reviews. he is opposed to doing only positive reviews.
I don't want only positive reviews either. I like toms negative reviews where he points out flaws in the design based on objective criticism. he does that a bit here, pointing out lucky cards and balance. That's what I believe people want to hear about, not a rant of The take that nature of the Unfair cards, which one could argue to be integral to this games experience.
criticism.he
I rarely venture out of the cooperative game genre, unless it is a really awesome competitive game. I am not, however, interested in 'take that' games. The real world is cruel enough ... I'd much rather help my fellow players, and I don't really care who wins as long as everyone has a good time. Like Tom, I am very disappointed that a game with a fantastic and under-used theme like amusement parks has to build in an element of pure meanness. I just don't get it.
I'm mystified that after remarking on so many negative things, considering the game unfun and frustrating and imbalanced and "an incredible disappointment", you still gave it a 5 out of 10! Egad! Have some teeth, my man!
Just as expected from the kickstarter description. Too much take that and randomness for me.. The art is nice, though.
I don't like that kind of game either - the take that game.
This review is very unfair. He built expectations without paying attention to: Title, box description, previews, KS campaign, PnP...
It's not like this was hidden or badly promoted.
Tom's said he doesn't usually read or research games before they're out. He heard the hype but you can't blame him for not checking out the kickstarter page, he's reviewing 5 - 10 games every week. He received a copy to review and wanted it to be good and he hated it. That doesn't seem "unfair".
The review is not unfair, although I would say the game is. I see this over and over again especially when people have a different opinion. If you like the game then reading a negative review shouldn't take away from that. If you like take that games then this should not dissuade you, instead this would probably be right up your ally. I don't always agree with Tom or other reviewers, but they are still welcome to their opinion. At least he explains why he does not like the game. If you agree or disagree that is fine, but to call it unfair is your opinion.
Nick Smith all the cards are situational, thus useful at different times. Luck can be avoided with the draw-2-choose-1 or discard-1-draw-5 mechanisms. I played the PnP a lot before backing this and balance is a very strong point in this game, no matter what decks you play with.
Nick Smith - relax man
I made a movie that is about staring at a tomato. in the movie I stare at a tomato. the tomato is on a white table. since I'm holding the camera you can't see what I'm wearing. the white table and the tomato are in a room with blue walls and no windows. the doorway is behind me so the camera never points at it. I don't say anything for the entire two hour run time.
Now having accurately described this movie, is a reviewer required to judge it on the merits of only those movies where a camera points at an object for two hours, or more reasonably I'd argue can the reviewer say the movie is terrible because two hours of footage of a tomato is just a bad idea for a movie.
Our group had the exact experience with this game. Not fun.
That sounds truly horrible.
Tom... you like Galaxy Trucker, a game where you virtually build everything only to watch it destroyed in the end... while Unfair has take that in it, virtually you are destroying everything nonetheless... Is it just the "take that" mechanism that ruins it for you (because it seems like Galaxy Trucker) has a similar plot to it!
Yes, but in Galaxy Trucker the game is destroying everyone's ship you are not beating down on other players just for the sake of it.
Galaxy trucker isn't you building up resources to make progress, you build a ship as fast as possible and the mechanics of the game are it slowly falling apart. Not a comparable feel.