Tom, thanks for giving so much time and attention to explain your attitude to the game. It feels like you care. In Russia it is difficult to order games and good reviews are very helpful in choosing.
In some ways this game is very innovative, mixing the fantasy combat and worker placement genres, but I agree that Tom did an excellent job explaining why it fell short for him. His thoughtful explanation of what he didn't like is why I prefer the Dice Tower for reviews of big new expensive games.
I would like to present a counter argument for the negatives outlined in this video. 1. Lack of theme? It literally says in the book that you can choose the banner for the mob. I love the way that the mix of abilities and stats allows my imagination to come up with an image of the creatures that we're fighting. 2. Strategy in a game is bad? Where does randomness and tactics not intersect in a game? In fairness, we have house-ruled the starting 3 items being legs or armor and reshuffling anything that we get which isn't that. I haven't run into any issues with the quests. I've found the game to be pretty intense, and often have to assess the board state before taking a new quest, just in case it is one that places another monster. Game play is intense. This is not a game where you can get greedy and just farm exp. 3. I think the designer sacrificed a bunch of unique monsters and tons of character classes in favor of giving players a more dynamic and flexible game play. They can choose to play their favorite character in a variety of ways, and the procedurally generated monsters keep the game fresh and interesting even when you know the first monster's stat bar. Comparing it to Gloomhaven, (because that's apparently the thing to do), I think the designer was able to pack a heck of a lot of game using his procedurally designed levels and monsters in a much smaller box. All these weaknesses that Tom points out are the stand-out features of the game unfortunately told from the point of view of someone who was expecting another Gloomhaven.
1. Random generated monsters and lack of unique characters. 2. Randomness was meant for the random generation and not for tactics. 3. What you think is irrelevant and in no way more correct than what Tom thinks. You call it flexible and dynamic, he calls it random. Have fun with your overpriced game. Learn to understand what people say, before you comment.
@@GeorgiosD90 I wouldnt call it overpriced, especially considering the content in the box. You want overpriced? Enchanters Overlords everything pledge was 108$ US for mostly cards and some mats. Compare that little box to Gloomhaven which I was able to purchase for 120$ (new, not used).
@@TMAXXPUNISHER Comparing the price of a game to the price of Gloomhaven is a bad comparison by definition. There are definitely many overpriced games on Kickstarter, you are right.
Being someone who enjoys The City of Kings and finds Tom's reviews to be hit and miss for me, I must agree with him on the points he makes. The game is very much a puzzle that constantly throws randomness at you to complicate the situation. That being said, this hasn't been an issue for me since I truly relish the challenge The City of Kings presents. I also LOVE Gloomhaven, but I don't see the correlation between it and The City of Kings. I get very different vibes from each and, in my humble opinion, Gloomhaven adds to the narrative as you play the tactical aspects of the game while The City of Kings seems to boil down to a constantly changing puzzle that needs to be solved. Don't get me wrong, The City of Kings does have a narrative, it is just that I don't feel that I am adding to that narrative as I actually play the game. I guess each game needs to be evaluated on it's own merits. For instance I adore Mage Knight (it is in my top 5), but Legends of Andor really didn't capture my interest...go figure. I think that just saying a game is a puzzle isn't sufficient. There are many types of puzzles and in each case they may be something that each gamer may, or may not, enjoy.
An excellent and fair review. I can't help feeling that some of these issues are unforced errors on the part of the designers that could have been fixed with just a little more thought. For example the equipment progression, which makes no sense at all and totally takes you out of the game (I can't use a sword yet because... why?), or the random monster traits, which could have worked if they added a keyword system (draw one 'insect' trait, or one 'goblinoid' trait, etc.) to make sure there's an overall logic to it. A more intense development process could have fixed these issues. Maybe the 2nd edition will do so?
Yup, that was my first thought, as well: You can have near-infinite variety _and_ make thematic sense at the same time by using a clever keyword system. Or at least use monster roles.
Thanks for the great review Tom, I really appreciate the honesty in the review! I do love the box and regretted not getting in on the kickstarter but I think I am just gonna try to get Gloomhaven during the next print run!
It’s interesting that many of your complaints were things I felt when considering whether or not to back it. Ultimately didn’t and glad I didn’t. But many people are liking it, which is great
I understand the critiques about equipment, quest cards, and random selection of monster abilities. I like the puzzle feel of the game though, the tile reveal. I think I might house rule a few things next time I play, like slimming the equipment and quest card decks to tailor it to the story, scenario or characters’ available abilities that I select. Also, I might negate the random monster abilities and select them based on the monster descriptions, like poison abilities for the scorpion banner, etc. Thank you as always for your thoughts!
I understand and agree with your problems of generic monsters with random skills being unthematic, but that wasn’t a mechanical problem for us. It does make it more of a puzzle than an adventure. Gloomhaven does this much better. I also found the set up / random equipment pull to be fundamental to how well you do. I love the customisation of your character, but dislike that you pretty much HAVE to build most / all your characters in an attacking form if you want to have any chance at all. Despite these concerns, I do like the game. It just strikes me as underdeveloped.
These days I'm actually relieved if Tom doesn't like a game I am interested in. City of Kings is extremely close to my idea of a 'grail' adventure game. To me, it looks way more exciting than Gloomhaven. I also happen to be a fan of Mage Knight and Legends of Andor, btw.
Thank you for this review. I also appreciate the Feudum review. Both have given me a perspective into these kickstarter games I was considering getting on retail/reprint. Positive or negative, this was useful to me.
Enjoying the game so far, but using some small house rules. Equipment cards - early game keep drawing until you get legs or body cards, or separate out into two decks. As for theme and the creatures, draw the creature stat bar first, then the abilities (from stat bar and map tile), and finally select a creature symbol and war banner that you think thematically matches the ability combo you drew. Doesn't always work because of the random abilities :(
I really enjoy this game tbh, though with your thought I do wonder if part of that it because I have Aphantasia, I do think the 'Can't use a sword doesn't make thematic sense' was a little silly though, with the power of those weapons they are clearly equivalent legendary or magical items rather than a bog standard short sword, which does make more sense, your character need to be strong enough or worthy enough to wield them etc. A solid review none the less, and I agree with some of the other comments, for a person who doesn't like the game, this was a great example of how to make an unbiased review before adding fair bias to the final thoughts.
I’ve played this game a handful of times now and my biggest disappointment had been the character progression. You touched on this which I appreciate; you are all basically playing the same character most of the game, most of the time. Contrast this with a game like Too Many Bones where characters are wildly different. Although that comes at the cost of explanation time, I enjoy it a lot more.
Hm, I would disagree on this one. I found it to be quite a fun game. While there is some disconnect in imagery I was much more easy to adapt to it after checking out the lore snippets on the backs of the cards, realizing that each represents entire clans, that can have entire histories of their own helps bridge the divide for me, as I simply started thinking of them as entire races, and as a fantasy buff I love it when creators don't just try to boil down entire groups to be one thing and one thing only. And I can certainly understand a personal put off for any game, as I have often found games that are on their base, just fine as a game but there is something that I simply cannot get past. I did find it odd that all of Tom's criticisms of the flaws in City of Kings, which can be valid for players, are the exact same flaws that can be found in Gloomhaven... repetitive use of tile art, random pulls of cards determining if you win or lose... Being nothing but a numbers game... Slightly flawed theeming... Yeah, that's right, unless someone knows why all Bandits in Gloomhaven happen to be necromancers, or at bare minimum Suuuuper friendly with the undead. At least Kings does not ask me to destroy my game as I go for no real reason, or give me a random point at which I cannot use a character... because "reasons"... I get life goals, but who's life goals are to watch your friends get tired 15 times.... "You took a nap? Well I've seen all I need to, have a good life Bob, I'm done with this rat-race." I also like that my character is who I make it through decisions, over, you chose a character with 7 cards and everyone else has 11?, hope you like watching others play a game as much as you like playing... because you are gonna do that. All in all, while I like both games, and do feel both are worth their respective costs, I am liking City of Kings alot more. Also, can I note that you don't have to worry about your greedy friends snagging all of the XP or gold from under your nose wile you do a bulk of the killing? Yeah, that is great.
I got this game as a present. I really want to love the game but sometimes it's hard to. I disagree with the lack of theme and symmetrical characters, the characters become asymmetrical depending on how it's built. But the randomness can overwhelm you easily though. There's been times where we barely won and times where we couldn't see a way to victory at all. I think it's one of those games that can be amazing with some minor rules changes.
Come on Tom, you've never heard of a scorpion with ice powers before? Yeah me neither.... All joking aside, thanks for being as thorough as you've been on this review. This was another one I've been hearing a lot of buzz on. I think you've been pretty fair to this one and the fact is you typically go in liking games like this so I'm sure it was a big letdown for you personally. The puzzle nature with as much luck and randomness seems like a stretch. Thanks for the review and keep on plugging away man.
The monster powers work within the context of the game where the creatures are the results of experiments performed on them by the big bad. The idea that they might have developed different abilities sits within that
Been hesitant on this as games like Mage Knight and Andor which are just puzzles don’t draw me in. Gloomhaven included. I want my thematic adventure to not boil down to a math problem.
I love MK but Andor was a miss. City of Kings is similar to both in some ways as being a puzzle game. If you like neither then you probably would not enjoy this one.
I am the same (MK is high, Andor is for sale) and I found City of Kings okay (6/10 probably after about 3 plays). MK and Gloomhaven have tons more theme in them (although both are still puzzles). MK even has managing your followers, although they aren't independent.
Greg- I do enjoy The City of Kings. I have played several of the scenarios and about 4 of the stories. I like the blend of mechanisms and enjoy trying to figure out how to accomplish the goals or defeat the monster. There are different ways to accomplish your objectives. I have only played solo so cannot tell you how it would play with a group. I would suggest checking out Rolling Solo or One Stop Coop Shop and watch their play of the game if you have not already. To tell you the truth I almost did not back the game but I was drawn to the skill tree aspect of character development so decided to give it a chance.
I can't understand the decision to represent enemies with banners. Who wants to fight a flag? The game is filled with so much art but we should imagine how enemies look. Proper enemy illustrations would have been much better.
Probably a cost thing. Personally I'm fine with the banners and the tiles that represent the creatures. They can always do future kickstarters to offer the game again and add miniatures as an expansion to replace banners and the creature tiles. Not a lot of people want to spend $300+ for a game.
This games Kickstarter was actually what got me into board games. I backed it and then spent the next year playing board games as I waited for this to be delivered. My favourite solo so far is probably Mage Knight. I finally got round to playing 3 games of this this weekend after having it a few weeks. I was SO hyped but after feeling let down I watched this review. Tom got it so right. The monsters feel like a math puzzle, which is fine... But my second game I lost because I only pulled equipment that needed Linen and I simply was not powerful enough to beat the last monster and boss who spawned at the same time. I went searching for Linen and spawned a third monster and it was just impossible to beat them without more equipment. On a previous game I tried to do more quests to get equipment and just didn't pull any good quests and then finally a quest card spawned a creature on me which was just too powerful for my low level equipped character. I'm going to try some more games as I want so badly to love this game, but as it stands I'd rather play something with a stronger theme or a more reliable difficulty curve
Bugger, was hoping this one was going to be great, but a lot of those things were bits I was worried about through the campaign, especially the themeless monsters. I've got my copy sitting unplayed ATM (thanks to gloomhaven), now I need to decide if I will bother to learn it or just sell it.
No soul is pretty harsh. I received my copy about a month ago and we love it. Seems many of Tom's complaints are nit picks imho. This review initially steered me away from buying this game at first. I decided to watch some more game plays and Frank West's videos pretty much sold this game for me.
I think including both of those is OK, it's just how it's done. CoK is a bit weird for me - the things that feel like they should be random aren't, the things that feel like they should be more predictable are random.
Watching the review im still not sure what this game really is. It looks like the problem is the game itself. That its just muddled and everything mashed together yet trying to tell a story. But if tom took 20 minutes and im still clueless on how the game plays, im not going to teach my players before they get bored. I almost feel like you get so many things and it would be better to take these things and make a different game. Maybe use it as a backdrop for a scenereo builder that a third party makes and maps out (including removing a lot of the random elements.) A shame because it looks like it could be good.
Chrysie Beryl I just watched the final thoughts, 'cause I knew the rules already, so I dont know how well or bad he explains them, but watch the videos of Frank West himself playing the game. Its very straight forward and easy to learn. Not every aspect, but to begin with you can explain the basics in 15 minutes. And what you critices are valid points but I love the game for this. He wanted to build a huge world and story and bring a video game feeling onto the table. And that is almost exactly what I feel (when watching videos, I missed the KS), its kinda like The Witcher 3 video game: you have no clue what story or monster is waiting right behind the next corner
It's called City of Kings, but when I first saw it on KS, I saw no theme that indicated the epic feel the title implies. Where are the kings? Heck, where is the city? Tom's run through shows just random plains and pylons which flip over to become caves and wooden towers. Between the imagery and text it looks look like they couldn't decide if they wanted the game to be serious or silly. Tasteless Boots? Nogle's Bright Idea? Hardly compelling for high fantasy and arguably not particularly funny. Glad I passed this on KS.
Once again a really good review. Interesting game yet the cover priced for it is rediculus $110. No Miniatures, standees what? Meeples lol. If I am going to pay $ 100 + for something It needs to be more than this. Thank you for the review always excellent!
That plastic "guide" thingy looks awfully fiddly... Also, I can absolutely see the randomness of monsters be a problem... Perhaps it would have been better served to have you meet different humanoids, that way you could hand wave it somewhat with "this highwayman comes equipped with a poisoned blade, and is able to cast fire magic"... In other words you would be meeting other people equipped with different skills. I think that would have made more sense... Game looked interesting, that's why I'm here, but now I'm more unsure and will probably buy other games I want before this one...
I can understand the point of Tom, but by listening to this I have just some questions come to mind: 1 better generic fantasy o total random fantasy? Breath fire always = dragon? 2 randomness replyability or one shot story? 3 math = luck? Just matter of taste, I like the story of gloomhaven but I felt that the amount of luck is highly present.
I think the issue is more 'whats the point in calling it a scorpion if it doesnt have any features that make it a scorpion.' From what I could see from the review you draw a tile which is what kind of monster it is, but that monster has nothing on it but an icon, so whats the point? you could effectively replace all of those tiles with a gelatinous cube and then give them the stat tile + bonus powers and you'd get the same outcome. I think he was after (and I would be too in this case) more monsters like the 'boss' monsters, where they all have some static abilities that match the kind of monster they are, but then have some bonus features on top i.e a scorpion always has a poison attack, but then the bonus feature it gets is 'ice enchanted' which gives it an ice abilities as well - so whenever you face a scorpion its always poisonous but it can be more than a generic scorpion Or a dragon always has a flight ability, but then gains a bonus ability too - just something to make them different while still showing that what you are facing is a dragon.
IJJusion i see your point, but to be precise the game have 8 bosses with one side empty and one side with a spedific ability, the other are instead 18 general description of possible generic races. You don't need to choose scorpion race and after hope to get poison ability, you can draw the ability and after choose the favourite banner that fit most the ability you have got. If we have to talk about the wording scorpion, I don't see the difference in call it vermlings and give the shape of a rat or inox and give the shape of kind of ogre; fantasy can never be far away from stereotype, because is the only way to give part of an image. So when I hear someone talking about fantasy and common sense I feel that the meaning of fantasy is lost, a scorpion like creature have to be always poisonus? Cannot be a water scorpion salamander of love? Or a grussok caleroon shooting spirron froy (al invented words? Need more fanatsy?). I just know that every time I plaied at D&d having fun, in the exact moment that a Dungeon Master used the sentence "this action doesn't respect common sense or is physically impossible" the fun was finished and I was back in a real life simulation, not an rpg. Anyway, as I said is a matter of taste, I have both gloomhaven and the city of kings, and I will enjoy both.
Just what I thought personally. Just because the skills are random, doesn't mean it detracts from the games fantasy. You just have to be creative! Maybe its a sexy humanoid version of an ice scorpion! For me, it really adds to the fantasy of the game. It's not generic (ie the randomness) and it also cultivates imagination.
But when every monster can be everything it makes it a lot harder to feel like you're in a world - especially when from game to game when you encounter the same monster but the only thing it has in common with previous monsters of the same kind is its icon - but that's just my view, if it works for you then more power to you :)
Be everything is a little bit too much in my opinion, every monster can have many different ability, but as i said to you you can choose the ability when you take the stat bar and depending on ability you can choose the banner, if you get poison you can choose the banner that for you make sense to have poison, and so on for every ability. The problem of feeling the world is what i pointed out in my second question, want to feel the world? so one shoot story is the best, the main target of this game is to have an high repliability so heve already a premade standard common sense stereotype monster would be a limit to that target. From my point of view a good review of this game would be: Want a full immersion in a new fantasy world? stay away from this, want a fantasy puzzle game that have always different situation to face, go for it. Just i feel that the needs of many people to have common sense stuff that let them feel confortable in a fantasy world, take out all the meaning of the word Fantasy.
This game is randomness taken so far, that there's neither theme nor fun in its mechanisms. I had high hopes as I love games like Mage Knight, but I guess King retains his crown.
Err... From rulebook "All of the templates are mechanically the same, so pick the one you think best represents the enemy you are facing." love the game and its thematic for me.www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Fire_Scorpion_(3.5e_Creature)
What I heard Tom say... Components and aesthetics are nice but some generic art and a little fiddliness took away from the overall experience (1) and (1), The Rules were great but it you had to refer to them often, which lowered the overall ease of play (1), The theme (0) got completely lost in the mechanics (1) which killed a lot of what this game was supposed to be... Role Playing (0), Storytelling (0), Adventure (0), Variable player powers start out non existent but can grow over time as characters gain experience and equipment (1), The length and ending were great (2) but you really wouldn't enjoy what you did before the end comes. (7) I think if Tom were pressed to rate this on BGG he might put a 3.5 rating out of 10. The overall look of the game might actually turn this up a 0.5 to a 4... I could be wrong but I enjoyed analyzing what I heard.
Tom, thanks for giving so much time and attention to explain your attitude to the game. It feels like you care. In Russia it is difficult to order games and good reviews are very helpful in choosing.
In russia, game plays you!
and seems its a "worker placement" genre...
In some ways this game is very innovative, mixing the fantasy combat and worker placement genres, but I agree that Tom did an excellent job explaining why it fell short for him. His thoughtful explanation of what he didn't like is why I prefer the Dice Tower for reviews of big new expensive games.
I would like to present a counter argument for the negatives outlined in this video.
1. Lack of theme? It literally says in the book that you can choose the banner for the mob. I love the way that the mix of abilities and stats allows my imagination to come up with an image of the creatures that we're fighting.
2. Strategy in a game is bad? Where does randomness and tactics not intersect in a game? In fairness, we have house-ruled the starting 3 items being legs or armor and reshuffling anything that we get which isn't that. I haven't run into any issues with the quests. I've found the game to be pretty intense, and often have to assess the board state before taking a new quest, just in case it is one that places another monster. Game play is intense. This is not a game where you can get greedy and just farm exp.
3. I think the designer sacrificed a bunch of unique monsters and tons of character classes in favor of giving players a more dynamic and flexible game play. They can choose to play their favorite character in a variety of ways, and the procedurally generated monsters keep the game fresh and interesting even when you know the first monster's stat bar.
Comparing it to Gloomhaven, (because that's apparently the thing to do), I think the designer was able to pack a heck of a lot of game using his procedurally designed levels and monsters in a much smaller box. All these weaknesses that Tom points out are the stand-out features of the game unfortunately told from the point of view of someone who was expecting another Gloomhaven.
Mike Moran sounds like you should grab a video camera and you’ve got your “Tom was Wrong” segment for Board Game Breakfast...
1. Random generated monsters and lack of unique characters.
2. Randomness was meant for the random generation and not for tactics.
3. What you think is irrelevant and in no way more correct than what Tom thinks. You call it flexible and dynamic, he calls it random.
Have fun with your overpriced game. Learn to understand what people say, before you comment.
@@GeorgiosD90 I wouldnt call it overpriced, especially considering the content in the box. You want overpriced? Enchanters Overlords everything pledge was 108$ US for mostly cards and some mats. Compare that little box to Gloomhaven which I was able to purchase for 120$ (new, not used).
@@TMAXXPUNISHER Comparing the price of a game to the price of Gloomhaven is a bad comparison by definition. There are definitely many overpriced games on Kickstarter, you are right.
@@GeorgiosD90 fair enough
I will have nightmares about those falling components :/
Being someone who enjoys The City of Kings and finds Tom's reviews to be hit and miss for me, I must agree with him on the points he makes. The game is very much a puzzle that constantly throws randomness at you to complicate the situation. That being said, this hasn't been an issue for me since I truly relish the challenge The City of Kings presents.
I also LOVE Gloomhaven, but I don't see the correlation between it and The City of Kings. I get very different vibes from each and, in my humble opinion, Gloomhaven adds to the narrative as you play the tactical aspects of the game while The City of Kings seems to boil down to a constantly changing puzzle that needs to be solved. Don't get me wrong, The City of Kings does have a narrative, it is just that I don't feel that I am adding to that narrative as I actually play the game.
I guess each game needs to be evaluated on it's own merits. For instance I adore Mage Knight (it is in my top 5), but Legends of Andor really didn't capture my interest...go figure. I think that just saying a game is a puzzle isn't sufficient. There are many types of puzzles and in each case they may be something that each gamer may, or may not, enjoy.
I guess without randomness puzzles wouldn't have a replay value
Now THAT is how you handle a review of a game that just isn't for you. Great job Tom!
An excellent and fair review. I can't help feeling that some of these issues are unforced errors on the part of the designers that could have been fixed with just a little more thought. For example the equipment progression, which makes no sense at all and totally takes you out of the game (I can't use a sword yet because... why?), or the random monster traits, which could have worked if they added a keyword system (draw one 'insect' trait, or one 'goblinoid' trait, etc.) to make sure there's an overall logic to it. A more intense development process could have fixed these issues. Maybe the 2nd edition will do so?
Yup, that was my first thought, as well: You can have near-infinite variety _and_ make thematic sense at the same time by using a clever keyword system. Or at least use monster roles.
That component drop was FANTASTIC!
Agreed it kept going and going and going.
Very fun to watch. Not so fun when you gotta clean it up XD
Melody Vasel You are appreciated! Thanks for everything you do!
Thanks for the great review Tom, I really appreciate the honesty in the review! I do love the box and regretted not getting in on the kickstarter but I think I am just gonna try to get Gloomhaven during the next print run!
AthexTube - Board Games and More! The will be a 2nd printing of CoK on KS at April 17th ;)
www.kickstarter.com/projects/tcokgame/the-city-of-kings-ancient-allies-and-vadoran-garde/posts/2164996
;-)
It’s interesting that many of your complaints were things I felt when considering whether or not to back it. Ultimately didn’t and glad I didn’t. But many people are liking it, which is great
I understand the critiques about equipment, quest cards, and random selection of monster abilities. I like the puzzle feel of the game though, the tile reveal. I think I might house rule a few things next time I play, like slimming the equipment and quest card decks to tailor it to the story, scenario or characters’ available abilities that I select. Also, I might negate the random monster abilities and select them based on the monster descriptions, like poison abilities for the scorpion banner, etc. Thank you as always for your thoughts!
My god,.....what a component drop ! Awesome !
I actually agree with all of your negative points. They just don't matter nearly as much to me, personally. So far, I'm really enjoying the game.
I understand and agree with your problems of generic monsters with random skills being unthematic, but that wasn’t a mechanical problem for us. It does make it more of a puzzle than an adventure. Gloomhaven does this much better.
I also found the set up / random equipment pull to be fundamental to how well you do.
I love the customisation of your character, but dislike that you pretty much HAVE to build most / all your characters in an attacking form if you want to have any chance at all.
Despite these concerns, I do like the game. It just strikes me as underdeveloped.
These days I'm actually relieved if Tom doesn't like a game I am interested in. City of Kings is extremely close to my idea of a 'grail' adventure game. To me, it looks way more exciting than Gloomhaven.
I also happen to be a fan of Mage Knight and Legends of Andor, btw.
I’m more than happy to take that copy off your hands since it wasn’t for you 😁 This game is definitely up my alley
Keep a weather eye, a kickstarter reprint/small expansion is on the horizon.
Thank you for this review. I also appreciate the Feudum review. Both have given me a perspective into these kickstarter games I was considering getting on retail/reprint. Positive or negative, this was useful to me.
Enjoying the game so far, but using some small house rules. Equipment cards - early game keep drawing until you get legs or body cards, or separate out into two decks. As for theme and the creatures, draw the creature stat bar first, then the abilities (from stat bar and map tile), and finally select a creature symbol and war banner that you think thematically matches the ability combo you drew. Doesn't always work because of the random abilities :(
I really enjoy this game tbh, though with your thought I do wonder if part of that it because I have Aphantasia, I do think the 'Can't use a sword doesn't make thematic sense' was a little silly though, with the power of those weapons they are clearly equivalent legendary or magical items rather than a bog standard short sword, which does make more sense, your character need to be strong enough or worthy enough to wield them etc.
A solid review none the less, and I agree with some of the other comments, for a person who doesn't like the game, this was a great example of how to make an unbiased review before adding fair bias to the final thoughts.
I’ve played this game a handful of times now and my biggest disappointment had been the character progression. You touched on this which I appreciate; you are all basically playing the same character most of the game, most of the time. Contrast this with a game like Too Many Bones where characters are wildly different. Although that comes at the cost of explanation time, I enjoy it a lot more.
Hm, I would disagree on this one. I found it to be quite a fun game. While there is some disconnect in imagery I was much more easy to adapt to it after checking out the lore snippets on the backs of the cards, realizing that each represents entire clans, that can have entire histories of their own helps bridge the divide for me, as I simply started thinking of them as entire races, and as a fantasy buff I love it when creators don't just try to boil down entire groups to be one thing and one thing only.
And I can certainly understand a personal put off for any game, as I have often found games that are on their base, just fine as a game but there is something that I simply cannot get past. I did find it odd that all of Tom's criticisms of the flaws in City of Kings, which can be valid for players, are the exact same flaws that can be found in Gloomhaven... repetitive use of tile art, random pulls of cards determining if you win or lose... Being nothing but a numbers game... Slightly flawed theeming... Yeah, that's right, unless someone knows why all Bandits in Gloomhaven happen to be necromancers, or at bare minimum Suuuuper friendly with the undead.
At least Kings does not ask me to destroy my game as I go for no real reason, or give me a random point at which I cannot use a character... because "reasons"... I get life goals, but who's life goals are to watch your friends get tired 15 times.... "You took a nap? Well I've seen all I need to, have a good life Bob, I'm done with this rat-race." I also like that my character is who I make it through decisions, over, you chose a character with 7 cards and everyone else has 11?, hope you like watching others play a game as much as you like playing... because you are gonna do that.
All in all, while I like both games, and do feel both are worth their respective costs, I am liking City of Kings alot more. Also, can I note that you don't have to worry about your greedy friends snagging all of the XP or gold from under your nose wile you do a bulk of the killing? Yeah, that is great.
lol how long did it take you to tidy up all those bits?
I got this game as a present. I really want to love the game but sometimes it's hard to. I disagree with the lack of theme and symmetrical characters, the characters become asymmetrical depending on how it's built. But the randomness can overwhelm you easily though. There's been times where we barely won and times where we couldn't see a way to victory at all. I think it's one of those games that can be amazing with some minor rules changes.
Finally I'm not alone. Spot on Tom. This was a huge disappointment for us.
Come on Tom, you've never heard of a scorpion with ice powers before? Yeah me neither....
All joking aside, thanks for being as thorough as you've been on this review. This was another one I've been hearing a lot of buzz on. I think you've been pretty fair to this one and the fact is you typically go in liking games like this so I'm sure it was a big letdown for you personally. The puzzle nature with as much luck and randomness seems like a stretch.
Thanks for the review and keep on plugging away man.
Scorpions with Ice Powers and Seduction kinda sound cool. (pun intended? Maybe.) Picture something very Slaaneshi.
Richard Short lol
The monster powers work within the context of the game where the creatures are the results of experiments performed on them by the big bad. The idea that they might have developed different abilities sits within that
Been hesitant on this as games like Mage Knight and Andor which are just puzzles don’t draw me in. Gloomhaven included. I want my thematic adventure to not boil down to a math problem.
May I suggest Runebound?
I love MK but Andor was a miss. City of Kings is similar to both in some ways as being a puzzle game. If you like neither then you probably would not enjoy this one.
@ David - Did you enjoy The City of Kings? If so, it sounds like we have similar tastes. I also rank MK very high, while Andor sort of fizzled.
I am the same (MK is high, Andor is for sale) and I found City of Kings okay (6/10 probably after about 3 plays). MK and Gloomhaven have tons more theme in them (although both are still puzzles). MK even has managing your followers, although they aren't independent.
Greg- I do enjoy The City of Kings. I have played several of the scenarios and about 4 of the stories. I like the blend of mechanisms and enjoy trying to figure out how to accomplish the goals or defeat the monster. There are different ways to accomplish your objectives. I have only played solo so cannot tell you how it would play with a group. I would suggest checking out Rolling Solo or One Stop Coop Shop and watch their play of the game if you have not already. To tell you the truth I almost did not back the game but I was drawn to the skill tree aspect of character development so decided to give it a chance.
I can't understand the decision to represent enemies with banners.
Who wants to fight a flag?
The game is filled with so much art but we should imagine how enemies look.
Proper enemy illustrations would have been much better.
Probably a cost thing. Personally I'm fine with the banners and the tiles that represent the creatures. They can always do future kickstarters to offer the game again and add miniatures as an expansion to replace banners and the creature tiles.
Not a lot of people want to spend $300+ for a game.
This games Kickstarter was actually what got me into board games. I backed it and then spent the next year playing board games as I waited for this to be delivered. My favourite solo so far is probably Mage Knight. I finally got round to playing 3 games of this this weekend after having it a few weeks. I was SO hyped but after feeling let down I watched this review. Tom got it so right. The monsters feel like a math puzzle, which is fine... But my second game I lost because I only pulled equipment that needed Linen and I simply was not powerful enough to beat the last monster and boss who spawned at the same time. I went searching for Linen and spawned a third monster and it was just impossible to beat them without more equipment. On a previous game I tried to do more quests to get equipment and just didn't pull any good quests and then finally a quest card spawned a creature on me which was just too powerful for my low level equipped character.
I'm going to try some more games as I want so badly to love this game, but as it stands I'd rather play something with a stronger theme or a more reliable difficulty curve
I think 45-180 minutes was for the component drop alone!
Bugger, was hoping this one was going to be great, but a lot of those things were bits I was worried about through the campaign, especially the themeless monsters.
I've got my copy sitting unplayed ATM (thanks to gloomhaven), now I need to decide if I will bother to learn it or just sell it.
No soul is pretty harsh. I received my copy about a month ago and we love it. Seems many of Tom's complaints are nit picks imho. This review initially steered me away from buying this game at first. I decided to watch some more game plays and Frank West's videos pretty much sold this game for me.
would you compare the item and encouters randomness similar to Dark Souls?
Is Robison Crusoé a problem too? A mix of automatic and randomness? Or is the theme more present?
Jetty 77 thanks!
I think including both of those is OK, it's just how it's done. CoK is a bit weird for me - the things that feel like they should be random aren't, the things that feel like they should be more predictable are random.
Watching the review im still not sure what this game really is. It looks like the problem is the game itself. That its just muddled and everything mashed together yet trying to tell a story. But if tom took 20 minutes and im still clueless on how the game plays, im not going to teach my players before they get bored.
I almost feel like you get so many things and it would be better to take these things and make a different game. Maybe use it as a backdrop for a scenereo builder that a third party makes and maps out (including removing a lot of the random elements.) A shame because it looks like it could be good.
Chrysie Beryl I just watched the final thoughts, 'cause I knew the rules already, so I dont know how well or bad he explains them, but watch the videos of Frank West himself playing the game. Its very straight forward and easy to learn. Not every aspect, but to begin with you can explain the basics in 15 minutes.
And what you critices are valid points but I love the game for this. He wanted to build a huge world and story and bring a video game feeling onto the table. And that is almost exactly what I feel (when watching videos, I missed the KS), its kinda like The Witcher 3 video game: you have no clue what story or monster is waiting right behind the next corner
23:29 Sounds like my ex.
It's called City of Kings, but when I first saw it on KS, I saw no theme that indicated the epic feel the title implies. Where are the kings? Heck, where is the city? Tom's run through shows just random plains and pylons which flip over to become caves and wooden towers. Between the imagery and text it looks look like they couldn't decide if they wanted the game to be serious or silly. Tasteless Boots? Nogle's Bright Idea? Hardly compelling for high fantasy and arguably not particularly funny. Glad I passed this on KS.
OMG What a mess of a component drop! His poor kids will be at it forever to sort it all again, what a slave driver! 8P
Once again a really good review. Interesting game yet the cover priced for it is rediculus $110. No Miniatures, standees what? Meeples lol. If I am going to pay $ 100 + for something It needs to be more than this. Thank you for the review always excellent!
That plastic "guide" thingy looks awfully fiddly... Also, I can absolutely see the randomness of monsters be a problem... Perhaps it would have been better served to have you meet different humanoids, that way you could hand wave it somewhat with "this highwayman comes equipped with a poisoned blade, and is able to cast fire magic"... In other words you would be meeting other people equipped with different skills. I think that would have made more sense...
Game looked interesting, that's why I'm here, but now I'm more unsure and will probably buy other games I want before this one...
I can understand the point of Tom, but by listening to this I have just some questions come to mind:
1 better generic fantasy o total random fantasy? Breath fire always = dragon?
2 randomness replyability or one shot story?
3 math = luck?
Just matter of taste, I like the story of gloomhaven but I felt that the amount of luck is highly present.
I think the issue is more 'whats the point in calling it a scorpion if it doesnt have any features that make it a scorpion.'
From what I could see from the review you draw a tile which is what kind of monster it is, but that monster has nothing on it but an icon, so whats the point? you could effectively replace all of those tiles with a gelatinous cube and then give them the stat tile + bonus powers and you'd get the same outcome.
I think he was after (and I would be too in this case) more monsters like the 'boss' monsters, where they all have some static abilities that match the kind of monster they are, but then have some bonus features on top
i.e a scorpion always has a poison attack, but then the bonus feature it gets is 'ice enchanted' which gives it an ice abilities as well - so whenever you face a scorpion its always poisonous but it can be more than a generic scorpion
Or a dragon always has a flight ability, but then gains a bonus ability too - just something to make them different while still showing that what you are facing is a dragon.
IJJusion i see your point, but to be precise the game have 8 bosses with one side empty and one side with a spedific ability, the other are instead 18 general description of possible generic races. You don't need to choose scorpion race and after hope to get poison ability, you can draw the ability and after choose the favourite banner that fit most the ability you have got.
If we have to talk about the wording scorpion, I don't see the difference in call it vermlings and give the shape of a rat or inox and give the shape of kind of ogre; fantasy can never be far away from stereotype, because is the only way to give part of an image. So when I hear someone talking about fantasy and common sense I feel that the meaning of fantasy is lost, a scorpion like creature have to be always poisonus? Cannot be a water scorpion salamander of love? Or a grussok caleroon shooting spirron froy (al invented words? Need more fanatsy?).
I just know that every time I plaied at D&d having fun, in the exact moment that a Dungeon Master used the sentence "this action doesn't respect common sense or is physically impossible" the fun was finished and I was back in a real life simulation, not an rpg.
Anyway, as I said is a matter of taste, I have both gloomhaven and the city of kings, and I will enjoy both.
Just what I thought personally. Just because the skills are random, doesn't mean it detracts from the games fantasy. You just have to be creative! Maybe its a sexy humanoid version of an ice scorpion! For me, it really adds to the fantasy of the game. It's not generic (ie the randomness) and it also cultivates imagination.
But when every monster can be everything it makes it a lot harder to feel like you're in a world - especially when from game to game when you encounter the same monster but the only thing it has in common with previous monsters of the same kind is its icon - but that's just my view, if it works for you then more power to you :)
Be everything is a little bit too much in my opinion, every monster can have many different ability, but as i said to you you can choose the ability when you take the stat bar and depending on ability you can choose the banner, if you get poison you can choose the banner that for you make sense to have poison, and so on for every ability.
The problem of feeling the world is what i pointed out in my second question, want to feel the world? so one shoot story is the best, the main target of this game is to have an high repliability so heve already a premade standard common sense stereotype monster would be a limit to that target.
From my point of view a good review of this game would be:
Want a full immersion in a new fantasy world? stay away from this, want a fantasy puzzle game that have always different situation to face, go for it.
Just i feel that the needs of many people to have common sense stuff that let them feel confortable in a fantasy world, take out all the meaning of the word Fantasy.
"Beautiful, but no soul!" Cool. Saved me some $$$
Unfortunately we live in an era where no one can accuse a "mediocre" game of being "mediocre", because lots of people like it...
This game is randomness taken so far, that there's neither theme nor fun in its mechanisms. I had high hopes as I love games like Mage Knight, but I guess King retains his crown.
That drop! OMG I'm laughing.
Err... From rulebook "All of the templates are mechanically the same, so pick the one you think best represents the enemy you are facing." love the game and its thematic for me.www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Fire_Scorpion_(3.5e_Creature)
What I heard Tom say... Components and aesthetics are nice but some generic art and a little fiddliness took away from the overall experience (1) and (1), The Rules were great but it you had to refer to them often, which lowered the overall ease of play (1), The theme (0) got completely lost in the mechanics (1) which killed a lot of what this game was supposed to be... Role Playing (0), Storytelling (0), Adventure (0), Variable player powers start out non existent but can grow over time as characters gain experience and equipment (1), The length and ending were great (2) but you really wouldn't enjoy what you did before the end comes. (7) I think if Tom were pressed to rate this on BGG he might put a 3.5 rating out of 10. The overall look of the game might actually turn this up a 0.5 to a 4... I could be wrong but I enjoyed analyzing what I heard.
definitely not for your average rpg person. Huge amount of pieces.
"A Dwarf from Warhammer 40k..."
extremely heretical
That looks terrible, and I somehow never heard of it. Oh well.
Totally agree after 5 plays solo, plus it's not solo! You just play 2 characters, lazy design man
Big games fail. blah.