Has anyone on the DT team played Bequest? It's a similarly-structured game with everyone splitting and choosing at the same time, so I'd be interested to see a comparison between the two.
Bequest is better. The art is nice and fun which will appeal more towards the gateway demographic both games are aimed at. It also plays smoother and has nice poker chips!
I know that the games play differently but i'd rather compare this to Nidavellir than to 7 wonders. Same strong track concept, driven by one main mechanic, in that case bidding here splitting. Agree with Mike and Roy on the rating.
Totally with Chris on this game. The split decision has enough depth for me to enjoy every turn. Don’t know what people have against tracks. It’s very clear and keeps the game very which helps keeping speed of turns high. It’s an elegant design (and I don’t only mean the art style). I do not need more complexity to enjoy this (in the same way that I don’t need more ways of scoring in a game like Azul). There aren’t many games that have a short and simultaneous play with up to 7 players, so this will definitely stay in my collection for a longer time.
Love the I Split You Choose, but I disagree with Mike…if this was a little more thematic and if the board track looked a little nicer with better iconography, this would be a must buy for me. The tracks and cubes just look a little too bland for me.
It's interesting, I really like the classy art deco look of games like Diamonds, but I really didn't like the look of that board or the muted tones on the cards. Looks like the game play would be fun though.
Love the I split, you choose mechanism a lot. Still, after watching the overview, I felt like this game came across a little boring. The tracks are the highlight, and tracks are... not a highlight. That said, I'd play it!
This. I played at Essen and the tracks are boring as hell. Whoopee I'll be blue this time. Next game I'll go for art tracks. So dull. I actually worry when I hear people say they get excited about a track scoring in games.........
I think this is a play but not buy. I was really excited by it but I think I have enough that fill this spot in my collection. I bet this would be perfect for BGA though.....
for a filler + game, a range of 7 to 8 is actually better than if this was a heavy game getting the same score. What I am curious about, given that it is draft + I pick you choose, is if any of you all played this at 2, it says it supports it, and i'm curious if the game holds up to the same level of score at that range?
I am not seeing the aesthetics appeal in this game. That you are really only actively playing against the people to either side of you would lower my score a point or point and a half for larger player counts. The wallets seem like something that could get ratty with repeated plays and could be replaced by an additional split card/cover.
This seems like a good filler to me, regardless of playing 45 min I would still treat it as a fairly quick light game. 45 isn’t relatively a long game with my group.
I-split-you-choose isn't really compelling to me. It tests your skill on valuing the things being split but to do well, you usually just try to make the piles even as the splitter also usually doesn't get first pick due to balance reason. Doing that arithmetic isn't fun for me and the chooser also usually feels like they don't get the best of the best as well. Making mediocrity or choosing mediocrity is such a downer. Drafting also can lean this way for me as you have to decide whether or not to take the best thing for you or remove the best thing from the next person by deciding which would make the bigger impact to you later on in the game. That calculus can take time and is also about minimizing the swings between players. I'd much rather engine build in a low interaction game, or just play a higher interaction game.
Surprised by this! The I split you choose mechanism is fun but all you are doing is leveling up tracks and you're just each game choosing which track to focus on. Whoopee!! It's a fun mechanism that has a boring payoff.
He calls Sentinels of the Multiverse "Math Spreadsheet: The Game". He doesn't like the tracks in this game because they're shamelessly just multiplying factors. And yet one of Mike DiLisio's favorite games of the last few years.... Is a game where each player gets their own screen which has a multiplication table on it. Ladies and gentlemen, I have found J.K. Rowling's manuscript for the next installment of her famous series: Harry Potter and the Hypocrisy of This Man! I'm just joking (mostly). You do you, boo.
@@michaeldilisio557 - It has less to do with the commonalities in the games themselves and the discrepancies in your praise/complaint of "mathiness" therein. Sentinels = Too much fiddly math, bad game Great Split = Tracks shouldn't have been in because they're just boring multipliers, still good game Smartphone Inc. = Has a literal multiplication table due to a lot of math, fantastic game.
@@kevinshoemaker2393maybe because the multiplication table helps the player offload the burden, rather than require players to do it themselves(and leave less brainspace for enjoying the game itself)?
@@michaeldilisio557 what is your opinion on tracks that provide discrete upgrades, progression, or majority control rather than multiplying factor? Or games with tableaus rather than tracks, but still with that multiplying factor(from symbols on cards/tiles)?
Has anyone on the DT team played Bequest? It's a similarly-structured game with everyone splitting and choosing at the same time, so I'd be interested to see a comparison between the two.
As the designer of Bequest, I'd be interested as well. :)
Bequest is better. The art is nice and fun which will appeal more towards the gateway demographic both games are aimed at. It also plays smoother and has nice poker chips!
Fact or Fiction, the board game. Sold!
I know that the games play differently but i'd rather compare this to Nidavellir than to 7 wonders. Same strong track concept, driven by one main mechanic, in that case bidding here splitting. Agree with Mike and Roy on the rating.
I love all of the multi person reviews!!!!❤
Any idea on roughly when this is released after backing?
Totally with Chris on this game.
The split decision has enough depth for me to enjoy every turn. Don’t know what people have against tracks. It’s very clear and keeps the game very which helps keeping speed of turns high. It’s an elegant design (and I don’t only mean the art style). I do not need more complexity to enjoy this (in the same way that I don’t need more ways of scoring in a game like Azul).
There aren’t many games that have a short and simultaneous play with up to 7 players, so this will definitely stay in my collection for a longer time.
9:59 The core of the game, in 5 seconds.
Love the I Split You Choose, but I disagree with Mike…if this was a little more thematic and if the board track looked a little nicer with better iconography, this would be a must buy for me. The tracks and cubes just look a little too bland for me.
It's interesting, I really like the classy art deco look of games like Diamonds, but I really didn't like the look of that board or the muted tones on the cards. Looks like the game play would be fun though.
Playthrough coming!?
Love the I split, you choose mechanism a lot. Still, after watching the overview, I felt like this game came across a little boring. The tracks are the highlight, and tracks are... not a highlight. That said, I'd play it!
This. I played at Essen and the tracks are boring as hell. Whoopee I'll be blue this time. Next game I'll go for art tracks. So dull. I actually worry when I hear people say they get excited about a track scoring in games.........
Tom&Mike, not even close 😂
That board!
This feels a lot like a much shorter and simpler "Golem" in terms of scoring and strategy considerations.
I think this is a play but not buy. I was really excited by it but I think I have enough that fill this spot in my collection. I bet this would be perfect for BGA though.....
for a filler + game, a range of 7 to 8 is actually better than if this was a heavy game getting the same score. What I am curious about, given that it is draft + I pick you choose, is if any of you all played this at 2, it says it supports it, and i'm curious if the game holds up to the same level of score at that range?
I am not seeing the aesthetics appeal in this game. That you are really only actively playing against the people to either side of you would lower my score a point or point and a half for larger player counts. The wallets seem like something that could get ratty with repeated plays and could be replaced by an additional split card/cover.
This seems like a good filler to me, regardless of playing 45 min I would still treat it as a fairly quick light game. 45 isn’t relatively a long game with my group.
I-split-you-choose isn't really compelling to me. It tests your skill on valuing the things being split but to do well, you usually just try to make the piles even as the splitter also usually doesn't get first pick due to balance reason. Doing that arithmetic isn't fun for me and the chooser also usually feels like they don't get the best of the best as well. Making mediocrity or choosing mediocrity is such a downer. Drafting also can lean this way for me as you have to decide whether or not to take the best thing for you or remove the best thing from the next person by deciding which would make the bigger impact to you later on in the game. That calculus can take time and is also about minimizing the swings between players. I'd much rather engine build in a low interaction game, or just play a higher interaction game.
Is this not a four squares video??
Tom and Mike
Surprised by this! The I split you choose mechanism is fun but all you are doing is leveling up tracks and you're just each game choosing which track to focus on. Whoopee!! It's a fun mechanism that has a boring payoff.
Roy: quit looking at the camera for too long
This looks way too fiddly.
He calls Sentinels of the Multiverse "Math Spreadsheet: The Game". He doesn't like the tracks in this game because they're shamelessly just multiplying factors. And yet one of Mike DiLisio's favorite games of the last few years.... Is a game where each player gets their own screen which has a multiplication table on it.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have found J.K. Rowling's manuscript for the next installment of her famous series: Harry Potter and the Hypocrisy of This Man!
I'm just joking (mostly). You do you, boo.
I understand the (mostly) joke, but I can’t think of a lot of commonalities between Smartphone Inc., Sentinels, and The Great Split.
@@michaeldilisio557 - It has less to do with the commonalities in the games themselves and the discrepancies in your praise/complaint of "mathiness" therein.
Sentinels = Too much fiddly math, bad game
Great Split = Tracks shouldn't have been in because they're just boring multipliers, still good game
Smartphone Inc. = Has a literal multiplication table due to a lot of math, fantastic game.
Great review. I was waiting to hear your thoughts on this one. 🙏
@@kevinshoemaker2393maybe because the multiplication table helps the player offload the burden, rather than require players to do it themselves(and leave less brainspace for enjoying the game itself)?
@@michaeldilisio557 what is your opinion on tracks that provide discrete upgrades, progression, or majority control rather than multiplying factor?
Or games with tableaus rather than tracks, but still with that multiplying factor(from symbols on cards/tiles)?