I’m sort of confused about why they’re classifying this as such a mean game. Aren’t area control games inherently directly competitive? It’s not like you’re just tearing opponents’ work down for no reason…in pretty much every area control game I’ve ever played, you’re jockeying for control in each area, often by removing opponents’ pieces to gain majorities. Is this game more mean than, say, Eight-Minute Empire? Or Twilight Struggle? Or really any other area control game?
For me I think the "mean" factor comes from a few things: one, since it's a multiplayer game whenever you do something to fight one opponent you have singled them out from your other possible targets. Two, it takes less expenditure of resources to undo others' gain than to achieve gain, so it can often be better to spend your efforts disrupting others instead of on yourself. Three, there are many scenarios in this game where you will disrupt another person's attempt to control a forest even though doing so won't grant you control of the forest; you're not doing this to gain, but to prevent others' gain, so there's a certain element of just spiting your enemies. And fourth, since each person gets actions so long as they have a dice to place, it incentivizes waiting to mess with people until they're out of dice to play and can't fight back. For more experienced players this can mean that they take actions that leave them vulnerable to a certain player afterward on the understanding that player will attack someone else, and backstabbing/duplicity will occur.
I tend to watch lots of video reviews, and more so on the Dice Tower. But wow! this one was one of the most thoroughly analytic and well-explained ones I've seen this week. I was worried 4 people might drag the videos a little, which it has, but 4 Squares are even more fun to watch and intelligible than Miami Vice videos and this new in-person version on the same table has made it even more interesting and easier to understand different points of views.
I also think most of the reviews overstated the "meaness" of the game. It's a competition game, but that doesn't make it mean to play the dice you have against the other players. Zee hit it right with his score.
I get the impression that the area control would be pointless without competition, so I'm very confused by their focus on how "mean" it is when that's such a minor consequence of the strategy in the mechanism. The whole strategy is determining what you need to control an area AND what you're willing to spend to guarantee an area unless you're willing to risk losing the area.
Love this format. I was heart broken when Sam left (understand why he did however), however Chris and Mike are great additions with different likes in games which I appreciate. I thinks it’s really nice when the ratings are different as I feel in watching other reviews I understand which of the gangs tastes are in line with mine. This is why I back you guys every year.
@Patrick White Oh, you're right I think. That does sound familiar. I seem to recall it may have had something to do with his family? Personal stuff. Well, anyway, I'm happy it all turned out so well for him.
Huge thanks for this great reveiw. I was ready to put in my pre-order, looks amazing , love dice placement etc but the mean element would really spoil it for me and my group. I appreciate the save from you guys. Mike nails it by pointing out that the look and the theme may are at odds.
This game has so much appeal to me visually. I usually am a bit of a care bear but slowly overtime I find my tastes are changing in a controlled group where everyone understands things going in (example Shaolia, Dune and others). With Pandasaurus Games giving it such a reasonable price point, I willing to see if this is a great game for me. Pre-Ordered!!!!
2:47 Water: If you use this die to gather from an ingredient space in a Forest, gather +2 of that ingredient. So you would get 3 resources total (1+2). You only took 2 :D
You are correct, I meant to say 2 additional resources. Then I grabbed the wrong amount, haha. This is why we say our Overviews are good for getting an idea of the game, but not a rules guide.
I think that the “meanness” and “take that” aspects in this review were overly emphasized quite a lot. I really don’t consider head-to-head competition as having any meanness to it, it’s about meeting challenges, overcoming setbacks, and dealing with whatever outcomes happen - pretty much like life. (After all, life itself is not a level playing field and one has to deal with many things.) My competition background is in wargaming (both as a hobby and for the Navy), football, and soccer - head-to-head competition which to me had no meanness about it (outside of the attitudes of a relatively few people). It was always great to play against those who made me work to get better and figure out solutions to the problems they presented to me. I don’t see that much difference with competition in board games. I don’t take issue with what people prefer in the type of games they play to have fun, I just think “meanness” and “take that” are really unfortunate negative characterizations which I’m hearing more and more often. Whether or not something is actually mean depends on the maturity of the people playing the game.
@@chrisarney8265 Good for you. I mean it, but there are others, who don't want take that or mean games. So it is a useful information if somebody wants to buy for their family, and kids usually don't want those experiences at young age. It's not a good strategy to make them hate board games.
I think a good way to assess "meanness" in a game is "does this positively infliuence me?" (e.g. Worker Placement? Taking the spot you wanted still gives me a positive effect, so I wouldn't say it's mean) Whereas I noticed in the Brew playthrough that the "Scorch" mechanic is the opposite. You're literally burning dice placement spots, receiving no direct benefit but your opponents now have less options. Considering the game is mostly "perfect information" (you can see your opponent's dice and resources, you can figure out where they probably want to go), I would consider that aspect "mean", because you're no building yourself up, you're just tearing others down There's more nuisance than that, e.g. some "Take That!" effects often do benefit you, but I'd still consider them mean (as Zee/Mike pointed out) if it ruins multiple turns worth of planning/engine building and there's no counterplay.
I'm sorry but something is wrong with this video's audio. Were the lav mics not working? It sounds like we're hearing the camera mic. Also the room seems to need some acoustic treatment.
I am not sure I played this one correctly... I didn't mind the 'mean' aspect of the game since I never felt stuck, there was always a chance of coming back. In a two-player game at least, my opponent could equally mess with my plans so the game felt well balanced in that regard. Where the game fell short for me was at the slight advantage the starting player seemed to have to win forest cards on that round. We'd win territories only by minor margins so that could end up having a huge impact. On top of that, the gathering animals went from 'uuuh such cool new abilities' to 'oh no, now I need to flip another animal for the sake of keeping control of these territories' :/ The illustrations are gorgeous but the gameplay, unfortunately, didn't do it for me.
Zee: I give it an 8 (because I won) Tom: I give it a 7.5 (because I came in 2nd) Mike: I give it a 7 (because I got beat up so badly) Chris: I give it a 6 (because I wasn't invited to play) . . . Just Kidding...you guys are great!
Yeah I generally don't like mean games where you can choose who you're attacking. I would try this as a 2 player if given the opportunity but otherwise I'll pass.
If you're prone to get mad at "Take That" elements, DON'T think about getting this game. I was ready to knock over the table last weekend. I don't like the screw-up mechanics AT ALL.
![ผัวเถื่อน - ยูริ โตเกียวมิวสิค [ OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P08ORRVDGl8/mqdefault.jpg)
I’m sort of confused about why they’re classifying this as such a mean game. Aren’t area control games inherently directly competitive? It’s not like you’re just tearing opponents’ work down for no reason…in pretty much every area control game I’ve ever played, you’re jockeying for control in each area, often by removing opponents’ pieces to gain majorities. Is this game more mean than, say, Eight-Minute Empire? Or Twilight Struggle? Or really any other area control game?
For me I think the "mean" factor comes from a few things: one, since it's a multiplayer game whenever you do something to fight one opponent you have singled them out from your other possible targets. Two, it takes less expenditure of resources to undo others' gain than to achieve gain, so it can often be better to spend your efforts disrupting others instead of on yourself. Three, there are many scenarios in this game where you will disrupt another person's attempt to control a forest even though doing so won't grant you control of the forest; you're not doing this to gain, but to prevent others' gain, so there's a certain element of just spiting your enemies. And fourth, since each person gets actions so long as they have a dice to place, it incentivizes waiting to mess with people until they're out of dice to play and can't fight back. For more experienced players this can mean that they take actions that leave them vulnerable to a certain player afterward on the understanding that player will attack someone else, and backstabbing/duplicity will occur.
I have no problems with "take that" in an area control game...the game seems interesting and, for that price point, I will pick it up.
Wow a funny Blooper reel at the end!
You guys keep innovating. Loving it. 🙂🙂🙂
Great discussion, seems like a great game but for a very specific audience. Chris did an excellent explanation of the rules!
I tend to watch lots of video reviews, and more so on the Dice Tower. But wow! this one was one of the most thoroughly analytic and well-explained ones I've seen this week. I was worried 4 people might drag the videos a little, which it has, but 4 Squares are even more fun to watch and intelligible than Miami Vice videos and this new in-person version on the same table has made it even more interesting and easier to understand different points of views.
I also think most of the reviews overstated the "meaness" of the game. It's a competition game, but that doesn't make it mean to play the dice you have against the other players. Zee hit it right with his score.
I get the impression that the area control would be pointless without competition, so I'm very confused by their focus on how "mean" it is when that's such a minor consequence of the strategy in the mechanism. The whole strategy is determining what you need to control an area AND what you're willing to spend to guarantee an area unless you're willing to risk losing the area.
@@corvus418 Excellent analysis!
@@Pandasaurusgames Oh, thanks! Now I'm pressured to play Brew and turn it into a post for my design blog lol
@@shawnkays6821 We'd love to read it, if you do!
Love this format. I was heart broken when Sam left (understand why he did however), however Chris and Mike are great additions with different likes in games which I appreciate. I thinks it’s really nice when the ratings are different as I feel in watching other reviews I understand which of the gangs tastes are in line with mine. This is why I back you guys every year.
@Patrick White What are you talking about? He got a really sweet job at a game company.
@Patrick White Oh, you're right I think. That does sound familiar. I seem to recall it may have had something to do with his family? Personal stuff. Well, anyway, I'm happy it all turned out so well for him.
How come Sam left? I never found out why
Thank you all for the review!
Huge thanks for this great reveiw. I was ready to put in my pre-order, looks amazing , love dice placement etc but the mean element would really spoil it for me and my group. I appreciate the save from you guys. Mike nails it by pointing out that the look and the theme may are at odds.
This game has so much appeal to me visually. I usually am a bit of a care bear but slowly overtime I find my tastes are changing in a controlled group where everyone understands things going in (example Shaolia, Dune and others). With Pandasaurus Games giving it such a reasonable price point, I willing to see if this is a great game for me. Pre-Ordered!!!!
Awesome! We hope you enjoy!
I actually thought it was going to be about brewing beer
Same here.
Zee “the dice are dented” 🤣 I got to play this last night. Love the artwork! I will play again, but not sure I’d buy.
Great review, team! Thanks! Love to see Wendy on the review team sometime. The DT is in need of opinions from the female gender, and Wendy's great!
Chris did a great job giving the instruction overview!
I was already intrigued by this one, but the low price points I'm seeing means I'm even more likely to give it a chance. Thanks!
Tom, you’re shrinking! :)
2:47
Water: If you use this die to gather from an ingredient space in a Forest, gather +2 of that ingredient. So you would get 3 resources total (1+2). You only took 2 :D
You are correct, I meant to say 2 additional resources. Then I grabbed the wrong amount, haha. This is why we say our Overviews are good for getting an idea of the game, but not a rules guide.
I think that the “meanness” and “take that” aspects in this review were overly emphasized quite a lot. I really don’t consider head-to-head competition as having any meanness to it, it’s about meeting challenges, overcoming setbacks, and dealing with whatever outcomes happen - pretty much like life. (After all, life itself is not a level playing field and one has to deal with many things.)
My competition background is in wargaming (both as a hobby and for the Navy), football, and soccer - head-to-head competition which to me had no meanness about it (outside of the attitudes of a relatively few people). It was always great to play against those who made me work to get better and figure out solutions to the problems they presented to me. I don’t see that much difference with competition in board games.
I don’t take issue with what people prefer in the type of games they play to have fun, I just think “meanness” and “take that” are really unfortunate negative characterizations which I’m hearing more and more often. Whether or not something is actually mean depends on the maturity of the people playing the game.
Well said. I like games where 3 of my friends and I "go after" each other within the game. That's fun. I don't see what's mean about that.
@@chrisarney8265 Good for you. I mean it, but there are others, who don't want take that or mean games. So it is a useful information if somebody wants to buy for their family, and kids usually don't want those experiences at young age. It's not a good strategy to make them hate board games.
I think a good way to assess "meanness" in a game is "does this positively infliuence me?"
(e.g. Worker Placement? Taking the spot you wanted still gives me a positive effect, so I wouldn't say it's mean)
Whereas I noticed in the Brew playthrough that the "Scorch" mechanic is the opposite. You're literally burning dice placement spots, receiving no direct benefit but your opponents now have less options.
Considering the game is mostly "perfect information" (you can see your opponent's dice and resources, you can figure out where they probably want to go), I would consider that aspect "mean", because you're no building yourself up, you're just tearing others down
There's more nuisance than that, e.g. some "Take That!" effects often do benefit you, but I'd still consider them mean (as Zee/Mike pointed out) if it ruins multiple turns worth of planning/engine building and there's no counterplay.
The artwork is heavy Miyazaki vibes. Princess Mononoke all the way imo.
Definitely one of our inspos!
I'm sorry but something is wrong with this video's audio. Were the lav mics not working? It sounds like we're hearing the camera mic. Also the room seems to need some acoustic treatment.
The audio was pretty rough on this, very "echoy"
Thanks for this review.
I am not sure I played this one correctly... I didn't mind the 'mean' aspect of the game since I never felt stuck, there was always a chance of coming back. In a two-player game at least, my opponent could equally mess with my plans so the game felt well balanced in that regard. Where the game fell short for me was at the slight advantage the starting player seemed to have to win forest cards on that round. We'd win territories only by minor margins so that could end up having a huge impact. On top of that, the gathering animals went from 'uuuh such cool new abilities' to 'oh no, now I need to flip another animal for the sake of keeping control of these territories' :/
The illustrations are gorgeous but the gameplay, unfortunately, didn't do it for me.
It sounds like Chris's mic was the only one picking up audio. He's nice and clear, but everyone else sounds a bit far and reverby.
I thought it was about beer.
i dont know why its a 7.3 on bgg ... very clever gamr
I was actually thinking, it was about beer.
I finally have my copy! I’m ready to get mean and ruin all my friendships hahah, just for the evening though… :P
Zee: I give it an 8 (because I won)
Tom: I give it a 7.5 (because I came in 2nd)
Mike: I give it a 7 (because I got beat up so badly)
Chris: I give it a 6 (because I wasn't invited to play)
.
.
.
Just Kidding...you guys are great!
Nothing like watching 4 grown men around a table talk about furry animals. lol Keep it up!
Yeah I generally don't like mean games where you can choose who you're attacking. I would try this as a 2 player if given the opportunity but otherwise I'll pass.
If you're prone to get mad at "Take That" elements, DON'T think about getting this game. I was ready to knock over the table last weekend. I don't like the screw-up mechanics AT ALL.
Too bad the game's shipping has been held up.
"Rice rolling"?
Couldn't you just remove the white dice to eliminate the mean aspect?
Central board has white-die-only spaces, so not really, no
You COULD house-rule the fire side to have a less mean effect, potentially?
Meh, it doesn't need house rules. You want it to be less mean? Play a different game. We shouldn't change a game to be something it's not.
@@thedicetower Yeah, I watched the play-through after I commented and it needs the white dice, for sure.
Weird name for this game.
This game hits a lot of the right notes for me but the “take that” aspect ruins it for me. Love the theme, dice, and artwork though.