Bought Alchemists for cheap secondhand. My group are on a logic deduction hype train right now. Not sure if a logic deduction worker placement adds too much fat to the process, but for the price it’s worth a shot.
I bought favor of the pharaoh in Glasgow. I was up there meeting a different group of internet people and thought I’d check out the local game shop Static Games. It was really good. They had a really cool selection of games and some real hefty discounts on some (I got the game for 20 quid).
Would reccomend a visit for anyone up there or in the area.
I ordered a few Xmas items for my boy, and decided to add Valeria: Card Kingdoms to the order (my GF and I have been loving Quests of Valeria). Going to pick up the shipment today and hopefully it will hit the table this weekend.
Bought Quebec, because it was on one of those “unrated games that are actually good” threads on bgg
My friendly online game store finally got The Rise of Queensdale in stock, so I snapped that up.
Looking forward to trying it, despite lukewarm reviews from all my fave reviewers.
BUT, THE PLUNGER!
(This is a complete sentence despite what the forum post editor says)
I bought that there Prelude, the expansion to Terraforming Mars. I also picked up Root for a bargain discount!
I toyed with picking up travel Hive and now I’m sad I didn’t because my wife has declared her willingness to board game tonight.
I have been asked to pick up Detective to play with the semi-regular Tuesday group, but all i’m hearing is how terrible it is. Should I? The collaborative experience will be fun and there will be time to squeeze in an enjoyable euro. There will be, won’t there?
Who’s saying Detective is terrible? I’m hearing near universal love for it.
I know in a podcast, Matt and Quinns mentioned that the writing is terrible. The game itself, however, I don’t remember what their verdict was.
They didn’t say that the game was bad.
Brass: Birmingham and Pictomania 2nd Edition. One is the aspirational purchase, and one is the game I will actually be breaking out to play with friends.
That seems like an equivocation. If the writing is as terrible as they say, can the game really be good? It doesn’t strike me as the kind of game people appreciate for the tight integration of mechanisms to theme, or elegance, or strategic depth. The game lives or dies by the writing, surely?
Pictomania (1st edition) has always, and I mean always, been a massive hit for everyone at the table every time I brought it out. There aren’t many games I can say that about.
The only downside is that the Japanese localisation wasn’t very good, so I only play the English version (despite owning both).
Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective is often considered a very good game, but people have had lots of issues with the editing, the font, and some cases being outright broken in the older edition. So yes, a game can have bad writing and still be good.
That’s bad proofing, bad editing, not bad writing. The SU&SD criticism was specifically that the writing was awful because the people who wrote it can’t write. That’s certainly not a criticism I’ve ever heard applied to Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective (I haven’t played it, so it might be terrible for all I know - I’d be surprised if it were popular in spite of terrible writing though).
Yes it can! There are different types of bad writing which I’ll separate into broadly 1) issues with the actual story itself (doesn’t make sense, is boring, etc) vs. 2) the writing being bad in terms of style, grammar, etc (awkward phrasing, misspellings, etc).
The important part for this kind of game is 1. You don’t want people to not solve the mystery because your clues were wrong, or they couldn’t understand what was going on. What Matt and Quinns were criticizing is 2.
EDIT: The writing for SHCD is 2 bad at times. But what people really hated and complained about was 1 bad because a revision literally broke some cases and made them unsolvable.
Ah, that explains things. I had a completely different read on what they said in the podcast. I thought they were quite explicitly criticising your “1”, saying that the writing was awkward, boring… i.e., everything I would call “bad writing” (including “style” in your “2” (not consistency of style as in following a style guide, but style as in tone not matching content/intent), but not misspellings or incorrect grammar).
Consulting Detective is an interesting concept that hodgepodges mechanics together in a kind of unwieldy pile.
I wonder if anyone has ever got the Sherlock solution in the game, I’d bet never.
IIRC the SUDS lads considered that it was pointlessly and hilariously overwritten, and included a lot of mundane detail which had nothing to do with the actual story.
That could be read as necessary for a game that hinges on identifying important details. I thought their criticism went far beyond that, but I recognise that this might just be my interpretation.