Archive for the ‘ Games ’ Category

Origins 2013: The New Games

To follow up on my general impressions of Origins 2013, here are the specifics about the games I played. I didn’t feel like I got a good handle on which games had “buzz” this year. Maybe it’s because I was running around from game to game so quickly, or maybe it’s because there were so many new, big releases that the board gamer buzz tied closely to what the community already knew to look for. Either way, I don’t think I can sort my games by buzz-level this year like I normally do. Instead, I’m splitting them up by how new they are. So many of them were brand new that if I just separate the Origins debuts from the ones that came out a few months ago, that divides my list pretty neatly in two. So today I’m going to cover the Origins debuts and upcoming games, and in a couple days I’ll look at the “older” titles.

I’m only looking at games’ US availability here. They almost all come out in Europe sooner, but I’m a US gamer, Origins is a US conference, and I think it’s fair to look at them that way. Also, as usual, I don’t want to give “formal” reviews for a game that I played once in a convention atmosphere. Instead of my usual letter grades, I’m using a 1-10 rating.

Continue reading

Origins 2013 Impressions

Origins Welcome

The 2013 Origins Game Fair finished today. Rather than my usual long article of impressions and game reviews, I’m going to break this up into two (still long) articles. Today I’ll talk about the convention as a whole, and later in the week about the games I played.

Personally, this was significant in that it was the first time in years that I voluntarily skipped any of Origins’ five days. Being a father now, this might be the new normal for me. It was strange to miss any of it, but it really did feel right being back home more. I still got to be a Origins for slightly more than half the time.

For the convention in general, this was an important year. Everyone was watching to see if they would spring back from a disastrous 2012, when the show was moved to May and attendance plummeted. Though the empty halls made it easy for me to find games, no one released anything new and people wondered if Origins had passed the point of no return. This year, after moving back closer to the normal date, it looked like everyone returned. Even better (from my point of view as an attendee), there were lots of new releases and big companies again. In fact, I’ve never had so many new exciting games to try out. I barely had time to get through my list of top-priority games to try, whereas normally I can spend half the convention browsing through older titles. I’m sure this was partly because I wasn’t around for as long, but even so the difference was notable.

Strangely, the one place that seemed to have lighter traffic was the Board Room. This is hub for serious board gamers, but there was a lot more space on the tables and less competition for the hot new games. As far as I can tell, everyone was still around, but just had more things to do in the other areas of the convention. In past years, I always said in no uncertain terms that the Board Room was the thing that made Origins worthwhile; This year, that room was far from essential. I still definitely got my price of admission out of it, and I played two of my three favorite games there, but I could have stayed busy and happy throughout the show even without it.

I don’t think that CABS (the Columbus Area Boardgaming Society, which runs the Board Room) is doing anything wrong. Rather, their philosophy has spread to the rest of Origins. When the Board Room started, it was almost rebellious to say that people should be able to sit around a gaming convention and play games. Rio Grande was the only company at the time running full, consistent demos without a fee or a cramped space. Now, that idea seems normal. The free Origins gaming library, while still nowhere near CABS’ standards, at least lets attendees borrow the award nominees for the year. The open gaming areas (free, but without access to the CABS library or hard-core gamer community) are bigger and much better populated. And every company of respectable size had space where they could teach their games to people for free. The paid events are still around, but free teaching areas from IELLO, Asmodee, and other companies even took over a good-sized chunk of the hall that used to be dedicated to for-fee events only.

Every year, people talk about how Origins is smaller than the year before. I don’t know if that’s actually true, but it’s at least been the perception. This year, it clearly grew. But that wasn’t just stabilizing after last year. With the size, the number of new releases, and the ease of finding good games to play and people to play with, I felt better about Origins than ever before. I don’t yet know what the official numbers were, but I can already say that from my perspective as a board gamer, the convention and community have never felt healthier.

Board Game Capsule Reviews: Pre-Origins Plate-Clearing

Today I’m talking about a few board games whose only connection is that I’ve first tried them at Origins, and had the chance to play them more since, but haven’t yet written an official review. With the Origins convention happening again later this week, it seems like a good time to catch up on these.


20th Century box

20th Century

20th Century

20th Century intrigued me right away: A complex engine-building game whose driving design goal seemed to be to include as many types of auctions as possible. Despite that, though, it’s become obvious that this isn’t an “auction game”. Normally, all the bidding would act as an equalizer, guaranteeing that no one would be able to grab a resource for less than anyone else was willing to pay. Here, though, it’s common for people to get blocked out of auctions when they would have been happy to outbid someone else. This happens mostly because players can choose when they drop out of a round. The rewards for doing this early make dropping out into its own auction, but that means that the player will miss out on later bids, and the items might go way too cheaply.

Instead, the draw of 20th Century is the system you’re building. Everyone makes their own tile-based kingdom of cities, railroads, and, if they aren’t careful, pollution. It’s fun, but it does get repetitive. Despite the elements that are supposed to vary from game to game, they started feeling the same to me quickly. This is a fun one to try, but its best if you’re the type of person who intends to sample a bunch of games without playing them over and over.

Grade: C+


FITS box

FITS

FITS

This Tetris-inspired game ended up living up to its potential: It’s fun and accessible for non-gamers, but interesting for more serious gamers as well. Admittedly, it gets a little repetitive. About half the time I feel bored with it before its four rounds are over. The games are always interesting at the start, though, especially if there are new players to get excited over the possibilities of the system. It is fun as long as it only reaches the table occasionally.

Grade: B


GOSU cover

GOSU

GOSU

I got to play this only once more, so I still don’t feel ready to review it. However, I definitely have more context to add to my initial impressions: Based on two three-player games, I thought the system seemed interesting, but the strategy was lost in the chaos. Since then, I’ve tried it again with four players, and it was exactly the same. It was long, unpredictable, and while there are supposed to be strategic reasons to drop out of a round early, anyone who did so always had to sit out a for long time while the situation on the board completely changed. Also, this made three games in a row in which someone won using a special victory condition on a card that someone else had played!

One of the people with me was a big fan of the game, but he was shocked by the way this one played out. Apparently, it was the first time he had tried it with more than two players. I can see how that would make a difference. Having only one opponent would cut out most of the chaos, and would also mean that when you’re ready to end the round, the other person probably is as well. So at this point, I feel confident saying that Gosu is a complete mess with more than two players. However, it was designed with two players in mind, and it seems to be completely different like that. I’ll withhold judgment until I get to try it the “real” way.


Box images are from Board Game Geek. Follow the links on the images for details and photographer credits.

Party of One (RPG Gamebook Review)

Party of OneKobold Press has a series of single-player RPG adventures released as Party of One. They’re simple gamebooks based on the Pathfinder system (a D&D spin-off), with all the stats, battles, and die rolls that that implies. However, they explain all the needed rules in the text and keep them streamlined (with no initiative, critical hits, or similar items). Presumably they’re aimed to bring new people into the Pathfinder world, though I don’t know how many people out there are interested in a Choose Your Own Adventure dice-fest but don’t already know the basics of D&D.

I’m reviewing all three as a single item, since each costs $3 and can be completed (with some time peeking at other paths) in about a half hour. They’re sold as downloadable PDFs, and average only fifteen pages each. That page count includes a title page, a page of legal details, and two different character sheets – even though the game explains all the stats needed without referring to those character sheets, and even contradicts them sometimes. Obviously, that doesn’t leave much space for the game.

Each one casts you as a low-level (pre-made) adventurer, faced with a crisis that can basically be resolved in one scene. Your chances of surviving all the battles seem to be about 50-50, and the choices seem fair without arbitrary death or sudden plot twists. However, your decisions do matter: Two of the scenarios have multiple endings, depending on what you did while playing. (The choices it offers frequently depend on past events, so the paths can keep merging together and then branching back off when appropriate.) The real challenge, though not a difficult one, is to figure out how to get the different endings.

These are simple fun, and I never felt like I was being jerked around by unexpected consequences of my decisions. They really are like playing through a story, and are more successful than I expected. They’re still very slight, though. I wonder whether these worked because they were so short that they didn’t need to offer many branches or hard decisions. I’d definitely be interested in longer-form work by author Matthew J. Hanson, but as far as I can tell he’s written no other solo gamebooks. Though these are decent, each one is like an introductory chapter that ends quickly. I’d expect more from a $9 book, let alone a PDF-only product.

The one I’ll highlight is Kalgor Bloodhammer and the Ghouls through the Breach, which features the best and worst of the series. It has the least linear storyline. Once your Dwarven hero discovers his city is threatened, the choices are based around a central hub with options that the player can do in any order. It does matter which ones are chosen first, and that lets the story proceed in a natural way. Of course, I’d prefer a longer story with a few more choices, but it’s still a good structure. On the other hand, it could have used some editing. A supporting character’s stats change without reason (another story has the main character’s damage change as well), and if you choose not to do an important task and later return to that location, the book assumes that you had previously tried and failed. Even stranger, all of the endings give the impression of being “bad” ones, but there really isn’t one where the hero is satisfied with the outcome. Normal linear stories can get away with unhappy endings, but when the reader is an active participant in a challenge, there needs to be a chance to win.

Party of One is very different from the last gamebook I tried based on an existing RPG system. Unlike Tunnels & Trolls, this doesn’t expect the player to be an expert in the rules and it keeps the player on a fair path through a coherent story. It provides a template for RPG gamebooks that feel like a satisfying story experience. Being very short and a little rushed, it is only a template, though. I’m still looking for a completely successful one.

Grade: C+

 

GyrOrbital (iPhone Game)

GyrOrbitalA space station in the middle of nowhere is under attack from all sides, and needs you to defend it. It’s a pretty common video game premise, but the thing that makes GyrOrbital unique is what it means to be attacked “from all sides”. Using the built-in gyroscope, your iPhone requires you to physically turn around in order to watch for attackers around you. It’s not a game you can play everywhere, since you need to be able to stand up and spin around like an idiot, but it’s a pretty fun gimmick when you’re able to try it.

GyrOrbital is a very simple game other than that: Basic vector art portrays missiles streaking towards the spherical base, and a field of stars moves when you do to maintain the illusion that you’re peering through a porthole into space. Tap or drag over missiles to lock on and destroy them. (It’s not an option to spin around and swipe your fingers across the screen wildly. In a clever bit of game design, the base doesn’t fire shots until you’ve lifted your finger.) It’s very simple, and admittedly looks pretty pointless in still screenshots, but it’s the simplicity of a game like Pac-Man. It doesn’t need to be more complicated.

There is one serious weakness that undermines the comparison to iconic video games, though. To play the game, you stand in one place and spin around, so it should feel like you’re on the central spot that missiles are converging on. Instead, though, the view is perpetually looking towards the base from a little ways off. When you spin, the camera is actually rotating around in a fixed orbit. I understand why this was done, because when a missile gets within your orbit, you can see it approaching the station no matter which way you’re facing. This gives a little warning and makes the game feel fair – if you constantly got hit from behind without any notice, it would be too frustrating. On the other hand, this way I don’t feel like I’m actually spinning around. It seems more like a traditional scrolling view on a video game, just with an unusual way to control the movement. While playing, I’ll catch myself thinking things like “move back to the left” rather than “turn left” or “it’s coming from my left!”. It’s a subtle distinction, but it means the game failed to erase the abstraction between me and my avatar.

What is left, though, is still a fun little video game with a unique control scheme. It’s a cool experience, and based on how well I’m doing in the Game Center rankings, it’s being unfairly overlooked. Go check it out.

Grade: B

 

First Looks at Space Games

Every year after Origins, I post thoughts on the board games I played. But since I don’t want to give them “official” ratings after a brief introduction, I use a 10-point scale instead of my usual letter grades. Origins isn’t the only time that I get introduced to games, though. Whether because my regular gaming friends don’t own it, it didn’t grab our attention, or something else, it’s common for me to try a game once and never come back to it. So here is an Origins-style report on my first impressions of a few space-themed games I tried within the past year or so.

Continue reading

Two iPhone Games – Ruzzle and Take It Easy

Today, here are two quick reviews of iPhone games I’ve played recently.


RuzzleRuzzle is a 2-player Boggle-like game played over the internet. Each person tries to find words on the same board of letters, though not necessarily at the same time, and compares their score. It has an intensity that Boggle doesn’t have, partly due to the short two-minute time limit on each round, and partly because the board has letter and word multipliers similar to Scrabble. This makes scoring a little more varied from round to round, but it’s also a fun, quick fix. The available multipliers increase over the game’s three rounds, keeping the game interesting even if one person gets an early lead.

The banner ads on the main screen plus full-page ads, sometimes with video and delays, between each round, really interfere with that simple Boggle-on-steroids rush. There is a premium ad-free option, but I don’t see much reason to pay for it since my friends have given up on the game. Notifications about your turn can be inconsistent, and if you go a couple days without thinking to check you’ll forfeit. (I’ve found this game is best for matches against random opponents, because then you’ll both want to play through quickly. This isn’t good for that Words With Friends experience of challenging a friend, since the waiting isn’t fun. With only a few rounds, and only being able to play one round ahead of your opponent, it has a weird flow.) Even worse, when my games have been interrupted by a phone call, I was kicked out of the round with a zero score.

All together, this is almost a very fun game.

Grade: C+


Take It EasyTake It Easy is a puzzle game in which you line up hexagonal tiles on a board. Each has three numbered lines, and the goal is to make unbroken lines across the board. Each of the three directions has only three possible numbers, so there will be plenty of possible matches, but there’s no way to handle all the intersecting lines at once without blocking some of the possibilities.

The design makes all the chaotic pieces easy to follow, with lines sparkling when they score and fading out if there is no way for them to complete. Even so, the basic game, a solitaire experience of receiving and placing one tile at a time, is pretty boring. Reiner Knizia did it better with Robot Master, which felt less chaotic due to its simple two directions and knowledge that tiles came from a “deck”, so you can consider the odds of what the next tile will be. Being a Knizia game, that also had more interesting scoring. This one gives you the points for the number times the number of tiles in that line. Obviously, the key is to focus on 8s and 9s and ignore the 1s and 2s.

Despite that, Take It Easy manages to succeed through its eagerness to do everything possible with its system. In addition to that basic game, there are Progressive and Puzzle versions, as well as several options for multi-player games. I didn’t find the Progressive version that appealing; It’s just the standard game played over multiple rounds with increasing target scores and a few new obstacles. But the Puzzles change things up by giving you a full board in which you need to swap tiles around. It isn’t especially original, but the game is more fun without the random solitaire aspect, and there are many different puzzle goals (from points to creating lines with specific numbers or in a specific position). With multi-player, every person plays the same game and competes to either get the high score or finish first. Even the standard game becomes a little more interesting as part of a competition.

It’s not ground-breaking or addictive, but Take It Easy is worth coming back to from time to time.

Grade: B-

 

Dixit (Game Review)

Dixit

Dixit

As one of the more distinctive games in the Apples to Apples genre, Dixit has gained a lot of popularity over the past couple years. Though I’m not the target audience, I have to say the attention is well-earned. One game every few months is enough for me (sometimes more than enough), but it’s interesting, and I can play it with people who wouldn’t otherwise be interested in games.

Dixit is by otherwise little-known designer Jean-Louis Roubira, but artist Marie Cardouat deserves at least as much credit. After all, the first thing anyone notices about it is the evocative artwork. Each card is wordless, with a dreamlike, almost menacing, picture. They’re almost too weird to work for a family game, but the creativity and soft focus make them more interesting than off-putting.

The mechanics are solid, too. Players take turns being the storyteller, who must say a word or two about one card and then play it face down. Everyone else plays a card they think matches the description, and then each player except the storyteller guesses which one was played originally. Points are, of course, earned for choosing right and for convincing other people to choose your card.

Dixit cardsAll of that may sound like a typical Apples to Apples-style game, but Dixit is the only game I’ve seen like it that actually provides a balanced gameplay. First of all, almost everyone at the table is making a quick, simultaneous choice, which feels a lot less arbitrary than a single leader choosing one person to get a big bonus. But also, the storyteller’s goal is to have at least one person choose their card, and at least one person choose wrong! This forces them to be creative, offering hints that aren’t too strong, especially since a lot of the cards have similar themes. This resolves a lot of the issues that plague similar games. There’s no motivation to be especially clear or vague, and if the description is well-chosen, other players will have to play cards that are also only slightly like the description. There are real choices every round.

Playing with the same cards over and over does get tiring quickly (even if you buy some expansions), and it can be difficult to catch up if someone else gets a lot of points in the first few rounds. As I mentioned above, this isn’t the kind of game that usually grabs me. I definitely respect how well it fills the niche it aims for, though, and it’s a great choice for a lot of people. Dixit is proof that games with popular appeal don’t have to be lazy and unbalanced.

Grade: B

 (Images taken from Board Game Geek. Follow the links for the originals and photographer credits.)

 

Play By Email Week: DungeonWorld

Concluding Play By Email Week, the last game I’ve been playing lately is Madhouse Interactive’s DungeonWorld. As the name implies, it’s a hack-and-slash RPG heavily based on genre clichés. It is processed entirely by computer, with no human moderator making decisions based on your role-playing, but there are enough possible commands, different items, and unique rooms to keep it from feeling like a simple game of numbers. It’s also fairly hardcore, with character death being permanent and the signup page including a quiz to keep out new players who aren’t committed enough to read the rulebook first. I suppose that’s something I find intriguing about PBEM games: Though the players are very friendly, there is none of the hand-holding and guaranteed victory of modern games.

DungeonWorld is priced competitively compared to most other PBEMs, with a sliding scale that lets you choose how committed to become. In a brilliant move, your first character in each module is free. This allows up to eight free characters, from the heroic Kingdom of Bereny to a lawless jungle, an Arabian Nights-inspired desert, and even a steampunk setting. (All but one of those eight, a post-apocalyptic setting, are part of one large world that a strong character could traverse in a few years’ time.) However, it really starts to get interesting once you are paying for multiple characters who can work together and coordinate actions. Considering all the free gaming available, the cost of a couple paid characters seems more than fair. (The exact cost is variable, since it’s in British Pounds and the exchange rate fluctuates, and Madhouse frequently offers specials that let you pre-pay at a discount. But officially, a “position” costs £1, plus £0.50 for each character after the free one.)

An example turn result, though there are a couple more pages after this to describe the results of the character's actions.

An example turn result, though there are a couple more pages after this to describe the results of the character’s actions.

Each turn of the game includes fifteen rounds of action, so you need to plan out moves without knowing exactly what will happen. There are a variety of options available for both moving and attacking to let your character perform intelligently (sometimes…) even if the situation becomes different than what you expected. As usual, PBEM allows plenty of room for simultaneous choices among players. Will you reach that loot before the character on the other side of the room? Are those orcs going to come after your weak Enchanter? Do you need to devote a whole turn to attacking an enemy, or will it be defeated in a couple rounds?

This simultaneous-choice game doesn’t go too far, though, because you’re almost never competing against other players. The community is universally friendly and very eager to assist new players. It’s a good thing, too, because the game does have several flaws that would be deal-breakers if not for this. The rulebook is inconsistent and years out of date, so most opportunities and information are passed around verbally. Also, the senior characters are orders of magnitude stronger than new ones, which would make this unfair if there were even a hint of competition between them. Finally, the person who runs the game needs to stay fairly active to correct mistakes, but he also ensures there are always epic quests going on. The game is huge enough to explore for years, but the community is small enough that within a few months I could contribute to the discussion and join in on a major storyline.

There are many email lists with different topics that are used for these discussions. I recommend them, but they’re all optional. You can enter orders on the website, and your results are emailed to you as a pictures and text in a PDF. Unfortunately, the website is not  guaranteed to work (it sends an email to the central server for you, and you get no confirmation that it arrived), and the other options for entering moves are Windows-based programs. Those are nice, but not a great solution to me as a Mac-user. Once again, I find myself wishing for an email order system that lives up to Diplomacy’s standard.

At two weeks between turns, events can take years to play out. My first characters, over a year old now, are halfway through the second level of one dungeon, and only got that far thanks to maps and experienced colleagues. However, that time was very interesting. Monsters and treasure spawn fast enough to keep things moving along, and playing with several characters guarantees that some of them will be in an interesting situation on every turn. Also, at least some experience accumulates every turn, and the system of training and skills allows you to spend experience for chances to improve as you travel along. There’s a constant feeling of forward growth, counterbalanced by the perpetual threat of defeat: Every month or so, another player will announce the death of a years-old character.

Though it has its flaws, DungeonWorld captures the dungeon-crawling experience very well. The slow, ongoing experience sticks with me consistently. Between the emails and my thoughts about what will happen next, it’s like a part of me is always playing. This is the sort of thing that makes PBEM unique.

Grade: B

 

Play By Email Week: Two from Flying Buffalo

Flying Buffalo is generally credited as the first company to make commercial Play By Mail games. Now a couple generations later, they’ve made the switch to email but still feel like the same small group of hobbyists they always were. The games are generally inspired by old-school wargames, and they have a per-turn fee.

The old-school vibe carries through everywhere, including the 1990s utilitarian design of their website. (If you want to send a credit card payment, you’ll find the page doesn’t even use SSL, and has a note on it that “the darn [security certificate] costs $100 a year, and doesn’t make any difference that I can see.” Fortunately, there are other ways to send them money.) And even though all games are run through a computer, they still have a staff of people who copy your orders from email into the program! I’ve found them to be pretty friendly and helpful, sometimes pointing out errors or even correcting obvious mistakes when it was too late for me to fix things myself. Even so, it can’t compare to the immediate, automated order checking of Diplomacy.

I tried two of their games, Nuclear Destruction and Starweb, which both offer a discount for new players to try out.


Nuclear Destruction is a very simple game about building missiles and factories, and then lobbing those missiles at opponents. You can, of course, negotiate with the other players (“major powers”) to choose targets, but a lot of the strategy comes from trying to win influence over the non-player-controlled “minor powers”. Gifting them money and bombs, or selling factories, could win their favor so that they attack the nation of your choice, or it could just be adding to the infrastructure of a country that’s under control of an enemy.

With its negotiation and simultaneous moves, Nuclear Destruction has some things in common with Diplomacy. The biggest design difference is the fact that there is hidden information. You get three spies per turn that can tell you the current influence and resources of other major and minor power, and otherwise you’re almost completely blind. It’s important to negotiate with others to increase your total information, though they could be lying to you. I find that idea to be really exciting, because hidden information adds a new element that the open board of Diplomacy can’t offer.

Otherwise, though, the game is lackluster. In fact, it’s so simple that there hardly seems to be a point. Anyone can attack anyone else, so there is no board or tactical maneuvering. The only difference between positions is in what minor powers you are vying to control. You can launch all your missiles at once if you want, and I don’t see much reason to hold back. Unless your target is annihilated in one round, they’ll be able to strike back with all of their missiles the next round. In my game, attacks usually knocked a player out of the game in one blow. For most of the attacks, including the one that wiped me out, I have no idea why anyone chose the targets they did.

The game is simple and relatively inexpensive, and if it ran quickly (say, a couple of turns per week), it might be a fun and chaotic experience. But instead, the standard length is three weeks between turns! Played like that, it’s ponderous without being weighty enough to justify it, and you’ll almost forget about it between turns. There’s just not much game here.

Grade: C-


The other game that I tried, though, has a lot going on! In fact, I find it a little scary that Flying Buffalo considers Starweb to be of only “moderate” difficulty. Turns in my game ran every two weeks, and they could take hours to plan out, in addition to all the negotiation going on at certain times. I wouldn’t have wanted it to be any faster. At first, I thought that the game seemed very overpriced. Though I had the introductory $1/turn rate, the normal price is about $5/turn, with games taking fifteen or twenty turns. When I thought of it as “this game is costing most players at least $75 each!”, it seemed ridiculous. But after a few months of experience, I realized it might be more fair to think of it as a hobby that cost $10 per month. At half the price of World of Warcraft, this immersive and time-consuming game (but one you can deal with on your own schedule) is actually justifiable. It’s all in how you look at it.

Starweb is, literally, about a web of wormholes between star systems. Thanks to these warps in space, the 255 worlds are not necessarily laid out in a simple two-dimensional (or even three-dimensional) structure. They don’t do a lot, mainly producing metal and building ships, but there are a lot of subtleties to the way that movement and battles work. Additionally, there are several different character types, and each one has its own powers and scoring. As your empire builds, and you control more worlds and fleets, expect each turn to involve about 70 individual orders to your empire.

The biggest criticism of Starweb is that it’s basically Spreadsheet: The Game. Much of the “fun” comes from all the information encoded in the dense reports you get every round, and in using your limited information to predict what the other players might be doing beyond your view. This probably sounds interesting to only a small percentage of my readers, but if it does, you should check it out.

Like Nuclear Destruction, this is another game of diplomacy with hidden information. Once again, though, the nature of the information makes the game very different from others. In this case, there is a lot of data out there, and everyone has only a little bit of it. Having the most information is a huge advantage, which means that you need to form partnerships that share it freely. This enforces complete trust, though: It’s suicide to betray someone once you’ve told them exactly where your strategic centers are and how they’re guarded. Besides, if a group gets held up by internal squabbles or withheld information, they will quickly be outpaced by more cooperative alliances. Apparently, as the Starweb community has come to terms with this reality, it evolved to the point where almost every (fifteen-player) game ends up with two or three large teams rather than lots of smaller, shifting alliances. Unlike Diplomacy, if you get a reputation for betraying allies, no one will ever work with you again. I’m not going to fight that system, as it clearly is the optimal strategy, but it was a little disappointing that the diplomacy phase of this game only lasted a few rounds. Once the alliances had settled down, that thrill was gone.

Though it won’t appeal to most people, Starweb is a unique and very deep game. I do want to try it more, but I definitely need a break first.

Grade: B-