The Long View: King of Tokyo vs Quarriors!
3 August 2012
18 Comments
The Long View
This week in The Long View, special guest Jim Shaw and I hold our first smack-down episode! In the crucible are Quarriors and The King of Tokyo. Who comes out on top as the real king? You’ll have to listen to find out!
Special thanks must of course go out to 2d6.org for their generous support and hosting of The Long View.
~ Geof Gambill
The Long View: King of Tokyo vs Quarriors!
The Long View: King of Tokyo vs Quarriors!,
think this would have been a lot more interesting if you had people who had more experience with the games or had opposing points of view they could discuss and make some interesting arguments.
What set the podcast apart was that you had people on who had a great deal of experience with the games like the wonderful Few Acres of Snow episode and Mage Knight. Getting someone who had 400 plus plays with A Few Acres lead to an awesome and insightful discussion. I just think it was really interesting that the person who found the problems with Few Acres, still enjoys the game.
This episode lacked that. At the very least it would have been more interesting to have two people who had different takes on the games conduct a civil argument. Something didn’t sit well with me when you said that you were playing with the new Quarriors rule changes like the night before. It just didn’t seem like you really gave them a fair shake. I get it that you didn’t like the game either way, but I sorta expected more. I could tell that you hadn’t explored the strategies that changed with the new rule set because there are reasons to buy cheaper dice with those rules, and reasons not to cull an expensive die. You might actually be right about Quarriors but I think you are missing something about the game that other people find enjoyable that just doesn’t come out when you both agree on everything.
So if the podcast is becoming more review related, that’s fine but what I liked about it originally was that you either had someone who really knew the game on the show, or you had someone who was on the other side of the argument. Since you only focus on one or two games, agreeing on all the points doesn’t make it that interesting.
Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it. Right now I am at the WBC and only have my phone so I’ll respond in more detail when I return. Thanks for listening!
Don’t know if I should be asking here or on BGG somewhere. Once you return and have time WBC….
It seems like there was a critique of Quarriors for not allowing individuals the ability to choose whom they are attacking (near minute 27). Then Tokyo was praised in minute 36 because you are not attacking one individual – not choosing whom to attack, just the attacking the person in Tokyo or attacking everyone else. “No one’s feelings get hurt” in minute 38.
It almost seems that they both have an “attack everyone” mechanic/mechanism. Quarriors was critiqued for not allowing the choice of whom to attack while Tokyo was not critiqued for the same part.
I am curious if I missed the main intent or difference in the two statements. Or is it based in theme or something else? Was it more a discussion to the decisions rather than the mechanic?
Is this due to (minute 33) the further discussion that it was opinionated that Quarriors does not have the decisions space? Tokyo offers other choices while Quarriors does not have the decisions?
>> I look forward to future head-to-head discussions. Both interesting and educational.
I admit to only playing with the new rules the one time, but much like with Thunderstone, most of my comments are directed at the first edition rules and not any variants that have come out since. It may be possible to fix Quarriors as I have heard some good things about Thunderstone Advance, but therein lies the evidence that the game was flawed at its initial release and may need a total overhaul, like Thunderstone had, to fix it.
I still believe that the game lacks a fun factor in someway that really hinders the enjoyment you get from playing it. Again, the expansions and new rules may make this a good game, but the original base game, as presented, is not good enough to make me want to play it further.
I agree that it would have been more interesting had we disagreed on the two games but that is just not the case. Maybe in the future I can try to convince Geoff that Mystery Rummy is fantastic and we can argue over that.
As far as the attacking issue, in King of Tokyo you are choosing to atack or not to attack as you roll the dice. If you want to go for an attack you choose to keep claws and hope to accumulate more as your turn develops, in Quarriors you choose what monsters to keep,and attack with, by spending quiddity to summon them. It is the process of creating the attack that sets them apart. King of Tokyo builds tension and suspense throughout the turn for both the player rolling and the players watching, whereas Quarriors has a much duller attacking sequence. As Geoff stated, the procedural walk around the table has no tension to it, you know the outcomes of the “battles” before they begin. It’s this process that I think really sets hem apart. Maybe a future expansion will include a die to roll for damage and defense or maybe some other fix, but I haven’t seen it yet.
Thanks for listening, Jim Shaw
Thanks for listening, Jim Shaw
Pairing Quarriors and King of Tokyo is a perfect smackdown battle because it continues an old comparison: less vs. more.
The time you spent talking about each game pretty much says it all: you spent 30 minutes talking about how quarriors isn’t cohesive. Quarriors is a perfect example of how a ton of components means nothing if the mechanics don’t meld. Seven minutes were spent on King of Tokyo. It’s fast fun.
I was the guy you mentioned playing King of Tokyo with, and it is a pleasure to be reminded of how charming I am, despite no one remembers my name (lol).
I am an older gamer with a myriad of physical ailments, often leaving the table muttering “oy” as I go. King of Tokyo scratches a quick gaming itch and is interactive while allowing for frequent table departures. This game also fills a thematic void: Monsters Menace was the best light monster game until King of Tokyo came around and blew it into Tokyo Bay.
People are now suffering from King of Tokyo burnout. KoT is like very tasty fast food: quick, filling, but people could consume too much very quickly.
I had the opposite experience although I don’t really think the two games are anywhere similar enough to really compare. Overall though, really do not enjoy KoT but love Quarriors. I have to admit though, I do think the new variants are necessary. As for strategy and depth, there is a lot more there then was given credit for. The sides are not hidden information, you know prior to a purchase what the odds are for each dice and often this can influence what you buy and why you buy it. Certain creatures have more creature sides than others, others allow other abilities, including rerolls and extra draws. In addition, there are multiple abilities in game that give opportunities to reroll, change faces, have additional draws, etc. Spells as well add a degree of control not present in really any deck builder on the market. Spells for the most part remain on the board until the user decides to use them, allowing both reaction and powering up when it is needed. In the end, it doesn’t really seem like Quarriors was given much of a chance here, this sounded more like fans of KoT trashing Quarriors to try to boost a game they really enjoyed. Even taking about the “chrome” of both games, in fairness the dice in Quarriors were necessary to the game, in fact that was what the game was about, if anything the stand-ups and board for KoT was extra fluff that could easily have replaced with counters.
As for the test of time, Quarriors has just announced its 4th expansion, so love it or hate it; it obviously has enough of a steady fan base to make it worthwhile for the developers to keep supporting it. That’s great news for me and those I game with, as Quarriors is one of the best shorter games we have played.
Hello everyone! Thanks for all of the comments. Let me try to respond to some of them.
I’m surprised that people have had issues with the first comparative episode, but I am listening. I may not do this type of episode again as it seems that my audience wants only single games to be explored in depth. The reason I paired these games was because they embodied what I felt was a important trend in games. There seems to be a growing list of games that are released that need to be “fixed” by expansions. We have already talked about this phenomenon with our Thunderstone episode, and it continued with Eminent Domaine, and Quarriors. As a board game fan, I hate the notion that things are released half baked, or under-developed or, worse yet, with cold calculation that more money can be made by releasing an incomplete game experience to hook people on the idea of buying more and more expansions. King of Tokyo, by contrast, is a complete game that needs nothing. It feels complete. It is complete. Quarriors is not, in my opinion. The rules tweaks required seem to prove that point. That, I feel is the overarching theme of this particular show. One delivers, one failed. I stand by that assessment for the reasons Jim and I discussed.
I do not feel that a person needs 300+ plays of a lighter game to speak intelligently about them. Jim and I have played both of these games enough, I feel, to speak about them or I would not have done it. Neither of us are very good about recording all of our plays of games, but rest assured, we have played both quite a bit. As far as not playing with the new rules enough, that point is well taken, but I feel that as it is a rules tweak that was NOT part of the original game, it is fair to judge the game as released for those who never bought the expansions, and who, like me, expect a game to be complete when purchased as I referenced above. Jim and I did feel, however that we at least needed to try the changes to get some impressions about what it may mean to game play.
As far as the comment that it is more interesting to hear civil disagreement and debate, I agree. That is always more interesting, but it is not always possible, or does not always work out that way. I have been a little concerned so far with the general positive nature of the podcast until I consider that most of the games I am focusing on are really, really good or interesting games, so it is not always easy to find the foil for the positive tone. In addition, having a guest on who has played many, many times will almost guarantee that they feel the game is worthwhile or good, or they would not have played it that many times. This is why I feel my role is to challenge my guests to explain why they feel they way they do, or challenge them to defend their positions. I was actually excited that I had an episode where I was actually somewhat negative about a game! I feel Quarriors is procedural and uninspiring. Jim agrees. This does not make us right, but it is most certainly the way we feel, and I stand by it. Anyone may, of course, feel free to disagree, but you will have a hard time convincing me I’m wrong!
Lance, I feel Jim answered your questions well, so I’m going to leave it at that other than to say I agree with his points about the choices made while rolling the dice being the reason why KoT feels more exciting and immediate.
Kiren, I am always concerned with expansions for reasons I described above. Is the 4th expansion an indication of the greatness of the game, or a continued quest to complete the experience or fix the initial game? The question I would ask is this: Why do you need continued expansions for Quarriors? What makes it exciting? I assume it’s for more variety and as a way to “spice things up” in a game. If a game is complete, however, should it need one? Is a game good if it needs to be spiced up? If a game needs more variety, what does that tell you about the game? I have asked myself this question a lot in the past year.I have many, many Dominion expansions, and have bought many of the Thunderstone sets. When you do the math on random setups for these games, the number of possible setups is staggering with the base sets alone, not to mention when you add in multiple sets of new cards, so why the need for even more variety when I may not live long enough to play all of the possible sets? What drives the need, other than the need for acquisition? Could it be that the game is not good enough as is? This is the question we tried to explore in this episode, and in the episodes about Eminent Domaine and Thunderstone. Just throwing it out there…..
I also want to address a question brought up in another thread on bgg where I was asked if a Long View could be done about lighter games. To that, I would say this: I feel that there can be a Long View of lighter games. I feel there is a place for games that have stood the test of time, or ones that I anticipate will stand the test of time, simply because they are fun, even if there is randomness and a lack of great strategic depth. I believe it is a form of game snobbery to not acknowledge games like Survive simply because there is no grand strategic depth to be explored. If I want that, I’ll play Dominant Species, or an 18xx game, or Twilight Struggle. If I’m looking for sheer enjoyment, games like Survive, King of Tokyo and a recent “discovery” of mine of I’m the Boss are great because of their simplicity, interaction and fun factor. There is room to discuss these games in my opinion, and I will continue to do so from time to time.
One thing to keep in mind with Quarriors expansions, they are not needed to play the “advanced” rules. The only expansion that really adds something that was needed is Quarmageddon and that is the storage solution, not actual game play mechanics. The simple fact is, it will always be profitable to create expansions, they involve a lot less development resources than an entire base game, so it shouldn’t be surprising to see a trend in expansion development in a market where the profit margins are difficult at the best of times. Now if those expansions are needed to enjoy a game, I agree it could be argued that they are an underhanded way of making an extra buck. But more often than not, expansions either add something new, or change something to appeal to a different player-base, this doesn’t mean the base game wasn’t fine for others. Heck, even Quarriors I played quite a bit before I wanted some more advanced rules. In fairness, this was largely due to the fact that Quarriors was not originally designed for the more hard-core subset of gamers, the developers themselves said they had assumed it would be a light game that would suite light gamers. However the game took off as for the most part the mechanics were simply a lot of fun having both elements of Dominion and also creature and spell based games like MTG. Additional rules were then added for players that wanted more control and deeper strategy, these rules were not really about fixing the game, but rather giving an alternate way to play for gamers that wanted more out of it.
As for why I personally want expansions in Quarriors, it is because with most games involving monsters and spells, it is fun to have as many different monsters and spells as possible. I don’t find these expansions fix anything or really are needed, instead the game simply is a lot of fun and thus I welcome more of whatever I can get. To me, if a game is enjoyable enough that people will buy expansions that add more of the same, that is a sign that the game is good enough to draw people in. If I didn’t enjoy a game, I would not purchase expansions for it, even if they promised to change or fix something I didn’t like about the original.
Looking at the comparative aspect of this review, my issue was that there really wasn’t much comparison. Basically it was stated that the reviewers didn’t like Quarriors but like KoT, yet I never really got a sense of why the two needed to be part of one review. When I think of a comparative review I expect to see components and mechanics picked apart from both games and then discussed side-by-side, not a block description of one game followed by a block description of the other. Granted this is the university student in me but that format is key in any comparative essay or discussion.
Overall I am not really bothered by a reviewer not liking a game I like, but if they are going to claim that another game is superior to that game, I expect to see analysis of exactly what one game does better and also how the two games are not different enough to be able to simply state that it is a matter of taste directed at the type of game, not the actual mechanics and game play. Also I found the comment that Quarriors would have no staying power a bit condescending as it seems to suggest that the people that enjoy the game are wrong for liking it. Granted I suspect this was not the intention.
Just to add, I don’t agree that you need conflicting opinions when reviewing a game with 2 or more people. As I stated before, the biggest problem seemed to be the layout. Had you set it up to take about both games at the same time point by point, I think you would have found it much easier to utilize the comparative element you were striving for. The moment you keep the two elements separate that you want to compare, it is easy to fall into a pattern of simply reviewing each as completely separate entities rather than a single review.
Maybe I misunderstood, but it sounded from the discussion that you may not have been playing the new Quarriors rules correctly and hence why you didn’t see the value in them. The rule is that if you want the score, you can CHOOSE to cull the die. You made it sound like it was a requirement. You can always keep the die to continue using its powers on future turns, but you just don’t get any points for it. This may not sound like a big difference, but that one choice changes the decision space of the game DRAMATICALLY. My group was absolutely floored by how much better and more complex it made the game. If that’s not the way you were playing, you should give it another try.
Thanks for the comment Alex. No, we understood the rule change. It does give you a decision to make when it comes round to your turn again, but to me the most interesting thing about it is it allows you to cull more dice than in the original rules which can customize your bag as the game progresses, or get rid of dice that have become sub optimal. However, in a game when you are trying to score points, I found it rare that I would not want to score a valuable die. Unless you are trying to deny a die to a player for possible future purchase, or keep the creature (say a Questing Wizard or Quake Dragon) to ensure you have a chance at denying other players the chance to score their dice in future rounds by beating up on their creatures with a powerful die (again, a strategy of denial rather than advancing your own score), I cannot see the value of choosing to forgo your own points in a game where you are never guaranteed to role that creature again in the future, and may just get some quiddity. Most times, I still found it better to score the die, and so the decision was not so interesting from my perspective.
To be clear, Jim and I played with this, and many other variants posted when we first purchased and explored the game together and with our game groups and families. We had not played the game in a while before recording, however, and had heard that the new expansion had made one of the variants we recalled “official”, and so wanted to try it again to get the ideas fresh in our minds again before we recorded. This was not to say we had only tried it once. I think there may have been a misunderstanding there, and we may have not been clear enough. An example would be the long game variants where you play to more points. I actually liked this variant best of all because a longer game meant more rolls which, from a probability standpoint, gave more time to smooth the unusual rolls into something more like a normal distribution. The more trials performed (rolling the dice), the greater the experimental probability (what does happen) matches the mathematical probability (what should happen), and those frustrating, short games where all you get is quiddity on your Quake Dragon are less frequent. To me, extending the game made the game better. Just my two cents about that. Thanks for listening!
BTW, to Alex and Kiren, I have tried to thumb your responses by clicking on the thumb since you were kind enough to share your thoughts, but it just flashes at me and does not change the tally. Consider yourselves thumbed!
I think the problem is that you didn’t even attempt to figure out *why* people like Quarriors, and I think this a requirement for any negative review, particularly one that is from a show that is trying to be more in depth. I don’t really care if you liked King of Tokyo better (I do too), but you never even attempted to address *what* has made Quarriors so popular that they’ve been able to put out 2 expansions and be rated in the mid-200s on BGG.
Also, you gave very short shrift to the new rules. Or rather I should say the old rules. There was a thread in the Quarriors forms (http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/711697/dr-houserule-or-how-i-made-some-minor-changes-to) where Mike Elliot explained that the buy 2/things that are scored are culled rules were actually in the original design and were removed because of negative responses from playtesters (who – personal opinion here – were probably upset by the departure from Dominion wherein once you buy something you generally get to keep it). I think this change was a huge mistake and using the old/new culling rules is a vast improvement.
One thing that could be an interesting topic is the idea of development for a game. Mike Elliot (who designed both Thunderstone and Quarriors) seems to have issues with it – whether because he is rushed or just excited to move on to the next thing. He has great ideas and 80-90% of a good game, but he seems to get lost completing the details. If you look at the precision that went into things like Race for the Galaxy and Dominion, you can see how development is important, especially in games with lots of interacting card powers.
I don’t mind the head to head comparison, but even if you both agree on which game is better, I think a better attempt needs to be made of understanding the merits of both or you risk alienating Quarriors fans (and lets remember the average rating for it is 7.11 – it is quite popular).
Hi Chris. Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I do have one major point at which I disagree with you, and that is regarding your assertion that I do not discuss why people like Quarriors, and that you feel this is needed for a review to be complete or fair. I would respond in this way:
I have no real idea why people like Quarriors. I can guess, but I’m not really sure why no one else may see the flaws that I find so glaring and obvious as we discussed in the episode. You would have to get them to describe what they enjoy. That is like asking someone who hates abstract art to defend it, even though they have no appreciation for it. I feel that it is the responsibility of the author or podcaster to explain why they have the opinion, or have drawn the conclusion that they have, but I cannot make a case for something that I do not agree with. That onus falls on the person who feels I am wrong, and this can engender lively debate, which is always fantastic if it is civil (as you have been, and thank you for that!).
Another reason that I do not feel I need to define what people like about Quarriors is that I have not ever claimed to be a reviewer. My show is commentary and exploration of games and topics that relate to particular games or designs in an attempt to discern what makes some games have longevity while others do not. The fact that expansions are released does not prove a design’s worth. It may speak to its popularity at the time, its eventual greatness, or it may speak to the need that people who have invested in the game have to gain a fresh or more complete experience than they obtained from the initial offering. This episode, at its heart, was about the trend of games being released that do not seem to be complete out of the box, and the need for expansions to be released to “fix” a game, or maintain its momentum after repeated play once the game has become stale. Much of the episode focused on why Jim and I believe that King of Tokyo is a superior design and game to Quarriors. In order to accomplish that, I ran both games though a framework for critical analysis that was first proposed by Oliver Kiley on bgg, and shared my conclusions. I am not a reviewer, though I do offer my conclusions about games, and I believe they are well founded. This is also why I don’t give a detailed walk-through or introduction to game play in my episodes. Many, many other people do that very well. My aim is to provide a forum to discuss other issues that relate to the quality of game designs, strategies, or other gaming topics that are, hopefully, of interest to listeners. Much of the next episode about Innovation with guest Eric Martin, revolves around what makes a great game, game “snobbery”, and how to try to grow the hobby. The conversation grows organically, and ends up being about more than just Innovation and that, to me, is what makes the show different. This is one of the reasons why I do not claim to be a reviewer. My reach is broader than that.
I hope this explains where I am coming from. I often find that confusion about expectations leads to confusion and dissatisfaction in general. I may not have been clear enough about my mission statement which is why, I think, you are the second person to question my “review” style when it was not my intention to be a reviewer at all, but a commentator who tries to explore games, game designs, and game topics in depth with the help of my guests. I hope that you continue to listen, and I thank you for your responses (both here and in the Brass episode posting).
Hmm, I don’t really care if a review is “fair”, I care if it is useful. I certainly don’t think that “objectivity” is a reasonable goal, or even a possible one, in a review, which is fundamentally a subjective opinion of a game.
If you are giving your opinion about games, you *are* a reviewer – not all reviews need to summarize game play (in fact I usually prefer if they don’t – I usually skip that part anyway).
I just find it alienating when a negative review of a game acknowledges nothing about what has made the game popular – the subtext is that people must be deluded or “wrong” for enjoying the game. I found the episodes where you had people who could give positive and negative reviews of aspects of the game you were investigating to be most interesting.
Also, you keep mentioning this Oliver Kiley post – is that linked anywhere – I’m completely unfamiliar with it.
I would say the opposite.
If you are doing a negative review, how is it possible to postulate what makes a game successful for other people? The same works the other way. If you think a game is great, but it’s not popular or generally well-liked, why would you try and guess why others don’t like it.
That approach would probably end up being more demeaning than if you tried to guess. Example: “I guess people like Quarriors for the neat dice.” Or…. “I guess people like Carcasonne because the map is neat to look at when the game ends.” That would be selling short any number of reasons people might like the game above and beyond what you may guess is their reason.
I don’t see any reason someone should try to guess at what others would think about a game. It’s possible a reviewer may empathize with certain aspects of a game and feel relatively certain that a “type of game” would enjoy it. But, again that’s a slippery slope, and I don’t think it’s always required in a review.
All someone can do is give a reflection on their experience, and the viewer decides if it rings true.
Hi Chris. As you can imagine, I agree with Joel, but I do appreciate where you are coming from, even though I don’t agree. I guess I find any opinion, positive or negative, that is well explained useful. There are many, many positive reviews of any game out there that would speak to that, so why should I presume to guess why people may like it? The fact that others like it means there is something to like, but I personally do not see it. This does not invalidate their point of view, but it does not change my mind about the game, nor does it have to change yours. In the end, all I hope it does is make you think. That includes thinking about why you disagree with me! In fact, I am often hopeful that disagreement helps people more fully undersand why they may like or dislike something as they seek to defend their position. Instead of having me try to guess why you like Quarriors, tell me. This is what often creates the dialogue that can lead to a more thorough understanding of a game than can be obtained through one or two perspectives. Thanks for your feedback.
By the way, here is the link to Oliver’s post. That was a great suggestion to include it. Thanks!
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/11286/an-armature-for-critique
Nice job on the podcast.
I disagree strongly on much of the Quarriors assessment, however. One thing that I really don’t understand on the Quarriors assessment is the hate on the new rule which forces you to cull a scoring dice. You said that the game lacked interesting decisions? This rule will add interesting decisions! No one is forcing you to score and cull your Quake dragon. Maybe it will be worth it, but maybe you want to use those 2 buys to grab some cheap monsters to score, and keep that quake dragon to protect those monsters until they score.
Or maybe you do want to score the Quake Dragon and return it to the wilds. The choice is yours.
Leave your response!
Sponsors
Follow Us
Recent Comments
Recent Tweets
Staff
Affiliates / Friends
Online Gaming
Podcasts
Board Game Publishers
Role Playing Game Publishers
Meta
Most Commented