Normally, I don't take into account your disclaimers at the beginning of a video, but after watching this and seeing you give it a 5 out of 5, I'm definitely taking those things into account. 😅
lol of course. Lower scores don't need disclaimers that much :) If it helps, all the things that are disclaimers here, were equally present for all the previous games that I didn't give a 5 to :)
@@TabletopFamily Because some will overly praise or hate on something unjustly because they are payed to, or simply because it is against their own specific preferences and ideals. Just the existence of this possibility leads to that. Doesn't mean it is applicable to him.
It's worth checking out if you have any interest! There us a public TTS mod on Steam available. 2 Player games have a Rival bag that acts as a third party trade outlet for both players that adds random votes each round that come from a bag with its starting resources and the resources players trade to the "Rival" Imo it's not better than a larger game with more social politics, but it does have the benefit of being a quick and snappy game for 2 that you can knock out in less than an hour compared to the average 2-2.5 hours of a 3-4 player game.
Btw, quick feedback, in the overview you didn't mention how and for what purpose the trading/bartering works. Because from everything you DID say, I'd like this game.
Both scores felt 0.5 more than the words describing would make me guess. But in any case, bartering/negotiating is not for me so I would not enjoy this one.
Scores are definitely going to be a subjective thing....for me it comes down to the fact that I'm still at a point where I'm always down to play this game.
Especially Meg's score. A 4.5 for a game she doesn't seem to gravitate towards is way higher than how she described it. Seems like her score was really affected by the 5/5 Alex gave it.
Shelfside also mentioned not loving the rider action, they didnt like how you only ever has two choices and you MUST play one of those cards, so you can kind of get forced into playing something you dont like. Maybe they need to change the rider action to making it optional to play a card, so you arent forced into playing something that isnt beneficial for you.
icl the riders are one of my favourite parts of the game. its all subjective at the end of the day, but I really love how it forces you to change your perspective on the vote. also as mentioned before there is a way to get a purple trade good rather than take the action itself. all the 4 actions have some way to get a small reward in another fashion rather than take the action itself
Nah this leans heavy on the negations “Catan trade mech” and player interaction.. i don’t get the same feel on this one at all. Alex didn’t like dwellings back in the day and I do not think he ever made comments on andromeda 🤷🏻♂️
@@michaeljoesph8687 Yeah, but in the sense that it is worker placement, in which you are putting your “workers” down onto a hex grid (in a different way, but still) and you are getting resources from the placement… That’s where the Dwellings comparison comes from… So is the comparison to Catan - simply because of trading - and the hex board? I thought the Moonrakers comparison would be due to negotiation.
@@JJ_TheGreat worker placement with hexes is TONS!!! Of games I just done see how this can be compared to dwellings it’s a horrible comparison it’s like saying pizza is like tacos. I see the catan/moonrakers reference for sure 👍 very good comparison
I enjoy Moonrakers, but it overstays it's welcome. With the open negotiations, this game could drag on. I could see some groups taking forever on this. I'm not sure about this. I could see this game taking too long.
In the 60+ tests I've run with loads of different people with board game experience all over the place, my games averaged 2-2.5 hours for 3-4 player games on TTS. That said, the game does player quicker in person than TTS, but in general, unless people totally check out when it isn't their turn, things moved along pretty quickly without need for a timer or constant reminders to speed up. It's definitely possible to happen and there were a handful of outliers that went 3+ hours, but not the norm from what I've seen. Additionally, this time was for the most part all people playing for the first time with a 20 minute teach and about 10 minutes of questions each time
Brink was one I was pretty excited about. I like IV Games but once I learned it was negotiation I was like nope! The game looks aesthetically pleasing and theme I like. But negotiation just kills it for me. I think it is the Alex equivalent of pick up and deliver or last hit mechanics in game. I have to accept it's not for me and for others that like negotiation, I am happy for them.
completely fair. everyone has something they just plain don't like. for me its story based games - I've only played like one but I never liked the idea of it and I just absolutely did not like it all. maybe if there's a good enough one in the future I might try it again, but for now too much focus on story just turns me off a game
Very nice review!!! Unfortunately, not a game for me as negotiations and trading doesn’t work for our group. It has led to couples teeming up, king making (I’m going to lose so I’ll pick the winner), and just bad feelings after the game. Obviously, the game may be great for your group.
Agreed. Negotiation and trading games just don't work with our group either. Good planning and strategy can be thwarted by intentional (or unintentional) lopsided trades made just to counter some else's good strategy.
Playtested this twince on TTS. To me there is just too much randomness. Ambassadors, Action Cards, Riders. It's just too likely to draw the wrong things for a whole game while others draw perfectly. It takes away from the element of strategy when you are left to the luck of random card draws.
While I respect that...I'll also say I've either won or come in second every game I've played...and while that's not a guarantee of anything, I think it does mean you can find the strategy easily enough
@@BoardGameCoI agree with this sentiment. The real strategy behind the game is making the best of what the board state serves you and navigating social politics. There is a reason that despite randomness in trading card games, you still see the same names topping larger competitive events
This looks very "abstract" to me? I didn't feel the theme at all when you explained it. Which sucks big time. "Here you gain majority in blue.. blah blah blah. set collection this and that... " I Love Moonrakers, but I think I have to pass on this one, unfortunately. No theme connection, or at least I don't see it..
The idea is that you're exploring the system and gaining "influence" and "favors" in the form of cubes and "power" in the form of where your ships lie. The faction objectives are goals the factions are working towards separately and you can help them complete for more rewards. I think it's pretty cool conceptually!
It might not be for you ... yet I suspect based on how deep they go with background lore at IV ... there is probably more thought through than you are getting from this one video. Might check out a good playtrhough. Also ... I'm pretty sure there are influence from Sidereal Confluence ... if you have ever explored that game everyone has their own background and unique ways to navigate through the game. Brink is not as complex as Sidereal Confluence, yet has some good elements in it.
I love the production quality of IV Studios, but unfortunately the games they have been putting out just are not my cup of tea. A lot of blind bidding; and now bartering… it’s just not what I enjoy at all. It suck’s cause I want to like their games but at the price point on top of it all I just cannot justify it. I will just have to stick with Mythic Mischief.
really a 5/5.... integrity you've lost me on this one. Shelf side gave the prototype 6/10 kind of takes away some credibility and I enjoy your content a lot normally
I am curious why you think Shelfside's review has more credibility...solely because it is more negative? I normally like Shelfside's reviews, but I was pretty disappointed with his this time. He got rules wrong and negatively rated a game based on color accessibility that was fixed before he launched his review. Since he was paid for his review, it seems a bit unprofessional to release it like that. So... integrity?
When I criticize a game that others love, I get praised for being honest. When I love a game that others criticize, I get my integrity questioned. You're not looking for honest coverage, rather you assume that critical content is inherently more honest. That means you don't actually trust me, you trust negativity. Which is fine, but frankly...if you don't trust me, than I don't know why you'd bother watching a review from me.
@@beaver_warrior Bro, it was a paid preview, so I would expect a professional getting paid to spend a little extra time to understand how to preview a prototype, making note of what has already been changed. This is how I've seen almost every other prototype reviewer do things. It is clear that prototype reviews are not Ashton's strong suite. Daniel (of Shelfside) has done it better.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Normally, I don't take into account your disclaimers at the beginning of a video, but after watching this and seeing you give it a 5 out of 5, I'm definitely taking those things into account. 😅
lol of course. Lower scores don't need disclaimers that much :)
If it helps, all the things that are disclaimers here, were equally present for all the previous games that I didn't give a 5 to :)
I mean he has done a bunch of games with disclaimers that didn't get 5 out of 5.
Every review has inherent bias anyway as it is opinion based anyway.
@@TabletopFamily Because some will overly praise or hate on something unjustly because they are payed to, or simply because it is against their own specific preferences and ideals. Just the existence of this possibility leads to that. Doesn't mean it is applicable to him.
How do this compare to Sidreal Confluence?
Bro don’t start that right now!! 😑
So excited for this! Iv studios is one of my only instant backs, and this game looks awesome.
Agreed
But how does the game play for two people? Is it worth taking it if we are playing with only two people?
I haven't played at 2, I think it would not be as good at 2 from what I know though.
@@BoardGameCo Thanks !
It's worth checking out if you have any interest! There us a public TTS mod on Steam available. 2 Player games have a Rival bag that acts as a third party trade outlet for both players that adds random votes each round that come from a bag with its starting resources and the resources players trade to the "Rival" Imo it's not better than a larger game with more social politics, but it does have the benefit of being a quick and snappy game for 2 that you can knock out in less than an hour compared to the average 2-2.5 hours of a 3-4 player game.
Btw, quick feedback, in the overview you didn't mention how and for what purpose the trading/bartering works. Because from everything you DID say, I'd like this game.
Sorry about that! It's about the resources themselves which are used for anything from upgrading, ambassodors, bidding on what's scoring and more.
Wasn’t crazy about Fractured Sky (price point vs gameplay/perceived value), but this looks more interesting to me
@@jonathancheung8545 I like the look of Fractured Sky - and the secret bidding...
Hi there,
Sounds a bit like Whistle Mountain to me, which i really like. With the different worker sizes.
Interesting, that's a great comparison
Both scores felt 0.5 more than the words describing would make me guess. But in any case, bartering/negotiating is not for me so I would not enjoy this one.
Scores are definitely going to be a subjective thing....for me it comes down to the fact that I'm still at a point where I'm always down to play this game.
Especially Meg's score. A 4.5 for a game she doesn't seem to gravitate towards is way higher than how she described it. Seems like her score was really affected by the 5/5 Alex gave it.
Shelfside also mentioned not loving the rider action, they didnt like how you only ever has two choices and you MUST play one of those cards, so you can kind of get forced into playing something you dont like. Maybe they need to change the rider action to making it optional to play a card, so you arent forced into playing something that isnt beneficial for you.
The Rider action does have an alternate ability that lets you discard/play it and gain a purple favor, which can be traded for useful resources.
icl the riders are one of my favourite parts of the game. its all subjective at the end of the day, but I really love how it forces you to change your perspective on the vote.
also as mentioned before there is a way to get a purple trade good rather than take the action itself. all the 4 actions have some way to get a small reward in another fashion rather than take the action itself
The dice tower play through was messy but this review has regained my interest 🧐
I'm glad we could help :)
About 3:00 Sounds cool!!! Andromeda's Edge/Dwellings of Eldervale vibes!!!
And having Dwellings everything and backed Andromeda everything, not sure I would ever pick Brink over those two.
@@ScytheNoireany news on when you will get your copy of AE?
Nah this leans heavy on the negations “Catan trade mech” and player interaction.. i don’t get the same feel on this one at all. Alex didn’t like dwellings back in the day and I do not think he ever made comments on andromeda 🤷🏻♂️
@@michaeljoesph8687 Yeah, but in the sense that it is worker placement, in which you are putting your “workers” down onto a hex grid (in a different way, but still) and you are getting resources from the placement… That’s where the Dwellings comparison comes from…
So is the comparison to Catan - simply because of trading - and the hex board? I thought the Moonrakers comparison would be due to negotiation.
@@JJ_TheGreat worker placement with hexes is TONS!!! Of games I just done see how this can be compared to dwellings it’s a horrible comparison it’s like saying pizza is like tacos. I see the catan/moonrakers reference for sure 👍 very good comparison
i legitimately have no idea what either of you said at the very beginning of this vid lol
lol sorry about that
I enjoy Moonrakers, but it overstays it's welcome. With the open negotiations, this game could drag on. I could see some groups taking forever on this. I'm not sure about this. I could see this game taking too long.
In the 60+ tests I've run with loads of different people with board game experience all over the place, my games averaged 2-2.5 hours for 3-4 player games on TTS. That said, the game does player quicker in person than TTS, but in general, unless people totally check out when it isn't their turn, things moved along pretty quickly without need for a timer or constant reminders to speed up. It's definitely possible to happen and there were a handful of outliers that went 3+ hours, but not the norm from what I've seen. Additionally, this time was for the most part all people playing for the first time with a 20 minute teach and about 10 minutes of questions each time
I’m excited for Brink to launch on Tuesday. I’m hoping to catch some of IV’s live stream.
They said they want to do a painted one, but hedged their bets until they see how good it can look.
Brink was one I was pretty excited about. I like IV Games but once I learned it was negotiation I was like nope! The game looks aesthetically pleasing and theme I like. But negotiation just kills it for me. I think it is the Alex equivalent of pick up and deliver or last hit mechanics in game. I have to accept it's not for me and for others that like negotiation, I am happy for them.
completely fair. everyone has something they just plain don't like. for me its story based games - I've only played like one but I never liked the idea of it and I just absolutely did not like it all. maybe if there's a good enough one in the future I might try it again, but for now too much focus on story just turns me off a game
Looks like an awsome game.
It is :)
Very nice review!!! Unfortunately, not a game for me as negotiations and trading doesn’t work for our group. It has led to couples teeming up, king making (I’m going to lose so I’ll pick the winner), and just bad feelings after the game. Obviously, the game may be great for your group.
Agreed. Negotiation and trading games just don't work with our group either. Good planning and strategy can be thwarted by intentional (or unintentional) lopsided trades made just to counter some else's good strategy.
5 out of 5??? That’s high praise my friend.
I like it a lot :)
Playtested this twince on TTS. To me there is just too much randomness. Ambassadors, Action Cards, Riders. It's just too likely to draw the wrong things for a whole game while others draw perfectly. It takes away from the element of strategy when you are left to the luck of random card draws.
While I respect that...I'll also say I've either won or come in second every game I've played...and while that's not a guarantee of anything, I think it does mean you can find the strategy easily enough
How are you able to playtest this on TTS? A unqiue workshop just for testers?
@@BoardGameCoI agree with this sentiment. The real strategy behind the game is making the best of what the board state serves you and navigating social politics. There is a reason that despite randomness in trading card games, you still see the same names topping larger competitive events
@@PovZ123 IV is doing playtests on their discord server, and there is a publicly available mod for TTS as well!
Thanks for the overview. Side note that doesn't belong here. I really like the new look of gamefound.
Thanks! On both counts :)
wow, one of the few Alex 5/5s for 2024. Is this the first one actually? So happy to see one arrive.
Second, I was a huge fan of Things in Rings
@@BoardGameCo Do you rate games on BGG? Would love to see all your ratings.
@someyoutuber7096 I believe he used to have a board with all his game and ratings... I forgot which site, though!
@@JJ_TheGreat I don't think Alex still updates it though
This looks very "abstract" to me? I didn't feel the theme at all when you explained it. Which sucks big time. "Here you gain majority in blue.. blah blah blah. set collection this and that... "
I Love Moonrakers, but I think I have to pass on this one, unfortunately. No theme connection, or at least I don't see it..
The idea is that you're exploring the system and gaining "influence" and "favors" in the form of cubes and "power" in the form of where your ships lie. The faction objectives are goals the factions are working towards separately and you can help them complete for more rewards. I think it's pretty cool conceptually!
It might not be for you ... yet I suspect based on how deep they go with background lore at IV ... there is probably more thought through than you are getting from this one video.
Might check out a good playtrhough.
Also ... I'm pretty sure there are influence from Sidereal Confluence ... if you have ever explored that game everyone has their own background and unique ways to navigate through the game. Brink is not as complex as Sidereal Confluence, yet has some good elements in it.
What a loser. Go play DND and quit playing board games if you don't enjoy gameplay.
Anything from IV is an auto back for me, all-in deluxe. They produce nothing but quality games.
Enjoy it :)
prof meg is a boss.
Lol yes she is
I'm excited for this one.
It's great :)
I love the production quality of IV Studios, but unfortunately the games they have been putting out just are not my cup of tea. A lot of blind bidding; and now bartering… it’s just not what I enjoy at all. It suck’s cause I want to like their games but at the price point on top of it all I just cannot justify it. I will just have to stick with Mythic Mischief.
really a 5/5.... integrity you've lost me on this one. Shelf side gave the prototype 6/10 kind of takes away some credibility and I enjoy your content a lot normally
I am curious why you think Shelfside's review has more credibility...solely because it is more negative?
I normally like Shelfside's reviews, but I was pretty disappointed with his this time. He got rules wrong and negatively rated a game based on color accessibility that was fixed before he launched his review. Since he was paid for his review, it seems a bit unprofessional to release it like that. So... integrity?
When I criticize a game that others love, I get praised for being honest. When I love a game that others criticize, I get my integrity questioned.
You're not looking for honest coverage, rather you assume that critical content is inherently more honest. That means you don't actually trust me, you trust negativity. Which is fine, but frankly...if you don't trust me, than I don't know why you'd bother watching a review from me.
@@beaver_warrior Bro, it was a paid preview, so I would expect a professional getting paid to spend a little extra time to understand how to preview a prototype, making note of what has already been changed. This is how I've seen almost every other prototype reviewer do things.
It is clear that prototype reviews are not Ashton's strong suite. Daniel (of Shelfside) has done it better.