The fact of the matter is that Sam and Shem, despite being highly prolofic in their output, are able to introduce game mechanisms that are new and original with each design. The use of the color wheel is genius and I have never seen anything like it in a game before. It saddens me that some people have given up on Garphill due to increasing complexity. They are missing out on some terrific games. I feel like Wayfarers and Scholars are completely different. I love Raiders and Architects, but there is so much more depth and decision space in their most recent output.
So glad Mike was included! I actually really, really like this game. It's interesting to see how my tastes and Tom and Zee's have changed over the years. In my early days of gaming I found that I aligned with Tom, then later on I was excited to see Zee on a review because my tastes really were matching his views, not I am much more in line with Mike. It could be due to my shift to play more games solo, which is something that Zee used to do a lot of for the channel but not so much anymore. As for Scholars, it's definitely up there. Not my favorite Garphill Game but still a game that will remain in my collection for the foreseeable future. I also got Wayfarers with my Scholars pledge and I'm anxious to get it to the table even though I hear the solo mode is less enjoyable than the solo for Scholars.
So good having Mike in this. Also there seems to be a reviewer bias recently (On almost all channels) where "More Mechanisms/Complexity = Bad" And I can 100% see why, as reviewers play 5000x more games than everyone else.. however if you don't play as many games then those mechanics and complexity can become a real plus as you learn ways to use them.
What you fail to understand is Z and Tom are professional critics who from experience know that adding UNNECESSARY mechanisms is bad. Which has been the case for years in game design, and has analogous heuristics in good design in general (eg: in design more unnecessary complexity doesn't necessarily mean BETTER). And they are absolutely correct, it was correct 10 years ago, 20 years ago, and it's still correct now. If you're increasing mess you'd better have a good reason. Although maybe, conversely, you would be happy if people hung a pointless load of tied up junk, sliders and bells all over your bedroom that you needed to crank and play with before you could open your door each day? Sure, maybe you like unnecessary steps, hey some people like arranging big boxes of pens and sorting through junk too, doesn't mean a box of random pens thrown in a box is strong design, even if you hammered a spinning wheel and string some dice onto it. T + Z like plenty of heavier games with interlocking mechanisms, so you're wrong there, ie: where they serve a well designed purpose! In fact they made that perfectly clear: it's pointless to tack on meaningless rules and daft unnecessary mechanisms (that serve a better purpose in other games) to make the game seem "heavier" or fuller in lieu of genuine depth of design. When you're adding rules for the sake of rules your filling in for something missing.
@@bardsamok9221 Bit odd to come to the rabid defense white knight like that.... You also seemed to have 100% missed there were 4 people in that review... and that everyone has different opinions.. disagreeing with a reviewer does not make someone "wrong".
this is a great game! it is a more solid, mechanical game, and is possibly better described as a 'lacerda-lite' euro game - pulling levers here and there and seeing it pay off eventually. Take for example, when you manage to translate a Chinese scroll into Arabic thanks to having set up the right translators for the job, and then retiring them before anyone else gets to use them, thereby enhancing your primary actions on future turns. This is most definitely a 'lacerda-esque' game. I also enjoy the challenge of sequencing the rest action (it does matter!) to get the best out of it! I can't rate this highly enough - it's just the right level of crunch for anyone looking for a solid euro game.
I agree with many of the points they made, but I think they completely missed the point regarding the Travel Action. It abstracts the act of traveling the known world gathering scrolls, it isn't merely "tacked on", it earns you scrolls and/or valuable resources. They could have created an entire game to show this kind of thing (Wayfarers), but they distilled it down to fit in this game. They touched on why this mechanic is useful in the game: For the Hire action, only pips are important, For the Translate action, only Secondary color is important, For the Research Track Both pips and all the colors are important, For the Travel action only the pips are important, but the any of the colors that you match properly gives a bonus, so it's good in practice to try and match a color during your Travel action. This gives 4 different ways that color and pips are integrated into the game mechanics, which line up with the 4 different actions you can take. Maybe some more plays would make it like Chris said that things would "click" for them.
Garphill fan here. I enjoyed Scholars, but I still sold my copy because: 1) It felt too similar to Wayfarers (which is also in my collection and which I thoroughly enjoy) 2) It felt too mechanical and restricted as compared to Wayfarers 3) Considering that Translating should be the main action in this game, it felt like we were rather doing other things that were less hard to achieve 4) The tension from the Caliph Cards felt anxiety-inducing rather than fun
@@cursivecursesLooking at how different people name a different West Kingdom game as their favorite, I think the WK trilogy gave three very different great games. My personal favorite is Architects, but Paladins was also great but in the end also to mechanical-feeling for my taste.
The fact that a game has more mechanisms than one would prefer in their board games does NOT mean that mechanisms you don't like are simply there to "add complexity for the sake of complexity" (as if the designers looked at the game at some point and said, "Hmm, this is not as complex as our last game, let's add random mechanisms that make it more complex"). Does Garphill make "elegant" games, in the sense of simple rules/large decision space? No. Do they make fantastic decision spaces and thoughtful games? Yes.
I think the rub is that they used to make elegant Euros (3 of their first 4 titles), but since adding the co-designer they have moved into more complex designs that are not as seamless.
Seems many of (not ALL) Garphill fans don't like this one as much as the others, I think it's fair to ask why. It's just not the best game even by the designer's standards.
I haven't disagreed with a Dice Tower review more than this one, at least not in a few years. This game made an amazing first impression on me, and I've loved it more and more with each play. A 10/10 for me, not just one of my favorite Garphill games (I have played them all) but one of my favorite games overall. Wayfarers was good but had me worried I wouldn't enjoy this trilogy as much as West Kingdom, this game turned that around for me.
I agree with Mike and Chris on this one. This is one of my favorites in the series! The flow is so smooth, there is definitely a theme coming through. Solo game is good as well. Great game!
I found this game very thematic and much easier to teach than Wayfarers. You need a translator, hire them. Go around the world and find some books, deliver them to the place where those translators are, and translate them. Brilliant game.
This was a great review. Took different perspectives and acceptance where what works for one person might not work for another. Most game groups exist in this space with differing opinions on games that’s more nuanced than love/hate.
I really agree that Garphill fans (and I’m one myself) are most likely going to enjoy this game. One of the things I find charming about the entire series is the repetitive use of the same iconography and art style. It’s been consistent across the board. So if you’ve played the other games you’re already familiar with a lot of what is being presented on the table. Some may call it samey but I’d call it comforting. I’m not so sure that makes it easy for new players though and I’m worried we’ve reached a tipping point, especially as the games have gotten heavier, where this becomes a niche within the community. Love Mike’s thoughts as always and glad he’s still and integral part of DT reviews.
Hi. Question for Mike. Can more than one card from a particular translator be put into the translator row on the main board? Or must they all represent different translators? The rule book doesnt say. Thx all for the review.
Interesting review. It's one of the most differing set of opinions I think I've seen on Dice Tower. I have ordered the game because I have all the others so I'll be interested to see if I'm on Team Tom/Zee or team Mike/Chris or somewhere in between!
This review shows the strength of the Dice Tower’s format of having multiple reviewers. Zee’s and Tom’s scores mean less to me than Chris’ or Mike’s scores as my interests align much closer to my own game interests.
I knew it! I knew Tom was going to give it a 6! He kept complaining of the iconography, and he also gave deep vents a 4 because of the iconography and take that element.
I agree with both everything Mike praised and almost all of Tom's criticisms... and yet, I have to say I have been loving this game and hold it right up there with Paladins. Tom is correct that some of the individual mechanics don't make sense with the theme (what do the colors mean and why do you get resources when you hire a translator?), but I agree with Mike that the overall theme really comes through and helps to lead you through the big-picture flow of the game. Tom is right that some of the mechanisms could be sanded down (the influence marking cards seems to be included just for continuity with Wayfarers, and it could have been cut from both games), but Mike is right that everything gels together really well. Tom pointed out that watching other people's turns can be kind of uninteresting, but I think Mike would respond that it still works because you are so engrossed with planning ahead your turn. Sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of its parts in a way that is difficult to describe, and for me this game just hits. I don't have time to play a ton of games in a year (so far at 35 plays total in 2023), but my wife and I made room to play this game back-to-back-to-back three nights in a row when it arrived. And I still really want to get it to the table again. (I enjoyed Wayfarers, and my wife's favorite game is Viscounts. But Paladins and Scholars are currently my two favorite.)
Completely agree with this comment. The game is good but it’s deep. It can feel odd at first play but there are a lot of subtle decisions that matter like which cards you play earlier on your track. I think in all it’s a strong game in the series and is up there with paladins.
small correction, wayfarer's was designed afterwards, so the influence came from scholars and added to wayfarer's. But you are right, Tom's critics aren't all wrong, but the question is are all his opinions bad? As you said, you enjoy the game despite these flaws. Maybe they are just features for us euro gamers. Could the game have been better probably, but this is a very good for me :D
@@gwout1 Yeah, I just found a comment on BGG where Sam Macdonald says, "We designed this mechanic [influence on card] first with Scholars (and then added it into Wayfarers). I feel like it definitely makes a lot more sense in this game [Scholars] due to the shared infrastructure."
I kickstarted and was a bit apprehensive about the color mechanism. After 30 solo plays, I find the use of coloring dice to be creative and fresh. While the trilogies share art, icons and some mechanisms (which aids in learning), each game introduces new mechanisms, definitely NOT samey. After a look at Inventors, I will back the third in the South series as well.
Great review, I think I’m tapped out at Paladins and Viscounts, the new series seems like they’re getting too complicated for my brain. Would still love to try but not sure I need to buy.
Great review, very happy about this format, Mike you are missed! One precision for you good sir, how easy is it to mitigate low rolls and do you feel it impacted what you could do significantly? Are workers too scarce for the mitigation to be easy to do ?
Yes high rolls are better, but in most cases you don't need high rolls. Oke I can't get the scroll on the other side of the board, but I can get this one. I might not be able to hire the 7+ translator, but if I need the 1, I don't need high rolls. The bumping tracks part prefers high rolls and likes a lot of meeples to colour blend and to increase the value (meeples change the value of a die to a 6 btw, so you only need 1 meeple to increase a die to max value). But an 8 on 2 dice is slightly above average. And how much mitigation do you want? What's the point of dice if you never have to mitigate? I feel this is the right amount.
I feel like there are plenty of ways to mitigate low rolls, but they entail the use of resources that you don’t need to use if you roll high. I feel like it’s something to mention since it will bother some, but it doesn’t really deter from my experience with the game.
I've not seen a game lost that I could directly trace to a bad roll or even a bad pull of colors from the bag. There's a lot of ways to mitigate and make turns more clever than you expected, but that does sometimes mean having to deviate from plans.
I'm starting to see a bit of a pattern with several of the Euro reviews in recent time (perhaps the Barcelona one being the most stark example) 🙂: One or two people not named Yi start listing their smaller or larger issues with the game (like "doing actions X, Y or Z isn't fun or engaging") to which Chris and/or Wendy look somewhat perplexed and answer with a variant of "But doing X, Y and Z is *important*" (you can turn A into B, get reward C or trigger bonus D) which THEREFORE makes them fun decision, sort of by implication. Anyways, it's again just a nice display of how differently one gaming taste can approach a game when it comes to theme/mechanics/etc in such a stark contrast to another person's gaming taste. And that's why I never want to miss these dynamic 3-4 people reviews with a lot of reasoning back and forth.
Yep it's awesome.. Such a divide there. T+Z do like and decently rate a lot of fun Euro stuff, it just has to grab them instead of some dryer games where you have to keep pulling all the 'levers' (if only it was as fun as levers) and repeating dry actions and pulling more levers like a rat in a cage, and when it goes on and on without a theme to relate to it just isn't fun after so many repetitions of ostensibly meaningless storyless actions.
I just realized this, regarding the naming of these games, if you start heading North, turn left (West), turn left (South), and then turn left (East), Garphil will maybe make that series about themselves or home New Zealand getting back to their roots sort of thing. Idk
I suspect the fourth trilogy would be about china/russia and the surrounding countries rather than new zealand. Australia and NZ are really rather far to the south.
Low dice rolls - I don't really feel this way. You can usually do something with low dice for 3 of the 4 actions (travel, employ, translate). And if you do have to spend a worker to raise a dice to a 6, it's not a huge deal - workers are reasonably easy to come by. Rest action - for me, this is the star action of the game. I think this is one of the most innovative and interesting "income" turns in any game, and I love planning for it. I will say, though, when someone's rest action is interrupted by drawing a caliph card, there the game slows down and feels clunky. Even though it's potentially getting other players involved, I don't like they way it interrupts the player resting. That's one thing I wish might be different. I am really liking this one.
Yeah, I've never felt like low dice rolls affected much, there are always workers to turn your roll into a 6 or you could add another dice. If anything I felt like dice rolls didn't really matter enough, it's the same with Wayfarers, the rolls were only a minor issue.
Architects was my entry into the series and I loved it. Paladins fell flat b/c it felt repetitive/stale. Viscounts I’ve played once so I’ll want two more plays to give it a go or no. Haven’t played any of the North, not this new South trilogy and I’ll be honest the South looks more convoluted for its own good, still I need to play them 2-3 times each to see how they all play before any final decisions.
I was very excited to see Zee in this one as he doesn't talk much about the series and to get his take was great. Same for Tom, although he usually enjoys some of them. In my opinion, I think they are confusing art with mechanism. Yes the art is very similar, in fact the same, but the games themselves are not that similar. Sure there are tracks, worker placement, but the way it's done from one game to another is brilliant. If you compare Paladins and Architects, visually they feel the exact same, but the game play is so different. I have yet to play Scholars and expect to receive my KS next week, but already I can see there is a great difference between this one and Wayfarers, and maybe even for the better. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinions haha, but I do think this series gets the bad rep as "samey" on looks itself, when in fact the games play very differently.
I'm with Zee about the similarity of the Garphill Games trilogies. Architects was the pinnacle of those trilogies and I enjoy it a lot, and I have no wish to get into the other games.
Your missing out, paladins and wayferers are wayyyyyyy better then architects, and they honestly aren't difficult to learn after playing them a few times, architects is good but its very light
Eh, Viscounts and Paladins offer so much and are completely different games than Architects. That 'similarity' is just surface level. And that goes for Wayfarers and Scholars too. Especially anyone who likens Viscounts as just another rehash of Architects is insane.
Each Garphill game, in whatever trilogy, is extremely dissimilar to the others. I have no idea how anyone can think they're alike. There are definitely things that run through them all, but the games themselves, how they feel, the core mechanisms, are nothing alike. You might as well say all the T games are the same.
Was this filmed on Halloween? I really like Tom’s costume! My niece has been watching a lot of Curious George lately so it’s cool to see others enjoying the show.
My wife and I are generally "light" to "Medium" gamers judging by the games we own and their percieved weight. Scholars, is our "heaviest" by BGG standards (by a large margin). That being said, the "confusion" that Tom had just doesnt make sense to me, the inconagraphy felt perfectly adequate, Rest action was not complicated (they got hung up on the word), and one explanation of the color changing rules was sufficient. As for theme, there was plenty of theme for a Euro game in our opinion. It honestly has more thematic sense than Paladins or Archtiects (which we owned and then got rid of). The Game has a ton of strategy and options, but playing the game turn for turn is supper simple.. I generally agree with Tom and Zee gamewise, but felt like they walked into this game/review determined to dislike it.
Sounds like Garphil are on the same trajectory the started with Visocunts and continued with Wayfarers. They’re not bad games, but with some trimming, they could have been great. I think I’m done with these trilogies now.
i only played one game on TTS at 2 and it was very good, maybe better than paladin, and for me everything made sense, it was complex and very interesting. I though it was thematic.
I’m happy that Mike was part of this review. Would be even better to have him live in a window interacting with the group. Still, it’s better that not having him at all. Good job guys.
What’s with the random back ground noises? It was a bit distracting. I agree with everyone else having Mike on felt seamless. Well done. Also there felt like there was tension in this review, maybe it was due to wanting to like the game more than they did?
I like the art for sure. But this art used every time does make the games all blend together, art style is great, but the way its implemented is identical. Other artists do this sometimes too, but not as much as he does.
Wayfarers Review: "GIVE US A PLAYER AID" Scholars Review: "No good flow chart, it's in the player aid or whatever yeah sure." Just a great example of your negative bias showing. 😂 Just looking for ways to be negative on games clearly not for you.
Some real production issues with this one. Boards have debris or dirt stuck all in the clear coat and even under the printed layer, inserts cracked, cards shrink wrapped at a weird angle so they're bent. Seen my KS copy and a retail copy in person and both had the same problems and were completely unacceptable for the price. Really disappointing and might want to wait for a second run, in my opinion.
@@joshjenson8111 He's not trolling, there are several comments on the KS campaign reporting cracked inserts and bent cards. Waiting for my copy to deliver and I am a bit concerned it will have some issues.
I'm with you. Did like Wayfarers though because it felt like I was actually doing something. Paladins and Viscounts just felt like activating systems rather than accomplishing something via abstraction
I had some of the early Garphil games, but I feel no need to catch them all. I dont need nine (+) copies of the same game, however much you add on each time. I sold off several so I now just have Architects for large player numbers and Paladins for low numbers. They are great, they are enough. They are great, I like what they do, they scratch an itch. I have other games from other publishers to scratch different itchs. 😁
Disagree Chris - ordering the rest action is important and kind of reminds me of the card ordering in Skymines or blackout Hong Kong and the track interaction reminded me of tapestry. I think this game is simpler than paladins
That's not a bad comparison, especially as I love both those games. But I find myself deriving more fun from those two and locking up more in Scholars. I really enjoy unlocking the objective card because it's a new benefit to consider, but that one is fixed. Scholars is won by making fewer blunders, so I don't find it as fun to have played a red income card only to realize by the time I need to rest that I hadn't moved the red track up the extra step I expected to and wishing I was taking orange income instead.
These long series of games have already peaked, it’s time for garphill to try something different. Like mix bag building from quacks with worker placement, we need more bag building.
I really don't get the thematic comments of Tom and Zee. Sometimes they like to shit on things just because they are not their type of game. Going around places to find new scrolls to translate to Arabic is not thematic? Getting up tracks that represent certain practices also not thematic? The colours also make sense, but they are of course not 1:1. Anyway, typical mean comments from Zee and Tom that generally don't like these games, while Chris is the most solid and objective reviewer.
@@thedicetower the other 3 ratings came across clearly despite being 6 6 and 8.5. just saying your 8 was muddled. I agree it's your opinion but it was so confusing I needed to bring it up.
I had complaints but I did try to state that the game opened up as I played it more. I feel like I was more positive during the review, I wanted to get my complaints as well as the compliments out, so the final thoughts sounded more mixed. -Chris
I do have a slight twitch when I hear "Yeah the game has issues, but I'm giving it a seal of excellence". I mean it does nothing for me, I'm not going to buy it just because of the seal, but gramatically "excellence' should mean "excellence".
I understand what you mean, but let me assure you there's probably flaws in every game I've given an 8.5 to. But sometimes a game grabs you in spite of those sticking points, which is the case here.
The way seals are given out should (continue to) be a discussion in my opinion. I do not have an idea on how to make it a better system. It just sometimes seems odd to me that a game like this, that gets a 7,1 on average among 4 people, would get a seal of excellence.
We could have just had Mike film the review by himself and it would have gotten the seal and you'd be none the wiser of the different feelings we had on it. I think the audience is better served this way, but the game still gets the seal it would have anyway.
I'm sorry, but Garphill games have been boring since the second one, the art has always been borderline terrible, and frankly I can't understand how these games continue to be so popular - they're nearly all the same; using slightly different mechanisms to move up tracks with point salad at the end. Yawn.
Tom is, and will always be, the overall most trustworthy reviewer of boardgames. All these overly complicated eurogames are more than often overhyped by a ”certain crowd”….
If the form of this "overhyping" is those people enjoying the games, how do you distinguish it from praise that you might deem authentic? That was rhetorical - you can't.
It’s possible to disagree without questioning my objectivity, and by implication, my integrity. I spoke at length about why I think the game is excellent.
The thing is a number of the games overlap to the same niche. So unless you play a huge number of these games, getting them all to the table consistently is difficult, which basically makes owning all of them unnecessary.
Mike's camera really washed out the colors of the Big Board. It is def a lot better looking irl than his video. You still might find it boring, but don't judge it by *this* video of it.
It's not showing their age and it's not Mike being biased. Mike likes his Garphill's, was standing next to him when he was talking to Shem and Sam at Spiel, and I can say he just enjoys their games. I enjoy their games, biased, that's a really odd word to use. Could say Tom and Zee are biased against Garphill and that's not fair, as they are not against them. They expected/wanted a different game, didn't get it, rated it a positive 6, it's lower than I'd rate it (9.5), but that's just fine. I align more with Mike and Chris and when I look at a DT review, I take all reviews, but I know the Yi's and Mike align more with my taste than Tom and that's fine
@gwout1 I was just joking. That's why I put the stir at the end. I was making out they were grumpy old men because they always stir Mike about being old. I couldn't care less if they dislike a game. We all have differing opinions and tastes. That's why I always use playthroughs as a review. Shows me the game in action, and if it's my taste.
@@gwout1 well everyone is biased at some point and not to say it is bad but the guys do bring up some stuff like the art is kind of samey across the board, and that it feels like mechanisms thrown in there just to fit the game and the theme. Also the thing with the colours. Just because it doesn't bother Mike it doesn't mean it is not there. That is where biased is not all bad because it is a personal review. It is that Mike trends way towards a positive review then Zee and Tom in a way that it feels like one of 2 things. Or tom and zee are wrong or Mike is wrong. And that wil depend on us gamers. For gamers that like these kind of games in this line, they know they wil buy it, well most of them. Other people wil be a bit confussed on if they want it or not based only on this review. Only time will tell if this game will still hold up and be relevant. I don't think it will. After so many games in the line this was bound to happen that they try to reinvent the wheel within their own way of making games. Their own sandbox on how to make games is maybe a sandbox that reached it's potential. I am just throwing it out there. There is a whole discusion to be made about designers operating in their safe space and not venturing further. Zee even touched upon it in this review.
I've taken to watching reviews in reverse. I typically skip to the scores at the end and get a general idea if it is worth any more time investment. If it piques my interest, I'll skip back and listen to more of the review to get a better idea of it. If the game sounds appealing I'll watch the overview so I get a better idea of how it works.
![An HONEST REVIEW of LUNA SNOW [Marvel Snap First Impressions]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OAoYgOStPss/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm glad they worked Mike into this, I was worried when the video started and thought "This is going to feel wrong without Mike"
I’m happy Mike can be part of this..good format
Please include Mike more in the reviews! This is awesome!
It’s relieving to hear that Mike and Chris liked it, since most of the times my taste aligns with theirs.
The way you guys dialogued with Mike's review points from the studio was really impressive and interesting. More Mike please!
When Dick Tracy decides to dress more casual.
The fact of the matter is that Sam and Shem, despite being highly prolofic in their output, are able to introduce game mechanisms that are new and original with each design. The use of the color wheel is genius and I have never seen anything like it in a game before. It saddens me that some people have given up on Garphill due to increasing complexity. They are missing out on some terrific games. I feel like Wayfarers and Scholars are completely different. I love Raiders and Architects, but there is so much more depth and decision space in their most recent output.
At this level I just feel like I'm playing against the rulebook (and losing) instead of playing against the other players.
@@cursivecurses Agreed
So glad Mike was included! I actually really, really like this game. It's interesting to see how my tastes and Tom and Zee's have changed over the years. In my early days of gaming I found that I aligned with Tom, then later on I was excited to see Zee on a review because my tastes really were matching his views, not I am much more in line with Mike. It could be due to my shift to play more games solo, which is something that Zee used to do a lot of for the channel but not so much anymore. As for Scholars, it's definitely up there. Not my favorite Garphill Game but still a game that will remain in my collection for the foreseeable future. I also got Wayfarers with my Scholars pledge and I'm anxious to get it to the table even though I hear the solo mode is less enjoyable than the solo for Scholars.
Glad Mike's review made it in so we could have someone who knows what he's talking about. :)
So good having Mike in this.
Also there seems to be a reviewer bias recently (On almost all channels) where "More Mechanisms/Complexity = Bad"
And I can 100% see why, as reviewers play 5000x more games than everyone else.. however if you don't play as many games then those mechanics and complexity can become a real plus as you learn ways to use them.
It's a trend... 2 years ago the more the better... then people get tired and we go back to "depth within simplicity"
What you fail to understand is Z and Tom are professional critics who from experience know that adding UNNECESSARY mechanisms is bad. Which has been the case for years in game design, and has analogous heuristics in good design in general (eg: in design more unnecessary complexity doesn't necessarily mean BETTER).
And they are absolutely correct, it was correct 10 years ago, 20 years ago, and it's still correct now. If you're increasing mess you'd better have a good reason.
Although maybe, conversely, you would be happy if people hung a pointless load of tied up junk, sliders and bells all over your bedroom that you needed to crank and play with before you could open your door each day? Sure, maybe you like unnecessary steps, hey some people like arranging big boxes of pens and sorting through junk too, doesn't mean a box of random pens thrown in a box is strong design, even if you hammered a spinning wheel and string some dice onto it.
T + Z like plenty of heavier games with interlocking mechanisms, so you're wrong there, ie: where they serve a well designed purpose! In fact they made that perfectly clear: it's pointless to tack on meaningless rules and daft unnecessary mechanisms (that serve a better purpose in other games) to make the game seem "heavier" or fuller in lieu of genuine depth of design. When you're adding rules for the sake of rules your filling in for something missing.
@@bardsamok9221
Bit odd to come to the rabid defense white knight like that....
You also seemed to have 100% missed there were 4 people in that review... and that everyone has different opinions.. disagreeing with a reviewer does not make someone "wrong".
Usually when Tom hates a game i love it, usually when Tom loves a game i hate it
So I'm looking forward to this game even more now
6/10 =/= “hate”
this is a great game! it is a more solid, mechanical game, and is possibly better described as a 'lacerda-lite' euro game - pulling levers here and there and seeing it pay off eventually. Take for example, when you manage to translate a Chinese scroll into Arabic thanks to having set up the right translators for the job, and then retiring them before anyone else gets to use them, thereby enhancing your primary actions on future turns. This is most definitely a 'lacerda-esque' game. I also enjoy the challenge of sequencing the rest action (it does matter!) to get the best out of it! I can't rate this highly enough - it's just the right level of crunch for anyone looking for a solid euro game.
The colors of the dice symbolize the different learning you have and the secondary colors is higher learning. It’s a pretty simple concept.
I agree with many of the points they made, but I think they completely missed the point regarding the Travel Action. It abstracts the act of traveling the known world gathering scrolls, it isn't merely "tacked on", it earns you scrolls and/or valuable resources. They could have created an entire game to show this kind of thing (Wayfarers), but they distilled it down to fit in this game. They touched on why this mechanic is useful in the game: For the Hire action, only pips are important, For the Translate action, only Secondary color is important, For the Research Track Both pips and all the colors are important, For the Travel action only the pips are important, but the any of the colors that you match properly gives a bonus, so it's good in practice to try and match a color during your Travel action. This gives 4 different ways that color and pips are integrated into the game mechanics, which line up with the 4 different actions you can take. Maybe some more plays would make it like Chris said that things would "click" for them.
The integration of Mike was well done and very appreciated! Keep it up team
Wow. This was really well edited and felt cohesive. I think this could've easily gone wrong, but they put this review together nicely.
Garphill fan here. I enjoyed Scholars, but I still sold my copy because:
1) It felt too similar to Wayfarers (which is also in my collection and which I thoroughly enjoy)
2) It felt too mechanical and restricted as compared to Wayfarers
3) Considering that Translating should be the main action in this game, it felt like we were rather doing other things that were less hard to achieve
4) The tension from the Caliph Cards felt anxiety-inducing rather than fun
100% agree that Wayfarers is a much, much better game. I kind of feel like each trilogy so far has one game that stands way above the rest
@@cursivecursesLooking at how different people name a different West Kingdom game as their favorite, I think the WK trilogy gave three very different great games. My personal favorite is Architects, but Paladins was also great but in the end also to mechanical-feeling for my taste.
The fact that a game has more mechanisms than one would prefer in their board games does NOT mean that mechanisms you don't like are simply there to "add complexity for the sake of complexity" (as if the designers looked at the game at some point and said, "Hmm, this is not as complex as our last game, let's add random mechanisms that make it more complex").
Does Garphill make "elegant" games, in the sense of simple rules/large decision space? No. Do they make fantastic decision spaces and thoughtful games? Yes.
I think the rub is that they used to make elegant Euros (3 of their first 4 titles), but since adding the co-designer they have moved into more complex designs that are not as seamless.
Seems many of (not ALL) Garphill fans don't like this one as much as the others, I think it's fair to ask why. It's just not the best game even by the designer's standards.
Nice hybrid format, well done! Always nice to see Mike
I haven't disagreed with a Dice Tower review more than this one, at least not in a few years. This game made an amazing first impression on me, and I've loved it more and more with each play. A 10/10 for me, not just one of my favorite Garphill games (I have played them all) but one of my favorite games overall. Wayfarers was good but had me worried I wouldn't enjoy this trilogy as much as West Kingdom, this game turned that around for me.
Garphil sadly lost me from Paladins onward for the reasons Zee mentioned. But I still really love their cleaner designs like Architects and Raiders.
West kingdoms and raiders my fav
Well, I'm glad. They make games that are so much more interesting since Paladins (and Architects' expansions) onwards.
I agree with Mike and Chris on this one. This is one of my favorites in the series! The flow is so smooth, there is definitely a theme coming through. Solo game is good as well. Great game!
I found this game very thematic and much easier to teach than Wayfarers. You need a translator, hire them. Go around the world and find some books, deliver them to the place where those translators are, and translate them. Brilliant game.
11:53 I’m liking this hybrid location format. Another home run Dice Tower.
Great explanation by Mike. Loved the high level overview. Need more reviews that start like that.
This was a great review. Took different perspectives and acceptance where what works for one person might not work for another. Most game groups exist in this space with differing opinions on games that’s more nuanced than love/hate.
I really agree that Garphill fans (and I’m one myself) are most likely going to enjoy this game. One of the things I find charming about the entire series is the repetitive use of the same iconography and art style. It’s been consistent across the board. So if you’ve played the other games you’re already familiar with a lot of what is being presented on the table. Some may call it samey but I’d call it comforting. I’m not so sure that makes it easy for new players though and I’m worried we’ve reached a tipping point, especially as the games have gotten heavier, where this becomes a niche within the community. Love Mike’s thoughts as always and glad he’s still and integral part of DT reviews.
Hi. Question for Mike. Can more than one card from a particular translator be put into the translator row on the main board? Or must they all represent different translators? The rule book doesnt say. Thx all for the review.
Mike, how do You get those Final Girl boxes out of that kallax shelf ? 😮😅
Interesting review. It's one of the most differing set of opinions I think I've seen on Dice Tower. I have ordered the game because I have all the others so I'll be interested to see if I'm on Team Tom/Zee or team Mike/Chris or somewhere in between!
Let us know please :)
My copy is on the way. Very excited! :)
This review shows the strength of the Dice Tower’s format of having multiple reviewers. Zee’s and Tom’s scores mean less to me than Chris’ or Mike’s scores as my interests align much closer to my own game interests.
I think my taste in games line up best with Chris 1st, then Mike. I am looking forward to trying this game out now!
I knew it! I knew Tom was going to give it a 6! He kept complaining of the iconography, and he also gave deep vents a 4 because of the iconography and take that element.
I agree with both everything Mike praised and almost all of Tom's criticisms... and yet, I have to say I have been loving this game and hold it right up there with Paladins.
Tom is correct that some of the individual mechanics don't make sense with the theme (what do the colors mean and why do you get resources when you hire a translator?), but I agree with Mike that the overall theme really comes through and helps to lead you through the big-picture flow of the game. Tom is right that some of the mechanisms could be sanded down (the influence marking cards seems to be included just for continuity with Wayfarers, and it could have been cut from both games), but Mike is right that everything gels together really well. Tom pointed out that watching other people's turns can be kind of uninteresting, but I think Mike would respond that it still works because you are so engrossed with planning ahead your turn.
Sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of its parts in a way that is difficult to describe, and for me this game just hits. I don't have time to play a ton of games in a year (so far at 35 plays total in 2023), but my wife and I made room to play this game back-to-back-to-back three nights in a row when it arrived. And I still really want to get it to the table again.
(I enjoyed Wayfarers, and my wife's favorite game is Viscounts. But Paladins and Scholars are currently my two favorite.)
Good comment, full agree with your saying
Completely agree with this comment. The game is good but it’s deep. It can feel odd at first play but there are a lot of subtle decisions that matter like which cards you play earlier on your track. I think in all it’s a strong game in the series and is up there with paladins.
small correction, wayfarer's was designed afterwards, so the influence came from scholars and added to wayfarer's. But you are right, Tom's critics aren't all wrong, but the question is are all his opinions bad? As you said, you enjoy the game despite these flaws. Maybe they are just features for us euro gamers. Could the game have been better probably, but this is a very good for me :D
@@gwout1 Yeah, I just found a comment on BGG where Sam Macdonald says, "We designed this mechanic [influence on card] first with Scholars (and then added it into Wayfarers). I feel like it definitely makes a lot more sense in this game [Scholars] due to the shared infrastructure."
the rulebook clearly shows what the colors mean and how they relate to the different research tracks/fields of knowledge
I kickstarted and was a bit apprehensive about the color mechanism. After 30 solo plays, I find the use of coloring dice to be creative and fresh. While the trilogies share art, icons and some mechanisms (which aids in learning), each game introduces new mechanisms, definitely NOT samey. After a look at Inventors, I will back the third in the South series as well.
Great review, I think I’m tapped out at Paladins and Viscounts, the new series seems like they’re getting too complicated for my brain. Would still love to try but not sure I need to buy.
Great review, very happy about this format, Mike you are missed! One precision for you good sir, how easy is it to mitigate low rolls and do you feel it impacted what you could do significantly? Are workers too scarce for the mitigation to be easy to do ?
Yes high rolls are better, but in most cases you don't need high rolls. Oke I can't get the scroll on the other side of the board, but I can get this one. I might not be able to hire the 7+ translator, but if I need the 1, I don't need high rolls. The bumping tracks part prefers high rolls and likes a lot of meeples to colour blend and to increase the value (meeples change the value of a die to a 6 btw, so you only need 1 meeple to increase a die to max value). But an 8 on 2 dice is slightly above average. And how much mitigation do you want? What's the point of dice if you never have to mitigate? I feel this is the right amount.
I feel like there are plenty of ways to mitigate low rolls, but they entail the use of resources that you don’t need to use if you roll high. I feel like it’s something to mention since it will bother some, but it doesn’t really deter from my experience with the game.
I've not seen a game lost that I could directly trace to a bad roll or even a bad pull of colors from the bag. There's a lot of ways to mitigate and make turns more clever than you expected, but that does sometimes mean having to deviate from plans.
I feel like this does not bother me at all, thank you for the precision!@@DTChrisYi
I'm starting to see a bit of a pattern with several of the Euro reviews in recent time (perhaps the Barcelona one being the most stark example) 🙂: One or two people not named Yi start listing their smaller or larger issues with the game (like "doing actions X, Y or Z isn't fun or engaging") to which Chris and/or Wendy look somewhat perplexed and answer with a variant of "But doing X, Y and Z is *important*" (you can turn A into B, get reward C or trigger bonus D) which THEREFORE makes them fun decision, sort of by implication. Anyways, it's again just a nice display of how differently one gaming taste can approach a game when it comes to theme/mechanics/etc in such a stark contrast to another person's gaming taste. And that's why I never want to miss these dynamic 3-4 people reviews with a lot of reasoning back and forth.
Yep it's awesome.. Such a divide there. T+Z do like and decently rate a lot of fun Euro stuff, it just has to grab them instead of some dryer games where you have to keep pulling all the 'levers' (if only it was as fun as levers) and repeating dry actions and pulling more levers like a rat in a cage, and when it goes on and on without a theme to relate to it just isn't fun after so many repetitions of ostensibly meaningless storyless actions.
I just realized this, regarding the naming of these games, if you start heading North, turn left (West), turn left (South), and then turn left (East), Garphil will maybe make that series about themselves or home New Zealand getting back to their roots sort of thing. Idk
I suspect the fourth trilogy would be about china/russia and the surrounding countries rather than new zealand. Australia and NZ are really rather far to the south.
@@koalabrownie The 4th trilogy characters first appeared in Paladins of the west kingdom. It is Byzantium/Constantinople.
Hey, it's vacation Dick Tracy!
Low dice rolls - I don't really feel this way. You can usually do something with low dice for 3 of the 4 actions (travel, employ, translate). And if you do have to spend a worker to raise a dice to a 6, it's not a huge deal - workers are reasonably easy to come by.
Rest action - for me, this is the star action of the game. I think this is one of the most innovative and interesting "income" turns in any game, and I love planning for it. I will say, though, when someone's rest action is interrupted by drawing a caliph card, there the game slows down and feels clunky. Even though it's potentially getting other players involved, I don't like they way it interrupts the player resting. That's one thing I wish might be different.
I am really liking this one.
Yeah, I've never felt like low dice rolls affected much, there are always workers to turn your roll into a 6 or you could add another dice. If anything I felt like dice rolls didn't really matter enough, it's the same with Wayfarers, the rolls were only a minor issue.
I own a lot of Garphill Games, but now with the South Tigris series, I´m done - too many mechanics that are too poorly connected to the theme.
Architects was my entry into the series and I loved it. Paladins fell flat b/c it felt repetitive/stale. Viscounts I’ve played once so I’ll want two more plays to give it a go or no. Haven’t played any of the North, not this new South trilogy and I’ll be honest the South looks more convoluted for its own good, still I need to play them 2-3 times each to see how they all play before any final decisions.
I was very excited to see Zee in this one as he doesn't talk much about the series and to get his take was great. Same for Tom, although he usually enjoys some of them.
In my opinion, I think they are confusing art with mechanism. Yes the art is very similar, in fact the same, but the games themselves are not that similar. Sure there are tracks, worker placement, but the way it's done from one game to another is brilliant. If you compare Paladins and Architects, visually they feel the exact same, but the game play is so different.
I have yet to play Scholars and expect to receive my KS next week, but already I can see there is a great difference between this one and Wayfarers, and maybe even for the better. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinions haha, but I do think this series gets the bad rep as "samey" on looks itself, when in fact the games play very differently.
Def want to try this one garphill has been about 50/50 for me never hate them but a few that didn’t stand out for me
I'm with Zee about the similarity of the Garphill Games trilogies. Architects was the pinnacle of those trilogies and I enjoy it a lot, and I have no wish to get into the other games.
Exactly this
Your missing out, paladins and wayferers are wayyyyyyy better then architects, and they honestly aren't difficult to learn after playing them a few times, architects is good but its very light
I tried both and it was not for me and my group.
But I'm glad people still enjoy their newer stuff.
Eh, Viscounts and Paladins offer so much and are completely different games than Architects. That 'similarity' is just surface level. And that goes for Wayfarers and Scholars too. Especially anyone who likens Viscounts as just another rehash of Architects is insane.
Each Garphill game, in whatever trilogy, is extremely dissimilar to the others. I have no idea how anyone can think they're alike. There are definitely things that run through them all, but the games themselves, how they feel, the core mechanisms, are nothing alike. You might as well say all the T games are the same.
I love the idea of this game, pity it didn't really stand out mechanically to you all
I played it and yeah Scholar is the qualification to truly understand the game.
Was this filmed on Halloween? I really like Tom’s costume! My niece has been watching a lot of Curious George lately so it’s cool to see others enjoying the show.
How did I guys do that? Make the segments respond to each other?
My wife and I are generally "light" to "Medium" gamers judging by the games we own and their percieved weight. Scholars, is our "heaviest" by BGG standards (by a large margin). That being said, the "confusion" that Tom had just doesnt make sense to me, the inconagraphy felt perfectly adequate, Rest action was not complicated (they got hung up on the word), and one explanation of the color changing rules was sufficient. As for theme, there was plenty of theme for a Euro game in our opinion. It honestly has more thematic sense than Paladins or Archtiects (which we owned and then got rid of). The Game has a ton of strategy and options, but playing the game turn for turn is supper simple.. I generally agree with Tom and Zee gamewise, but felt like they walked into this game/review determined to dislike it.
Liked this format
Question is if by the 'East' trilogy (if will exist) it will reach 'Valeria' level of 'which game was that one?'.
Sounds like Garphil are on the same trajectory the started with Visocunts and continued with Wayfarers. They’re not bad games, but with some trimming, they could have been great.
I think I’m done with these trilogies now.
Is anyone at dice tower going to review voidfall? Would love to here all your thoughts on it.
i only played one game on TTS at 2 and it was very good, maybe better than paladin, and for me everything made sense, it was complex and very interesting. I though it was thematic.
Explaining the AC/DC reference 🤣🤣🤣
Tom looking like the guy from Curious George 😂
I’m happy that Mike was part of this review. Would be even better to have him live in a window interacting with the group. Still, it’s better that not having him at all. Good job guys.
That's an amazing shirt Chris.
It's one of my favorites! Got it from Kyle Ferrin's webstore.
What’s with the random back ground noises? It was a bit distracting.
I agree with everyone else having Mike on felt seamless. Well done.
Also there felt like there was tension in this review, maybe it was due to wanting to like the game more than they did?
I like the art for sure. But this art used every time does make the games all blend together, art style is great, but the way its implemented is identical.
Other artists do this sometimes too, but not as much as he does.
Marvel's MCU Universe
For some reason my foreign brain makes me hear "squirrels" when Mike says "Scrolls" and that makes the game theme confusing.
Each track symbol has its color though. Bearded dude (not Zee) has yellow face.
Key West Dick Tracy
Imagine a gaming weekend (Dice Tower Retreat) where you play each trilogy in succession! Epic
Valid negative points but I do like this game.
Boy, are they going to hate Inventors of the S.T.
Wayfarers Review: "GIVE US A PLAYER AID"
Scholars Review: "No good flow chart, it's in the player aid or whatever yeah sure."
Just a great example of your negative bias showing. 😂 Just looking for ways to be negative on games clearly not for you.
Some real production issues with this one. Boards have debris or dirt stuck all in the clear coat and even under the printed layer, inserts cracked, cards shrink wrapped at a weird angle so they're bent. Seen my KS copy and a retail copy in person and both had the same problems and were completely unacceptable for the price. Really disappointing and might want to wait for a second run, in my opinion.
I’ve seen several copies (including my own) with none of those issues.
You're clearly trolling, get lost
@@joshjenson8111 He's not trolling, there are several comments on the KS campaign reporting cracked inserts and bent cards. Waiting for my copy to deliver and I am a bit concerned it will have some issues.
Love me some Mike
This growing complexity keeps me away from Garphill's games, I really enjoyed Architects of the West Kingdom, but these newer ones are rough
I'm with you. Did like Wayfarers though because it felt like I was actually doing something. Paladins and Viscounts just felt like activating systems rather than accomplishing something via abstraction
I had some of the early Garphil games, but I feel no need to catch them all. I dont need nine (+) copies of the same game, however much you add on each time.
I sold off several so I now just have Architects for large player numbers and Paladins for low numbers. They are great, they are enough.
They are great, I like what they do, they scratch an itch. I have other games from other publishers to scratch different itchs. 😁
Disagree Chris - ordering the rest action is important and kind of reminds me of the card ordering in Skymines or blackout Hong Kong and the track interaction reminded me of tapestry.
I think this game is simpler than paladins
That's not a bad comparison, especially as I love both those games. But I find myself deriving more fun from those two and locking up more in Scholars.
I really enjoy unlocking the objective card because it's a new benefit to consider, but that one is fixed. Scholars is won by making fewer blunders, so I don't find it as fun to have played a red income card only to realize by the time I need to rest that I hadn't moved the red track up the extra step I expected to and wishing I was taking orange income instead.
It's official: Tom doesn't like Heavy games. How is a rest turn "long?" Crazy...
Well, I might disagree with you on both counts there.
These long series of games have already peaked, it’s time for garphill to try something different. Like mix bag building from quacks with worker placement, we need more bag building.
I appreciate Zee’s thoughts on the game. Hopefully Ezra and Nehemiah will be different! 🤞🏽
I've gotta agree with Tom et al on this one. The underlying game just isn't worth the brain burn required.
Hey Chris Yi-
Why don't you part your hair about it?
In not really sure what that means. Sorry!
I really don't get the thematic comments of Tom and Zee. Sometimes they like to shit on things just because they are not their type of game. Going around places to find new scrolls to translate to Arabic is not thematic? Getting up tracks that represent certain practices also not thematic? The colours also make sense, but they are of course not 1:1. Anyway, typical mean comments from Zee and Tom that generally don't like these games, while Chris is the most solid and objective reviewer.
They’re just getting too heavy and complex.
That 8 rating felt super forced... Pretty sure you meant 7. Its an 8!!! But here are all the problems....
I'm always confused when people tell us we don't know our own ratings. :)
@@thedicetower the other 3 ratings came across clearly despite being 6 6 and 8.5. just saying your 8 was muddled. I agree it's your opinion but it was so confusing I needed to bring it up.
I had complaints but I did try to state that the game opened up as I played it more. I feel like I was more positive during the review, I wanted to get my complaints as well as the compliments out, so the final thoughts sounded more mixed. -Chris
Best game of the year so far. I'd rate it an 8 (I don't think any game has been above an 8 this year).
I do have a slight twitch when I hear "Yeah the game has issues, but I'm giving it a seal of excellence".
I mean it does nothing for me, I'm not going to buy it just because of the seal, but gramatically "excellence' should mean "excellence".
I understand what you mean, but let me assure you there's probably flaws in every game I've given an 8.5 to. But sometimes a game grabs you in spite of those sticking points, which is the case here.
The way seals are given out should (continue to) be a discussion in my opinion. I do not have an idea on how to make it a better system. It just sometimes seems odd to me that a game like this, that gets a 7,1 on average among 4 people, would get a seal of excellence.
We could have just had Mike film the review by himself and it would have gotten the seal and you'd be none the wiser of the different feelings we had on it. I think the audience is better served this way, but the game still gets the seal it would have anyway.
I'm sorry, but Garphill games have been boring since the second one, the art has always been borderline terrible, and frankly I can't understand how these games continue to be so popular - they're nearly all the same; using slightly different mechanisms to move up tracks with point salad at the end. Yawn.
It makes it harder for not color blind people?? Perfect. Now you normie vision people can feel my pain. Muhahaha
Tom is, and will always be, the overall most trustworthy reviewer of boardgames. All these overly complicated eurogames are more than often overhyped by a ”certain crowd”….
Dude, it's just what they like
They're allowed to like and promote games too
If the form of this "overhyping" is those people enjoying the games, how do you distinguish it from praise that you might deem authentic? That was rhetorical - you can't.
Mike is such a fan boy for this series. He's not really objective here.
The latest games in this line have lost their luster for our group.
It’s possible to disagree without questioning my objectivity, and by implication, my integrity. I spoke at length about why I think the game is excellent.
The thing is a number of the games overlap to the same niche. So unless you play a huge number of these games, getting them all to the table consistently is difficult, which basically makes owning all of them unnecessary.
Why not just have Mike live (while you're recording) picture-in-picture
Kinda sad to see guys like these struggling with things like Abstraction and Flowcharts...
I cry myself to sleep each night about this very thing! :)
@@thedicetower weird response. Are you guys doing ok?
@@Busy_Mason Seems like a pretty solid response to an insult to me.
@@fingolfinfinwe it was criticism, which critics probably shouldn't have a problem with, yet they still got salty.
Do you think I was wrong?
You were being intentionally reductionist and snarky. Tom snarked back. Not sure what was weird about that. -Chris
why was Zee forced to play this game?? at this point no one likes garphill games. enough is enough!
Wow that board looks ! BORING!!!🥱
Mike's camera really washed out the colors of the Big Board. It is def a lot better looking irl than his video. You still might find it boring, but don't judge it by *this* video of it.
He's likely not worth engaging with considering the thumbnail and all. @@Girruuth
I think Tom and Zee are starting to show their age and being stuck in their ways...stir stir 😂
I can say the same about Mike. He is so biased lol
@HALOX30 Mike, never???? Next you'll be saying I'm from NZ and bias as I'm backing my boys...oh hang on.
It's not showing their age and it's not Mike being biased. Mike likes his Garphill's, was standing next to him when he was talking to Shem and Sam at Spiel, and I can say he just enjoys their games. I enjoy their games, biased, that's a really odd word to use. Could say Tom and Zee are biased against Garphill and that's not fair, as they are not against them. They expected/wanted a different game, didn't get it, rated it a positive 6, it's lower than I'd rate it (9.5), but that's just fine. I align more with Mike and Chris and when I look at a DT review, I take all reviews, but I know the Yi's and Mike align more with my taste than Tom and that's fine
@gwout1 I was just joking. That's why I put the stir at the end. I was making out they were grumpy old men because they always stir Mike about being old. I couldn't care less if they dislike a game. We all have differing opinions and tastes. That's why I always use playthroughs as a review. Shows me the game in action, and if it's my taste.
@@gwout1 well everyone is biased at some point and not to say it is bad but the guys do bring up some stuff like the art is kind of samey across the board, and that it feels like mechanisms thrown in there just to fit the game and the theme. Also the thing with the colours. Just because it doesn't bother Mike it doesn't mean it is not there. That is where biased is not all bad because it is a personal review. It is that Mike trends way towards a positive review then Zee and Tom in a way that it feels like one of 2 things. Or tom and zee are wrong or Mike is wrong. And that wil depend on us gamers. For gamers that like these kind of games in this line, they know they wil buy it, well most of them. Other people wil be a bit confussed on if they want it or not based only on this review. Only time will tell if this game will still hold up and be relevant. I don't think it will. After so many games in the line this was bound to happen that they try to reinvent the wheel within their own way of making games. Their own sandbox on how to make games is maybe a sandbox that reached it's potential. I am just throwing it out there. There is a whole discusion to be made about designers operating in their safe space and not venturing further. Zee even touched upon it in this review.
These reviews have become way too long . Also the system seems to be getting stale referring to the board game mechanics.
I've taken to watching reviews in reverse. I typically skip to the scores at the end and get a general idea if it is worth any more time investment. If it piques my interest, I'll skip back and listen to more of the review to get a better idea of it. If the game sounds appealing I'll watch the overview so I get a better idea of how it works.