Slay the Spire: The Board Game review
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 июн 2024
- Mike reviews this 1-4 player cooperative adaptation of the rogue-lite deck building adventure game.
- - - - - -
Patreon - / onestop
Podcast - / onestopcoopshop
Discord - / discord
- - - - - -
0:00 - Introduction
0:49 - Adapted Gameplay
1:25 - Runs and Unlocks
2:08 Cooperative Enemies
3:01 - Energy and Cards
3:42 - Character Builds
4:38 - Final Thoughts 
Игры
COMPONENTS - Peter had the crowdfunding edition, so I'm not sure how that compares to retail. But it's very nice. The sleeves work well and the storage is well designed. You might want to print our some aids though to not have to reference some of the icons and smaller rules in the rulebook.
0:00 - Introduction
0:49 - Adapted Gameplay
1:25 - Runs and Unlocks
2:08 Cooperative Enemies
3:01 - Energy and Cards
3:42 - Character Builds
4:38 - Final Thoughts
I like the solo version of the board game better than the video game because low numbers feel way more impactful : one shield might save your life, while in the video game, you might get 12 shields and not be that sure about how useful it is.
The relics are also better in the board game because you keep them in mind in your strategy. In the video game, when you have 15 of them, you just zone out their effect.
That said, preparing and playing through the board game asks you to dedicate a good portion of the day to it, while the video game is quick to launch and easy to put aside, so there's still pros and cons for both versions!
Well said! Personally I like the video game relics better because of their consistency (though in solo play your starting relic letting you sometimes activate other relic effects give some extra mitigation for this).
I came to the comments section to basically say this, so thank you. I didn't really get into the videogame because a lot of stuff felt like it was happening "behind the scenes," and I didn't always know what was going on or why-including some of the larger numbers being hard to keep track of. The board game is designed so that the player(s) can manage everything (because they have to), which makes it far more enjoyable.
Same here, I basically like everything it offers more in the board game compared to the video game. It also helps that I just prefer to play this style of card game in physical form over digital. I'm hoping that with StS 2 coming out they'll do an expansion that adds more characters, relics, enemies, etc.
Same thoughts! For solo the videogame is better (and quicker), but oh boy, the cooperative campaign is just amazing, we are addicted in here! 6h to finish 3 acts + 1 hour only talking about what just happened, it is amazing!
I like this a lot better than the video game. The die system with the relics is amazing and the multiplayer is way more fun. Maybe with solo the relics get less consistent, but in multiplayer games some will always go off and there are control relics to further let you influence the die roll, which in turn will also influence enemy actions.
It's brilliant and I never want to spend extra turns trying to load up a pen nib to 9 or stall out so I can use my consume card before the battle ends ever again. Those are just not interesting decisions, while this game offers them in spades.
How varied do the Boss fights feel? Rulebook says there are 26 boss cards, which sounds like a lot of variety. I know you said eventually it feels grindy fighting the same enemies over and over, but do the different bosses at least make each run feel exciting/different?
I think the bosses are nicely varied, yes, similar to the minion enemies
There is 3 acts in the game, each with 3 different possible bosses, so 9 regular bosses.
They all have an harder version at a certain level of difficulty, which changes their pattern to more difficult ones.
There is also a unlockable 4th act which consists of an extra hard final boss. It also has an harder version available.
Thanks Mike. I love the video game and I didn’t see a reason to get the board game. Sounds like I made the right choice.
Happy about the game... Of course the videogame is a bit easier to play but the boardgames give a nice touch on the table
As always, thank you for sharing your opinion.
I would most likely play the board game solo and to your point I would then rather play the video game (which I have played). Also, to your point that it is so much like the video game there's not much drawing me into the board game version. If I'm going coop for a card game I would rather play MC:LCG or Leviathan Wilds (hey, another board game adaption, he he).
I really don't understand the appeal of a "roguelike" with a board game. I don't even care for them much with video games, but at least with a video game, it's as simple clicking start new game and I'm playing again. Having to tear down a game and set it back up again to do another run is a chore and doesn't fit well in the realm of board games. Co-Op could give this game some value though.
I generally agree with you, though the success of legacy-ish games with unlockables I think shows some people don’t mind it
Good review Mike and glad it turned out well. Ultimately I passed on this one because the price tag seemed much too high for the experience. As good as the video game was, I'd long since moved onto Monster Train, which to me was a significantly more fun, attractive, and varied deckbuilding roguelike.
The reviews on this seem generally quite good and the co-op aspect is appealing, but hearing there's grindy elements and the video game's random difficulty means it probably wouldn't get as much play as our other co-op card games. Maybe if the price comes down in the future?
I love monster train! I also prefer it for my steam deck-building over slay the spire (though both are excellent)
@@OneStopCoopShop Agreed, fortunately I think there's plenty of space for both games. StS is bigger on fostering card combinations/rapid fire cardplay, and gradually wearing you down/surprising you with challenges. Monster Train is bigger on deck building/curating/upgrading but gives you more agency & transparency on the difficulty/challenges. Both have their niche, I just prefer the "reset and get stronger" loop of MT and its optional challenges with open information.
However one thing I think MT blows StS out of the water and it's not even close is the presentation. Those cards/animations are gorgeous and the soundtrack is awesome.
A con AND a mix for slay the spire?! Oh boy, i hope you enjoyed having a channel... (Just kidding ofc)
I actually appreciate the solo call-out. I've been thinking about getting this game but would probably only play it solo, but I think I'll wait until I can try someone else's copy
Like he said, utterly pointless to buy the board game when you can just play it on your phone.
Didn't expect that the faithful adaptation would be a CON. I'm also not sure it was ever meant to "beat" playing the video game solo. They always said it would be a faithful adaptation. Not sure who would approach it and think playing it solo is better than playing the video game though. I mean I get what you are saying but stating it as a CON is strange.
I agree completely and I wonder whethe the developers might have been in a catch-22 situation. Deviate too much from the video game mechancs and backers might have become annoyed that they were not getting a like-for-like in boardgame form. do an exact copy and there may have been similar complaints saying they didnt "enhance" or tailor the experience for the physical version. Personally I feel like they have found a fair balance between the two to encourage cross table conversations and play, but keeping to the core mechanics of the game (albeit with simplified numbers to make prevent the need for a calculator!) :)
Makes total sense to me. It is exactly why I never had any interest in the board game. Imagine a new version of a board game, lets take Dune Imperium Uprising as an example, was just straight up inferior to the original, and more expensive. Why would that NOT be a con?
Yeah. It's also not totally faithful, a lot of cards, relics, and enemies had to be adjusted to suit how the game operates. I think that's a good thing, especially given how health scaling is totally different. For example, Strike in the video game does 6 damage normally and 9 upgraded, that's been changed to 1 and 2 in the board game, so instead of 50% stronger an upgraded strike is 100% stronger. This makes choosing to upgrade your starting cards at Neow a more attractive option than removing them compared to the video game.
Like I said in the review, it's a con only if you plan to play mainly solo, and if you also have easy access to a digital version of the game and enjoying playing digital games.
Remember that the pro/mix/con thing is just my personal feelings about each point. What might be a pro for me might be a con for you and vice versa.
In this case, I will literally never choose to play this version of the game solo... so that's a con for my tastes!
When the kickstarter went out, I was like "eh, that's the same game, why would I bother...".
One year later, full of new board game experience, I came back to it (seeing there were a late pledge), and I was like "HOLY HECK that's the same game but in board game version, I NEED IT!".
In the end, I absolutely don't regret having that game, absolutely amazing. But it was funny to see how much my own taste changed over how it's faithful, so I can understand some people see it as a con while others see it as a pro.
Mike, not to be rude (no seriously) but please help me out here.
If a faithfully and almost identical adaption is a full on con, what would the creators had to change or implement to at least land on a neutral reception? What were your expectations or hopes for the adaption of the video game?
Honestly, I am flabbergasted at the harsh judgement here.
Harsh judgment? It's my #5 point, I said it applies specifically for me (someone who already owns and plays the video game) and applies specifically for solo play only, since co-op is amazing. This is one of my top games of the year. I think you are exaggerating the "harshness" of the point :)
@@OneStopCoopShopFirst of all, I never understood the # position as a weighted system, that would be my bad then.
Second, yes harsh because it is, to me, an oxymoron. The game intends to replicate the video game faithfully, archives it and gets scolded for it.
I understand you specifically apply it to solo. What would you have done different game designs wise for the solo mode?
@@Biodelic I mean I love how this game turned out. I wouldn't have done anything differently. But I still wouldn't play it solo again in this format. So I'm not saying they made a wrong decision or anything.
It's purely a con for solo play for me. If the way solo play was adapted is a mix or a pro for you, that's fine.
That's how my whole 5 in 5 format is supposed to work. The pro/con/mix thing isn't a "here's how everyone should feel" or "here's an objective, irrefutable judgment on this game's quality". It's just the gut feeling I have personally toward that aspect of the design.
Hope that clarifies things a bit!
@@OneStopCoopShopJust for clarification from my side, I don't own the game in any fom. Played the PC version once and it wasn't my cup of tea. So I have no skin in the game.
It just confused me, as your cons usually hit upon substantial flaws and failures on a game development / game mechanics level.
@@Biodelic then there you go, this point doesn't affect you at all, so yeah you can pretty much ignore it.
Interestingly, in our podcast review Peter mentioned that he didn't enjoy the digital version that much, and felt like he "understood" the game better playing it solo as a board game, so I think for him the adaptation was a full pro.
And yeah, my cons can go two ways. Sometimes they are just a preference thing, "this game feels super random, but dice chucking players will love it", and other times it's a fundamental flaw, like when the game is horribly balanced. Although even in that latter case sometimes it's because I suck at a game and it's still subjective :)