One thing to be aware of is that the "challenge level" shown on the planet boxes does not really indicate ease of winning a scenario. It indicates the amount and complexity rules/mechanisms deviation from the core game play. So, Wenora (level 1) has the fewest unique rules which is why it is suggested first so you get a solid introduction to the base game mechanisms before adding too many new/unique changes that occur on the higher challenge planets. It can be just as difficult to survive a Wenora (lvl 1) scenario as any other or you might be able to have a relatively easy time on a Yendraal (lvl 3) scenario. There will just be more unique and involved rules / mechanics for Yendraal.
I am glad to see that Tom rates it how he wants - it is refreshing to see that he continues his honesty about how he feels about games. He loves Vindication from the same company. I am glad this is a four-square review - as the majority rated 8.5+, it just shows it was a personal issue Tom had with the game.
After playing the game, yeah Tom is pretty spot on with everything from components to the restricted nature of the game. There's some great potential here, but you HAVE to do each planet in the specified way or you will lose and you can't win a planet first time out because you don't know what you need so the first attempt is basically a waste. And the breakthroughs and anomalies are cool but you don't have time to get many of those and they all require resources to activate them which again you don't have time to accumulate in any sufficient quantity as you have to spend them on objectives.
Mike did a terrific explanation of this game. These 4 Squares Reviews are some of my favorite content. Getting 4 points of view is such a solid way of reviewing games. Thank You !
It seems to me the problem for Tom in a large part had to do with playing a game essentially solo that’s best as a co-op with other players to be creative. The other guys all said they loved having another person to counter decisions and make possible going down a path they thought impossible. I wonder if just two players is enough or at what player count is optimal for this game. Really appreciate this review!
I actually wondered the same! Between him saying his favorite play was the live play and others saying how nice it is to have another person to solve the puzzle with I really think that impacted his rating.
Yes, I agree. O-Neb stated that the core principal in creating the game was to explore the concept of teamwork and team dynamics in a stressful environment. I think it is very likely to be a better experience multiplayer as opposed to playing multi-handed solo. It's about the group problem-solving dynamic and player interaction as much or more than a pure strategy game. Still can see even multiplayer why it might not be a game that works for what Tom is looking for from the game but don't think solo is the best way to experience the game.
@@nerzenjaeger I mean both can be true. The two points don’t have to be mutually exclusive. It’s completely fine that he didn’t like the game and gave some good reasons why he didn’t like it. I appreciate his thoughts, just saying I wonder if him playing mostly solo had an impact.
It highly depends on what you're used to. If you mostly solo games, I don't think this would be a problem, but if you enjoy more the brainstorming aspect of cooperation, solo might be lacking. And I say this as someone who played this solo only, but I have experience with similar games multiplayer too and yes, if you enjoy cooperation, this will lack something solo. But that being said if you're used to solo puzzle games, there's no problem here playing 2 characters. And with the question of "ideal playercount", there's not one per se. The tasks are done in a way that some of them are easier with more players, some are easier with fewer players. There's this delicate balance of number of actions per game per player and being able to cover more ground. Cause with more players, you cover more ground more "quickly" while not compromising your group, while splitting as 2 people might be very detrimental. But you get more turns, so you can compensate to an extend. The only limitation in the playercount I think is just your preference. More minds know more, but less minds can do more :)
a 4 squares review was perfect for a game with such a large point spread and i thought both tom and the others gave adequate information as to why they scored it the way they did.
This is such an excellent review guys. I know that many times everyone feels about the same way so it is harder to differentiate one’s opinion from one another. But, from a 5 to a 9 with the added depth of dialog, it was really fantastic. Fun video!
I really like the game and everything said is valid. Just want to point out that the pips or level on the side isnt the difficulty but how much the planets rules adjust the base game rules. Definitely enjoy this more as a cooperative game than a solo. Those moments of someone else thinking of something you didn't and watching the peices fall into place are great!
I didn't back this one and I still don't know if I should try to seek it out or not. Not as good solo is a bother as getting a regular group might be tricky. Though Mike I will say, if there is too much luck in a 2 hour game, that's a problem - i know you think 2 hours is short! :P
I’m usually not a solo gamer. However, I played my first game of Unsettled solo and LOVED it. The two handed puzzle with an enjoyable dialogue made for a great solo experience and one of my favorite games of the year so far. I still like it better as a 2 player game but I feel that way about most all games. You can pick this one up with confidence.
I agree 2 hours is about the max time I want to put into a game at one time. The sweetspot for me personally is about 1 hour. I don’t mind luck in a game if it is short enough, but the longer the game is the more frustrating it can McBean if you are beaten by luck and not poor decision making. I agree with Tom that I don’t want to be demoralized in a game. I play games for the fun of it and for me it should be challenging not punishing. For me although the theme is intriguing but based on the playthroughs and description I don’t think this would be my type of game. Thanks again guys for another entertaining review.
It's great. I've played it with 2 different groups and we had a blast. All want to play it again. The game looks as good as you expect from Orange Nebula and offers a good mix of puzzle solving and incidental storytelling. I don't necessarily need more ON games in my life, but Vindication and Unsettled both offer interesting and different challenges and are here to stay.
We played this Saturday for only the 3rd meetup I've been to since the pandemic. It's not really all that heavy, was surprised Mike mentioned that. It's not a light game by any means, but it was mostly easy to learn (I didn't get it, I had no interest in this till I played it), with a few odd quirks. I enjoyed it, and we won our game (barely, 1 more time tick and we'd have lost), but I don't regret not backing it. A game that I'd play again though.
Like the different takes. Playing this Wednesday. Perhaps they will add in an exploration mode variant later on similar to how journeys in the middle earth did.
I am waiting for ISS Vanguard to decide between that and this one. Really appreciate this review. I wonder if the difference does come down to Exploration v. Survival.
I have Unsettled and backed ISS as well. I think there are exploration and survival aspects in both. I feel the difference is that ISS is primarily a narrative driven campaign game and Unsettled is scenario based puzzle game with a light story / space setting. I do agree though that I think ISS will have a stronger "exploration" vibe and Unsettled definitely has a win/lose "survival" vibe.
Great review. Tom's perspective really answered my questions. The setting and reports of good writing was so appealing I was second guessing my instincts.
Good review here. I think people forget that by design reviews and ratings are a personal thing. Someone’s 5 vs someone else’s 9 is totally legitimate.
I wonder how this will compare to ISS Vanguard to you all when it comes out. Because I think the setting and puzzly gameplay, with the narrative on top allows the comparison.
I love to see reviews like that, where everybody give very personal point and explain why. So many times I’m a little scared of some payed reviews, but you are all so trustfull. Keep up the good work. Every time I talk to somebody I say “My guru in boardgames is a folk named Tom Vassel” but you fail me in that one. All aboard the Delisio train from now on 😜
I’m with Tom. I didn’t enjoy this much and 3/4 of us who played it at my game group were the same and none of those 3 wanted to play it again. It has that wading neck-high through treacle feeling where getting anything done is a tedious slog. It’s prioritised feeling despair over actual fun. My one difference with Tom is that I thought that vindication was the same. Not as bad, but I had the same tedious feeling
My game group didn't care much for Robinson Crusoe, another survival game, because of it's punishing nature. I actually like the theme of this game more, so I kind of wish it was less survival and more exploration. I suspect my game group would align more with Tom on this one, although I believe Tom likes Robinson Crusoe (although perhaps his tastes have changed), so it's hard to say.
I would love more reviewers to discuss true, legitimate staying power. I’m skeptical that I would want to return to any of the scenarios after winning them, even if there were random elements that change things up.
I have played several of the scenarios a couple times each, and I can say I have enjoyed them equally on repeated play. This is mostly due to the interactions with whom I am playing. Knowing the “trick” of the scenario does tend to make it somewhat easier, but not enough to impact gameplay. If you were only playing solo, or with the same gaming group, I could see this making replay of the same planet/scenario less engaging. But with 18 scenarios available (soon 15 more) this should not be a huge concern.
I really tried to like the game. I played it numerous times, some multiplayer, some solo 2-handed. It came down to the fact that I really like the theme and idea of the game, but I just can't get past the fact that while it is a puzzle, it is many times an unwinnable puzzle. And that's not because I am just bad at puzzles. I loved Shadowrun Crossfire for it's deep and engaging puzzle, and I won a fair amount of times in that game. But in this game, a lot of the time, if you don't get the right upgrade, if you don't get the right anomaly, if you don't get a good arrangement of planet tiles, or if you don't get good rolls on Luna's dice, it can mean that there literally is no way to win! You will run out of time due to dice rolls, or important planet tiles requiring too much extra time to move in and out of, etc. While I write that, I'm reminded about all the games I do like that include randomness in setup, dice rolls, etc. But in those, it just doesn't bother me as much for some reason, or the game isn't long enough to really make me care that it was unwinnable due to the setup or randomness. But there's something about this game where it feels more unfair or random than others for me personally. It's sad. I really looked forward to this game showing up, and I was excited to get it to the table, and even for the first half of the first game I was still enamored with the game. But by the end of the first game (which we won just barely on the last turn, by the way, so it wasn't like we lost and that jaded my thoughts), all of that excitement and joy had been stripped away. So I played through a couple planets, more missions, different playing partners, and it felt like it just sat there like a rock in my stomach. So I'm sad to see it go as I sell it, but I won't miss it at the same time. I still rated it a 6, which means I would play it if I was in the right mood, but I'd hope that there were other games being played that night so I could enjoy myself, or at least I'd hope that the people I play with could bring up the enjoyment level through jokes as we struggle through the game. (insert sad face, one tear emoji here).
I think waiting for the "right kind" of breakthrough, anomaly, etc. is the wrong way to play this game. Each time you get a breakthrough, you have to change the way you play to maximize your use of each benefit. You have to adapt: if you sit around waiting for the perfect thing to pop into your lap you will lose. If the map tiles are arranged in a difficult way, see how you can take an alternate route or use your abilities to take shortcuts. The different cards in each box are designed to help you solve the puzzle for each planet: it's not random! I've played a few times now, and every time we've lost we could trace back a few decisions we could have made differently and won. Sure there are card flips and die rolls, but I think there is less randomness than in, say, Pandemic, where you can literally have lost the game before you even begin.
@@cbazler I appreciate your view of the game, that you are able to find enjoyment in it. For me, though, I've played it enough to know that there are very specific anomalies or Keywords required to accomplish the tasks of the stories. If you don't get them from the Investigations right away, or have them already by the time they're required, it can mean a complete loss. Examples: 1. In one game, I found our one survivor stuck in a corner of the map that had been investigated out, and we had to wait for the other survivor who had the right keyword to make it to that side to complete an objective. 2. Another game, I had it where unless I'm pumping out charges to pay for ignoring time on card edges, there's no way to complete an objective before time runs out. 3. In still another game, the arrangement of planet cards had us all hit with distresses, morale lowered, and focus taken away on our first round. Not the best introduction to the mission. We won, but it was only because we happened to have the right hallucination, ship power, and upgrade to mix together to get the last person back. If even one of those hadn't been there, the last few turns were useless. Like I said, I know it's there in other games that I enjoy, even total randomness and yet I still have fun. Pandemic: The Cure is one of my top favorite games, and you want to talk about randomness? Yikes, it's terrible there, yet it doesn't bother me. I have fun with the randomness. This one hit me differently, and felt more "scripted" or had specific requirements I needed to meet in order to work out the puzzle. It just made it no fun for me, or any of the people I played with. And we won 1/2 to 3/4 of the games we played. I'm glad other people enjoy the game, there's a lot of great ideas and mechanisms involved that make it a unique experience that everyone should be able to try out. But it would not surprise me if this is the kind of game that is very divisive. You either love it, or you really don't care about playing it again (I won't say love it or hate it because I don't hate the game, I just have no desire to ever play it again). So, long story short? Have fun with Unsettled @C Bazler! I'll be over here having fun with something else, lol.
I don't know about Unsettled, but I like games that are difficult as long as it is fair. It's fun to keep playing a difficult and slowly learning the deeper parts of the game and getting better at it. It makes winning all that more rewarding.
This game sounds a little like the cooperative space game Far Away. I was curious if anyone had played both and had thoughts on comparison. Even the tongue in cheek theme they discuss is all over Far Away.
They have a pretty similar feel, especially if you're playing Unsettled with 2. I'd say the planets in Unsettled feel a little more hostile than Far Away. There are times in Far Away where I feel like we have things under control, that feeling is much less common in Unsettled. Unsettled has wider variety in mission objectives, but that means it can be harder to know what the right moves are from game to game. On the other hand, there is definitely more cooperation and table talk in Unsettled since it doesn't have the communication blackout mechanic that Far Away does. All that said, they do have a lot in common, I imagine most people who like one would like the other.
I suspect Zee might have rated it even lower than Tom. During the playthrough you could tell the game was bothering him. He was often asking "What do you want me to do? / Just tell me what to do."
The comments about “Level 1” “Level 2” planets: as the rules clearly state, the “level” of the planet is NOT difficulty as such. It is how far the planet changes the core framework rules. The puzzles in some case are simpler, but the variation in the rules is greater.
Great review. I really want to try this game. I totally get how tom feels as dune imperium feels that way to me. You do a little action on your turn to get a card or a spice and then sometimes you can’t even use the card for it’s use you have to use it to move to a space. Also the luck factor of the little card deck in di for such a tight/restrictive game is not a good feeling when you draw poorly (specifically combat cards). Saying that however and this being a coop game it wouldn’t bother me as much as we would all go down with the ship if luck didn’t go our way. I def wish you could explore in unsettled as I love games that do that. Vindication is my favorite game of all time so I’ve got some big hopes for this one.
So since they started a 2nd Kickstarter for this game with more content. Is it still worth getting, even though I already backed ISS Vanguard and Space Kraken? They look fairly similar in their theme and some mechanics.
I have 4 plays and Tom has a point, the 5 is lower then expected though. Its a very hard game and its often not your fault when you lose. I lost a level 2 play just the other day because the laboratory was placed to far away from an unknown location that was revealed half way through the level. Late game you need to go back and forth twice between those two locations. If they were close together, easy win, as they were distant, easy loss. I think how that might effect you is ultimately what you rate Unsettled. Journey vs destination, the game is fun to play, but you can play perfectly and lose. Edit- Just thinking again now, what if I demolished the laboratory and had another player rebuild it closer to the revealed destination. Expensive excersise, but so was trekking 3 people accross the board....hmmm.... So I guess while Tom has legitimate concerns, the others are spot on with the brilliance of this game, there is often an option to progress. Unsettled makes the table feel clever and you better be as its going to crush you most of the time.
I think the lends to the thought that playing solo increases your chances of not seeing a creative solution. Excellent idea to breakdown the lab and build it in a better spot. By yourself, you might never think of that.
I only have 5 plays under my belt, but often when it came down to needing to do the impossible with no time left, there was always a creative solution. I'm sure the won't be 100% but this game gives you the tools to do it. I'm pretty sure, like yourself, Tom missed those opportunities. And I believe the star rating isn't difficulty, it's complexity in regards to the rules. So a 5 star rating can be easier than a 2 star rating
@@christophermoore8524 I think Tom wasn't trying to be anything. If anything he was being nice to the publisher, and as Tom can do, understand a game may be good for others even though he didn't like it. Tom admitted he's sick of overly hard coop's, and in this era of boardgaming who can blame him?
@@atomiccritter6492 you can also be positive on a game for what you want it to be. I watched the winter spectacular where Zee and Tom brought it up and Zee agreed with Tom after the fact. I just think the Four Square reviews are a tad too tame.
This game was intended not to have an alpha gamer mindset like Tom. It was designed to have everyone bring something to the table and provide creativity. That’s how a team functions 😁
Tom gave this game a 5 and it got a seal of excellence. it only takes 1 of them to love it for it to get a seal. merchants cove was another recent-ish example.
Remember their Rating system is based on the highest rating given by a member of the dice tower whether the review is solo or a 4 squares review. 4 Squares is there to give some more points of view on a game. Which I really like, but doesn't change the fact that the highest rating will determine a seal of Approval/Excellence.
Between my game group and college game club, 60+ players all agree that board game companies that don’t account for game sleeves are the ones doing a disservice to customers. I think Tom sometimes forgets his viewer-base isn’t it his unique position of having a game library with hundreds of games. If you don’t sleeve, having a box with a little extra room is far less negative than buying a game, sleeving it and having it not fit in the box at all.
@@MattD007 don't think that's a problem as the members are supposed to contrast, presenting a variety of perspectives. imo they aren't different enough, where tom, zee and sam often were
@@gordo6908 Sam, Zee and Tom were a great trio because they were so contrasted. I also believe they were honest and called out bad games even if in their wheelhouse. I don't feel the same for Mike, Roy and company. They give a nice thorough playthrough and are candid about their thoughts, but their overall opinions are too cookie cutter. I think the panel has also gotten soft and apologize too much. We have Rahdo for that, and a whole bunch of KS wannabe reviewers like Tantrum House who never bad mouth a game. I like Dice Tower cause they can call a bad game a bad game, even if I disagree with them.
I didn't enjoy the game as well. We played 4 players and lots of time it was better for a player to "not to interfere with another player and thus do nothing on their turn" which is not so fun if you end up being the player doing nothing, so I definetly can not recommend this with 4. Also the luck in this game is not fun at all. If you have a certain random set up it is definetly possible to have lost the game before it started. I can see the appeal in this but I'm on Tom's side on this one
@@MythicosQc74 sorry, I wasn't trying to say it was a contradiction. Obviously he has a reason for liking one over the other. Personally watching the playthrough I wasn't really interested in this game anyway. Basically wondering if his changing view is retroactive and if not, what does Ghost Stories do better/different to become thing he enjoys? Either way is fine, just curious.
I normally hate punishing cooperative games, i.e. ghost stories etc. I bought this because I like ON and wanted to support them. I did not expect to like this game. I was wrong and Tom is wrong (haha) this is the best cooperative game I have ever played. I liked it so much I even tried playing it solo, which I never do. Check it out please.
Ultimately, I feel like a lot of his gripe is from playing solo. I've played this game a few times now, the difference I see is that it is easier to rush down the game at 2 players, but with 4 you can get the extra stuff done that really brings out the extra actions. I love the game, quite likely AT LEAST my top 5 for co-ops. I do not think I ever agree with Tom, he just seems like he likes very SPECIFIC games.
I feel like I agree that Tom's experience will be what I feel, I'm gonna pass for sure. Glad Tom explained himself rather just go with the group. "I think it's an 8.5 you should as well"????
It's a waste of space for pepole who don't sleeve cards. Yes, but I have had to cut open inserts to fit sleeved cards, made custom modifications for coin cased tokens and to fit expansions just to be able to protect the games I like and reach my goal to have to carry only one box to games. I guess when You work in a place where games pass through in such a high rate protection isn't the highest priority. I know I can't get another copy of my favourite games so I protect them as much as I can.
This game should've won the seal of excellence except for Tom's outlier review. Clearly Tom gone over to the dark side. Board Game Sith Lord: "Yes Tom, feel the rage build within you. Rage quit and flip the table...."
The game manual seriously annoyed me due to its shape. I actually enraged me. I figured I would read it and try to learn the game and ended up packing it away in disgust. I feel like the could have done everything they wanted with a normal shaped box but it seems like they decided form factor and user experience was less important than cool factor :-/
It doesn't punish you for exploring (in fact, you NEED to explore to find laboratories and discover anomalies that will help you win). The point is that you still need to focus primarily on the objectives, and time is very tight, so you have to explore in moderation.
Slightly confused by Tom's opinion. If you like Robinson Crusoe, this one gives way more breathing room, and while yes, dice thing is kinda off, unlike robinson you get guaranteed move and robot move per turn , so basically you do 4 things + rest not including research asset use, which is way more to have choices and stuff to do than 2 tokens per player we have in RC. I admire tom just says its not for me but its good but its hard to reconcile when RC is on good game list.
Reviews like this make me miss Miami Dice. You can almost predict scores based on a clear bias towards certain games. Space theme, yep Roy will likely enjoy it. Dry euro style game, yep, Chris will like it. Zee enjoys puzzle games and I've trusted his judgement of them over the years, especially seeing he can go against a bad puzzle game, why wasn't he doing this 4 Square? Maybe I haven't watched enough of them, although I've watched a bunch, but Mike, Chris and Roy agree far too often. Sam, Zee and Tom enjoyed different types of games and gave a more even review. It was fun to hear them disagree, and they did that often.
It blows my mind that games sabotage themselves by offering a suboptimal experience in a solo mode rather than offer the best experience possible. Advertise the solo mode as a lesser experience variant or not at all. Or develop an actual solo mode. Anything but what they actually did. The luck also sounds problematic though. Having some runs just be impossible to beat is straight bad design. However, I'm hearing in the comments that there are creative solutions to most of those kinds of situations, which only further condemns their solo implementation choice 'cause Tom couldn't have accounted for the different possible solutions on his own.
I agree completely that if a game promotes itself as a solo experience it should make every effort to make that experience as potent as the multiplayer. In the case of Unsettled though it was conceived completely as a multiplayer game and marketed as such. CAN you play multi handed solo? Totally. I've done it a bunch and have had a lot of fun, but it is very much a multiplayer game about collaboration and would never be marketed as a solo game - that was not its intent. :-)
RE: Tom - There is something wrong with reviewer culture if one of the most prolific and well-respected reviewers in the industry feels the need to hem and haw and fret and caveat for so long simply to rate a game a 5/10. Stick to your guns, my dude, and do it proudly. You gave the game your time and attention, and it didn't justify its worth. You don't owe the game or the audience any apologies. You think Richard Brody lost sleep when he gave Justice League a 1/10?
After watching the review it seems to me that Tom brought up some problems and the other three countered those problems with things that are in every other cooperative game ever. I guess this is an easy pass for me.
My favorite part of pandemic is searching for Anomalies and managing my focus cubes. Maybe we didn't explain all our points well enough, but there's plenty unique in this game that makes it very fun for us. And it's okay that it's not for everyone.
Just got it in and I can't tell you how horrible to box sizes and inserts are, you literally have to toss organizers to fit the sleeves they sold you, and really it's a very small game with a few hundred cards that was just.. designed as a physical product really poorly. Other than that, it's a quarterbacking in and out game, it's not fun, it doesn't let you play with it. It's not a good design. The rails it puts on tries to hide it by narrowing the scope. You don't have fun turns or interesting actions.. youte basically buying this for the theme and not the game.
It is very strange that Tom's argument is not used in the discussion about another big and grandious game, much longer and non-cooperative, which after good planning can kick you in the ass with two or three unlucky throws of dice ........ TI4
Tom uttered his first sentence in the Final Thought and I knew he didn't like it. I predicted he would rate it a 6, based solely on the tone of his voice. He is not good at masking how he feels.
@@thedicetower I do like a dramatic reveal! I am surprised Tom didn't like the game, but I thought you explained your thoughts well. There is definitely an issue with games giving a weird disconnect with them. I did't care for Legends of Andor for a similar reason.
Fantastic game, but the rulebook is hot garbage and does a terrible job of teaching mechanics. Most of our first game was spent with our heads buried in the rulebook throughout, and constantly having to try to hunt for rules exceptions in online forums that were not even mentioned in their "you probably don't want to read this addendum, because there is too much in it" FAQ/errata section that also didn't cover everything needed. And there are a lot of rules errors in the rulebook. The game system itself is great, and if you backed the Kickstarter you have 6 different planets, each with 3 different adventures. You could play it campaign style and progress through all 18 adventure tasks, but the game is not structured like a campaign, and you can pick any of the adventures up and play them at any time. Essentially what you're looking at is a highly produced Pandemic-style co-op, with 6 different thematic settings, each with different tiles, cards, etc., and each with 3 different gameplay variants, for a total of 18 different experiences. That's a lot of variable content in a package that can stand alongside the likes of Mindclash's and Chip Theory Games' output. Just work on a cleaner, clearer, more concise rulebook next time, fellas. Likely a 9/10 for me.
Great Review and great job explaining your rating Tom. Its good to see honest ratings from each persons perspective!
One thing to be aware of is that the "challenge level" shown on the planet boxes does not really indicate ease of winning a scenario. It indicates the amount and complexity rules/mechanisms deviation from the core game play. So, Wenora (level 1) has the fewest unique rules which is why it is suggested first so you get a solid introduction to the base game mechanisms before adding too many new/unique changes that occur on the higher challenge planets. It can be just as difficult to survive a Wenora (lvl 1) scenario as any other or you might be able to have a relatively easy time on a Yendraal (lvl 3) scenario. There will just be more unique and involved rules / mechanics for Yendraal.
I am glad to see that Tom rates it how he wants - it is refreshing to see that he continues his honesty about how he feels about games. He loves Vindication from the same company. I am glad this is a four-square review - as the majority rated 8.5+, it just shows it was a personal issue Tom had with the game.
Love Four Square reviews! Four opinions in one video. Saves me a lot of time. Thank you.
After playing the game, yeah Tom is pretty spot on with everything from components to the restricted nature of the game. There's some great potential here, but you HAVE to do each planet in the specified way or you will lose and you can't win a planet first time out because you don't know what you need so the first attempt is basically a waste.
And the breakthroughs and anomalies are cool but you don't have time to get many of those and they all require resources to activate them which again you don't have time to accumulate in any sufficient quantity as you have to spend them on objectives.
Great game, can't wait to see this brought up on the next Tom is wrong video.
Mike did a terrific explanation of this game. These 4 Squares Reviews are some of my favorite content. Getting 4 points of view is such a solid way of reviewing games. Thank You !
It seems to me the problem for Tom in a large part had to do with playing a game essentially solo that’s best as a co-op with other players to be creative. The other guys all said they loved having another person to counter decisions and make possible going down a path they thought impossible. I wonder if just two players is enough or at what player count is optimal for this game. Really appreciate this review!
I actually wondered the same! Between him saying his favorite play was the live play and others saying how nice it is to have another person to solve the puzzle with I really think that impacted his rating.
Yes, I agree. O-Neb stated that the core principal in creating the game was to explore the concept of teamwork and team dynamics in a stressful environment. I think it is very likely to be a better experience multiplayer as opposed to playing multi-handed solo. It's about the group problem-solving dynamic and player interaction as much or more than a pure strategy game. Still can see even multiplayer why it might not be a game that works for what Tom is looking for from the game but don't think solo is the best way to experience the game.
Of course the more logical conclusion is that the game is just not for him.
@@nerzenjaeger I mean both can be true. The two points don’t have to be mutually exclusive. It’s completely fine that he didn’t like the game and gave some good reasons why he didn’t like it. I appreciate his thoughts, just saying I wonder if him playing mostly solo had an impact.
It highly depends on what you're used to. If you mostly solo games, I don't think this would be a problem, but if you enjoy more the brainstorming aspect of cooperation, solo might be lacking. And I say this as someone who played this solo only, but I have experience with similar games multiplayer too and yes, if you enjoy cooperation, this will lack something solo. But that being said if you're used to solo puzzle games, there's no problem here playing 2 characters.
And with the question of "ideal playercount", there's not one per se. The tasks are done in a way that some of them are easier with more players, some are easier with fewer players. There's this delicate balance of number of actions per game per player and being able to cover more ground. Cause with more players, you cover more ground more "quickly" while not compromising your group, while splitting as 2 people might be very detrimental. But you get more turns, so you can compensate to an extend. The only limitation in the playercount I think is just your preference. More minds know more, but less minds can do more :)
a 4 squares review was perfect for a game with such a large point spread and i thought both tom and the others gave adequate information as to why they scored it the way they did.
Absolutely love this game, the theme and production are awesome and this is my favorite coop puzzle game at the moment.
This is such an excellent review guys. I know that many times everyone feels about the same way so it is harder to differentiate one’s opinion from one another.
But, from a 5 to a 9 with the added depth of dialog, it was really fantastic. Fun video!
I really like the game and everything said is valid. Just want to point out that the pips or level on the side isnt the difficulty but how much the planets rules adjust the base game rules.
Definitely enjoy this more as a cooperative game than a solo. Those moments of someone else thinking of something you didn't and watching the peices fall into place are great!
I didn't back this one and I still don't know if I should try to seek it out or not. Not as good solo is a bother as getting a regular group might be tricky. Though Mike I will say, if there is too much luck in a 2 hour game, that's a problem - i know you think 2 hours is short! :P
I’m usually not a solo gamer. However, I played my first game of Unsettled solo and LOVED it. The two handed puzzle with an enjoyable dialogue made for a great solo experience and one of my favorite games of the year so far. I still like it better as a 2 player game but I feel that way about most all games. You can pick this one up with confidence.
I agree 2 hours is about the max time I want to put into a game at one time. The sweetspot for me personally is about 1 hour. I don’t mind luck in a game if it is short enough, but the longer the game is the more frustrating it can McBean if you are beaten by luck and not poor decision making. I agree with Tom that I don’t want to be demoralized in a game. I play games for the fun of it and for me it should be challenging not punishing. For me although the theme is intriguing but based on the playthroughs and description I don’t think this would be my type of game. Thanks again guys for another entertaining review.
It's great. I've played it with 2 different groups and we had a blast. All want to play it again. The game looks as good as you expect from Orange Nebula and offers a good mix of puzzle solving and incidental storytelling. I don't necessarily need more ON games in my life, but Vindication and Unsettled both offer interesting and different challenges and are here to stay.
Great job on the overview, Mike! I enjoy your explanations. Also, really enjoying your podcast with Dan, Sporadically Board.
We played this Saturday for only the 3rd meetup I've been to since the pandemic. It's not really all that heavy, was surprised Mike mentioned that. It's not a light game by any means, but it was mostly easy to learn (I didn't get it, I had no interest in this till I played it), with a few odd quirks.
I enjoyed it, and we won our game (barely, 1 more time tick and we'd have lost), but I don't regret not backing it. A game that I'd play again though.
Like the different takes. Playing this Wednesday. Perhaps they will add in an exploration mode variant later on similar to how journeys in the middle earth did.
I am waiting for ISS Vanguard to decide between that and this one. Really appreciate this review. I wonder if the difference does come down to Exploration v. Survival.
I have Unsettled and backed ISS as well. I think there are exploration and survival aspects in both. I feel the difference is that ISS is primarily a narrative driven campaign game and Unsettled is scenario based puzzle game with a light story / space setting.
I do agree though that I think ISS will have a stronger "exploration" vibe and Unsettled definitely has a win/lose "survival" vibe.
Great review. Tom's perspective really answered my questions. The setting and reports of good writing was so appealing I was second guessing my instincts.
Good review here. I think people forget that by design reviews and ratings are a personal thing. Someone’s 5 vs someone else’s 9 is totally legitimate.
I wonder how this will compare to ISS Vanguard to you all when it comes out. Because I think the setting and puzzly gameplay, with the narrative on top allows the comparison.
I love to see reviews like that, where everybody give very personal point and explain why. So many times I’m a little scared of some payed reviews, but you are all so trustfull. Keep up the good work.
Every time I talk to somebody I say “My guru in boardgames is a folk named Tom Vassel” but you fail me in that one. All aboard the Delisio train from now on 😜
I’m with Tom. I didn’t enjoy this much and 3/4 of us who played it at my game group were the same and none of those 3 wanted to play it again. It has that wading neck-high through treacle feeling where getting anything done is a tedious slog. It’s prioritised feeling despair over actual fun.
My one difference with Tom is that I thought that vindication was the same. Not as bad, but I had the same tedious feeling
My game group didn't care much for Robinson Crusoe, another survival game, because of it's punishing nature. I actually like the theme of this game more, so I kind of wish it was less survival and more exploration. I suspect my game group would align more with Tom on this one, although I believe Tom likes Robinson Crusoe (although perhaps his tastes have changed), so it's hard to say.
So happy this was a 4 squares review to see the balance of opinions.
I would love more reviewers to discuss true, legitimate staying power. I’m skeptical that I would want to return to any of the scenarios after winning them, even if there were random elements that change things up.
I have played several of the scenarios a couple times each, and I can say I have enjoyed them equally on repeated play. This is mostly due to the interactions with whom I am playing. Knowing the “trick” of the scenario does tend to make it somewhat easier, but not enough to impact gameplay. If you were only playing solo, or with the same gaming group, I could see this making replay of the same planet/scenario less engaging. But with 18 scenarios available (soon 15 more) this should not be a huge concern.
I really tried to like the game. I played it numerous times, some multiplayer, some solo 2-handed. It came down to the fact that I really like the theme and idea of the game, but I just can't get past the fact that while it is a puzzle, it is many times an unwinnable puzzle. And that's not because I am just bad at puzzles. I loved Shadowrun Crossfire for it's deep and engaging puzzle, and I won a fair amount of times in that game. But in this game, a lot of the time, if you don't get the right upgrade, if you don't get the right anomaly, if you don't get a good arrangement of planet tiles, or if you don't get good rolls on Luna's dice, it can mean that there literally is no way to win! You will run out of time due to dice rolls, or important planet tiles requiring too much extra time to move in and out of, etc.
While I write that, I'm reminded about all the games I do like that include randomness in setup, dice rolls, etc. But in those, it just doesn't bother me as much for some reason, or the game isn't long enough to really make me care that it was unwinnable due to the setup or randomness. But there's something about this game where it feels more unfair or random than others for me personally. It's sad. I really looked forward to this game showing up, and I was excited to get it to the table, and even for the first half of the first game I was still enamored with the game. But by the end of the first game (which we won just barely on the last turn, by the way, so it wasn't like we lost and that jaded my thoughts), all of that excitement and joy had been stripped away. So I played through a couple planets, more missions, different playing partners, and it felt like it just sat there like a rock in my stomach. So I'm sad to see it go as I sell it, but I won't miss it at the same time. I still rated it a 6, which means I would play it if I was in the right mood, but I'd hope that there were other games being played that night so I could enjoy myself, or at least I'd hope that the people I play with could bring up the enjoyment level through jokes as we struggle through the game. (insert sad face, one tear emoji here).
I think waiting for the "right kind" of breakthrough, anomaly, etc. is the wrong way to play this game. Each time you get a breakthrough, you have to change the way you play to maximize your use of each benefit. You have to adapt: if you sit around waiting for the perfect thing to pop into your lap you will lose. If the map tiles are arranged in a difficult way, see how you can take an alternate route or use your abilities to take shortcuts. The different cards in each box are designed to help you solve the puzzle for each planet: it's not random!
I've played a few times now, and every time we've lost we could trace back a few decisions we could have made differently and won. Sure there are card flips and die rolls, but I think there is less randomness than in, say, Pandemic, where you can literally have lost the game before you even begin.
@@cbazler I appreciate your view of the game, that you are able to find enjoyment in it. For me, though, I've played it enough to know that there are very specific anomalies or Keywords required to accomplish the tasks of the stories. If you don't get them from the Investigations right away, or have them already by the time they're required, it can mean a complete loss.
Examples:
1. In one game, I found our one survivor stuck in a corner of the map that had been investigated out, and we had to wait for the other survivor who had the right keyword to make it to that side to complete an objective.
2. Another game, I had it where unless I'm pumping out charges to pay for ignoring time on card edges, there's no way to complete an objective before time runs out.
3. In still another game, the arrangement of planet cards had us all hit with distresses, morale lowered, and focus taken away on our first round. Not the best introduction to the mission. We won, but it was only because we happened to have the right hallucination, ship power, and upgrade to mix together to get the last person back. If even one of those hadn't been there, the last few turns were useless.
Like I said, I know it's there in other games that I enjoy, even total randomness and yet I still have fun. Pandemic: The Cure is one of my top favorite games, and you want to talk about randomness? Yikes, it's terrible there, yet it doesn't bother me. I have fun with the randomness. This one hit me differently, and felt more "scripted" or had specific requirements I needed to meet in order to work out the puzzle. It just made it no fun for me, or any of the people I played with. And we won 1/2 to 3/4 of the games we played.
I'm glad other people enjoy the game, there's a lot of great ideas and mechanisms involved that make it a unique experience that everyone should be able to try out. But it would not surprise me if this is the kind of game that is very divisive. You either love it, or you really don't care about playing it again (I won't say love it or hate it because I don't hate the game, I just have no desire to ever play it again).
So, long story short? Have fun with Unsettled @C Bazler! I'll be over here having fun with something else, lol.
I'm interested if Tom's only multiplayer game was the one he enjoyed the most.
I don't know about Unsettled, but I like games that are difficult as long as it is fair. It's fun to keep playing a difficult and slowly learning the deeper parts of the game and getting better at it. It makes winning all that more rewarding.
@Mike Do you still plan on reviewing each planet? Looking forward to those if it is still in the works.
1:03 - Zee makes an appearance in Tom's place 😊😊😊
Yeah a small editing error from the oltree review yeah?
This is a nice engaging conversation. It is good when they disagree a bit and debate things more intensely.
This game sounds a little like the cooperative space game Far Away. I was curious if anyone had played both and had thoughts on comparison. Even the tongue in cheek theme they discuss is all over Far Away.
They have a pretty similar feel, especially if you're playing Unsettled with 2. I'd say the planets in Unsettled feel a little more hostile than Far Away. There are times in Far Away where I feel like we have things under control, that feeling is much less common in Unsettled. Unsettled has wider variety in mission objectives, but that means it can be harder to know what the right moves are from game to game. On the other hand, there is definitely more cooperation and table talk in Unsettled since it doesn't have the communication blackout mechanic that Far Away does. All that said, they do have a lot in common, I imagine most people who like one would like the other.
This was a fantastic video, thank you! Curious what Zee's thoughts are (although he may have only played that one game).
I suspect Zee might have rated it even lower than Tom. During the playthrough you could tell the game was bothering him. He was often asking "What do you want me to do? / Just tell me what to do."
oltree trying to sneak in there for a second there!
The comments about “Level 1” “Level 2” planets: as the rules clearly state, the “level” of the planet is NOT difficulty as such. It is how far the planet changes the core framework rules. The puzzles in some case are simpler, but the variation in the rules is greater.
I'm glad it was a 4 squares review
Great review. I really want to try this game. I totally get how tom feels as dune imperium feels that way to me. You do a little action on your turn to get a card or a spice and then sometimes you can’t even use the card for it’s use you have to use it to move to a space. Also the luck factor of the little card deck in di for such a tight/restrictive game is not a good feeling when you draw poorly (specifically combat cards). Saying that however and this being a coop game it wouldn’t bother me as much as we would all go down with the ship if luck didn’t go our way. I def wish you could explore in unsettled as I love games that do that. Vindication is my favorite game of all time so I’ve got some big hopes for this one.
So since they started a 2nd Kickstarter for this game with more content. Is it still worth getting, even though I already backed ISS Vanguard and Space Kraken? They look fairly similar in their theme and some mechanics.
I have 4 plays and Tom has a point, the 5 is lower then expected though. Its a very hard game and its often not your fault when you lose. I lost a level 2 play just the other day because the laboratory was placed to far away from an unknown location that was revealed half way through the level. Late game you need to go back and forth twice between those two locations. If they were close together, easy win, as they were distant, easy loss.
I think how that might effect you is ultimately what you rate Unsettled. Journey vs destination, the game is fun to play, but you can play perfectly and lose.
Edit- Just thinking again now, what if I demolished the laboratory and had another player rebuild it closer to the revealed destination. Expensive excersise, but so was trekking 3 people accross the board....hmmm.... So I guess while Tom has legitimate concerns, the others are spot on with the brilliance of this game, there is often an option to progress. Unsettled makes the table feel clever and you better be as its going to crush you most of the time.
I think the lends to the thought that playing solo increases your chances of not seeing a creative solution. Excellent idea to breakdown the lab and build it in a better spot. By yourself, you might never think of that.
I only have 5 plays under my belt, but often when it came down to needing to do the impossible with no time left, there was always a creative solution. I'm sure the won't be 100% but this game gives you the tools to do it.
I'm pretty sure, like yourself, Tom missed those opportunities.
And I believe the star rating isn't difficulty, it's complexity in regards to the rules. So a 5 star rating can be easier than a 2 star rating
Thanks for the review ! Will this be available on retail ?
Basically nothing ONeb has produced has been available at retail, and (several years later) there is no sign of that changing.
As good as it sounds I hate games where I spend over an hour playing and then three consecutive bad dice rolls makes it impossible to win.
That really only happens if you're playing poorly. (I suspect Tom may have been playing poorly)
Don't just look at Tom's number, make sure you are listening to what he is saying.
Yep, it's a 5, that's what I got after hearing everything.
Out of these four reviewers (plus Zee), my tastes line up least with Tom. When he's being a contrarian, I'm even less likely to agree with him.
@@christophermoore8524 I think Tom wasn't trying to be anything. If anything he was being nice to the publisher, and as Tom can do, understand a game may be good for others even though he didn't like it.
Tom admitted he's sick of overly hard coop's, and in this era of boardgaming who can blame him?
@@MattD007 but thats like criticising a game for what you want it to be rather than what it is
@@atomiccritter6492 you can also be positive on a game for what you want it to be. I watched the winter spectacular where Zee and Tom brought it up and Zee agreed with Tom after the fact. I just think the Four Square reviews are a tad too tame.
Mike, in the rules and setup I thought you said "Arrakis, the dessert planet" at first... I yelled trademarked.
I think I saw Oltree for a split second (ala subliminal advertising) before Mike's game overview.
I might missed it, but how's the replayability?
Wow! Tom's clothes matches the box))
Great Review :)
Only 2 actions and always feel like catching up... like in Mansions of Madness 2ed?
Sounds like this is 7th Continent and Tom wants 7th Citadel. What are other games that encourage exploration and are less survival?
Honestly it plays more like pandemic with flavor text.
This game was intended not to have an alpha gamer mindset like Tom. It was designed to have everyone bring something to the table and provide creativity. That’s how a team functions 😁
When you do a Four Squares review, do you do the average of all 4 scorings for the Dice Tower Approved/Excellent logo companies can put on their box?
Top review is always the seal. There have been 3 6s and an 8.5 and an excellence seal given
Tom gave this game a 5 and it got a seal of excellence.
it only takes 1 of them to love it for it to get a seal. merchants cove was another recent-ish example.
Remember their Rating system is based on the highest rating given by a member of the dice tower whether the review is solo or a 4 squares review. 4 Squares is there to give some more points of view on a game. Which I really like, but doesn't change the fact that the highest rating will determine a seal of Approval/Excellence.
Between my game group and college game club, 60+ players all agree that board game companies that don’t account for game sleeves are the ones doing a disservice to customers. I think Tom sometimes forgets his viewer-base isn’t it his unique position of having a game library with hundreds of games. If you don’t sleeve, having a box with a little extra room is far less negative than buying a game, sleeving it and having it not fit in the box at all.
Hello
They should say "I give a 10 to mitigate Toms 5" :D
00:36 i’m instantly predicting it’s an 8 or higher for Roy then!
That's the issue for these 4 Square reviews. Some of the panel likes certain games to a fault in my opinion.
@@MattD007 don't think that's a problem as the members are supposed to contrast, presenting a variety of perspectives. imo they aren't different enough, where tom, zee and sam often were
@@gordo6908 Sam, Zee and Tom were a great trio because they were so contrasted. I also believe they were honest and called out bad games even if in their wheelhouse.
I don't feel the same for Mike, Roy and company. They give a nice thorough playthrough and are candid about their thoughts, but their overall opinions are too cookie cutter.
I think the panel has also gotten soft and apologize too much. We have Rahdo for that, and a whole bunch of KS wannabe reviewers like Tantrum House who never bad mouth a game. I like Dice Tower cause they can call a bad game a bad game, even if I disagree with them.
@@gordo6908 Dice Tower ironically needs a lass gamer type of gamer in the mix - dont know how they could pull that off though
I didn't enjoy the game as well. We played 4 players and lots of time it was better for a player to "not to interfere with another player and thus do nothing on their turn" which is not so fun if you end up being the player doing nothing, so I definetly can not recommend this with 4.
Also the luck in this game is not fun at all. If you have a certain random set up it is definetly possible to have lost the game before it started.
I can see the appeal in this but I'm on Tom's side on this one
We played it with 2 so far and it was an amazing experience 🤩 I could see the downtime being a bummer sometimes with 4 players, but we'll see 😅
Helpful to know. Thanks!
Isn't Ghost Stories a ridiculously hard coop puzzle that Tom loves? I'd like to understand the difference between the two for him.
Ghost Stories is 12 years old. Tom is getting tired of ridiculously hard puzzle coop games. I don't see the contradiction.
@@MythicosQc74 sorry, I wasn't trying to say it was a contradiction. Obviously he has a reason for liking one over the other. Personally watching the playthrough I wasn't really interested in this game anyway.
Basically wondering if his changing view is retroactive and if not, what does Ghost Stories do better/different to become thing he enjoys? Either way is fine, just curious.
@@keel1701 Ghost Stories is a lighthearted game that doesn't take 2h. I think this is the main reason.
I normally hate punishing cooperative games, i.e. ghost stories etc. I bought this because I like ON and wanted to support them. I did not expect to like this game. I was wrong and Tom is wrong (haha) this is the best cooperative game I have ever played. I liked it so much I even tried playing it solo, which I never do. Check it out please.
I remember passing on backing this Kickstarter. Kicking myself for it now.
Great review. Love to see the contrast in the group. But this is clearly fuel for the next Tom is wrong video. I have played it and Tom is very wrong.
Ultimately, I feel like a lot of his gripe is from playing solo. I've played this game a few times now, the difference I see is that it is easier to rush down the game at 2 players, but with 4 you can get the extra stuff done that really brings out the extra actions. I love the game, quite likely AT LEAST my top 5 for co-ops.
I do not think I ever agree with Tom, he just seems like he likes very SPECIFIC games.
Nobody’s opinion is wrong. If you don’t want opinions that may differ from yours, don’t come to an opinion channel
@@ESCTom Tom is wrong is a video they do on this channel where the opinion of Tom being wrong is the point. Not every game is for every person.
@@ESCTom of course opinions can be wrong...
how language dependent is this? does it require tons of reading?
I want a stranger things s2 style of subbterra themed planet , for this game!! Reel bad!
1:02 Chris... what was that?
Man, wish Zee was here too
I feel like I agree that Tom's experience will be what I feel, I'm gonna pass for sure. Glad Tom explained himself rather just go with the group. "I think it's an 8.5 you should as well"????
Grakkis the desert planet...aka Arrakis...
That Oltréé easter egg
32:59 let that sink in Roy.
ooh. Secret frames...
Before watching: Fantastic, but they’ll probably give it like a 5 or something.
Tom Vasel: I’m going to give this a 5…
It's a waste of space for pepole who don't sleeve cards. Yes, but I have had to cut open inserts to fit sleeved cards, made custom modifications for coin cased tokens and to fit expansions just to be able to protect the games I like and reach my goal to have to carry only one box to games. I guess when You work in a place where games pass through in such a high rate protection isn't the highest priority. I know I can't get another copy of my favourite games so I protect them as much as I can.
This game should've won the seal of excellence except for Tom's outlier review. Clearly Tom gone over to the dark side.
Board Game Sith Lord: "Yes Tom, feel the rage build within you. Rage quit and flip the table...."
My review doesn't have anything to do with a seal of excellence or not. Any reviewer on the Dice Tower can give out that seal.
@@thedicetower I stand corrected! I mean no offence Tom, just ribbing. :)
The game manual seriously annoyed me due to its shape. I actually enraged me. I figured I would read it and try to learn the game and ended up packing it away in disgust. I feel like the could have done everything they wanted with a normal shaped box but it seems like they decided form factor and user experience was less important than cool factor :-/
I think the word Mike is looking for is "Sardonic."
Yeah, that’s a great word for the writing in this. Thanks!
@@michaeldilisio557 Thanks for your excellent-as-always overview and review 👍
Having a game allow for exploration, but punishing you for exploring, seems like kind of a waste.
It doesn't punish you for exploring (in fact, you NEED to explore to find laboratories and discover anomalies that will help you win). The point is that you still need to focus primarily on the objectives, and time is very tight, so you have to explore in moderation.
It's more interesting when exploring is not some automatic thing you should always be doing. You have to think if you can/need to explore.
Brain esplode...but thanks!
Slightly confused by Tom's opinion. If you like Robinson Crusoe, this one gives way more breathing room, and while yes, dice thing is kinda off, unlike robinson you get guaranteed move and robot move per turn , so basically you do 4 things + rest not including research asset use, which is way more to have choices and stuff to do than 2 tokens per player we have in RC. I admire tom just says its not for me but its good but its hard to reconcile when RC is on good game list.
Ah, but I've really cooled on RC over the last few years, so it makes more sense.
Reviews like this make me miss Miami Dice. You can almost predict scores based on a clear bias towards certain games. Space theme, yep Roy will likely enjoy it. Dry euro style game, yep, Chris will like it.
Zee enjoys puzzle games and I've trusted his judgement of them over the years, especially seeing he can go against a bad puzzle game, why wasn't he doing this 4 Square?
Maybe I haven't watched enough of them, although I've watched a bunch, but Mike, Chris and Roy agree far too often. Sam, Zee and Tom enjoyed different types of games and gave a more even review. It was fun to hear them disagree, and they did that often.
It blows my mind that games sabotage themselves by offering a suboptimal experience in a solo mode rather than offer the best experience possible. Advertise the solo mode as a lesser experience variant or not at all. Or develop an actual solo mode. Anything but what they actually did.
The luck also sounds problematic though. Having some runs just be impossible to beat is straight bad design. However, I'm hearing in the comments that there are creative solutions to most of those kinds of situations, which only further condemns their solo implementation choice 'cause Tom couldn't have accounted for the different possible solutions on his own.
I agree completely that if a game promotes itself as a solo experience it should make every effort to make that experience as potent as the multiplayer. In the case of Unsettled though it was conceived completely as a multiplayer game and marketed as such. CAN you play multi handed solo? Totally. I've done it a bunch and have had a lot of fun, but it is very much a multiplayer game about collaboration and would never be marketed as a solo game - that was not its intent. :-)
@@bigtomcasual So you're saying Unsettled doesn't officially support solo? In that case Tom shouldn't have reviewed the game at all.
@@corvus418 Tom didn’t play the game solo exclusively. He played it multiplayer on one of our live streams.
It's a wonder why Tom likes Ghost Stories.
Unfortunately - Tom is right, on most accounts.
Am I the only one feeling that the lighting is inadequate on set? (During the top view not the game explanations)
RE: Tom - There is something wrong with reviewer culture if one of the most prolific and well-respected reviewers in the industry feels the need to hem and haw and fret and caveat for so long simply to rate a game a 5/10. Stick to your guns, my dude, and do it proudly. You gave the game your time and attention, and it didn't justify its worth. You don't owe the game or the audience any apologies.
You think Richard Brody lost sleep when he gave Justice League a 1/10?
After watching the review it seems to me that Tom brought up some problems and the other three countered those problems with things that are in every other cooperative game ever. I guess this is an easy pass for me.
My favorite part of pandemic is searching for Anomalies and managing my focus cubes.
Maybe we didn't explain all our points well enough, but there's plenty unique in this game that makes it very fun for us. And it's okay that it's not for everyone.
Just got it in and I can't tell you how horrible to box sizes and inserts are, you literally have to toss organizers to fit the sleeves they sold you, and really it's a very small game with a few hundred cards that was just.. designed as a physical product really poorly.
Other than that, it's a quarterbacking in and out game, it's not fun, it doesn't let you play with it. It's not a good design. The rails it puts on tries to hide it by narrowing the scope. You don't have fun turns or interesting actions.. youte basically buying this for the theme and not the game.
It is very strange that Tom's argument is not used in the discussion about another big and grandious game, much longer and non-cooperative, which after good planning can kick you in the ass with two or three unlucky throws of dice ........ TI4
Tom uttered his first sentence in the Final Thought and I knew he didn't like it. I predicted he would rate it a 6, based solely on the tone of his voice.
He is not good at masking how he feels.
Or possibly I don't try to in a review. Why would you hide it other than for dramatic effect?
@@thedicetower I do like a dramatic reveal!
I am surprised Tom didn't like the game, but I thought you explained your thoughts well.
There is definitely an issue with games giving a weird disconnect with them. I did't care for Legends of Andor for a similar reason.
Fantastic game, but the rulebook is hot garbage and does a terrible job of teaching mechanics. Most of our first game was spent with our heads buried in the rulebook throughout, and constantly having to try to hunt for rules exceptions in online forums that were not even mentioned in their "you probably don't want to read this addendum, because there is too much in it" FAQ/errata section that also didn't cover everything needed. And there are a lot of rules errors in the rulebook. The game system itself is great, and if you backed the Kickstarter you have 6 different planets, each with 3 different adventures. You could play it campaign style and progress through all 18 adventure tasks, but the game is not structured like a campaign, and you can pick any of the adventures up and play them at any time. Essentially what you're looking at is a highly produced Pandemic-style co-op, with 6 different thematic settings, each with different tiles, cards, etc., and each with 3 different gameplay variants, for a total of 18 different experiences. That's a lot of variable content in a package that can stand alongside the likes of Mindclash's and Chip Theory Games' output. Just work on a cleaner, clearer, more concise rulebook next time, fellas. Likely a 9/10 for me.
Why is this still called "the four squares" ? Where are the squares? 🤭
I knew this one was a dud.
A terrible name for the game. I would call it Space Survival
To me, this shows how much of an alpha, alone gamer Tom is. And if the game doesn’t fit what he expected, it is a failure of a game.
I guess you pegged me. I don't think this game is a failure, just not what I'm looking for.