I think all of those leaves in earth are all notating points but it is confusing. The one on the back of cards is reminding you that you get one point per composted card. The one that holds the sprout is saying you get 1 point per sprout. Still confusing why they would choose to do it that way but the icon does only mean one thing: points
Yeah, but even that argument starts to fall apart when it comes to the sprouts--those sprout leaf icons on the cards themselves aren't worth points. Only the cubes once placed, are worth points. (So it's almost backwards, in how placing a cube actually covers up points showing on the card... ) I totally get what they were trying to do, but man... I just feel like it could be done in a way that's less confusing... and I'm surprised it didn't come up in playtesting.
Most games have major flaws. My family has had made house rules for decades. In splendor for example, we play with all the chips at every player count, this speeds up the game without changing the probabilities. In Five Crowns we play allowing all suits to make up runs. This tightens up the points scoring and engages the players more.
Awesome vid. I do really like Earth - mostly for the dopamine rush during play 😂. Fair criticisms though. I would LOVE to see more videos like this. Great work. 👍
Thanks as always for the kind words! I think it was some of your previous comments that motivated me to make this video. 🙂 I've definitely got more tips and closer looks at my own designs (for better or worse) planned, so stay tuned! 😎
A bit repetitive but interesting. Concerning earth they want to differentiate between sprout spots (capacity) and actual sprouts. The thing that really comfused us was the vp from growth spot icon. THAT was a bad design choice and the growth capacity icon.
OMG--don't get me started on the growth spot!! (I was thinking about talking about that too, but figured it'd be too much). To this day I'll find myself mid-way through a game like, "whoops--I mixed up those two values again" 😫) Apologies for the repetitiveness--I only realized it in edit after adding in the flashbacks. 😓 Appreciate that you stuck through it regardless. 😎
5:30 Sleeping Gods comes to mind: small coin and large coin but no info whatsoever how much small coin equals a large coin. It was 3:1 according to an obscure note online but WTF are the coins shaped as pentagons then! And aside from me, everyone just swallows this without any mention.
I find the game Earth not only graphically unintuitive, but also mechanically. Every game must be understandable, if not there is a critical error and the game should not be published. This includes: a well written rule book, colorblindness options and a good graphic artist who will make understandable icons. If I can't understand, I can't play it
Yes, in fact I made a 2-part video on how I design cards for my prototypes. 😊 I talk about the softwares (freeware) I prefer in part 2, here: ruclips.net/video/wouwyk0QITA/видео.html
Yeah, unfortunately I kind of realized the same thing after adding the flashbacks in edit (since I filmed this video on its own, I didn't realize the repetitiveness unit afterwards.)--my bad. 😓 But thank you for the kind words and sticking through it regardless!--That means a lot! 🥰 I'm glad you found it interesting and are interested in seeing more--I was really worried it might come across as me "bashing on games"...
I feel sorry for people who bought a game with these problems, that make a game so much worse when playing with new players, which is, like, 90% of the time.
Bold of you to tackle two pretty popular games here, but I appreciate your insights. I work in UX design, and these are some pretty basic principles in that field, or least for visual design. I can't think of a reason why these games would go through with these final choices other than crunch or budget. Having a consistent visual style may have been their goal, but it’s a little too consistent if you ask me. Regarding Mosaic, I think the "show 5 fish" works well enough, but it would be better if it showed the same food type as the one-value food to keep things consistent. Otherwise, me seeing fish makes me think they're a different resource when they're in that number, and for some reason they're only attainable in 5s. Of course, you want people to know they can fish for food, though, but the port token could add that thematic element and be explained in the rules. Plus "I go fishing and get 3 wheat" sounds kinda funny, so it may be worth it.
I think the criticism he gave was fair. This is regardless of supposed popularity of these games (Earth: Rank 190 and dropping on BGG) (Mosaic: Rank 708 and dropping on BGG)
I agree that the criticism was fair. I'm sorry if I implied that it wasn't. Regardless of their BGG rating, they are still commonly talked about, at least in my circles. Popularity also isn't the same as quality, too. Higher ratings don't always correspond with what's "hot."
Totally. I see why they wanted different food icons to represent different locations and therefore food types/opportunities. But the inconsistency of whether an icon ALSO implies a quantity is really biting it here... I agree crunch was probably a big culprit. Thanks for the kind words! :)
I really didn't enjoy Earth when I played it, the cognitive load was immense and this exacerbated by the iconography and subtle the colour coding very difficult to cut through.
@@BoardGameCasualChannel me too thanks for putting this vid together, it actually didn’t occur to me while I was playing it this issue, designing some games atm and this really is good food for thought.
Interesting video! But- how dare you challenge the gods of publishing! Think of the millions of dollars and billions of hours spent on creating, play testing,- and publishing this game and you dare to find fault with these masterpieces of genius! Or, are you saying that published games aren’t always perfect? 😂
I think all of those leaves in earth are all notating points but it is confusing. The one on the back of cards is reminding you that you get one point per composted card. The one that holds the sprout is saying you get 1 point per sprout. Still confusing why they would choose to do it that way but the icon does only mean one thing: points
Yeah, but even that argument starts to fall apart when it comes to the sprouts--those sprout leaf icons on the cards themselves aren't worth points. Only the cubes once placed, are worth points. (So it's almost backwards, in how placing a cube actually covers up points showing on the card... )
I totally get what they were trying to do, but man... I just feel like it could be done in a way that's less confusing... and I'm surprised it didn't come up in playtesting.
Most games have major flaws. My family has had made house rules for decades. In splendor for example, we play with all the chips at every player count, this speeds up the game without changing the probabilities. In Five Crowns we play allowing all suits to make up runs. This tightens up the points scoring and engages the players more.
Awesome vid. I do really like Earth - mostly for the dopamine rush during play 😂. Fair criticisms though. I would LOVE to see more videos like this. Great work. 👍
Thank you so much for the kind words! You made my day!☺
I love these design diaries videos. Great input and looking forward to more general tips as well as a peak at your own designs.
Thanks as always for the kind words! I think it was some of your previous comments that motivated me to make this video. 🙂
I've definitely got more tips and closer looks at my own designs (for better or worse) planned, so stay tuned! 😎
@@BoardGameCasualChannel Awesome!
Haven't played Earth but I feel so much secondhand annoyance at those icons.
i have played it, never bothered me in game but sure WHY use leaf, then a leaf then another leaf. Probably at some point one of us mixed them up.
A bit repetitive but interesting. Concerning earth they want to differentiate between sprout spots (capacity) and actual sprouts. The thing that really comfused us was the vp from growth spot icon. THAT was a bad design choice and the growth capacity icon.
OMG--don't get me started on the growth spot!! (I was thinking about talking about that too, but figured it'd be too much). To this day I'll find myself mid-way through a game like, "whoops--I mixed up those two values again" 😫)
Apologies for the repetitiveness--I only realized it in edit after adding in the flashbacks. 😓 Appreciate that you stuck through it regardless. 😎
5:30 Sleeping Gods comes to mind: small coin and large coin but no info whatsoever how much small coin equals a large coin. It was 3:1 according to an obscure note online but WTF are the coins shaped as pentagons then!
And aside from me, everyone just swallows this without any mention.
@@kosterix123 Oof, that’s rough. I would never intuitively guess a “3” denomination either!
3:00 each is a capital sin.
I really appreciated this video. I want to see more like this.
Thanks man! That means a lot! 😎
@@BoardGameCasualChannel Heh, you bet. Sorry my post was so formal. It was late at night and I didn't want to say something to far out there :P
I find the game Earth not only graphically unintuitive, but also mechanically. Every game must be understandable, if not there is a critical error and the game should not be published. This includes: a well written rule book, colorblindness options and a good graphic artist who will make understandable icons. If I can't understand, I can't play it
Is there a particular software tool you recommend for designing cards?
Yes, in fact I made a 2-part video on how I design cards for my prototypes. 😊 I talk about the softwares (freeware) I prefer in part 2, here: ruclips.net/video/wouwyk0QITA/видео.html
I had no issues with mosaic. I guess i explained it once to people and nobody ever got confused lol
Maybe we had to many mathematicians at the table... 🤣 If fish = 5 food, and a bonus token says "+3 fish", then of course we all assume 3*5=15 food. 😔
@@BoardGameCasualChannel 🤦♂️
A little repetitive, but otherwise a great video. I want to see more breakdowns of existing games and their design choices/mistakes
Yeah, unfortunately I kind of realized the same thing after adding the flashbacks in edit (since I filmed this video on its own, I didn't realize the repetitiveness unit afterwards.)--my bad. 😓
But thank you for the kind words and sticking through it regardless!--That means a lot! 🥰
I'm glad you found it interesting and are interested in seeing more--I was really worried it might come across as me "bashing on games"...
I feel sorry for people who bought a game with these problems, that make a game so much worse when playing with new players, which is, like, 90% of the time.
Perfectly explained
Thank you! I appreciate it!
Good luck with throwing money at any Kickstarter and expect consistent and intuitive iconography without stepping in and do the effort yourself.
Yeah, I got both of these games from retail for that very reason, and I was surprised they hadn’t ironed out these issues by then… 😞
Another Design flaw with Mosaic is that the fish icon is so.... phallic.
Phallic Phish
I went to leave this comment myself, glad someone else noticed loool
Don't tell me what to do! :)
Oh and yeah, Earth had very bad design.
Bold of you to tackle two pretty popular games here, but I appreciate your insights.
I work in UX design, and these are some pretty basic principles in that field, or least for visual design. I can't think of a reason why these games would go through with these final choices other than crunch or budget. Having a consistent visual style may have been their goal, but it’s a little too consistent if you ask me.
Regarding Mosaic, I think the "show 5 fish" works well enough, but it would be better if it showed the same food type as the one-value food to keep things consistent. Otherwise, me seeing fish makes me think they're a different resource when they're in that number, and for some reason they're only attainable in 5s. Of course, you want people to know they can fish for food, though, but the port token could add that thematic element and be explained in the rules. Plus "I go fishing and get 3 wheat" sounds kinda funny, so it may be worth it.
I think the criticism he gave was fair. This is regardless of supposed popularity of these games
(Earth: Rank 190 and dropping on BGG)
(Mosaic: Rank 708 and dropping on BGG)
I agree that the criticism was fair. I'm sorry if I implied that it wasn't.
Regardless of their BGG rating, they are still commonly talked about, at least in my circles. Popularity also isn't the same as quality, too. Higher ratings don't always correspond with what's "hot."
Totally. I see why they wanted different food icons to represent different locations and therefore food types/opportunities. But the inconsistency of whether an icon ALSO implies a quantity is really biting it here... I agree crunch was probably a big culprit.
Thanks for the kind words! :)
I really didn't enjoy Earth when I played it, the cognitive load was immense and this exacerbated by the iconography and subtle the colour coding very difficult to cut through.
@@Jimbo_9 Yeah, I’m very surprised with how much hype this game gets…
@@BoardGameCasualChannel me too thanks for putting this vid together, it actually didn’t occur to me while I was playing it this issue, designing some games atm and this really is good food for thought.
@@Jimbo_9 Awesome, thanks for watching! 😎
What kind of game are you working on?
Interesting video! But- how dare you challenge the gods of publishing! Think of the millions of dollars and billions of hours spent on creating, play testing,- and publishing this game and you dare to find fault with these masterpieces of genius! Or, are you saying that published games aren’t always perfect? 😂
Ha!
What the heck? This is content for graphic designers not for boardgame designers.
You haven’t understood anything from this video. Although the message can be generalized.
How your game communicates information is a very important part of its design.
@@Oneiroclast 100%
modern games suck.