Funny fact: When playtesting for D&D, the designers actually start with overpowered abilities so they can scale them back. That way, they know where the line was crossed instead of starting with underpowered abilities then slightly increasing and increasing them, only to backtrack after they crossed that line.
Random question, a while ago you ranked all of your CMON games and I really thought that was cool, could you do it again with different publishers? Like re-ranking CMON or ranking Awaken Realms or something. I'd love to hear your opinion :)
Thanks for providing the explanations on how those games are 5s. I was one of the people who can't understand a game getting the highest possible rating unless it's a top game, but you explained your position well.
Got my copy of Welcome to the moon in Essen. It's great and a lot of fun. You basically play on 8 different maps in a campaign like experience. Pretty unique but still with the core Welcome to mechanic.
Not sure if my first post stuck the landing. I'm looking forward to deeper dives on board game tables. I'm in the market from moving from IKEA to a dedicated board game table and could use your deep dive skill in that area much more so than advice on a particular game. The board game tables can be very expensive. I would be interested in your take along the entire spectrum of board game table price ranges from the cheapest modular to the most expensive "heirloom" quality board game tables. If you don't have the furniture expertise could you consider finding a furniture expert and interviewing them for a show about the various board game table choices in our industry. I would love to see you address this area of the board game market.
My thoughts exactly on the 5/5 for LOR. The game is still in a developmental state, and the critics given will be addressed. I could easily see it being a 5/5. The given nature of game design and development is that the industry evolves rather rapidly. And the review systems should evolve accordingly. You're doing a great job!
Seems silly to rate games in that case. One should never rate based on assumptions or expectations. Even if the developers mentioned that they are going to look into a critique, there's no telling how it will look and feel when played. I feel we're being way to generous and makes me wonder how much biases are influencing the rating.
I updated my rating system for board game reviews in order to score this a 6 on my 5 point system. What a great follow-up to feedback from previous reviews. In my opinion what separates good board game reviewers and great ones are those that can follow up on previous reviews/chats/discussions based upon new information and/or customer feedback. From a customer service perspective follow-up is one of the most important things you have control over. Yes I was one of the potential "trolls" he mentioned on the LoR discussion, wasn't my intent to troll but one to try to understand what I heard and the intersection with the rating. Your colleagues are discussing your endorsement of For Glory and I'm wondering if we can look for an updated review of your opinion on the expansion KS as your previous review was a 3.
I actually ordered honey buzz stuff as an add-on to a different KS campaign. One thing I've learned about adding existing games to a KS campaign for a future game is it can create some rather interesting shipping timeframes if they hold those games to ship with your new one. Then is a challenge to remember that you added these additional games instead of ordering them in their own named campaign. I had to quickly adjust my Atlantis Rising KS back due to buying other Atlantis stuff through a different campaign and was able to do so by buying Honey Buzz stuff. Now that a Honey Buzz campaign is starting I'll have to remember that the Honey Buzz stuff was part of my Atlantis Rising campaign. lol!
I will always go with clickbait IF I believe it's true to the content. I was 100% disappointed after my first play. Clickbait titles get more views....I won't lie to my audience, but if it's not a lie? Why wouldn't I choose a title that is more likely to pull in the viewer?
There is always people complain for nothing or just trolling, i love your review don't need to change anything for few people cannot understand people are different and cannot accept it. Game it's just love ❤️
Na, that was due to Senjutsu over on his channel. That said, he and I both face the same problems....trying to make everyone happy but you'll never be able to :)
Regarding skinny minis, I think the market for game related version of these could be off the chart. The reason why washed minis are so popular is that a lot of us are not mini-painters. We might prefer a full color artistic skinny mini over a 3d washed mini. I look forward to whether this becomes a new normal.
I found a large conference table that you can take the ends off of and it becomes a 55 inch square table with a metal frame. I think it’s a $700-800 ikea bekant (not sure if they still sell it) and I got it for $40 from some rich people who just didn’t want it anymore. Too bad I can’t find large Kickstarter games for that kind of value on the second hand market haha
Funny that you mention because we have tried Inis with 5 players for the first time the other day and it ended with the ruling over 6 or more clans victory :D We have all passed except one and the last guy in turn order popped out 3 new clans with a rather lucky but still clever combination of epic tale cards. We had no chance to stop him but I do not think I will witness something like this again soon. :)
For some reason a previous comment was deleted or never uploaded, so I will write it again. and please excuse any grammatical or syntax mistakes. Also, this is my personal believe. I do not think that you need to be apologetic regarding negative/resentments/general critic/feedback on any game that gets on your hands. Why you should be? This is your personal stance. Whether or not Lords of Ragnarok crosses the expected figure has mainly to do with Awaken Realms and its capacity to deliver solid games that justify the price (one could argue). Quality, idea, world building etc are top notch, but there was this etherfields that accumulated all the pitfalls of an awaken realm's games (is something that is always a complain at BGG forums). Bad rulebook, bad execution, boring mechanisms and treating the first wave as alpha testers and possible the second wave as beta testers, even if story and atmosphere is best in the genre. Awaken realms deliver massive beautiful games and sculptures but still has to get better on the rest. Mythic games was there but it appears to do far better lately. I assume as a reviewer your task is to inform your audience about the great aspects of a game but more of the pitfalls, the caveats and so on and forth. I assume that we consumers of content created by content creators are intelligent enough to figure out by ourselves, whether a game is appropriate and fits to our taste, or not, and this can be done if we get all info, all aspects of a game, from quality of components to variability to mechanics among others. I hope this is your mission as you have started when you were criticizing heavily on campaigns, worth it or not, will it get your money back or not, and not to provide advertisement and boost the sales of a game that has not reached the expected goal (again the story of unrealistic funding goals). In the long run the latter is not a good option. Dice tower is not running for 10+(?) years by only promoting games, they are still harsh on games and the diversity of people provides good balance. Mike almost argues with Tom. Zee with everybody. But this is great. For the attenders for us the fanatics. SuAndSD, Pun Not Included the same. When you introduced the rating system you got into this problem of how this is 5/5 game, so game you will always like to get to the table, a game without any flaws, when 3 people have huge (might appear to someone) drawbacks and reservations? Which I, personally, found it great. Any company with a prototype should regard it as a huge opportunity. Their money well invested since they get a good feedback on the product. If they do not want that then just do play-throughs, rules, quality of prototypes, but not reviews. Also, when the game goes to public and is a better game than the prototype gamers will appreciate and thing highly on the company and the reviewers. I remind all what happened some years ago with the video game scene and the Non disclosure agreements and the P(aid)reviews. Not a good place to be a reviewer, Not saying that LoR is bad, but saying speak you honest opinion. None is to be blamed and I did not read any comments that criticized on any negativity and resentment. So, why this section?
@@BoardGameCo True I added in the topper and assumed the insert had to be added, was playing with it on mobile so not sure what insert means. 2.5k isn't bad, their toppers are crazy expensive though.
I don't think win conditions need to be balanced especially in a game with several win conditions. I also heard they are working on monster hunting by saying if one person has four markers on the monster and someone else finished it off you both get credit for the kill. That could also cause other issues of course but it is good they are looking at it.
There really isn't a need to apologise for the length of a video. If it's too long and boring, we'll stop looking. If it's long and interesting, we'll keep watching :-)
As a follow up, I understood your 5 better after you explained it here on LoR. Thanks again for clarifying it. By the way your bookmark on the video says "Lords of Hellas" review I think that the bookmark should be "Lords of Ragnorak review" Not sure if you can correct your bookmark. That said, You do heavily explain your LoR rating by referencing your LoH rating. Although I'm not entirely sure you wouldn't have the option to rethink your LoH rating if that is appropriate given all the games you have learned/played after LoH was released. As you have pointed out with TV@DT on BGG ratings over time, people do seem to lower their ratings gradually over time to be replaced by the latest games. For example we tend to go back to set ratings on really old board games in our collection based on how we view them now, but if we were asked what we thought of the game when it was published we might have rated them an 8+ while today they are 5-6. We don't really talk much about how our ratings can flex over time. Would love to see you occasionally discuss rerating any games you've previously played and reviewed after a few years. I'm not entirely sure how often these should be reconsidered (every 2, 3, 5, ... years?).
Pretty sure I know your answer, but Lords of Ragnarok or Blood Rage if you were buying them now. Would KSE push LoR over since it's so difficult to get everything for Blood Rage now?
My favourite game is Tainted Grail, and I have lots of complaints about that game. Even a couple of major complaints. But... the good just outweighs the bad, so I still like it better than any game I've rated a 9/10. So, I suppose it's a 10/10 despite my complaints.
Hi Alex, thanks for the news and video. I have a question because I know you loooove zombicide, I just bought Invader Retail, which expansions are must buy for it?
I backed LOR, this will be my second game I've backed and not have to worry about hunting down on the second market. And without being able to get a reasonable copy of LOH. I'm super stoked even though it's early development.
In the comments to the campain many people wished for a LOH offer. AR's reaction to that was that it is not offered 'yet'. So... very likely that it might be added as an optional buy.
I think your rating system is unique but the issue is I feel most viewers will still go based on the numeric value provided rather than your spin on the numbers. Almost as if you’ll have to do a disclaimer when giving your rating.
Yep, that's definitely a possibility but I'm ok with that. 3,4 and 5 are close enough to a standard rating that I'm fine with what people take away from them most of the time.
@@BoardGameCo Not sure if you've checked out a channel called Shelfside but they do something of this manner when it comes to ratings. They give a standard, recommender score, which is tied to if you should play it, what works and what does not, and the overall enjoyment factor of the game. They also do a personal score which is more based on their own appeal of themes, mechanics, longevity, and so on. The two scores end up being different most of the time. It helps separate the number from the listed pros and cons based on which scale was used. Definitely not saying to adopt this system but their personal score rating reminds me of how your own unique rating system. Just a thought! Either case, thanks for the content Alex!
I don't really see what's the point separating 1 and 2 in your rating. If a 2 is "you rather clean the house than play that game", than a 1 is you hate that game, and wanna burn every copy of it? Not that you will every feature games that are 1 and 2. So basic your rating will be limited to 3.
I've covered a bunch of 2's, they're infrequent but they absolutely show up. 1s don't. I'm never playing a one a second time so it won't get a dedicated video as I don't feel comfortable giving a game a loud and Public 1 with only one play. And the difference is 1s I believe are bad games. 2s I believe aren't for me. Many of the games I gave a 2 to, are reasonably well rated.
I feel you on the disconnect sometimes between review and rating. I rated and reviewed the new Dune movie on Thursday, but my somewhat negative review and positive rating didn’t seem to support each other. I don’t have the audience to question it, but it was bothering me nonetheless, so like what you’ve done here, I went back and clarified my comments on it to explain why it got the rating it did despite what I said. I’ve found a reason for this disconnect is sometimes there’s more to actually say about a particular aspect even though it’s not as representative of my overall opinion. I wonder if you’ve found something like this as well in your reviews and ratings?
Absolutely. It's a tough think reviewing....you only get one shot to clarify what you mean, contrasted with a conversation which is always much more preferable
I enjoyed your LoR review but I did notice in the comments a lot of people not understanding giving that game a 5. On top of that, on some boardgame discords I frequent users were saying your ratings are diluted now since "Alex will give 5s to anything". Not how I feel obviously, but it's good you're clearing this up because you definitely threw a lot of people off with that rating.
I can't control for what people want to think. 5's are given to a small fraction of the games I cover....if people want to see what they want to see that's up to them.
Honestly, I don't understand why people give any value to the rating of a small sample game play of an unfinished game. Prototype ratings are useless in the long run.
You and Jesse have spent sooo much time explaining your rating systems. Why don't just use something general, that any newcomer could understand easily
Because that's how I rate games. When I first started, I tried using a 1-10 scale, but as that isn't and hasn't been how I rate games...it didn't work for me.
I've been thinking a lot about your redefinition of a 5 and in the context of Room and Board's hilarious review focusing on something Shira said in your chat with Quack; I think you might consider this scenario: Your friends do like RoH (speaks to your original definition), all of your RoH concerns are not sufficient to reduce it from a 5 (your new definition), your friends while they like RoH prefer other games you've ranked a 5 better and choose not to play RoH when given a choice (hence Shira's remark about competitive AoC games in her favorite space). Call it Shira's rule for 5s the compare and contrast to other games in the same mechanistic space. It doesn't per say mean she doesn't like RoH but rather she likes other games which you rated 5's even more and you happen to have one of the world's highest quality board game collections and would lean on playing them instead if given a vote. As you have pointed out in the past you haven't given many fives and they are ROCK solid 5's, very well respected games, very well respected publishers, designers, the whole 9 yards. Yet over time as your collection of 5 rated games grows there are going to be hard choices to make with limited time. Lets be clear you have honed your game collection mostly to the best of the best in which Shira and friends are faced with absolutely stellar choices to pick among. They are truly blessed to know you. What AoC game are your friends going to want to play on game night? What if you have 6 5 rated AoC games on your shelf and your friends tend to pick 3-4 out of the 6 5's. What would you do with the other 2 after a couple years of these preferences being seen time and time again. Do you get to veto your friends choices and say I want to play RoH this time since you got to pick Blood Rage, Inis, Kemet, Cyclades, and so forth last time? That does seem reasonable but if you also really like the games they like then why "force" your friends to play a game just for the sake of getting a game in or two of one of your favorite 5 games? To be fair I've made this mistake far too many times by nudging my friends into a game they didn't like as much as others just to justify my "investment" in the game. Sometimes it was ok but often I tended to regret it. Wouldn't we all have had more fun picking a game we all knew we would enjoy the most. BGG has about 28 pages plus of a "this game killed that game" discussion. If you were to lump a bunch of your 5 games together that were in the same space would you say that LoR would replace any of the other 5's in terms of what you and your friends would cooperatively decide to play? How has LoH stood in terms of being selected vs your other 5 rated AoC games? I totally appreciate and understand your 5 rating thanks to this clarification but has Shira in fact enlightened us about a factor that may be just as important to consider the "play this not that". As you expand your "Kept" board games little by little with more 5's, pay close attention to the game played choices your game groups make and think about how your rating system might be able to communicate to audience that despite the game knocking it out of the park in design, production, and the fact that everybody likes the game that at the end of the day y'all just choose to play a different game that you've kept in your collection which probably was also rated a 5. Are you in fact paving the way for your first ever 5 rated game to leave your shelf due to its lack of love relative to other highly rated 5 games on your shelf. So rather than an absolute rating standing alone on its own merit you actually consider whether the game relatively can displace another "equally" fantastic well rated game. No rush into this form of thinking but I think Shira has shot a warning shot across the industry that needs to be heard loud and clear. Some folk may only be able to afford one of the best of the best games in the AoC space. How might you help them prioritize which among the 5 rated games should land on their shelf. I love how you do this to some degree already on a weekly basis these days with if you could only pick one game to back. Now just broaden that out and cover games that are already available to purchase. Even if its your best pick of the week would it really be better than another highly rated game on your shelf if its in the same mechanic space? It may not be good enough to be near perfect. You have to find a way to be the most favorite toy in the toy basket full of other great toys. Your game shelf is perhaps the epitome of "the Stuff of Legend" where you gradually fill your Kallax up with stellar perfect or near perfect games, one day you will simply have too many of them and will perhaps have to decide its time for some of them to go.. Just hope that they don't get lost in the deep darkness of your closet where the Boogieman will recruit them to his cause and they come for you in revenge. Update: just found your play this not that on INIS, Kemet, and Cyclades hence you've already faced this don't play this play that music among those 3 so I guess you would just be adding LofH, LofR, Ankh? to this list of AoC games to help your audience rank their purchase priority. It therefore might be helpful to continue to classify games within your collection that are fair to stack up against each other in a don't play this play that contrast and compare style and when new appropriate campaigns come along with equally rated games you can perhaps spend 1-2 more minutes to update your PTNT relative rankings and let us know where it fits into your schema. As you stated in your PTNT video on those 3 games, these are all utterly fantastic games, and the PTNT does not detract from your 5 ratings but I think its incredibly helpful to those on a budget to get a sense of where these games ranked 5 stack up against each other to deploy our limited funds in the best order possible. You seem to have a well established system of reviews using consistent bookmarks, consider adding one more section and bookmark along the lines of PTNT limited to comparisons to games in the same game mechanic style. I'm not sure I would suggest comparing apples to oranges but your PTNT video on those 3 are the absolute perfect example of an appropriate comparison that should you be able to identify the right set of games in your collection to discuss briefly where you think the new game will fit into your relative PTNT rank. At the moment your ranking system you share online is sorted by date of review, perhaps envision a slightly different way of organizing your review ratings that can highlight the PTNT ranking within various types of games. Yeah total pain but it might help you craft your discussions easier if you had a quick reference sheet using that structure of data. Another thought is that at 3 rock solid AoC games in your collection it wasn't such an issue getting all 3 to the table but at what point is adding another "the straw that broke the camel's back" perhaps to some degree this is really the concern Shira faced. That at 6+ games in the AoC space you start to pick a smaller set of clear winners over the others. I'm not sure where this magic number of games exactly is that folk consider to be sufficient to cover a particular mechanism or style. You might have some sense of it given your expertise in BGG data. It might make for an interesting topic of board game collection management. Once you hit this ideal, what should your approach be to adding one more, should it typically involve removing one to make space for it. Kind of reminds me of leveling up Gloomhaven characters, as you unlock new cards, you have to remove an old card to add it to your collection and if you choose you can even add a previously released card over the newest card when you so choose. To be fair, in the Lego world of Star Wars, how many Slave1, X-Wings, or Millennium Falcon's do I really need? All of them :) Honestly, Lego can you focus on producing new scenes and sets we've never seen before instead of recycling them this frequently? To some degree I think you have demonstrated the application of PTNT to your decisions regarding which Zombicide versions should stay in your collection quite clearly with your audience. That said I don't think you've ever left a 5 rated Zombicide game off your shelf due to having too many other 5 rated Zombicide games (at least not yet :) ) PS, for those of you who who might not be as comfortable selling your lesser favorite games (Alex is literally a pro in this area), you might consider donating your games to a public institution like a library (where the less fortunate would sing your praise for granting them access) or even a correctional facility (Where the captive audience would love you to tears if you contributed a 4-5 ranked game into their midst). That said Alex likely has a few instructional points on how to get the best price for the games leaving your shelf somewhere in all his great advice.
Could you please take the time to make sure your captions are in English and not a foreign language like dutch as in this video, or in another video, Vietnamese? I have hearing issues and I really rely on the captions to be able to enjoy the video. I’ve asked this multiple times before but nothing ever happens
I have a couple of thoughts on these prototype first impression reviews. First off, it’s great to have an opinion from someone who has played the game. Prototype reviews should be taken with a grain of salt. Reviews that have only seen a weeks worth of play, regardless the amount of times they have been played, should also be taken with a grain of salt. This is largely due to the fact that I believe that board games are something that marinate over time, and cannot be rushed. Last, I wonder if some reviewer‘s are trying to provide feedback and critique for the game designers, they normally wouldn’t say in a regular review. I think for reviewers, it’s a temptation, and a target of opportunity, but it may not be the right place to do it. I think this could confuse people watching the review and cause misunderstanding.
Agreed on most counts. 1) They should absolutely be taken with a grain of salt...things are still changing. 2) Agreed on a week, although most of the time I have and play games for a 2-3 week range more than a week. Although that does depend on when I get the prototype and when the campaign goes up....that said, the ideal review I think should be 6 months+ away....I did a whole video on this, about review drift. 3) The feedback/critique aspect isn't the issue for me...I can just tell them directly if that's the issue. I specifically put in as many critiques as possible for transparency. The last thing I want is for example, Ragnarok to come out, something is an issue because it wasn't fixed, and then people ask me why I didn't say anything....the answer is always "I did". I hoped it would change, sure, but yes, I will give all the feedback I can so people can back as informed as possible.
@@BoardGameCo I think you do a great job for the most part! Yep, I really enjoyed your review drift, I had plenty of thoughts on that one as well. Fun stuff to think about and good stuff to understand.
@@BoardGameCo I realized that I didn’t have a clear voice on my message above. I was actually directing my comments to you about other reviewers. I don’t think that came across. Sorry for the confusion.
But Alex…if it takes so much adjustment and explanation…why not axe the whole concept of rating games with numbers and simply summarize at the end of the review your exact feelings in 2-3 sentences instead. If there’s so much qualification required why force quantification? You have a “what I liked” and “what others might not like “ section often…turn the latter into a “what I don’t like section” and coupled with a more on point final thoughts section in the end it should give every viewer enough to chew on. Your current approach to reviews mixes it to where people might feel a number is needed but it seems like it requires so much effort that it might not be worth it
I agree if I had to explain it all the time...but I usually don't. The fact that one particular time I have to explain because it's a bit more complicated....that's not enough of a reason to axe the entire system.
Comparing LoH which is a finished game, to an unfinished game LoR that you have no idea what it will finally look like, and which you say may need to be house-ruled......how can you say this is a 5? Your reviews are supposed to help people make informed decisions, and now you need us to view the review, plus this video to try and understand what you are doing. The review is the closest you have come to making me think Awaken Realms are paying you and you have sold out. Your friends say you didn't even like this game, and within a few days you call it 5/5. Jesse looked genuinely surprised. Be careful of perception Alex. i really enjoy your stuff, but this one comes very close to line you must not appear to cross.
Actually Darren, it's the other way around. I could be making money for these Kickstarter videos. Easily. The only reason I don't is a choice....but if people think I have sold out anyway, then there's no incentive not to just become a paid channel. So it's the other way around....if you want to "warn me" that you think I'm a sell out, the only thing you're doing is telling me is that despite choosing to deny myself money for no other reason than the fact that the audience doesn't like it...well screw it, the audience thinks I'm a sell out anyway...I may as well at least get paid for it.
@@BoardGameCo Hey there Alex, can't win, can you? Its tough to be a public figure, I wouldn't do it. To be clear, I do not mean to suggest there is anything underhand here, if I thought that I would not be talking with you. I just mention it as the review video seemed odd. And I guess you have realised that hence the inclusion in this week in review video. And, perspective-check, this is just a boardgame we are talking about. So moving on, keep up the great work, you are my most watched content creator at the moment and best of luck in the future
@@darrentaylor3033 I appreciate it Darren. And yes, the whole reason for this update is exactly the fact that I recognize that the initial video did not do a good job clarifying the disconnect between rating and reasons. But 100%, it is sadly true that easily the most frustrating feeling I have doing this entire channel, is knowing that I'm leaving money on the table... When it often doesn't feel appreciated that I'm doing so.
Funny fact: When playtesting for D&D, the designers actually start with overpowered abilities so they can scale them back. That way, they know where the line was crossed instead of starting with underpowered abilities then slightly increasing and increasing them, only to backtrack after they crossed that line.
Interesting and good to know!
Random question, a while ago you ranked all of your CMON games and I really thought that was cool, could you do it again with different publishers? Like re-ranking CMON or ranking Awaken Realms or something. I'd love to hear your opinion :)
Oooh, good idea, I'll add it to my list :)
+1 for both cmon and awaken
Now I want CTG and Awaken Realms to collab and make Lords of Too Many Bones
I'd be 100% down for that :)
Good video, good explanation on Ragnarök and cool of you to lift up Hungry Gamer!
Absolutely :)
Thanks for providing the explanations on how those games are 5s. I was one of the people who can't understand a game getting the highest possible rating unless it's a top game, but you explained your position well.
I'm playing Too Many Bones base campaign now. Very fun to play it in this format. Tantrum + Patches fun times.
It's always a blast.
Got my copy of Welcome to the moon in Essen. It's great and a lot of fun. You basically play on 8 different maps in a campaign like experience. Pretty unique but still with the core Welcome to mechanic.
Cool, good to know :)
Not sure if my first post stuck the landing. I'm looking forward to deeper dives on board game tables. I'm in the market from moving from IKEA to a dedicated board game table and could use your deep dive skill in that area much more so than advice on a particular game. The board game tables can be very expensive. I would be interested in your take along the entire spectrum of board game table price ranges from the cheapest modular to the most expensive "heirloom" quality board game tables. If you don't have the furniture expertise could you consider finding a furniture expert and interviewing them for a show about the various board game table choices in our industry. I would love to see you address this area of the board game market.
My thoughts exactly on the 5/5 for LOR. The game is still in a developmental state, and the critics given will be addressed. I could easily see it being a 5/5. The given nature of game design and development is that the industry evolves rather rapidly. And the review systems should evolve accordingly. You're doing a great job!
Seems silly to rate games in that case. One should never rate based on assumptions or expectations. Even if the developers mentioned that they are going to look into a critique, there's no telling how it will look and feel when played. I feel we're being way to generous and makes me wonder how much biases are influencing the rating.
Agreed with both Scott and Emin. There's a reasonable argument that this one should be a 4....the tricky part for me is the comparison to a 5/5.
Super curious about Rolling Heights and I'm just about to get Skytear
Still haven't tabled it....hopefully shortly :)
@Alex Both the timestamp and the description item is mistyped as Lords of Hellas :D
Thanks!
I updated my rating system for board game reviews in order to score this a 6 on my 5 point system. What a great follow-up to feedback from previous reviews. In my opinion what separates good board game reviewers and great ones are those that can follow up on previous reviews/chats/discussions based upon new information and/or customer feedback. From a customer service perspective follow-up is one of the most important things you have control over. Yes I was one of the potential "trolls" he mentioned on the LoR discussion, wasn't my intent to troll but one to try to understand what I heard and the intersection with the rating. Your colleagues are discussing your endorsement of For Glory and I'm wondering if we can look for an updated review of your opinion on the expansion KS as your previous review was a 3.
Lords of Too Many Bones sounds like a game I would want to play!
Lol yep
Looks like your chapter tag on the video is labeled Lords of Hellas review rather than Lords of Ragnorok. Just FYI, thanks for the video
Fixed thanks!
@@BoardGameCo no, thank you!
I actually ordered honey buzz stuff as an add-on to a different KS campaign. One thing I've learned about adding existing games to a KS campaign for a future game is it can create some rather interesting shipping timeframes if they hold those games to ship with your new one. Then is a challenge to remember that you added these additional games instead of ordering them in their own named campaign. I had to quickly adjust my Atlantis Rising KS back due to buying other Atlantis stuff through a different campaign and was able to do so by buying Honey Buzz stuff. Now that a Honey Buzz campaign is starting I'll have to remember that the Honey Buzz stuff was part of my Atlantis Rising campaign. lol!
Yep, that's always an interesting process.
Hanamikoji Geisha's Road is coming too
Yes!
Dungeon Crusade funded last night. One of the greatest comebacks in Kickstarter history!
I saw! Amazng!
I didn't have an issue with your LoR review.....but...I think the title for the video was extremely clickbaity. Please don't do that...
I will always go with clickbait IF I believe it's true to the content. I was 100% disappointed after my first play. Clickbait titles get more views....I won't lie to my audience, but if it's not a lie? Why wouldn't I choose a title that is more likely to pull in the viewer?
Skytear seems intrueging to me, definitley looking for review!! Nice table btw, really jealous of that :)
Yep, it's pretty nice.
Yes, please do some Skytear reviews or playthroughs
There is always people complain for nothing or just trolling, i love your review don't need to change anything for few people cannot understand people are different and cannot accept it. Game it's just love ❤️
Thanks Axel :)
I think the LoR thing might have prompted a King of Average video that just went up. Name checks Alex but is very complimentary
Na, that was due to Senjutsu over on his channel. That said, he and I both face the same problems....trying to make everyone happy but you'll never be able to :)
Regarding skinny minis, I think the market for game related version of these could be off the chart. The reason why washed minis are so popular is that a lot of us are not mini-painters. We might prefer a full color artistic skinny mini over a 3d washed mini. I look forward to whether this becomes a new normal.
Yep, I'm very intrigued on whether they become more common in games.
I found a large conference table that you can take the ends off of and it becomes a 55 inch square table with a metal frame. I think it’s a $700-800 ikea bekant (not sure if they still sell it) and I got it for $40 from some rich people who just didn’t want it anymore. Too bad I can’t find large Kickstarter games for that kind of value on the second hand market haha
Lol that's awesome.
Boosting. The. Freaking. Algorithm. Thanks for the content again bozz :) ~ Hype
Lol thanks :)
Funny that you mention because we have tried Inis with 5 players for the first time the other day and it ended with the ruling over 6 or more clans victory :D
We have all passed except one and the last guy in turn order popped out 3 new clans with a rather lucky but still clever combination of epic tale cards. We had no chance to stop him but I do not think I will witness something like this again soon. :)
You also just said in this video, "I don't round up, I round down", yet you appear to have rounded up LoR. Just an observation...
Agreed, it's that weird "comparing to a similar prior game" problem.
For some reason a previous comment was deleted or never uploaded, so I will write it again. and please excuse any grammatical or syntax mistakes. Also, this is my personal believe.
I do not think that you need to be apologetic regarding negative/resentments/general critic/feedback on any game that gets on your hands. Why you should be? This is your personal stance. Whether or not Lords of Ragnarok crosses the expected figure has mainly to do with Awaken Realms and its capacity to deliver solid games that justify the price (one could argue). Quality, idea, world building etc are top notch, but there was this etherfields that accumulated all the pitfalls of an awaken realm's games (is something that is always a complain at BGG forums). Bad rulebook, bad execution, boring mechanisms and treating the first wave as alpha testers and possible the second wave as beta testers, even if story and atmosphere is best in the genre. Awaken realms deliver massive beautiful games and sculptures but still has to get better on the rest. Mythic games was there but it appears to do far better lately.
I assume as a reviewer your task is to inform your audience about the great aspects of a game but more of the pitfalls, the caveats and so on and forth. I assume that we consumers of content created by content creators are intelligent enough to figure out by ourselves, whether a game is appropriate and fits to our taste, or not, and this can be done if we get all info, all aspects of a game, from quality of components to variability to mechanics among others.
I hope this is your mission as you have started when you were criticizing heavily on campaigns, worth it or not, will it get your money back or not, and not to provide advertisement and boost the sales of a game that has not reached the expected goal (again the story of unrealistic funding goals). In the long run the latter is not a good option. Dice tower is not running for 10+(?) years by only promoting games, they are still harsh on games and the diversity of people provides good balance. Mike almost argues with Tom. Zee with everybody. But this is great. For the attenders for us the fanatics. SuAndSD, Pun Not Included the same.
When you introduced the rating system you got into this problem of how this is 5/5 game, so game you will always like to get to the table, a game without any flaws, when 3 people have huge (might appear to someone) drawbacks and reservations? Which I, personally, found it great. Any company with a prototype should regard it as a huge opportunity. Their money well invested since they get a good feedback on the product. If they do not want that then just do play-throughs, rules, quality of prototypes, but not reviews. Also, when the game goes to public and is a better game than the prototype gamers will appreciate and thing highly on the company and the reviewers.
I remind all what happened some years ago with the video game scene and the Non disclosure agreements and the P(aid)reviews. Not a good place to be a reviewer,
Not saying that LoR is bad, but saying speak you honest opinion. None is to be blamed and I did not read any comments that criticized on any negativity and resentment. So, why this section?
Table looks super nice. Nearly $8k for the model I would want means I can definitely resist buying for now.
Pretty much how I feel whenever I see any board game table price 😂
This one would be closer to 3.5, especially without the topper if you don't need it for a dining room table.
@@BoardGameCo True I added in the topper and assumed the insert had to be added, was playing with it on mobile so not sure what insert means. 2.5k isn't bad, their toppers are crazy expensive though.
I don't think win conditions need to be balanced especially in a game with several win conditions. I also heard they are working on monster hunting by saying if one person has four markers on the monster and someone else finished it off you both get credit for the kill. That could also cause other issues of course but it is good they are looking at it.
Yep, I saw that as well.
The table looks sharp! The light blue is a nice contrast as a band at bottom of screen .... 5 out of 5 sir! 😃
Appreciate it :)
There really isn't a need to apologise for the length of a video. If it's too long and boring, we'll stop looking. If it's long and interesting, we'll keep watching :-)
Thanks :)
As a follow up, I understood your 5 better after you explained it here on LoR. Thanks again for clarifying it. By the way your bookmark on the video says "Lords of Hellas" review I think that the bookmark should be "Lords of Ragnorak review" Not sure if you can correct your bookmark. That said, You do heavily explain your LoR rating by referencing your LoH rating. Although I'm not entirely sure you wouldn't have the option to rethink your LoH rating if that is appropriate given all the games you have learned/played after LoH was released. As you have pointed out with TV@DT on BGG ratings over time, people do seem to lower their ratings gradually over time to be replaced by the latest games. For example we tend to go back to set ratings on really old board games in our collection based on how we view them now, but if we were asked what we thought of the game when it was published we might have rated them an 8+ while today they are 5-6. We don't really talk much about how our ratings can flex over time. Would love to see you occasionally discuss rerating any games you've previously played and reviewed after a few years. I'm not entirely sure how often these should be reconsidered (every 2, 3, 5, ... years?).
Haha you wrote lord of Hellas in the time stamp. It's hard with all those game names.
Lol thanks :)
Pretty sure I know your answer, but Lords of Ragnarok or Blood Rage if you were buying them now. Would KSE push LoR over since it's so difficult to get everything for Blood Rage now?
Blood Rage....still a better game for me.
@@BoardGameCo haha I thought so. Especially after finishing your review
Ha, I backed off your last video....darn you!! 😉
:)
My favourite game is Tainted Grail, and I have lots of complaints about that game. Even a couple of major complaints. But... the good just outweighs the bad, so I still like it better than any game I've rated a 9/10. So, I suppose it's a 10/10 despite my complaints.
Good outweighing the bad is an interesting conversation that can also have an impact..
Hi Alex, thanks for the news and video. I have a question because I know you loooove zombicide, I just bought Invader Retail, which expansions are must buy for it?
Black Plague :) I joke but also not....Invader is fun, but so far I'm not as sold on it.
I backed LOR, this will be my second game I've backed and not have to worry about hunting down on the second market. And without being able to get a reasonable copy of LOH. I'm super stoked even though it's early development.
In the comments to the campain many people wished for a LOH offer. AR's reaction to that was that it is not offered 'yet'. So... very likely that it might be added as an optional buy.
@@orhan7255 They already mentioned in one of the updates that a reprint is not planned for this campaign
@@bassmeo3937 oh, that is disappointing actually. Changes what I've said then obviously.
I think your rating system is unique but the issue is I feel most viewers will still go based on the numeric value provided rather than your spin on the numbers. Almost as if you’ll have to do a disclaimer when giving your rating.
Yep, that's definitely a possibility but I'm ok with that. 3,4 and 5 are close enough to a standard rating that I'm fine with what people take away from them most of the time.
@@BoardGameCo Not sure if you've checked out a channel called Shelfside but they do something of this manner when it comes to ratings. They give a standard, recommender score, which is tied to if you should play it, what works and what does not, and the overall enjoyment factor of the game. They also do a personal score which is more based on their own appeal of themes, mechanics, longevity, and so on. The two scores end up being different most of the time. It helps separate the number from the listed pros and cons based on which scale was used.
Definitely not saying to adopt this system but their personal score rating reminds me of how your own unique rating system. Just a thought!
Either case, thanks for the content Alex!
Don’t apologise for long shows, I can easily watch you for 1.5hrs haha
I don't really see what's the point separating 1 and 2 in your rating. If a 2 is "you rather clean the house than play that game", than a 1 is you hate that game, and wanna burn every copy of it? Not that you will every feature games that are 1 and 2. So basic your rating will be limited to 3.
I've covered a bunch of 2's, they're infrequent but they absolutely show up. 1s don't. I'm never playing a one a second time so it won't get a dedicated video as I don't feel comfortable giving a game a loud and Public 1 with only one play.
And the difference is 1s I believe are bad games. 2s I believe aren't for me. Many of the games I gave a 2 to, are reasonably well rated.
I think if you're going to rate a game, maybe you shouldn't give a playtest copy a rating so much as a trajectory?
Inherently that's part of the whole "prototype subject to change" but yes, it is a messy concept to get into.
I feel you on the disconnect sometimes between review and rating. I rated and reviewed the new Dune movie on Thursday, but my somewhat negative review and positive rating didn’t seem to support each other. I don’t have the audience to question it, but it was bothering me nonetheless, so like what you’ve done here, I went back and clarified my comments on it to explain why it got the rating it did despite what I said.
I’ve found a reason for this disconnect is sometimes there’s more to actually say about a particular aspect even though it’s not as representative of my overall opinion. I wonder if you’ve found something like this as well in your reviews and ratings?
Absolutely. It's a tough think reviewing....you only get one shot to clarify what you mean, contrasted with a conversation which is always much more preferable
I feel the same way about dune.
I lost my negatives about the movie and the things it missed or could have improved on. But I give it 5 out of 5.
I enjoyed your LoR review but I did notice in the comments a lot of people not understanding giving that game a 5. On top of that, on some boardgame discords I frequent users were saying your ratings are diluted now since "Alex will give 5s to anything". Not how I feel obviously, but it's good you're clearing this up because you definitely threw a lot of people off with that rating.
I can't control for what people want to think. 5's are given to a small fraction of the games I cover....if people want to see what they want to see that's up to them.
Honestly, I don't understand why people give any value to the rating of a small sample game play of an unfinished game. Prototype ratings are useless in the long run.
I agree with you to an extent. I think when you only have a few data points, then they mean something...but it's also only a few data points.
You and Jesse have spent sooo much time explaining your rating systems. Why don't just use something general, that any newcomer could understand easily
Because that's how I rate games. When I first started, I tried using a 1-10 scale, but as that isn't and hasn't been how I rate games...it didn't work for me.
Is your hair getting darker 🤔 is it the lighting or does it lighten in the summer? It looks nice 😁
Lol likely the light.
I've been thinking a lot about your redefinition of a 5 and in the context of Room and Board's hilarious review focusing on something Shira said in your chat with Quack; I think you might consider this scenario: Your friends do like RoH (speaks to your original definition), all of your RoH concerns are not sufficient to reduce it from a 5 (your new definition), your friends while they like RoH prefer other games you've ranked a 5 better and choose not to play RoH when given a choice (hence Shira's remark about competitive AoC games in her favorite space).
Call it Shira's rule for 5s the compare and contrast to other games in the same mechanistic space. It doesn't per say mean she doesn't like RoH but rather she likes other games which you rated 5's even more and you happen to have one of the world's highest quality board game collections and would lean on playing them instead if given a vote. As you have pointed out in the past you haven't given many fives and they are ROCK solid 5's, very well respected games, very well respected publishers, designers, the whole 9 yards. Yet over time as your collection of 5 rated games grows there are going to be hard choices to make with limited time. Lets be clear you have honed your game collection mostly to the best of the best in which Shira and friends are faced with absolutely stellar choices to pick among. They are truly blessed to know you. What AoC game are your friends going to want to play on game night? What if you have 6 5 rated AoC games on your shelf and your friends tend to pick 3-4 out of the 6 5's. What would you do with the other 2 after a couple years of these preferences being seen time and time again. Do you get to veto your friends choices and say I want to play RoH this time since you got to pick Blood Rage, Inis, Kemet, Cyclades, and so forth last time? That does seem reasonable but if you also really like the games they like then why "force" your friends to play a game just for the sake of getting a game in or two of one of your favorite 5 games? To be fair I've made this mistake far too many times by nudging my friends into a game they didn't like as much as others just to justify my "investment" in the game. Sometimes it was ok but often I tended to regret it.
Wouldn't we all have had more fun picking a game we all knew we would enjoy the most. BGG has about 28 pages plus of a "this game killed that game" discussion. If you were to lump a bunch of your 5 games together that were in the same space would you say that LoR would replace any of the other 5's in terms of what you and your friends would cooperatively decide to play? How has LoH stood in terms of being selected vs your other 5 rated AoC games?
I totally appreciate and understand your 5 rating thanks to this clarification but has Shira in fact enlightened us about a factor that may be just as important to consider the "play this not that". As you expand your "Kept" board games little by little with more 5's, pay close attention to the game played choices your game groups make and think about how your rating system might be able to communicate to audience that despite the game knocking it out of the park in design, production, and the fact that everybody likes the game that at the end of the day y'all just choose to play a different game that you've kept in your collection which probably was also rated a 5. Are you in fact paving the way for your first ever 5 rated game to leave your shelf due to its lack of love relative to other highly rated 5 games on your shelf. So rather than an absolute rating standing alone on its own merit you actually consider whether the game relatively can displace another "equally" fantastic well rated game.
No rush into this form of thinking but I think Shira has shot a warning shot across the industry that needs to be heard loud and clear. Some folk may only be able to afford one of the best of the best games in the AoC space. How might you help them prioritize which among the 5 rated games should land on their shelf. I love how you do this to some degree already on a weekly basis these days with if you could only pick one game to back. Now just broaden that out and cover games that are already available to purchase. Even if its your best pick of the week would it really be better than another highly rated game on your shelf if its in the same mechanic space?
It may not be good enough to be near perfect. You have to find a way to be the most favorite toy in the toy basket full of other great toys. Your game shelf is perhaps the epitome of "the Stuff of Legend" where you gradually fill your Kallax up with stellar perfect or near perfect games, one day you will simply have too many of them and will perhaps have to decide its time for some of them to go.. Just hope that they don't get lost in the deep darkness of your closet where the Boogieman will recruit them to his cause and they come for you in revenge.
Update: just found your play this not that on INIS, Kemet, and Cyclades hence you've already faced this don't play this play that music among those 3 so I guess you would just be adding LofH, LofR, Ankh? to this list of AoC games to help your audience rank their purchase priority. It therefore might be helpful to continue to classify games within your collection that are fair to stack up against each other in a don't play this play that contrast and compare style and when new appropriate campaigns come along with equally rated games you can perhaps spend 1-2 more minutes to update your PTNT relative rankings and let us know where it fits into your schema. As you stated in your PTNT video on those 3 games, these are all utterly fantastic games, and the PTNT does not detract from your 5 ratings but I think its incredibly helpful to those on a budget to get a sense of where these games ranked 5 stack up against each other to deploy our limited funds in the best order possible. You seem to have a well established system of reviews using consistent bookmarks, consider adding one more section and bookmark along the lines of PTNT limited to comparisons to games in the same game mechanic style. I'm not sure I would suggest comparing apples to oranges but your PTNT video on those 3 are the absolute perfect example of an appropriate comparison that should you be able to identify the right set of games in your collection to discuss briefly where you think the new game will fit into your relative PTNT rank. At the moment your ranking system you share online is sorted by date of review, perhaps envision a slightly different way of organizing your review ratings that can highlight the PTNT ranking within various types of games. Yeah total pain but it might help you craft your discussions easier if you had a quick reference sheet using that structure of data. Another thought is that at 3 rock solid AoC games in your collection it wasn't such an issue getting all 3 to the table but at what point is adding another "the straw that broke the camel's back" perhaps to some degree this is really the concern Shira faced. That at 6+ games in the AoC space you start to pick a smaller set of clear winners over the others. I'm not sure where this magic number of games exactly is that folk consider to be sufficient to cover a particular mechanism or style. You might have some sense of it given your expertise in BGG data. It might make for an interesting topic of board game collection management. Once you hit this ideal, what should your approach be to adding one more, should it typically involve removing one to make space for it. Kind of reminds me of leveling up Gloomhaven characters, as you unlock new cards, you have to remove an old card to add it to your collection and if you choose you can even add a previously released card over the newest card when you so choose. To be fair, in the Lego world of Star Wars, how many Slave1, X-Wings, or Millennium Falcon's do I really need? All of them :) Honestly, Lego can you focus on producing new scenes and sets we've never seen before instead of recycling them this frequently?
To some degree I think you have demonstrated the application of PTNT to your decisions regarding which Zombicide versions should stay in your collection quite clearly with your audience. That said I don't think you've ever left a 5 rated Zombicide game off your shelf due to having too many other 5 rated Zombicide games (at least not yet :) )
PS, for those of you who who might not be as comfortable selling your lesser favorite games (Alex is literally a pro in this area), you might consider donating your games to a public institution like a library (where the less fortunate would sing your praise for granting them access) or even a correctional facility (Where the captive audience would love you to tears if you contributed a 4-5 ranked game into their midst). That said Alex likely has a few instructional points on how to get the best price for the games leaving your shelf somewhere in all his great advice.
Could you please take the time to make sure your captions are in English and not a foreign language like dutch as in this video, or in another video, Vietnamese? I have hearing issues and I really rely on the captions to be able to enjoy the video. I’ve asked this multiple times before but nothing ever happens
Unfortunately I haven't found a way to ensure that RUclips automatically makes them in English.
Here's to dirty feet and wet hands 🙌
Yep :)
I have a couple of thoughts on these prototype first impression reviews. First off, it’s great to have an opinion from someone who has played the game.
Prototype reviews should be taken with a grain of salt.
Reviews that have only seen a weeks worth of play, regardless the amount of times they have been played, should also be taken with a grain of salt. This is largely due to the fact that I believe that board games are something that marinate over time, and cannot be rushed.
Last, I wonder if some reviewer‘s are trying to provide feedback and critique for the game designers, they normally wouldn’t say in a regular review.
I think for reviewers, it’s a temptation, and a target of opportunity, but it may not be the right place to do it. I think this could confuse people watching the review and cause misunderstanding.
Agreed on most counts.
1) They should absolutely be taken with a grain of salt...things are still changing.
2) Agreed on a week, although most of the time I have and play games for a 2-3 week range more than a week. Although that does depend on when I get the prototype and when the campaign goes up....that said, the ideal review I think should be 6 months+ away....I did a whole video on this, about review drift.
3) The feedback/critique aspect isn't the issue for me...I can just tell them directly if that's the issue. I specifically put in as many critiques as possible for transparency. The last thing I want is for example, Ragnarok to come out, something is an issue because it wasn't fixed, and then people ask me why I didn't say anything....the answer is always "I did". I hoped it would change, sure, but yes, I will give all the feedback I can so people can back as informed as possible.
@@BoardGameCo I think you do a great job for the most part!
Yep, I really enjoyed your review drift, I had plenty of thoughts on that one as well. Fun stuff to think about and good stuff to understand.
@@BoardGameCo I realized that I didn’t have a clear voice on my message above. I was actually directing my comments to you about other reviewers. I don’t think that came across. Sorry for the confusion.
“I want to get my feet dirty and my hands wet”………lol…well you better roll up your sleeves…i mean pant legs and get to work.
But Alex…if it takes so much adjustment and explanation…why not axe the whole concept of rating games with numbers and simply summarize at the end of the review your exact feelings in 2-3 sentences instead. If there’s so much qualification required why force quantification? You have a “what I liked” and “what others might not like “ section often…turn the latter into a “what I don’t like section” and coupled with a more on point final thoughts section in the end it should give every viewer enough to chew on. Your current approach to reviews mixes it to where people might feel a number is needed but it seems like it requires so much effort that it might not be worth it
I agree if I had to explain it all the time...but I usually don't. The fact that one particular time I have to explain because it's a bit more complicated....that's not enough of a reason to axe the entire system.
Comparing LoH which is a finished game, to an unfinished game LoR that you have no idea what it will finally look like, and which you say may need to be house-ruled......how can you say this is a 5? Your reviews are supposed to help people make informed decisions, and now you need us to view the review, plus this video to try and understand what you are doing. The review is the closest you have come to making me think Awaken Realms are paying you and you have sold out. Your friends say you didn't even like this game, and within a few days you call it 5/5. Jesse looked genuinely surprised. Be careful of perception Alex. i really enjoy your stuff, but this one comes very close to line you must not appear to cross.
Actually Darren, it's the other way around. I could be making money for these Kickstarter videos. Easily. The only reason I don't is a choice....but if people think I have sold out anyway, then there's no incentive not to just become a paid channel. So it's the other way around....if you want to "warn me" that you think I'm a sell out, the only thing you're doing is telling me is that despite choosing to deny myself money for no other reason than the fact that the audience doesn't like it...well screw it, the audience thinks I'm a sell out anyway...I may as well at least get paid for it.
@@BoardGameCo Hey there Alex, can't win, can you? Its tough to be a public figure, I wouldn't do it. To be clear, I do not mean to suggest there is anything underhand here, if I thought that I would not be talking with you. I just mention it as the review video seemed odd. And I guess you have realised that hence the inclusion in this week in review video. And, perspective-check, this is just a boardgame we are talking about. So moving on, keep up the great work, you are my most watched content creator at the moment and best of luck in the future
@@darrentaylor3033 I appreciate it Darren. And yes, the whole reason for this update is exactly the fact that I recognize that the initial video did not do a good job clarifying the disconnect between rating and reasons.
But 100%, it is sadly true that easily the most frustrating feeling I have doing this entire channel, is knowing that I'm leaving money on the table... When it often doesn't feel appreciated that I'm doing so.