Ark Nova Review - I Kept Trying To Love This One
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 июн 2024
- BoardGameCo Ko-Fi (Exclusive Content) - ko-fi.com/boardgameco
BoardGameCo Patreon (Exclusive Content) - bit.ly/3sKcAYf
Instagram - bit.ly/39GvjNH
--------------------------------------------
Channels I Recommend (Not a comprehensive list by any means)
Professor Meg - bit.ly/3XKR1ol
Devon Talks Tabletop - bit.ly/36HAr3l
The Board Game Garden - bit.ly/495mdEO
Room & Board - bit.ly/48ZeurF
Thinker Themer - bit.ly/495mis6
--------------------------------------------
In Ark Nova, you will plan and design a modern, scientifically managed zoo. With the ultimate goal of owning the most successful zoological establishment, you will build enclosures, accommodate animals, and support conservation projects all over the world. Specialists and unique buildings will help you in achieving this goal.
Each player has a set of five action cards to manage their gameplay, and the power of an action is determined by the slot the card currently occupies. The cards in question are:
CARDS: Allows you to gain new zoo cards (animals, sponsors, and conservation project cards).
BUILD: Allows you to build standard or special enclosures, kiosks, and pavilions.
ANIMALS: Allows you to accommodate animals in your zoo.
ASSOCIATION: Allows your association workers to carry out different tasks.
SPONSORS: Allows you to play a sponsor card in your zoo or to raise money.
255 cards featuring animals, specialists, special enclosures, and conservation projects, each with a special ability, are at the heart of Ark Nova. Use them to increase the appeal and scientific reputation of your zoo and collect conservation points.
BGG Link - boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3...
TimeStamps:
0:00:00 - Overview
0:08:38 - What I Like
0:11:36 - What I Don’t Like
0:14:05 - What I Can See Others Not Liking
0:14:58 - Final Thoughts
0:17:38 - Recommendations
5.0 - My absolutely favorite games. You can pry them out of my cold dead hands.
4.5 - Love this game! At the same time missing something that would make it a 5. Could be hard to table, lacking variability, a little light, etc.
4.0 - Really great game, almost always keeping, although has meaningful complaints as to what takes away from the experience.
3.5 - Really enjoyed, don't love it, may lose out to better games but the idea of never playing again is a bit sad.
3.0 - A good game, would play and suggest with the right people, if I never played it again wouldn't lose any sleep.
2.5 - A game I'd play again , but will never suggest it myself
2.0 - A game I don't want to play again
1.5 - A game I can't find any reason to recommend
1.0 - A game that is just bad.
My Game Table (Non Referral)
bit.ly/3aYUdpp
Upgrade Your Game At Top Shelf Gamer (Referral Link)
bit.ly/3siD0PL
For media inquiries, please email alex@boardgameco.com
For Gamefound inquiries, please email me at a.radcliffe@gamefound.com 
Игры
I feel like playing to get the right cards is the wrong way to play, when playing to what the game gives me always has worked for me.
Terraforming Mars is more random and luck based than Ark Nova. Also, the middle card row gets used quite often for determining what cards to draw. Snapping is the primary way that I use the draw card. I also would not say there is less interaction than terraforming mars, rather, I would say they are similar in their level of interaction.
This is my wife's favorite game and we're literally in the middle of a game of Ark Nova as this video came out and I watched it while taking a break. I agree that it can be pretty luck based in terms of if you can really get a solid engine going but I've definitely had some crazy mega turns in this one. With the new Marine Worlds expansion I think I probably like it about as much as Terraforming Mars, but I don't have any of the expansions for TM. The new partner university adds a mechanic where you can guarantee getting a certain type of animal plus there are more ways to ignore card requirements which can help you jump start an engine and make it a bit less luck-based for your early draws. I like the themes of both games about equally which is probably a factor. Marine Worlds is thoughtfully done and even rebalances some existing cards and tokens based on feedback and new content which shows good attention to detail.
Tbh, I don't think this as an engine-building game. You are right that you rarely get to obtain the correct set of cards to get an engine running because more often, Ark Nova cards are not really on-going effects. To me I think the fun comes mostly from managing the actions. The "when" (the sequence) you play the action cards is so important that its either very frustrating or delicious.
It's literally one of my top three games. I guess that's the great thing about board games, that like art, can appeal (or not) to different people for different reasons.
Yes! It's so good, and the diversity of games is awesome!
This is my Number 1 game of all time but I will only play it at 2 players. My question have you played it with the expansion it makes cycling through the deck as well as refreshing the market row much easier.
Agreed, 2p is the way to go with AN.
Alex isn't complaining about length or interactions as those are the main benefits of 2p.
Marine worlds won't fix his poor card cycling complaint either. It's by design NOT to see more cards. (You forgot deck is diluted when you add more cards and not all new cards cycles so there is net dilution so it's harder to see cards you want!) Cards matters little, and not the key to winning.
@@RaduStanculescu I've played it at 2 to 4 and all levels work. Never had a bad game. And I'm 16 games in.
Appreciate the honest review. Is it mostly the length that dragged the rating down? I've only plsyed it once on tts but want to try it and earth again.
No, he said no cascading feeling super powerful, poor iconography, and luck as his reasons. All are legitimate concern, but to a small degree. The downside to powerful cascading combo is more downtime executing, more luck, and min maxing. It would approach lacerda games. There is some luck factor, though its mostly reactionary game, not trying to top deck. You can stack the deck any way you want and a good player will still beat you
Length is clearly simply newcomers' own problem. Millions of AN games played, the average length is 1 hour, which is sweet spot for a lot of people
As a top3 player in both AN and TFM on bga, I think terraforming mars is so, so much more luck dependent than ark.
Same goes for interaction, although the vast amount of interaction AN actually provides might not be very clear at first.
I think the issue is it's not a kind game to learn and secretly it's very different from terraforming mars.
This is very helpful, thank you. I find TFM has way too much luck for the length of the game, so I have hopes for AN.
The interaction aspect is the most misunderstood aspect of it. I've seen many people talk about it being multi-player solitaire when it's very much not so.
I feel like Ark Nova is misunderstood. People looking for an engine are going to be disappointed because, It is NOT an engine builder, despite being a tableau game. It is a very tactical set collection point salad-ey game. Just like TFM, if you spend all the time playing the sponser cards while your opponent plays points, you just lose.
I don't view AN as an engine-builder. the Iconography, misleading arrangement of icons and text-heavy cards was my biggest drawback.
@@aosggame I don't see how and where any of the icon arrangements are misleading? Text-heavy cards I can somewhat get behind, but if by misleading icons you mean they aren't unambiguous, then that's exactly what the text is there for.
I would even venture to say not very set collection game either. That's where complaints about luck comes in that it's very hard to get matching icons. Again, if you spend all your time trying to dig for matches, you will also lose against someone who just scores points
Good players don't dig, it's not a digging push your luck game as it takes way too long to do that
@@aosggame the heavy text is there if you don't understand the quite good iconography. How can you complain about two opposite things?
That’s exactly right. It’s tactical more than it is strategic.
Appreciate you as a reviewer for the effort you put into them. Some things work for some people and not for others. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, always look forward to hearing what you have to say about a game regardles!!
I get the problem with so much text and iconography. It took me maybe 5-6 times to really appreciate the game, as at first I thought it's a less interactive Terraforming Mars which is trying to put too much on each card. Several plays after that I felt like I knew all abilities, though I still got tricked by water and rock requirements from time to time.
By the way, in high level plays people have moved recently a lot toward snapping as first reward from a conservation project. I get what you're saying about feeling like it's a luck based game due to card draw, but I feel like with experience it becomes much easier to identify good cards and combos, and be able to figure out a good plan with cards from the display as well.
As for interaction, I feel like 2p games have a LOT more meaningful interaction than 3p and 4p. It's the reason that Arena mode (ladder) on BGA is exclusively played 2p (with the same map). The break matters a lot more and is more easily triggerable, beating your opponent to a conservation project matters more (since some values are blocked), and so does taking a partner zoo or university that they might need, or the best rewards from the conservation project track; and taking the right cards from the display is very important both for yourself and to deny them from your opponent. I flipped from thinking it has very low interaction to thinking it has very meaningful interaction, which is a major point for me, as I don't usually enjoy multiplayer solitaire games.
Lack of interaction is the reason I don't like Earth by the way. It's much lighter, of course, but I feel like it's boring and feels longer because of it (although it most likely isn't).
I generally have a hard time culling my board game collection, but I gave away my copy of Ark Nova after the first play. It just didn’t hit the spot for me.
Not all games are for all people
I played it once at an event and never convinced myself to buy it. Everything felt nice, but at the same time it felt wrong. Being new I was moving forward half blind not knowing what could show up so my engine was a wreck. The problem to me was even if I knew the whole deck, the game's scale (mainly the huge deck) combined w/ the highly specific cards would make the outcome likely the same. Any good idea you can think up could easily be voided by the card(s)related to your plan never showing up that game, while a generic idea that doesn't restrict you leaves you disappointed in what you accomplished.
100% same experience here
AN is about the 5 action cards which you have almost full control of, every single game.
It is not about the big deck. You can stack the deck exactly the way you want and still lose against a good action efficient player
I’m wondering if it gets rated so high because people wanted a replacement or something new compared to TFM.
They wanted something in the same style, but it's not a replacement. And it's not JUST because it's a new game with a somewhat similar feel. Earth or TMars: Ares aren't nearly as highly rated (though Earth was very hyped by content creators, but not equally so by players). Both AN and TFM are still played a lot, in fact they are the most played games currently on boardgamearena. As a comparison, AN has 12000+ games currently in progress on BGA, TFM has 11000+, and Earth has just under 1000. And in total on BGA TFM has surpassed Earth even though it was released a year later, while AN has 15 times more plays than Earth while being released a couple of months after it. I feel like these numbers show pretty well that both AN and TFM are still extremely popular.
Plenty of new games, there's also underwater cities. I think the cute theme helps, but mechanically AN is more solid than TM
@@goldsmeeth2771 I love UWC. Out of all those types of games UWC is my favorite.
@@RaduStanculescu Earth isn't my cup of tea, but it wasn't just hyped by content creators. Players hyped it too. It has a 7.71 rating on BGG with over 13,000 ratings since it was released last year. That is a lot of players who played Earth and decided it was an excellent game. It also seems like it would be a disaster to play online. Everyone time someone moved, you'd be waiting on decisions from other players. Since most BGA games aren't played in real time, but instead through "e-mail" (not sure what they call it), it seems painful.
I imagine part of AN's popularity on BGA is the reverse. You can cut a game that drags on too long into something manageable.
It’s my #1 game.. I love this game. I like it better than Terraforming Mars and I think that is 5/5. Both great games. I’ve played Earth but think that is only a 3/5.
You missed a key mechanic in your overview -- When you sponsor you use a player token, which gives an ongoing permanent benefit.
Yep :)
Yes! I echo my frustration with getting the right cards for my engine; it's my issue with card games like this, unfortunately also for Teraforming Mars. There are also some OP cards in this game, namely the elephants that can just skew the game (also like Teraforming Mars).
I love to see reviews critical of popular games. No game is perfect or enjoyable to everyone. There are very popular games I just could not enjoy, and it feels validating to see reviews like this.
Its no brass brum, but it ay half bad, i love it for solo play, rulebook version or arno
Alex, one of the things I enjoy about board games is the passion they create in people. It is also cool that so many people different things... it expands all our horizons. But wow is it weird hearing that don't like this game.
It is so good to me, that I have this passion for it, this connection to it, this joy that I feel, and it's funny how I almost feel 'offended' you don't like it. Now, I'm a grown up, I don't feel offended, but it isn't too dissimilar to really hoping someone likes something because you like it and feeling sad when they don't. Just human stuff.
Anyway, for everyone else, don't listen to Alex (wink). This game is pure Genius and is one of the best EVER CREATED. It is SO GOOD. I love it SO MUCH!
Anyway, thanks for the review Alex!
Trust me I get it....I feel the same way about my favorite games :)
Not an engine building game
Fair
That's pretty much how I feel on Ark Nova. I've tried it four times and find it far too long for the game, and what you are doing isn't interesting enough to keep you occupied between turns. But then I'm also not overly fond of Terraforming Mars either - though it is better than Ark Nova.
Agreed on the issue with the cards being too "lucky". But the reason I sold my copy is the sheer time it takes. I only finished the game twice multiplayer in the 2 years I owned it, despite having started so many sessions. The rest of my plays were solo. The 2 times I completed it I liked it a lot, but it was just not getting played.
While I disagree with your final thoughts, I absolutely respect your honest review. For me, Ark Nova is competing for a spot in my overall Top 10. I absolutely love Ark Nova!
I understand it isn’t for everyone, but it is pretty much my favorite game of all time at this point. I think it requires players to adapt to make the best to what they have, and those kinds of games aren’t for everyone. I don’t think there is a single game out there that is going to be for everyone, and always appreciate and respect that others have different tastes and experiences with games, just like with books, art, music, etc. I had the same experience with Earth that you had with Ark Nova, in that I kept trying to find what other people adored so much and just eventually realized it might not be my thing. Luckily there are a ton of games out there for everyone to find something they like! Thanks for sharing your experiences.
I think that's a consistent theme among a lot of these giant-draw-pile games, including Terraforming Mars, but also Wingspan and a number of others. I understand that this is put in place as a "roadblock" to having strategic players "solve" the game, but I also feel like the various icons/categories/etc, and the bonuses teased to you if you collect sets, they try to pull you in the direction of building your tableau or board around those sets, but it's a trap because in most cases you're unlikely to see all of the cards in the deck. Sometimes you're lucky to see half the cards in the deck.
My problem with Ark Nova et al is not that they are more tactical than strategic, but that they are tactical while wearing the trappings of *being* strategic. I had a very strong similar reaction to the base game of Ascension, which imply that you can aim for certain cards and build strategies around factions, but (except for the gears) they don't have super strong synergy, and the river almost always cycles before your next turn anyway. I think this was a deliberate design choice to allow players to flourish without committing to one set or relying on a card that may come and go before you have an opportunity. And I have no doubt the expansions give players a lot more to think about. But I think Star Realms was a much more elegant implementation of the core gameplay, and the Star Wars DBG kind of perfected the formula.
Anyway, tangent, point is, I think these games entice "more strategic" players into pursuing the fool's errand of sets and synergy in a game whose execution is lighter and narrower in scope, and that's what makes the game "not for me". That takes nothing away from other players, or from the game itself, which I openly admit is very deserving of its top ten status. So is Brass and I can't play that well either.
@@TheSchaef47 I can definitely see what you mean, and how that could be frustrating for some players. Well put! Funny you mentioned Ascension, I really enjoy that one (with expansions). Everdell and Wingspan are also favorites in our house. And I totally get what you mean about appreciating games objectively even if not personally enjoying it. I am trying to more clearly pinpoint why I prefer some games or mechanisms over others, as I sometimes can’t quite figure out why.
@@alicia1465 it's something I had to give some thought to, because I've been gaming as a hobby for close to twenty years now, and I like many games of different types and genres. I also enjoy playing Ark Nova, I just don't *like it* like it, y'know?
If I had to boil my various tastes down to a super reductive description, I'd say I like things that give a big fat decision space. The old Hasbro roll-and-moves place you at the mercy of the dice. The Archer game Danger Zone barely qualifies as a game; I can't think of a single meaningful decision you make. On the other end of that spectrum you have Phil Eklund games, Vlaada Chvatil games (not counting Codenames) rail games, stuff so crunchy it bakes my brain, and I feel like my first mistake is also my last, if you take my meaning.
By contrast, a game like Ra is ridiculously simple: you either pull out a tile or you call Ra to bid on the tiles. But all the factors that go into that - the value of the tiles on the river, the probability of when you'll hit the end of the epoch, the value of your bidding tiles versus other players, and which one you'll be taking in exchange, and how many bids you'll have left that epoch - the decision space is so large that it's not practical to form a mathematical formula to know the exact correct play at any point in time, but you're still aware of enough of it that you can put together a good fuzzy logic guess. And all of that just from deciding if you're going to pull another tile out of the bag or not.
When you start looking at other types of games that I favor - trick-taking games with some extra wrinkle, cards that "do multiple things" (Race for the Galaxy, Glory to Rome/Import-Export, etc), one-way action-selection games (Glen More, Crusaders, First in Flight) - it occurs to me that they kind of have that same quality: a handful of options and a bumper crop of possibilities. Most of which I get wrong and lose horribly. But I enjoy the journey.
@@TheSchaef47 this is a great thing to identify, and I am sure it is hugely helpful in choosing the right games to buy. I tend to love games that are “here is what is available, make the best of it’ like Agricola, Race for the Galaxy, etc. I do enjoy some open sandboxes, but maybe not as much. Good to think about! Thanks
Not to worry, Alex. I thought I would like this better after playing Terraforming Mars. And in many ways, I think its execution of available actions is more interesting and solid than TM. But I never felt the same click, and my two oldest boys found it so unmemorable they literally don't remember the experience of playing it with me. I ended up selling my copy with no real heartache.
As always appreciate your honest feedback on reviews. Ark Nova isn't for you even if a lot of others enjoy it.
Oh man Im sorry you still uavent experienced those big play pay offs. They tend to come from a double animal play and its so satisfying when it comes together
Double animal plays can be fund, but personally for me it always feels like track movement only, nothing satisfying per se
I like the whole puzzle and no game is the same.
I agree with that part for sure
Yes. People rave about it, and I never quite understood the hoopla. It's interesting, but never quite has that spark that makes me want to really ever get it out again and play it.
That's so interesting. It's ALL spark for me. It just has that EXCITEMENT. It just makes me think about it when I'm not playing it!
Ya, honestly the feedback in comments alone tells me there's tons of people who LOVE it and many like me who haven't found that magic
I love Ark Nova, even more than Terraforming Mars, at 2-3 players. As you learn it better, you get more efficient and able to setup big turns (I have had turns with eagles or Sun bear where I have scored over 30 points in a turn). If you see the consistency of strong players on BGG, it becomes clear that the game has many options and the key is play an efficient tactical game based on your tableau and opportunities to finish the race ahead of others. I love that about the game (as well as the many cool animal cards!)
Having said that, not all games will work for everyone…certainly, I don’t like many popular ones that have certain mechanics (or themes).
I feel like most of the time it's not a turn that is "big", it's a sequence of turns. How you set yourself up to be first to back a project, how you manage to break before your opponent can do what they wanted, or how you force them into subpar plays by threatening the break, etc.
Then again I don't think TMars has that many combo turns either.
@@RaduStanculescu I agree with you points. There are times in both games you can do something big….landing an asteroid with 3/4 animals plus ocean in TM or eagle in AN. Doesn’t happen often but can be memorable if you plan for it and pull it off. Both are fantastic games for me. Happy gaming!
Never played the game, but my friend got rid of Everdell for it, so it intrigues me because Everdell is such a great game for me.
Whoah...I love Everdell, that one is staying firm
I would never give up Everdell.
Thanks Alex. I was wondering if it was just me that didn’t click with it. I even bought the expansion to see if it would improve the deck cycling but it’s still in shrink. I agree the icons and time to play aren’t great. The end game scoring can also be an anti-climax.
Marine world won't change your feelings. It's more of the same, by design.
The key to the game isn't seeing more cards, it's an action efficiency game. Part of the game is reacting to the cards, NOT hoping you get direct matches. Half of the cards you play won't match and that's very typical
If you're done with AN.... Can I please have your bespoke 3d printed insert? I'd give it a happy home full of AN love and utilisation.... 😁
I have very similar feelings towards that game, each time it should land on my table I find myself thinking "I'd rather play Terraforming Mars for the millionth time" and now I see there is more reason behind that thought than just a gut feeling. The thing which doesn't yet allow me to have it leave my "collection" is that 1. Having a dozen games is not quite a collection, so it can stay for now, maybe I'll grow fonder of it eventually and 2. THEM ANIMALS CUTE AF, I WANT TO HAVE ALL BIG CATS IN MY ZOO... (someone help me plz) :D
I feel exactly the same about this game. I want to love it, but it just doesn't click, I also never had an engine that felt satisfying,the sense that the cards play together. Also the endgame scoring is just. . horrible. I guess I ll have to part with it too.
I don't get how the end game scoring is problematic, but then again I've played a TON of Rajas of the Ganges which has the same idea. I find it very easy to understand and also quite satisfying.
For me the weird mechanic is the end game trigger: it's when one player's tokens pass each other. That's just... not intuitive for me. Unlike in TM you just finished terraforming Mars - let's count up the points and see who won.
@@DukeJohnny oh, that mechanism has zero thematic sense, for sure. I just don't think it's that hard to wrap my head around it, that's all. Many other mechanisms don't make much sense thematically in AN: I mean, how on earth does playing a snake in my zoo make my opponent get "poisoned" and lose money?!? 😁 But I don't much care about theme in my euros, so this doesn't bother me. It's true that overall TM is much more thematically coherent.
I'm curious if the opinions would be flipped if Ark Nova came out when TM did and TM came out when AN did???
I played TM: AE first, then AN, and have recently played TM (Thanks BGA)
I can see why they are compared, but I think they are both excellent in what they do.
I think AN would have been a bit too heavy if it came out first; I think it definitely benefitted from people knowing how to play TM. It mattered to me at least, and even though I played TM a lot before I still found getting into AN quite tricky.
I think BGG rankings got it right, Ark is more refined game than terraforming mars. There many small details that ark improved upon, hence deservingly slightly higher rating
But Ark doesn't have closed draft variant that doubles the amount of cards you see or area control that Alex likes so no surprise that those improvements won't win over mechanics that Ark doesn't have
@@goldsmeeth2771 that's my experience exactly. I acknowledge that Ark Nova is a better-put-together game than TM, and its play mechanics unto themselves are very clever, but I just can't get behind it. Even TM, if I'm being honest, is a game I'll happily play if that's what people want to play, but I don't seek to own it and it's not on the list of titles I will suggest or sit at a table waiting for people to join.
Alex, our tastes in games are very similar. Which puts Ark Nova at the bottom of my bucket list.
I am very much aligned to Alex's tastes as well... and I think Ark Nova is my #1 game of all time. It's so good and magical. So... for what it's worth, give it a try, even if Alex doesn't like it.
@@JasonSmithPsychedelicTherapist - Oh, I'll give it a try for sure. What I won't do is buy it before playing it.
After my Agricola disappointment, never again.
@@EfrainRiveraJunior Tell me about your Agricola disapointment? I still have that game but haven't played it in 15+ years.
@@JasonSmithPsychedelicTherapist - I blindly purchased the game with all the deluxified upgrades. And I mean, minis, all expansions, etc.
I _thought_ that I was going to love the game. Wrong! I don't hate the game. It's just mediocre. I'll sell it on eBay one of these days.
Even if one loves a game like this, its important to know why people don't, so one may know if a game will or will not work for a given game night.
Good review! Disagree personally, but I understand the criticisms for sure.
I’m of exactly the same mind. I’ve played it several times. It’s a good game, fine anyway, but when I look at the BGG top 20 it is, more than any other, the one item that doesn’t seem like it belongs. It’s a good enough game to put it in the top 500 for sure. Maybe even the top 200. I don’t understand how it’s ranked as high as it has though. There has always seemed to be better options to me.
Agreed...but I'm ok being in the minority
@@BoardGameCo Same. And I’m happy others enjoy it. There are just so many other games I’d rather play.
Couldn’t! Agree! More! Same journey here… I really went out of my way to find the -as you put it- “magic spark” behind all the hype. Failed… Most of all playing 2-3 hours on a solitaire game with other people sitting around the table doing the same really bummed me out. Each and every play (maybe a dozen?). Sold it and I’m not missing it at all.
I think many people miss the interaction points in it. I know I did at the start. And it's more meaningfully interactive at 2p, so if you play only at higher player counts I get it. But the break, taking cards from the display, the conservation projects, the conservation track rewards, and the attack cards provide a lot of interaction.
Yea, theres no superpowers and very rare do you get mega combos off, which is a bit of a bummer, but easy fix rotating out a couple major tags from the deck if you want to play the game that way
AN is about action efficiency tactical euro racing. One of the biggest mistake is trying to find cards--you don't do that, you don't need to, and adds frustration plus a lot of time if you do.
It's way too slow to distinct engine build or set collect excessively. The bonus of matches if you get lucky is a lot smaller than it appears amounting 0-2 extra points on a future turn, compare to simply playing a rando animal directly from the center card row scoring you 5 points. When you do the latter and your opponent doesnt, you win because you score way more way faster. When they start to compete with you being efficient using the shared board, now you got an interesting interactive game
Ah well
This game just visually turns me off. It looks like a zoo corporate employee training module or something. I think it wouldn’t be as much of an issue if I liked the theme, but it doesn’t interest me at all. I’m sure it’s an amazing game.
i think for us tm lovers maracaibo is the best game out there ... i have just the same feelings towards ark nova too ... im not gonna say no to playing it but i wont put as much focus on it as i do for tm or maracaibo because of that top decking matter and all u mentioned
Always find it odd when famous reviewers give bad ratings on high ranked popular games - aka Tom Vasel from dice on tower on Brass - however we just have to realise that at the end of the day you may not like a game even though it’s top ranked, like my son tells every time - I know it s ranked well but how do you really feel about it?! 😅
If it helps, I'm equally offended at Tom and Brass.
Ultimately, not all games are for all people, I think it just stands out more when a reviewer doesn't like a popular game. No one raises an eyebrow when a reviewer likes the new hotness, but it becomes a conversation when they don't.
And also full clarity, I don't dislike ark Nova.. I'm just not impressed by it.
Tom has a trauma related to his debts. Brass is great!
I played Ark Nova for the first time at PAX last year and even accepting that learning it was chaotic, I wasn't impressed by it. I'm with you about the cards. I felt like I had a lot of time I didn't have the cards that I wanted. I also don't think the animal and sponsor cards don't really mix that well. I also haven't really groked how the two tracks work. The break track seems to be something you want to time, ala Power Grid, but one play wasn't going to get me to understand that. Wouldn't mind a second chance at it, but I don't see it competing with Terraforming Mars for me.
I'd suggest playing it with just 2 players. The break is extremely important at that player count. It provides a lot of interaction too, you can make your opponent discard cards, it might give you rewards that let you snap an important card, you might break before your opponent gets the time to spend their money or workers, etc.
For me it really started to click after probably around 5-6 plays, and it only got better from there. I initially wanted to rate it between 8 and 9, now it's a solid 10.
I'll tell you what the breakdown in Ark Nova is for me, it's that there are not a multitude of opportunities to be clever. You just don't have enough agency to get to do something smart.
I've watched too many high level games with commentary to know that this isn't true. But the clever plays are not as obvious as in TMars for example, which is normal given the increased complexity. If you want to see such good plays, take a look at the No Wonders channel, he is a very good AN player commenting on games from the top players on Boardgamearena.
It's unsolved game, people at the top frequently disagree on what the best move is
The criticism of the text and iconography caused me to raise my eyebrows for sure. So many games these days, including some of the story driven dungeon crawlers or just pure card games that you like have cards with a ton of text, I just see those and get tired. The text in AN is really minimal and mostly self explanatory, the iconography can be a bit overwhelming but 2-3 games in it's obvious. Anyhow, you didn't like the game as much, that's fair, but those two points were a bit surprising.
While I appreciate this review and the time taken to try and fully explore the game, I'm still a bit disappointed by the omission of a single word...that word is "race". This game is very much a race game. True, it's not as "straight-forward" as HEAT, but it's ultimately a game about trying to cross your pawns first and by the largest distance possible. I feel that most (but not all) of the complaints about play time and about churning through cards in an attempt to find the "perfect one" are made by those who are either not seeing or not embracing the tactical, continuously changing, race that makes this game great.
Could very well be....for myself after many plays I don't think of i that way but I don't disagree with what you're saying.
The cycling of cards is so much faster in TM but the AN theme is so much more relatable and feels less abstract. But I also do enjoy the area control aspect of TM. I think if you just house rule the cycling of cards in the center row, AN comes out on top but it can feel frustrating at times. Great review!
The expansion does add more cycling, but I like the base game as lot as is. I feel like with the break taking away two cards cycling is pretty good already.
I never was able to love it. I acknowledge it works well but I feel it wants you to stay nimble and flexible when nothing in the game actually supports that type of behavior.
I cannot get into it either
I'm glad it's working for so many, just not me.
Interesting that many of the negatives you say about Ark Nova I found true for Terraforming Mars. That said, I find Ark Nova to be... Ok. It's good, but not great. Probably a me thing, but the massive deck and the no two games alike makes it very difficult to optimize play which reduces my enjoyment.
You can play with 1/4 the deck, and after you optimize it, you got 3 more decks to play with. Rather than play a few times then dump it because you solve the game so boring to do the same over again
@@goldsmeeth2771 True, but unless I curate the deck I would still not be able to build to a strategy and the deck being so large is likely to prohibit this. A large, randomized deck means you don't know what's coming or if it'll come at all. It's more tactical than strategic. Not a bad thing just not what I like in a game of Ark Nova or Terraforming Mars length. AN helps this by having a market of cards where TM doesn't. This is why I enjoy AN more than TM. Neither game is bad. Just not what I look for in a game.
@bullfrog417 I'm telling you to curate the deck is what I'm saying haha. Make a 35 card deck per player. You know what's in it after 1st play or if you hand select the cards, you know exactly what's in there.
Yes, because you don't have complete access to the card row, you know what's coming in the future turns to prepare for. In that way, feels even less random
Keep in mind that unless you are a high level player, the big random deck doesn't matter. You have near full control over your 5 actions and that's the key to win. Not the map, not the cards. A high level player will win against someone who only played a handful of the times even if he stacks the deck
@@goldsmeeth2771 seems like a lot of effort to make a game work for me. I have plenty of games that wouldn't take similar effort to table which means AN wouldn't get played. I can see why people like both AN and TM. They just aren't for me.
Mulit-player solitaire? The association action is so important and you can really annoy oponents. Ark Nova is brilliant - with two players. More players - less good.
And Earth got way worse cards regarding icons-
I usually allign with your taste alot… But I really like Ark Nova… Earth on the other hand not so much.
Only thing I dont love about Ark Nova is that in 4 player games someone allways end up with minus points, and that doesnt feel great.
I'd never want to play more than 3p, 2p is the ideal player count.
Then again, even with 2p there are a lot of times where one player will end up with negative points. I've played a ton on BGA, it's rarer for both players to cross than it is to see negative points.
New rule: add 100 points to your score. Theres no negative points now
@@goldsmeeth2771 yeah, they changed in on BGA and in the newer prints. I don't really understand the problem with negative scores, it's still the same thing either way, but if it makes people happier, no problem. 😁
Its funny because your downside is an upside for me. There is no 1 card that just gives you the BIG PAYOFF... because the cards that do this, usually are hard to get out. There aren't a lot of broken cards. You have to adapt to what you got in front of you.
I see why people like it. It just wasn’t for me though
Same
Great review. I kept trying to enjoy the game too. Its a fine game, but i prefer a lot of other games much more.
Yep, exactly
Given you have waited two years to review this, I do think you might have reviewed with and without the expansion. The expansion seeks to support a more strategic approach to the game, allowing you to get access to cards you may have been waiting in vain for. What do you think?
Absolutely fair, but that would have just delayed this even further...plus I'm not in a rush to buy an expansion for a game I'm not sure of.
@@BoardGameCo Fair point
I love this game, but fair points
Alright, time to watch Alex offend some people....jk even though I know it's not his thing I appreciate it was given a fair chance. Personally, I'm in the group of people who love this game but to each their own
It's clearly got an audience. For me I kept trying but didn't get there in the end.
Spending 3+ hours on such a rules-heavy game which depends on not just skills but luck of card draw is just not a satisfying experience.
At least for me I'd rather play other games
There is no game I wanted to like more than Agricola. I'm still upset with that game.
Lol I think caverna and le have are better versions of that
@@BoardGameCo - I should've listened to reviews and tried Caverna. I'm waiting for a Le Havre Gamefound version.
Its super easy to love one of the best games, maybe even thee best game ever made :)
I always chuckle when someone gives a critical review and their reasoning boils down to the fact that they had some bad luck or played poorly. You aren’t meant to rely on good luck in ark nova or else that would remove the fun of the game. If you could always pull off the perfect enginewithout fail, what’s the point? It’s about doing what you can with what you’re dealt. Which is maybe what leads to your bad experience. It’s about taking certain turns at a weaker strength earlier than you planned on to get a card/university/partner zoo before someone else. There’s take that. There’s hate drafting. Ark nova is as much a competitive race as it is an engine builder or programming game. If you’re only playing heads down, you will likely lose and is playing bad causes you to not like a game I guess I can understand your complaints.
I also cringe when someone describes Ark Nova as multiplayer solitaire. You’re playing sub-optimally if you’re not actively paying attention to what others are doing or can do.
I did appreciate the fact that you aren’t one of those that profusely disputes the comparisons to TfM. The card play in both is very similar ( tag chasing) even though the supporting mechanics are much different
@330nate the support mechanics drastically reduce the luck aspect and the need to tag chasing
The card design in AN is a lot better. It's less opalescent and less calculation needed
Totally agree. I saw this on Joey Evans' from the Dice Tower list of Top Overrated games and agreed. The game is okay, but nothing stellar.
Lol didn't know he put it there...he and I agree yet again
Dice tower also compare Ark with terraforming mars, which is also a top rated game. Ark is more mechanically solid than underwater cities and TM with prelude plus draft. As majority of highly ranked of both games would say Ark is more interactive, less luck, and plays faster. There are more Ark games than TM, so if Ark is overrated, then so is TM and UC, and earth or whatever games they associate with
This game feels like stock photo the game. Always felt the art and theme were awful. Played it once, pass forever. Not sure if I dislike more than Everdell or not with the unobtainable deck randomness they have.
I feel your pain. AN never clicked for me, so I understand.
It's really popular but it makes sense I'm not alone
You need to play what you like... It is hard to rate a game because there is a personal like & dislike. I never play this game but it never attracted me. I will check Earth...
Yep, rating games is always a challenge
I’m 2 sentences in and I’m sorry I have to disagree. Ark Nova is not a “card driven engine game”. It is a race. It’s not an engine building game. Luck has a minor impact on the game. A good player will almost always win vs less skilled players. The race essence of the game isn’t clear at first. Many players don’t ever realize it so they ‘ll blame bad luck when they lose. You seem to fall into the latter. You continue to say ‘engine’ here and ‘engine’ there. There is no engine but for running. When you see it you look at the game from a completely different perspective. And it shares very very little things with TM. TM is an engine builder (mostly). Ark Nova is not. TM can be a strategic game, AN is a deeply tactical game. They have in common they’re both card games but that’s it.
Lastly I don’t reallly get how could you compare AN to Earth. They have really nothing in common. Nothing. Earth is a worse version of Wingspan. Would you compare Wingspan to Ark Nova? I don’t think so.
I've won my fair share of games...I do find it interesting there are a lot of ark Nova lovers in the comments who are just assuming I don't love the game because I lose it a lot.
Sometimes its ok when not everyone shares your opinion.
Sorry you misunderstood what i meant (or probably, being not a native English speaker, I wasn’t able to express my thoughts clearly). I was meaning you didn’t catch the race aspect of the game, thinking it is a engine builder (which, again, Ark Nova is not in my opinion), and I was referring to that part of my answer not at the part when I was saying ppl blame bad luck because they lose. That has nothing to do with you liking or liking not Ark Nova. It’s clear you don’t like it that much, which is perfectly fine. no game is for everyone, no matter how good other people think it is. Ark Nova didn’t click for you and that’s perfectly ok. I like it a lot but that’s me.
I have never rated a game by my (or anyone else’s for what it matters) ability to win. There are plenty of games I love in which i usually lose (Concordia, T’zolkin to name a few). Yet I like them.
My comment was just about what Ark Nova is or isn’t: you think it’s an engine builder, I think it’s not. You compare it to Earth, I think there have nothing in common. Cheers 😊
It depends how you define engine building. Ark definitely has upgrades that makes your future actions more powerful. Scoring points means more income, so Ark has engine building from that definition. But most people mean engine building as distinct engine, which is not Ark strong suit of. And players who has that mentality, perhaps coming from TM, won't do well in Ark. What Alex is more interested in is distinct powerful engine combos/abilities, and that comes by more rare in Ark, because the dominant strategy is just to score points and rush to the end before powerful combos can be developed
In TM, you can deliberate not contribute to end game conditions thereby giving you time to develop engines so it's a viable strategy. In Ark, that simply won't work against good fast players
Many people don't play their games more than 5 times. So comparisons to earth is fair as both winning strategy is to rush while tag matching. It's only when you play a lot do you see more depth in Ark as more and more synergies and counterplays possible making it a refined descendent of the games it was inspired from, and also distinct from them, for better or worse
I keep trying and eventually sold the game. I love TM , ark nova is so ugly and so unsatisfying.
I'm glad I can't stand multiplayer solitaire games, means I haven't had to form an opinion on this game 😂
It's much more interactive than what Alex is making it to be at 2p. It loses some of the interaction, or at least some of the control and meaning of that interaction, with higher player counts.
Everyone who gives Ark Nova not at least 11 points out of 10 has no clue about board games. And that's a fact 😛 Nah, I understand your critiques, but somehow I don't have really an impact for me on the game.
I always felt that this game is overrated.
It's still rated high... This is just my opinion.
Most of the ark nova haters usually suck at it , a bit like dune umperium
Heh, that's an interesting take. I dislike Dune Imperium's intrigue cards enough that they put me off the game, but I did win my two plays of it so far. While in Ark Nova I'm at 50% wins on BGA (and I mostly play 2p) and I love it. And I loved many games I was bad at at the start, while disliking others that I understood and won early on. But yeah, experience with the game improves the understanding of some aspects, so I get why some might not like it at first if they do inefficient actions and the games take much longer than they should.
Just a bad review... nothing to see here.
Well, I dislike ark nova, and am baffled everytime someone claims it to be tfm, but better. It's not a bad game pet see, but it feels bloated and I'm thinking I could be playing another game whenever I try
Hard disagree on it being a tfm replacement that people claim
couldn't agree more
I like both of them, but I think Ark Nova shines at 2p preferably with the same map (as we play it online competitively on BGA), while Terraforming Mars shines at 3-4p. The thing I like more with Ark Nova is that scoring points is more directly tied to the end of the game, so there's less of a chance of a game dragging on.
And the reason why I like it 2p (and same map) is that it has much more meaningful interaction than with more players: the break is more controllable and important to play around, taking cards that your opponent wants from the display is more impactful, beating your opponent to a particular conservation project or CP track reward matters more as well, etc.
@@RaduStanculescu I still think ark nova is the lesser of the two, even as different experiences.
I find it very difficult for everyone on table to actually have an engine or something like it due to the sheer amount of cards on the deck, with LOTS of types each, which means it's pretty darn hard to get something with any synergy. Also, not a huge fan of the tetromino placement game, I feel like it is better implemented in a feast for odin.
However, as I said, I really don't think it's a bad game, even more so for a first from the designer, which can be iterated upon still. However, top 10 on bgg I feel it's a bit of a head scratcher. Feels like most people prefer it because of theme, rather than the game in and of itself.
@@gabrielm.k.8094 I get it. It's tough to build an engine in it, but I've repeatedly seen good players make satisfying engines out of what looked like mediocre cards. But there is a LOT of information to consider when trying to build an engine, much more than in TMars for example. I have had the occasion to watch commented plays from the top players on BGA though, and yeah, it is possible to build or counter an engine in many different ways, many not obvious after just a handful of plays. On my side I'm glad I stuck with it, and I'm glad it got released on BGA as I wouldn't have had the time for enough physical plays to understand it as much as I do now (and I'm nowhere near expert level at it).
@@gabrielm.k.8094 And no, it's not just the theme. On BGA (and on BGG, but that includes a lot of BGA plays ported through the BG Stats app) Ark Nova has been by far the most played game since it got released, and currently has the most in progress games. TMars overtook it for in progress games on release, though it's now just below it again. But yeah, they're both very appreciated and not just for the theme.