Comments on: Bruno Faidutti’s Game of the Year 2005

By: Iain

Iain — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:00:18 +0000

My main problem with LOTR is that I’d rather just play an RPG. They seem so much richer than this predictable, linear game.

Manila does look good. I’m going to have to go back to Swiggers soon. My regular games nights have become very infrequent and unsatisfying.

So many games, so little time.

By: Coldfoot

Coldfoot — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 23:35:29 +0000

I did not enjoy LoTR, either. Didn’t care much for it the first time I played it, cared less for it each subsequent time. However, kids love it. It is tolerable when playing with enthusiastic kids.

I just played Camelot 2x this weekend. I do like it. Players have real choices to make. One dominant person can’t suck the fun out of the game by directing the whole flow of the game. (Maybe that’s why LotR is better with kids, the kids I play with are too independant to allow that to happen).

Players can consult with each other in Camelot, but your decision is yours alone.

Time will tell if it is a good game, but the addition of the traitor was a stroke of genius.

By: Tycho

Tycho — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 17:55:38 +0000

I’ve played Manila once, and it was loud and fun, but before the end I think there was a sense around the table that it had gone on long enough. Seems to be a common reaction, and next time I intend to try the variant where the commodity markers are started once space further up the track, though I imagine with fewer rounds the greater the luck factor. There is a lot about the game I like – the auction phase, the hidden shares, the balancing of risk/reward in the meeple placement – but having made all those decisions I’d rather gamble on my judgement without the die roll.

By: Mikko

Mikko — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 06:24:10 +0000

Don’t know about the others, but I certainly second Manila. It’s good fun, and pretty unique at it, too. Royal Turf is close, but I think Manila might be better than Royal Turf.