I have a feeling I've written something before, way back in the archives, that either repeats most of what I'm about to say, or contradicts it. I see this as a potential problem as MR&TLU: Reloaded continues on its merry way, especially since I can't be bothered to go through and check. I'll fall back on the favorite politicians' dodge, which is that everything I say now that's different from what I said before is proof of a growing, evolving mind, and everything I say now that's the same as what I said before is proof of a sturdy, mature intellect and body of guiding principles. Either way, enjoy.
Tobago is an interesting game, which is why I'm discussing it. It's not an intense brain-burning experience, but it's not trivial either; you are rewarded for planning ahead, positioning yourself to take a variety of actions as necessary, and balance one kind of action over another. Many games are like this. What makes Tobago special? Why did I keep it when I got rid of the vast majority of my other games?
The big thing that Tobago has that many of its worthy competitors do not is tactility--kind of a fancy term for "nice bits." But really, that's part of something deeper, I think, and that's a realization that the actual physical interaction with a game is sometimes important to its enjoyment. Bamboleo, and other dexterity games, are obviously in their own little tactile nirvana, but there's many other examples. I'm big on tactility, myself. I'm not sure I always was, but that seems to increasingly be the case. Playing through a game of chess or go is just more fun on my nice sets than on my cheap ones. I can't imagine playing Zertz online and really enjoying myself; the "real" version has a strong physical preference, more so than most of the other Gipf games...which may well be part of the reason it appeals to me more than the others.
Bamboleo is on one end, wargames are on the other. Wargames often have beautiful maps, but there isn't anything to engage with in the third dimension. Block wargames are something of an exception, naturally. It's relevant that after I "blockified" Clash of Empires it became a favorite game, whereas before it was one August 1914 game among many. (Partly it's also because making it a block game makes it actually easier to play...one guy on the 'Geek said it actually made it the best block game out there...and he might just be right, depending on when I last played EastFront.)
I'll also remind the audience of how much I like Commands and Colors games...
So Tobago, with its ATVs and its giant stone heads and its trees and its pretty pieces of cardboard push one of my big blinking red buttons. And I don't think I'm alone; the giant stone heads are becoming things of legend and why one isn't a character in Board to Pieces is beyond me.
What I also like about Tobago is that it uses a mechanic from one of my favorite little games, Old Town. Old Town is the only game I know of that uses archival research as a thematic element (although Fleet 1715 might too; I never got to play that one). You're trying to figure out where, in this empty plot of land, the various buildings in this wild west town were located. You play cards, each of which narrows down the possibilities. The goal is to be the guy who definitively locates one or more of the buildings on his or her turn.
Tobago is similar, for locating the treasures. One card says it's within so many hexes of the water, another says it's next to a tree, and so on. Eventually it gets determined, and away we go to find it and split it up.
Now, here's the question. Is Tobago better than Old Town? Old Town is what I sometimes call a "simple" game, whereas Tobago is "complex." Old Town basically has one mechanic, and you crank it through time and again until the game's over. Tobago has several things going on; it's not just about locating the treasure, it's about the race to pick it up, getting the amulets the stone heads drop off, using said amulets appropriately, deciding what to do with the treasure cards, and on and on.
Neither of those is better than the other, obviously, but it's an interesting point of comparison. Simple games tend to be a little cleaner, but perhaps also a little dry. (You don't really get drawn into the theme of Hex.) A complex game might be able to, by means of its many mechanics, obfuscate the strategy sufficiently to keep everyone involved and "in" the game.
I found it easier to take Old Town seriously, probably because it is a simpler game. I also prefer the theme, to be honest, and that's not nothing. I don't need a great theme, but if it is a great theme, that's worth bonus points when calculating the game's Units of Quality. (And I can imagine malus points, as well.) In terms of presentation, Tobago wins big on 2D art and 3D tactility; Old Town just isn't that pretty. Now, I should note that Clicker's new game in the series looks pretty sweet, so they're on top of the problem.
I'm not sure I can give a straight answer about which of these games, both of which I like, I really think is "better." The Units of Quality metric is as opaque to me as to you, and it's my own metric. But I'll say this. For the game groups I can foresee getting to the table--mostly people who have only played maybe ten games in their lives north of Monopoly--Tobago is hitting the table. A group of more advanced gamers, it's Old Town. I think that in the rest of my life I'll play Tobago about five more times, and Old Town twice. I suppose that's a metric...
|