
Tapestry: Has the mythical “2-hour civ-building board game” arrived? - Tomte
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/11/tapestry-has-the-mythical-2-hour-civ-building-board-game-arrived/
======
TheRealPomax
Let's just drop the last two paragraphs in right here, so no one needs to go
"it's an ad title, and a question, so it's almost guaranteed a no":

\---

"Tapestry is complicated to assess. I'm certain its ideas are clever, even
innovative, and it effectively reduces the civilization formula. But that word
carries a double meaning. The game is reduced to essentials—a point-chaser
that rewards both careful planning and outright chance. But it is also reduced
to its bones, stripping away the interactions and narrative that make a two-
hour civ-game such a holy grail among board gamers.

The game is divisive, then, and likely to stay that way. I’m glad Stegmaier
tried to take the civilization game beyond its comfort zone. Experiments are
worthwhile, even when their results are imperfect, and this may be right for
you. But when it comes to the reasons I play board games—the interactions
between players, the narratives that arise from play, the thematic
statements—this Tapestry is bare of the threads I value most"

------
malloreon
I have witnessed dozens of people playing this and none have had a positive
review of it afterward.

~~~
hirsin
Sample size 2, but same here.

------
nabdab
Well written review. Yet I’m left with the most important question unanswered.
Is the game fun to play?

I get the strange feeling that the answer is a hard no. And that this price
was ordered which is why it goes on like one long excuse for why different
people might have different opinions of it.

~~~
floatingatoll
I thoroughly enjoy the mechanics of it as a solo player. It has the same
texture of luck and strategy as Agricola professions, and it forces you to
seriously prioritize your technological choices or risk mediocrity from trying
to be the best at everything. If you’re into euro and you wish Civ didn’t take
400 hours to play an excellent game, it’s great.

------
Jd
Odd that the author never really discusses if it is fun to play. Thought that
was one of the first things to do when reviewing a game.

~~~
setr
It depends on why the review exists -- most reviews emphasize fun, a fairly
nebulous term that basically translates to "I didn't regret playing it", but
there's not much value in fun as a target (and why such reviews are rarely
described as well-written; there's little to write about). For the reader,
it's a mildly indirect answer to the question "buy or skip?"

This review tries to answer the question "is it interesting", particularly in
the context of other similar board game designs. That is, the reviewer was
interested in whether the fundamental mechanics worked well, and achieved the
goals of the creator, and the player (spoiler: it worked for well, but did not
achieve player goals)

In this mental model, the question of whether it's "fun" is irrelevant. Is it
worth remembering, as a player or as a designer, is a much more valuable, and
harder target to achieve.

