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"
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.
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.
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.
---
"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"