I’ve never seen videos that explain subcomponents to such a nuanced resolution. This innovation in pop board game discussions is awesome and I am here for it! (Also, the phrase “Mancala-based rondelle”. Wowzers.)
Thank you. I've had a lot of people tell me why my take on a game is "wrong"... I don't mind the debate, but there must first be a definition of the terms.
Really loving the boardgame content(especially this series) you've been producing. Your channel/site is such a great source of information for finding new games we'll enjoy instead of just reading through endless reviews and randomly renting whatever looks appealing in the store. Your quick game overview Shorts was how I discovered you. Awesome work!
I find all your videos incredibly helpful. Your passion really speaks through your videos, and I hope you keep inspiring many to learn new games and also grow their interest in the wonderful world of board games. Keep it up!
It’s funny because Food Chain Magnate has much better components than Tang Garden. FCM’s components are clean, thematic, and - above all - legible. Tang Garden’s components - while beautifully illustrated - are difficult to read and actively block line of sight for players around the table.
You make a good point, but I don’t entirely agree. I haven’t had as much trouble with Tang Garden except when a miniature is placed inside of a gazebo. Still, I didn’t think about that as a possible strike against it.
Really great contents. Would you please do more videos with so much insights like this one and the theme one. Maybe about topics like balance, luck, etc.
The thing I like the most about this channel is that, first, you explain clearly the parameters you are going to consider to include games on the list. The thing I don't like is that, after the video, I want to buy most of them and some are hard to find here! 😅
Ah! I’m sorry. I am US-based and it’s true: most of the games I name are easy to get here but I am less aware of the rest of the world. Where are you located?
I don’t feel Focus is different enough from Elegance that it is worth considering. A game isn’t better just because it has a narrow focus on a certain mechanism
I don’t think you understand. This is not about a game being better or worse. It is about describing the characteristics of the game. Splendor and Kingdomino have an equal amount of focus on one mechanic, but I find the mechanic in Splendor a bit underwhelming. Now that you have me thinking about it however, I think that the difference between elegance and innovation aren’t worth mentioning.
@@theperfectboardgame I understand that the entire Mechanics score is about characterizing the game. But would you give a game a higher Mechanics score just because it has a narrow focus? What about a game like Ark Nova…I haven’t played, but it has many different mechanics, and it is pretty mechanic-driven from what I can tell
Absolutely. As I was thinking about it, (I’ve reviewedArk Nova before, but I can’t possibly remember every score I have every game) I imagined I would probably give Ark Nova a mid-level mechanics score, about a 5. I checked on TPB and it has 6.1. I would have to watch my video review to see if I said the same thing there. A mid-level score isn’t bad at all. I would say if Ark Nova: “it is extremely well-rounded”. So I save the HIGH mechanics score for games that are ALL ABOUT one mechanic. In other words: the mechanic IS the reason you play the game. This video is full of such examples. With Ark Nova, you may play because you like the theme, or maybe because it is more complicated and therefore more engaging for you… but if you look at San Juan, unless you like the mechanic, there isn’t really any other reason to play the game. Hope that makes sense. Of course, I’m not pretending my opinion is law, I just want my viewers to understand what I mean when I assign these numbers.
