100% agree with this review. They took away all of the tactile and
mechanical pleasure of the board version that made it fun to play in the first place. But they left in some stuff to make it "feel" boardgamey. Instead it feels like a plodding pointless mess. Total disappointment.
You and I have very different definitions of "laid bare". And as I pointed out elsewhere in the comments section, I've read everything I've unlocked in the journal. My complaints stand.
Yeah, those are really good examples. Frankly, pretty much any good boardgame port. Dominant Species is a gold standard for me. What a great port of what could have been an utterly inscrutable game.
By way of another example, the port of Eclipse does a *terrible* job of explaining the game, but it does a *superlative* job of giving you the information you need once you know the game. Warhammer Quest fails at both.
I don't mean to sound flip, but it's the developer's job to answer those questions.
Xcom on the PC does a good job showing data without compromising the aesthetics. Rodeo's Hunters game is another good example. Part of the problem with Warhammer Quest is that there are no tooltips, which is a great way to embed information. There's a not very good game called Call of Cthulhu: The Wasted Land that I seem to recall did a good job of showing you all the information you needed.
Just to address the comment about 2 stars, our ratings system is as simple as could be. Two stars literally means "I didn't like it". One star means "I hated it", which I didn't, and three stars means "I like it", which I also didn't. Hence, two stars.
I think Phantom Leader in iOS form is utterly baffling unless you read up on it online. It provides the info someone who's familiar with the game would need to know, but it does little to nothing to teach the game, and I made some huge, basic errors the first few times I played because of it.
What do 4 and 5 stars mean? Seems weird to have 3 'positive' stars, 1 negative star and 1 meh star.
not entirely true to your argument. the essential points to the game were not throughly explained or left the players to guess/gamble. I.e how would i heal up my characters, how many moves can each avatar make, and all that has been highlighted by the author in his address. there's too much issues surfaced while playing and i personally feel theres no point for me to carry on playing if i have to constantly google on this game rather than to experience it as a "new" player as the devs hoped to achieve, "making the game easy and known to new players that are unfamiliar to War Hammer."
An excellent review. These are exactly the problems I have with this game. For me, a huge part of the fun in dice-based boardgames is estimating the odds of success/failure based on the transparent mechanics.
Of course, I understand that Rodeo didn't want this game to be so complex that only hardcore boardgamers would buy it. I really do. They also want it to be bought by casual videogamers, who would find all the stats and mechanics too complex and confusing, and just want to tap-tap-tap their way through the dungeons without thinking too much. That's fine, and it's a wise business decision.
But I also think that they should have, at least, include a "hardcore boardgamer" option, where every information is visible, just like in the boardgame. And not because they lose a huge number of potential customers without it (since the number of hardcore boardgamers is insignificant, compared to the number of casual videogamers), but simply because it's the right thing to do when you get the opportunity to convert a legendary (and out-of-print since forever) boardgame into a videogame, which will be the only videogame version of it for at least a decade.
Hi Tom, this is off-topic but I couldn't find another way to contact you. I just wanted to say that The Last of Us reviews are going to start appearing online soon, with one publication already releasing their perfect 5/5 review but it had no criticism at all, it was like a fanboy review on Amazon.
I have a feeling that critics are just being blinded by hype and aren't being strict enough with it and I want you to be as strict/honest as possible, I know you were attacked online for giving Uncharted 3 a 4/10 but I liked that review and the game was actually very disappointing, I hope you won't give TLoU a near or perfect score just to avoid abuse from crazed fans on the internet.
Well, I think that much of that is due to Phantom Leader's complexity. You face the same big basic "errors" whether or not you're rolling the cardboard version or the port; i.e. you probably don't know right off the bat that you shouldn't blow all your special points on cluster bombs on your first mission. This is the difference between a true learning curve (a good thing) and a game that just doesn't bother telling you what's going on.
Both universes? Do you mean Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40k? Because those are the same universe, just different timespans.
The game rules for Phantom Leader are entirely available from a button on the game's opening splash screen. I don't consider this "reading up on it online." I just think of it as learning the rules.
There are two separate issues here. The first is whether a the boardgame port teaches you the rules well. The second is whether it express those rules well while you're playing. As Chase puts it above, "leading you through the die rolls, modifiers, and results".
Phantom Leader doesn't really try the former, because it expects you to read the rules, which are included and thorough. If you don't read the rules, well, that's pretty much on you. I don't know what you were expecting, since not every game is going to have an interactive step-by-step tutorial. But Phantom Leader does a slam-bang job of the latter -- expressing those rules -- which is the point Chase was making above.
Warhammer Quest, on the other hand, is terrible at both teaching you the rules and expressing the rules while you play.
I read the rules. But the rules explain the mechanics. They do nothing to tell you about strategy or the whys of the game. And it is far from intuitive.
Just playing trial games doesn't really teach you how to play correctly either, unlike some games.
I would never expect the game to teach me the appropriate strategy. I would expect multiple playings using different strategies to do that, as long as I know the rules and can see exactly why something happened. If you know the rules, and are clearly shown the results of your actions, I feel it's up to the player to learn what he or she is doing wrong (and right).
But Phantom Leader doesn't really offer the sort of feedback that makes this practical from a cold start. My first couple of failures were just baffling catastrophes and gave me no clues about what I did wrong or what I could be doing better. At which point I went online and read up on how to play it successfully and did much better.
It's a sufficiently complex game that it really needs some sort of advice (this is I suppose not a criticism of the app, per se, I assume the boxed game doesn't include this either). It's quite possible for boardgames to provide this sort of feedback and coaching. Just last night I played Space Alert for the first time, and it has a series of tutorial scenarios almost bigger than the core rules, which walk you through the mechanics, then give you a couple of preplanned scenarios (it's normally randomized like Phantom Leader is) to test you out on some basics, then add on mechanics etc. It would be even easier for a digital app version of a game to build this sort of thing in.
And frankly, Space Alert is in my opinion significantly more accessible mechanically than Phantom Leader. What makes for its learning curve is the fact that its mechanics have to be digested and executed over the course of ten realtime minutes while it's regularly adding things you have to deal with.
But I got the distinct impression that the Phantom Leader app was designed for people who are already familiar with Dan Verssen's games and possibly Phantom Leader itself, and certainly people who come from a historical wargaming background, which I am not and do not. I just like the idea of a challenging solitaire boardgame on my iPad. And once I understood what I was doing, which, again, the game did nothing to facilitate, then I did appreciate what Phantom Leader is doing.
How do can you make assumptions about its complexity (that its superficial as an adventure generator of all things) but also complain that you lack explanations, guidance and more transparency regarding the rules?
I played tons of D&D, D20 and even obscure shit like Rifts with people that didn't have a problem rolling a dice without having an encyclopedic knowledge about the game.
Furthermore you dont even explain why its relevant. Or, as a proper critic should, provide positives for your negatives. Soo many words just to miss the point entirely. Its such a frickin chore to slog through...
You make fair points, and I care little about ratings, but personally I'm finding the game very enjoyable after figuring the mechanics out and getting some decent gear. In the beginning the randomness of encounters can lead to some frustrating moments, but that only adds to the satisfaction of getting each new level or piece of new equipment. Buying gold will spoil the game, but I'm happy to fork out extra money for content and characters. Well worth the money IMHO.
Barac, I get your point, and I agree that Phantom Leader could do a much better job of actively teaching you the game. But I think I am approaching it from a different perspective than you are, and I actually don't want the game giving me hints. With a digital boardgame, as long as the rules are presented clearly and I can follow the game mechanics, I'd rather not get any help or advice about playing the game outside of my own experience. In fact, if I find out about some interesting strategy or move combination without figuring it out first on my own, I feel cheated, like I read a walkthrough for an adventure game or something. What I need is for the game to be as transparent as possible, and give me a complete explanation of the rules. But I can understand how someone else might not enjoy this.
Interestingly, upon reflection, I might not be so opposed to a game teaching me more about itself if it is, say, about the elfs, because I am not as familiar with them and can't take anything for granted.