I guess I lied in my last post when I said I would go in chronological order. I was going to start with new game I played since the prior post and then move up to the next game I played (in chronological order as I played them) for the next few weeks. However, I feel it behoves me to take a step back and take a quick look at a game I played well before I ever owned Space Hulk: Death Angel. That game, as this post's title indicates, is Shadows Over Camelot.
First, I must say: I thought about doing some version of the cheesy newspaper title for this post (something like "A shadow hangs over this game"), but I decided to just give you the "straight dope" and just tell you instead of annoying you with headlines that make one roll their eyes. The straight dope is that the game has what I consider a huge flaw.
Before I expound on that design flaw, I will give a very basic overview of Shadows Over Camelot. It is a Days Of Wonder produced, cooperative game with a traitor. I could be wrong (I haven't researched it), but I believe it was one of the first games to introduce the traitor element, and it is that traitor element that endears it to some people. In the game, the players take on a set of minigames--sometimes simultaneously--that they must win in order to collect white swords that are then placed on the Round Table. Yes, as you may have guessed, the game is themed via Arthurian legends. As always there is plenty more information on boardgamegeek, and there is a good post about it on my favorite board game blog as well.
I also feel the need to mention the good thing about this game. The best element is the theme. It is implemented by allowing you to play as the knights of the round table, giving you little figurines for your character and everything. The pieces are well made and the artwork is great.
Given that theme, the game looks to be a lot of fun when I first opened the box. However, as I started to play, I found that the mini-games were fun but not great. Another way to say it is that they are not bad, but they are well... meh. Meh is probably the best descriptor if you are familiar with that adjective expressing something's unexception nature.
After playing through the mini-games and finishing the game a few times, I found that the game was extremely difficult. This is where the major design flaw was eventually discovered. I started reading forums on boardgamegeek discussing the difficulty as well as the strategies to beat the game. What I found was that there seems to be one main way to beat the game. When you play the game, you move your characters to the mini-games of your choice; so, the order you go to each mini-game is up to you, and you can even go back and forth from mini-games, switching the one you are playing throughout the game and even in the middle of playing one of the mini-games. The design flaw is: There seems to be one (or maybe two) best sequences to follow. In other words, you need to go to Quest (the mini-games are called quests) C first, followed by A, followed by B, and etc. If you follow that sequence, you have a good chance of winning. If you try any other order on those mini-games, you will most likely lose. One familiar with strategy games should see the problem here: One does not adapt their strategy much during the game. Moreover, there really is no reason to try different strategies from game to game. Instead, the players just do the same actions in the order every time. One familiar with Shadows Over Camelot might say: "But you add in the traitor, and there is great tension." That tension does not matter if the team's strategy must proceed in the same order every play-through in order to have a chance to win.
Sorry, Days Of Wonder, I am willing to try a co-op game with a traitor, but if the strategy is the same every time, that is going to bore me regardless of a traitor. Design a game where my team's strategy can change as the game progresses (in reaction to the events of that particular session); then get back to me.
Do you think I am wrong? I've only played Shadows a few times. Is it more replayable than I think? Go ahead; let know whether I'm wrong and why in the comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment