|
Huzonfirst
United States
Manassas
Virginia
David Wright is hitting over .400 and has an OBA of over .500. He is a young god!
-
This review originally appeared on The Opinionated Gamers website
"Hyped" is one of the most misused words in the gamer's lexicon. In common parlance, it means something that is extravagantly praised before it even makes its first appearance. These days, though, a "hyped" game has come to be simply synonymous with a very popular one. Many gamers refer to a game as hyped when they don't think it's as good as the rest of the gaming world, a subtle insult that simultaneously puts down both the design and its misguided supporters. The implication is that the game doesn't deserve its lofty status and that its supporters are rating it on reputation, rather than its quality. Hence, I've grown to dislike the word, because of the inappropriate and unfair way in which it's usually used.
However, sometimes genuine hype truly exists. That was certainly the case with Antoine Bauza's 7 Wonders. Early last year, people in the industry started talking excitedly about this game that could handle up to 7 players in a half hour. Then, the prototype got some early play at The Gathering in April last year, with mostly rave reviews. It was unquestionably the most anticipated game of the Essen crop. That, my friends, is the true definition of hype. And the good news is that 7 Wonders very much lives up to its advance notice. It accomplishes just about all of its very ambitious goals and does so in an entertaining and very replayable fashion.
In 7 Wonders, the players represent one of the great cities of antiquity, each of which has the ability to build one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. They will construct structures, make scientific discoveries, and win military victories, with the overall goal of getting the most victory points, just as was the case in real life. (The proof of this last point comes from Julius Caesar's famous quote, "Veni, vidi, VP".)
Gift of the Magi(c)
The major mechanism in 7 Wonders is derived from a card distribution method used by many Magic: The Gathering players called a booster draft. If, like me, you were never snared by the CCG craze, the method works like this. The players are dealt a number of cards face down. Each player chooses one of the cards dealt to him, then passes the remaining cards to his neighbor, whereupon each player chooses a second card from those passed to them, passes the remaining cards, and so on. This is a nice way of distributing cards to players because it minimizes the luck of the deal and leads to some interesting decisions. Many fans of Agricola use a booster draft to distribute the Occupation and Minor Improvements cards prior to the game.
Booster drafts have been used in non-CCG games before this. Perhaps the first usage was in 2004's Fairy Tale and it got a number of people pretty excited. 7 Wonder's main twist on the mechanic is that each card is revealed right after it is chosen, as opposed to waiting until all the cards from the deal are selected. This enables the players to take into account what their opponents are doing.
7 Wonders begins with each player taking 3 coins and a player board, which shows the 2 to 4 stages of their wonder. The game consists of three Ages, with different cards dedicated to each age. At the beginning of an age, each player is dealt seven cards face down (pleasingly, the number 7 is a recurring theme in the game). They choose one and then pass the remainder to their left-hand neighbor (cards are passed to the right during the Second Age). Each player simultaneously plays their selected card, then they choose a card from the stack that was passed to them. This continues until there are only two cards left in a stack; one is chosen and the other discarded. Then, you proceed to the next age.
Each card can be used in exactly one of three ways. The most common way is to reveal it, check to see if you can play it (more on this later), and place it in your display. The second way is to use it to build the next stage of your wonder. Each stage has a requirement and a benefit. If you meet the requirement, you can place your card face down under the stage on your player board to show that you've built that portion of your wonder (any card can be used). The third way is simply to discard the card and take 3 coins from the bank.
Civ Card Rollcall!
So what do these cards do? There are 7 different kinds of cards (naturally!) and they're used in different ways. There are two kinds of resources (raw and manufactured), but both work pretty much the same. Most cards in the game and all of the wonder stages require resources in order to be played. There are 7 different resources; each player begins the game with the ability to use one and the others can be acquired by playing resource cards. Each instance of a resource in your display can contribute one copy of that resource when building cards. You don't store excess resources; in fact, no tokens are provided for them. You either have enough resources available to you in order to play the card, or you don't.
If you had to rely only on your own resources, that would make things pretty difficult. Fortunately, the great civilizations believed in the ancient maxim, "Sharing is caring" (they also knew it was pretty lucrative, too). If you lack a resource you need to build a card, but one of your two adjacent opponents has it, you can use it merely by paying her 2 coins (this is the principal use for money in the game). Happily, this doesn't stop her from using that resource herself, so it's a win-win. At least your neighbor might as well view it that way, since she can't stop you from renting her resource.
What are the other types of cards? Civilian structures do nothing but give you victory points. Commercial structures do a variety of things, including giving you VPs and money (based on the cards you and your neighbors have played), providing resources that can't be rented, and giving you a discount on buying resources from a neighbor (you only have to pay 1 coin).
And Now, the Big Ticket Items
Science cards introduce a set collection aspect to the game. There are three different sciences and at the end of the game, you score points both for how many you collected in each category, as well as for how many complete sets of three different types of science cards you have. The latter give you more points, but that's mitigated by the fact that some of the science cards can be built for free if a card from the same category was built during an earlier age.
Military cards add some direct player interaction. Each military card gives you 1-3 points of strength. At the end of each age, compare your strength with that of your two neighbors. For each neighbor your strength is higher than, you gain victory points (1 VP for Age I, 3 VPs for Age II, and 5 VPs for Age III). For each neighbor your strength is lower than, you lose 1 VP. This is a nice system, as it allows a player to get a good return for focusing on military, while not totally slamming a player who finds himself sandwiched between two warmongers.
Finally, there are Guild cards. Each of these yields VPs at the end of the game, usually based on the cards your neighbors have played. For example, one gives you a VP for every Civilian building on your left and right. There are 10 Guild cards in the game and at the beginning, a number equal to two more than the number of players is added to the Age III cards. This adds some variety and some surprises (although showing which Guild cards will be used at the outset is perfectly reasonable variant). Guild cards can be some of the most lucrative cards in the game, but are also among the most expensive.
After Age III has been played out, all the VPs are added up. This includes points earned for Wonders, for Civilian and Commercial buildings, Science points, Military points earned during the game, points for Guild cards, and 1 VP for every 3 coins the player has. A very nice pad is provided that makes the tallying a snap. Most VPs wins, and the victorious civilization will earn the right to live on and create viral videos and reality TV.
Enough mechanics! Is it any good?
7 Wonders does a lot of things right, but perhaps its greatest accomplishment is that it's a game that the vast majority of gamers will like at least a little. It's fast, it's fun, there's plenty of decisions to be made, and it handles any number of players effortlessly. It's the perfect "let's play something while we're waiting for the other group to finish" design, but it can also be played pretty seriously. It's really rare for one game to be able to accomplish all of those things and that's the source of its great popularity.
Bauza's implementation of the booster draft was clearly his most important design decision. By allowing simultaneous choices, but still giving the players information as the round proceeds, any number of players can be accommodated without turning things into a total crap shoot. But just as important is the variety of cards and mechanisms he employed. Players will want to maximize their resources, money, military strength, science, abilities, and, of course, VPs. Decisions must be made about which to focus on and which to ignore and that's what makes the game so enjoyable.
I feel the game is highly replayable, although some might disagree. There are seven wonders that can be assigned to a player (eight, if you count the rather bizarre Manneken Pis expansion, which, like the publisher Repos, hails from Belgium), each of which has different abilities assigned to its stages. The wonders each have an A and a B side, which differ slightly, so there are a good number of starting positions. As mentioned, the Guilds also add variety. Finally, each game plays out very differently, since the way the cards are grouped affects gameplay significantly. Fans of other fast playing card games might point out that there isn't a broad strategy space, like Race for the Galaxy, or highly different starting positions, like Dominion. But given that 7 Wonders is lighter than those games, I think there's more than enough replayability to keep players happy for quite a while, or at least until the inevitable expansions appear.
While 7 Wonder's claim to fame may be how well it plays with lots of players, I definitely prefer it with fewer. It's best with 3 or 4, in my opinion, as you're directly competing with all or almost all of your opponents. There's more control as well and it's far easier to see what everyone is going for. It's also pretty good with 5, but with 6 or 7, it feels as if the opponents furthest from you might as well be playing another game. However, many groups (and families) like to play a single game together rather than split up and for folks like that, the fact that the game is still feasible with as many as 7 makes it a real godsend.
The Inevitable "But..."
I really have only one nagging concern about the design. You make lots of decisions during a game of 7 Wonders: some of them are automatic and some take some real thought. But it's not clear to me that most of them matter a great deal, at least in terms of wins and losses. You can play a very sound game, but lose because you were dealt three great cards in a stack, rather than having them split up in three stacks. Or because a neighbor got a key military or science card at the right time. Or because the "perfect" guild wasn't one of the ones added to the Age III cards. On the other hand, all of those things might go right and you'll win easily. There's also the actions of your opponents, some of which might have seemed like a toss-up to them, but which turned out to be critical to your fortunes. I'm not really sure about this and in any event, I'd need a lot more data to determine if it's true, but it does seem as if the feeling of control in the game might be a false one and that chaos, well hidden but nonetheless present, is doing more to decide outcomes than player choices. Even if this is true, it's not a huge issue, because the game plays so fast and the gameplay is so enjoyable that I don't take winning all that seriously. Still, it does reduce the attraction to me a bit. I will say, though, that good players seem to perform better than less able ones, so this effect might not be as pronounced as I think it is.
One of the dangers for any hyped game is false expectations (Tempus, anyone?) and 7 Wonders is no exception. Some people will look at its great popularity and exalted position on the Geek (it's currently the 14th ranked game) and assume that it must be a deep, strategic game (like most of the other highly ranked games on the Geek). Those people will be disappointed. 7 Wonders is a middleweight game that, because it plays so fast, feels almost like a filler. It has plenty of decisions, but none of them are deep and the strategic space is fairly narrow. It's meant to be played quickly, not to be subjected to heavy analysis. If you approach this game the right way, as clearly most people have, you will very likely enjoy it. But, based on some comments, a few people viewed it as the second coming of Agricola and it's nowhere close to filling those shoes.
You Look Mahvelous!
There are plusses and minuses in the job Repos did on the components, but most of my feelings are positive ones. The cards are oversized, which I consider a very wise decision. The cards are the game, after all, and deserve special treatment. The downside, of course, is that you'll need a fairly large table if you want to play with 6 or 7. The artwork is very attractive and takes up a lot of real estate on the cards; again, a good choice, as this is the primary thematic aspect of the game. Bold colors were used to distinguish each type of card, which I really like; in addition to making the cards easily distinguishable (even from across the table), it's a very appealing look. The iconography is exemplary: large and easily understood, which is important given how often you'll be checking out your neighbors' holdings. The cards don't feel flimsy, but they do show wear disappointingly quickly. That's definitely an issue, particularly given how expensive this game is, but it hasn't really been a problem for me, because this isn't the kind of game where you have much opportunity to distinguish cards from their backs. You can always sleeve the cards, of course, but no one has bothered to do that in any of the groups I play with and that's a good thing.
The wonders are cardboard player boards that, like the cards, are attractively illustrated and clearly marked. But many of them begin to warp after just a few plays. Again, a disappointment, but not a real issue so far. The coins and conflict tokens are nice looking. Finally, easily the worst part of the production is the insert, which has got to be the flimsiest piece of cardboard I've ever seen in a game. Get rid of it the first chance you get, which will give you plenty of room for the numerous expansions which are sure to follow. So overall, some definite missteps in the physical production, but the cards, the stars of the show, look so good I'm willing to overlook most of the transgressions.
So, in the final analysis, 7 Wonders isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread (that would be Wonder Bread--ha!). In fact, it isn't even my favorite game of 2010. But what it is is a very enjoyable, very replayable game that keeps coming out and figures to do so for some time. In fact, not only have I played this back to back, but I've even requested such a rematch on occasion; those who have gamed with me can tell you what an incredibly rare occurrence that is. There's always some new approach you want to check out and even when you recognize that you may not have complete control of your fate, it's awfully fun trying them out. Antoine Bauza set himself an ambitious goal and met it very well; we are the happy benefactors. So if you're wondering how a game can possibly handle seven players in only 45 minutes with no downtime, pick up a copy of 7 Wonders (when it finally becomes available again!) and wonder no more.
(Edit: Headings added in response to legitimate complaints that the review was hard to read without them.)
-
Anthony DuLac
United States
Minnesota
-
Holy Wall o' Text, Batman!!
-
Antonio Tang
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
-
Helpful hint: Use section headings. Otherwise, thanks for confirming that I bought a MASTERPIECE!
-
Brian C
Burbank
California
-
Thanks for the review! I appreciate the "wall o' text" as your review was very in-depth.
-
Was George Orwell an Optimist?
United States
Corvallis
Oregon
-
Fine review, Larry. And don't listen to the complaints about text - some of us actually read books, and have no problem getting through a few well written paragraphs.
-
Paul S
United Kingdom
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
-
Nice review. Ordered this yesterday, feeling better about doing so for having read your thoughts!
-
Cosmic Charlie
United States
Silver Spring
Maryland
-
It is a nice game, but is it worth fifty bucks? Nope.
-
Patrick C.
United States
Milford
New Hampshire
Labyrinth: The War On Terror is historically inaccurate & politically biased. It's the one popular game that violates BGG's requirements to keep politics out of gen. discussion. And yet it receives special treatment =US-centric views of this site.
-
It's under $35 at more than one online store.
-
Ramsay Jackson
Canada
Montréal
Québec
-
Larry Levy wrote: Finally, easily the worst part of the production is the insert, which has got to be the flimsiest piece of cardboard I've ever seen in a game. Get rid of it the first chance you get, which will give you plenty of room for the numerous expansions which are sure to follow.
i removed the insert and reinforced it by taping all the joints. done properly, it adds a lot of rigidity, but i still don't think i'd store the game on its side. the player boards are just too heavy for the flimsy cardboard! great review of the game, but i'll also comment that adding a few bold headers can make reading your review a little more appealing for those who might want to skip the game play part.
-
Anthony DuLac
United States
Minnesota
-
Sphere wrote: Fine review, Larry. And don't listen to the complaints about text - some of us actually read books, and have no problem getting through a few well written paragraphs.
Yeah, forget that whole crazy notion that this is an entirely different medium. Or the fact that it's incredibly easy to insert a picture or heading or two. Who cares what the readers think, right? I mean, other than Sphere, none of us country bumpkins read books.
-
Nick McElveen
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
Mmmmmm..... Beer. Glug glug glug....
-
Larry Levy wrote: However, sometimes genuine hype truly exists.
Yep--just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you. 7 Wonders is both overhyped and a pretty good game. I'll never call it the best game in my collection, but I've certainly gotten my money's worth out of it.
-
Anthony DuLac
United States
Minnesota
-
Larry, allow me to clarify - this is a well-written review, no doubt about it. Thank you for taking the time to write this. I just felt it was a bit difficult to read without any headers or pictures.
-
Brian Bankler
United States
San Antonio
Texas
"I'm a soldier, I've killed people." "You are a doctor." "I've had bad days."
-
Larry,
You, of all people, should have closed by rating this game a 7. You are destined to be the straight man in any comedy duo.
As for the sentiment, I agree totally. A fine, fun game where (once you master the basics, which are pretty obvious) you have lots of decisions and little control.
-
Paul Lister
United Kingdom
London
-
Very nice review Larry
I have not played it for a while, but the news its on BSW from tomorrow means it will see some more play.
-
Huzonfirst
United States
Manassas
Virginia
David Wright is hitting over .400 and has an OBA of over .500. He is a young god!
-
wytefang wrote: Larry, allow me to clarify - this is a well-written review, no doubt about it. Thank you for taking the time to write this. I just felt it was a bit difficult to read without any headers or pictures.
Anthony, we all have our strengths and weaknesses. My strengths, I hope, are that I write reasonably well and with some insight. Among my numerous weaknesses is that I'm not a particularly visual person and that I'm sufficiently lazy not to devote time to inserting pictures and such. That's just the way my reviews are and probably always will be. When this review appeared on The Opinionated Gamers website, Dale Yu was kind enough to spruce it up with a few images.
However, now that I see how this appears in a Geek article, I agree that the suggestions about headers are good ones. The text could stand with some breaking up, it would allow people to skip to the sections they want to read, and, best of all, it takes very little effort to add. So I appreciate all of the critiques, but particularly that one. In fact, when I have a little more time, I'll go back and add some bolded headers to the text (along with a note at the bottom explaining that these are edits, so that the complaints don't sound ridiculous).
Thanks for the compliments as well as for the criticisms.
-
Huzonfirst
United States
Manassas
Virginia
David Wright is hitting over .400 and has an OBA of over .500. He is a young god!
-
Bankler wrote: Larry, you are destined to be the straight man in any comedy duo.
Well, by all accounts, Bud Abbott was a much nicer man than Lou Costello. So I guess I can live with that.
-
Conrad
United States
New York City
New York
Who is bought and sold? Who is beyond the law? Who is free to choose? Who follows orders? Who salutes longest? Who prays loudest? Who dies first? Who laughs last? -Barbara Kruger
"Now a question of etiquette: as I pass, do I give you the ass or the crotch?"
-
Larry Levy wrote: "Veni, vidi, VP"
Is that pronounced "weenie, weedy, weepy?"
-
Was George Orwell an Optimist?
United States
Corvallis
Oregon
-
wytefang wrote: Sphere wrote: Fine review, Larry. And don't listen to the complaints about text - some of us actually read books, and have no problem getting through a few well written paragraphs. Yeah, forget that whole crazy notion that this is an entirely different medium. Or the fact that it's incredibly easy to insert a picture or heading or two. Who cares what the readers think, right? I mean, other than Sphere, none of us country bumpkins read books.
Whether you read books or not, there's room here for different approaches, and I think it was rude to derail the thread into a discussion of appearance. The content was more worthy of discussion.
[edit] Honesty compels me to note that after writing that, I realized that I had done precisely what I'm taking you to task for just last night (see here). That review was far too visual for my taste - da pyrate's always useful commentary was buried in an avalance of graphical hoo-haw. We all have our own views, and need no permission to comment as we see fit.
[edit 2] Bad Sphere is wondering why Good Sphere got an edit and he didn't. Bad Sphere (B.S. for short) wants to know what an "entirely different medium" has to do with anything. Last I heard, it's just as easy to put pictures and fancy fonts in books as it is on web pages.
-
Tim Seitz
United States
Glen Allen
VA
Like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be recovered, so we must die. But God does not take away life; instead, he devises ways so that a banished person may not remain estranged from him. 2 Sam 14:14
-
Sphere wrote: wytefang wrote: Sphere wrote: Fine review, Larry. And don't listen to the complaints about text - some of us actually read books, and have no problem getting through a few well written paragraphs. Yeah, forget that whole crazy notion that this is an entirely different medium. Or the fact that it's incredibly easy to insert a picture or heading or two. Who cares what the readers think, right? I mean, other than Sphere, none of us country bumpkins read books. Whether you read books or not, there's room here for different approaches, and I think it was rude to derail the thread into a discussion of appearance. The content was more worthy of discussion. [edit] Honesty compels me to note that after writing that, I realized that I had done precisely what I'm taking you to task for just last night (see here). That review was far too visual for my taste - da pyrate's always useful commentary was buried in an avalance of graphical hoo-haw. We all have our own views, and need no permission to comment as we see fit. [edit 2] Bad Sphere is wondering why Good Sphere got an edit and he didn't. Bad Sphere (B.S. for short) wants to know what an "entirely different medium" has to do with anything. Last I heard, it's just as easy to put pictures and fancy fonts in books as it is on web pages.
I think you're right on both counts. Too much visual stimulation causes overload, and can be a turn off. Whereas, an interesting well-written paragraph can be interesting all by itself.
-
Mark Schlatter
United States
Shreveport
Louisiana
-
Larry Levy wrote:
I really have only one nagging concern about the design. You make lots of decisions during a game of 7 Wonders: some of them are automatic and some take some real thought. But it's not clear to me that most of them matter a great deal, at least in terms of wins and losses. [...] I'm not really sure about this and in any event, I'd need a lot more data to determine if it's true, but it does seem as if the feeling of control in the game might be a false one and that chaos, well hidden but nonetheless present, is doing more to decide outcomes than player choices. Even if this is true, it's not a huge issue, because the game plays so fast and the gameplay is so enjoyable that I don't take winning all that seriously.
Thanks for stating this so well --- while I've only had one play under my belt (and watched another one), this has been my strongest concern about the game. And, in my case, the awareness of the chaos was enough to blunt my appreciation of the game.
-
Was George Orwell an Optimist?
United States
Corvallis
Oregon
-
UlyZed wrote: It's probably going to come down to personality, and even if you have two personalities your tastes will determine what you will be engaged by.
I'm a very literal learner, but I do find that this medium, with its backlit screens and bad posture, requres a little bit more visual help for the most part.
I know it's almost disappointing that you can do a video review and almost get more thumbs than landmark reviews whether you put up dross or not, but I do think it suits the medium more.
It's certainly possible to write a good text review here, as Larry just demonstrated. I don't have any use for video reviews, but I don't go on those threads and post "Holy string of crappy video, Batman!". There is no lack of graphic intensive reviews for you and wytefang. Don't those of us who enjoy text deserve a platform as well?
UlyZed wrote: Nothing beats reading a good book, but I don't think that's possible here.
Millions of people are reading books on kindles and other e-readers. It's possible.
-
Was George Orwell an Optimist?
United States
Corvallis
Oregon
-
UlyZed wrote: If thumbs are any indication, people seem to prefer reviews with a visual stimulus.
If TV ratings are any indication, people seem to prefer American Idol, but I can still watch Masterpiece Theater. What's your point?
-
Was George Orwell an Optimist?
United States
Corvallis
Oregon
-
I'd been meaning to play 7 Wonders since I bought it a few months back, but had never gotten it to the table until last night. My daughter and a friend of hers were here, and having read this review I pulled it out and talked them into trying it. We all enjoyed ourselves, going in entirely different directions but finishing in a virtual dead heat at 52-52-51. It was extremely easy to learn, and the well thought out graphic design helps ease that process. I'm sure we'll play again.
-
Frank Hamrick
United States
Rocky Mount
North Carolina
-
Is it worth 50 bucks? Yep.
-
Frank Hamrick
United States
Rocky Mount
North Carolina
-
Nick: "7 Wonders is both overhyped and a pretty good game."
Me: At what point does a hyped game become "over" hyped? Can you give me a quantifying number? Just wondered where that data is.
-
|
|
David Wright is hitting over .400 and has an OBA of over .500. He is a young god!
