Agreed 1000000%

if you double down on mining you can easily do 10 points with mining and another 10 points with patricians

For the sake of clarity, this was at the end of the third round, where most income phases were between 15 and 25

I feel like this one's more bad than subtle. 😁That said, I like the actual gameplay more than they did after one play, and I don't care about box art one bit when evaluating a game anyway. :)

I don't mind the cover at all

Yeah I like the cover art tbh, love the colour contrasts there

Yea I like the cover as well

The cover is objectively bad.

Just think they were surprised by it don’t think they were mad at it.

@@pat08mullins I never said anyone was mad… 🤔

I am disagreeing hard with them on this one, but nobody is calling for a boycott of Dice Tower or resorting to name calling. Relax.

@@andymcguire237 Exactly. Where are these 'upset' people he's referring to? Anyone disagreeing is doing so respectfully.

​@RickKoeppen Note that we tend to remove outright hostile comments.

​@andymcguire237 There's still one particularly prolific poster's comments in here that have called the review infantile and unprofessional, and has intimated that DT is unethical. The reactions to this review are more off-base than the review itself!

I mean, you can always look for the games they don't like because they are the game you like.

I think the key is to look for insight and observations, plus see as much gameplay as you can, so that you're informed by what'd said. Take the personal opinions with a pinch of salt, and chuck the 'score' in the bin. It's vital to remember that we're buying games for ourselves and to play with those we game with. Not Tom, Wendy, Chris, Zee etc. I've yet to encounter a reviewer for whom my tastes strongly align, and I doubt there is such a person. I think Wendy did a decent job of a precis of the gameplay, sensibly missing out a fair bit of detail, but covering 'the essence' well. From there I'd recommend watching a playthrough, or even better grabbing a play of the game. That's a much better approach than placing trust in alignment of tastes.

Well that's great! We aren't trying to scare people away.

Expeditions is such a bad game

I don't think Expeditions is a bad game but you do have a very good point there.

You and others are seeing this the wrong way. If your taste doesn't align with theirs, that just means that you could check out the games they don't like. They could still be useful that way for you.

In the past, dice tower was an indicator for games of my taste, now it seems it is the clear opposite. Expeditions is in my opinion a solo game which you can play with 2, the more players you add the worse this game becomes. With some clear design flaws like starting player advantage with no compensation what so ever. Rating that one with a seal of excellence, I just can't understand and giving this one like only a mediocre rating I also can't understand. That's why I said I may need to reevaluate my view on dice tower

​@@lastburning Careful with your words, mate. We don't mind disagreements, but this comment is out of line.

Considering we played with different people.

I assume you wonder the same thing when they give equally glowing ratings, because it would be strange if it was only a problem when the review is overall "negative".

@@bjornkempe9570 Actually yes, I wonder the same thing when everyone gives the game a 9 or a 10.

@@bjornkempe9570 Why assume I am not assuming this...

I bet you think all opinions are equal.

Not at all. I'm sure we have very different opinions about whether or not your comment was a complete waste of both of our time.

Yeah, I don't agree with their review, and I'm commenting to champion the game and encourage people to buy it (as opposed to seeing this one review and deciding against it), but I know it's just opinion and I keep my comments civil. We all should.

the market is a simplified version of basic economy. If demand is high for a product, its prices are high. If you build a building that produces this product, you'll end up profiting from the fact that you produce this, but prices will drop because the demand dropped (less scarcity). Certain buildings will attract population, and as population increases, demand will also increase again, along with the prices. All of this makes the value of products constantly fluctuate, so it's crucial to sell your produce at just the right time.

I've been interested in reading some people express a regret that the game doesn't tell them the exact effect will be on the economy. I'm at the opposite end of the scale, wanting to never learn exactly what the effect will be, but rather just having a rough idea. For me the uncertainty is a positive aspect, but interesting to understand how others value much greater certainty (I suppose you could houserule it so players can take the cards out to check the effect!).

Deal if the Devil got some average reviews from several content creators but all of them were well reasoned. As opposed to this one, in MY opinion.

I don't think it's that steep. The teach is rather quick. There's basically just 6 straight forward actions. You might need one game to get the flow and a feeling for the scoring. That's at least my impression.

It's relatively easy to learn but needs a few plays to understand all its interaction points and how to be good at it.

I wouldn't put too much credence on this review. It is quite obvious (also from the BGG review page) that the trio did not fully understand the game. Chalk it up to a busy review schedule, a bad meta fit with their in-house environment, or a bad day - I don't know, but this review has a large laundry list of incongruency and review standards problems (for instance, are CGE title forced to be "whimsy"? Talk about preconceived notions).

​@@christiankvorninglassen2051Or they just genuinely didn't care for it.

@@christiankvorninglassen2051 Were you personally involved in some part of creating this game? You seem to have taken the review personally, with all your rants throughout the comments section.

What's the name of the thread?

I got to play it 4p, and yeah, it didn't feel like interaction on the main industries was stagnant. I do get part of their criticism, regarding mining, but for now I think there is still enough gameplay elsewhere to make it a decent game. For me it's not the best I've played so far from Essen, but I don't feel it's this bad either.

Exactly. I had to listen to him saying that twice too.

100% agree.

Pssst... opinions can't be wrong.

@@thecuriousboardgamer I checked with my partner - apparently yes, they can be wrong 😉

Yeah, I don't get it. What's the point in watching reviews if you're just going to dismiss everything they say if they happen to have a different experience than you did?

@@thecuriousboardgamer well in order to dismiss something you need to know what to dismiss, so you have to watch the review, isn't that so?

Most other reviewers give it glowing reviews. On top of that many take issue not with the rating, but with the incongruent criticism that DT brought here. Make of that what you will. For my part, it is yet another dent in DT's credibility as reviewers, particularly after their Forest Shuffle and Fox Experiment reviews. There are more board game reviewers than ever, and I increasingly feel that DT has not kept up with the standards that others have aspired to and pushed.

​For the record, this guy ⬆️ is the same guy who absolutely lost it on the comments of this review on BGG. To the point where Tom and Chris had to respond because of how out of bounds and inappropriate his criticism became.

@@christiankvorninglassen2051 No. Their tastes simply don't align with yours on this game. 😎 I'd say Chris and Wendy come across as very diligent/thoughtful in reviews, and on the whole I'd say that's true of Tom, with occasional exceptions, but given the volume of reviews he does, there are *very few* reviews where he's made a fundamental error in the rules / explanation. There are plenty of times I disagree with the reviewers at DT, but with just a few exceptions I find the reviews professional. If I have an issue with professionalism, it's more around the lack of prep for the crowdfunding piece, which too often descends into winging it based on looks and there are too frequent misconceptions. Other channels handle crowdfunding with greater diligence. I'm looking forward to this game irrespective that it didn't appeal to them - I buy games for myself and the groups I play with, and I expect it to go down well. None of the 3 reviewers here are in those groups, so why should I worry that it didn't excite them?

I'm usually on board with their opinions, but I'm telling you they are dead wrong on this one. It's an easy GOTY contender for me (and many others from what I am gathering).

No reason to be bummed, it's a fantastic game. Played it with several people, all loved it

As others have pointed out (myself included) in the BGG thread for the review, this review is incongruent and baffling, bordering on unprofessional. Much of the criticism does not stand up to even basic scrutiny, and many of the critique points are not valid review criticism (box art being subjective, but this box art is gorgeously thematic similar to John Company 2nd edition - even so, it is not relevant), or the preconceived notion that CGE should be "whimsy" (have they forgotten Through the Ages?). It's a "junk/fast food-review", and it is frankly troubling that DT seems increasingly blind to the industry they inhabit (Fox Experiment), and blind to the importance of a game beyond the first one or two games (Forest Shuffle, which has a laundry list of balance problems and issues with keeping track of scoring).

​@@christiankvorninglassen2051 In reviews, there are points raised that aren't negative points, simply observations spoken to give the audience context. For example, CGE typically has whimsy in their themes and rulebook, but that's not something I base my scoring on. It would be like saying "Oink games typically makes small, quirky card games. This time they made a large 4X space game." That's not a critique, but a relevant observation. I've played this game a lot of times, and with different groups of people. It's just not a win for me. One hard thing about having three reviewers discussing the same game is that each person comes to the discussion with different problems and praises. Sometimes those criticisms "contradict" what other reviewers say. Sometimes Zee hates a feature of a game while I adore that exact part, or we both dislike it for different reasons. We came in close in scores in this review but each had different experiences with it. We didn't have one single opinion, so maybe that's why it feels like there's contradictions.

@@DTChrisYi Apologies for perhaps giving the impression that box art and art direction were cardinal issues for me. The issues run much deeper. I'll try and outline them. 1) RE-WOOD: You bring up first thing in your final thoughts, yet you have collectively not done even basic due diligence in what it is. This is emblematic of an industry that is woefully ignorant of its carbon footprint, and yet we have here a novel material, produced affordably in the EU, one of the hobby's largest markets, to boot. The information regarding RE-WOOD is easily accessible. Yet you gloss over it since you have not met what I would consider basic standards and proper research in a review (and I am fully aware that this is my subjective opinion). I consider it lazy the way you collectively handwaved it. Fun is the most important, sure, but that does not mean you shouldn't do basic research on the aspects that you bring up in your review. Especially when it tackles one of the cardinal problems within the hobby. 2) THE MARKET/"COMPUTER"/CARD TRAYS - Or how Tom does not understand what a market is. First of all thank you for correcting him, even if diplomacy necessitated a very soft formulation on your part. You absolutely do manipulate the market - albeit within thematic boundaries. For someone who later professes to love economic games, it is grating to hear how oblivious Tom is to this aspect of the game simply because his semantic definition of "manipulate" differs from general economic terms. It is a shame that a disproportionately large part of the review revolves around correcting Tom's lack of understanding/ignorance, which culminates in his cop-out "I just don't think it's that exciting" - fair enough, there's the gist of it, it's fully legitimate albeit rather cheap. But at least have the self-reflection to admit that you want a less thematic abstraction of economics rather than an actual economic market. Which leads to point 3... 3) INTERACTION, POINTS DISCONNECT AND ASYMMETRY - Or how your review spirals out of control. In our hobby we're treated to an endless fanfare of multiplayer solitaire point-salad euros with plastered on themes that are completely disconnected from game mechanics and terms. Furthermore, we have a plethora of games with knife-sharp symmetrical balance where the game has built-in corrections for scoring, taking away player agency. Many of those games are absolutely stellar, and I enjoy numerous of them. However, another school of games favour players correcting each other through more direct interactions and more impactful player choices. That does not make them less streamlined - but it is blatantly obvious that you judge the game through lenses devoid of historicity. This is a great game for people wanting THAT school of economic games. Objectively so, and it is being widely praised on those terms - even if that is not the mainstream type of game that is in vogue right now. It gets particularly glaring when the lack of economic understanding is on full display. Going heavy into mining is going to drive the price of ore down (increased supply), but it's going to drive the price of silver and permits up (increased demand for refining), so it creates an opportunity for the metallurgists and scribes guilds players to benefit. If you aren't in a position to benefit from it, why are you going heavy into mining in the first place? This is not a streamlined point salad euro in which all aspects of the game are equally balanced at all times. This is a more ruthless, contextual, interactive and tactical game that benefits from opportunistic interactions. Another example of Tom's incomprehension is in relation to plots ("why would I ever do that?") - well, that depends on the context and player choices. Another example is Tom's "I will be the ultimate miner this game" - walking into an economic game with a live market with that attitude is bordering on unprofessional. At least be cognizant that you're walking into the game with a mindset that is patently incompatible with the premise of the game, and your experience might be affected accordingly. Regarding asymmetry with patricians, again, players are supposed to correct each other. The variability and replayability in this game is stellar, and some games you will absolutely need to compromise on your solitaire gameplan in order to prevent other players from capitalizing on opportunities. In sum, the standards and premise (or lack thereof) on which you review it seem all over the place or outright flawed. Fair enough not to like it, but then at least do the proper research and include the historicity that one would expect long-time reviewers to be cognizant of. Otherwise it becomes reminiscent of an infantile pub-talk rather than qualified content. I feel you and Wendy both do a decent job at reining Tom in this review, tempering his criticism with thematic considerations (something that is indisputably in short supply in our hobby where many games are thematically empty vessels for one or two interesting mechanical ideas). But it cannot salvage the impression of a group dynamic in which you (as the only reviewers so far, by the way) have completely misunderstood the fundamentals of the game (your in-house/friend groups' meta likely plays a part here) and chooses to apply that as a carte blanche to criticism that comes across as petty. Perhaps this is a blind spot for DT. Perhaps others would be better qualified at reviewing this game than you. I don't know. But I think this is a miss for DT. It is unfortunate in my opinion that it comes off the back of two other misses in Fox Experiment (just like RE-WOOD and carbon footprint, I do not think reviewers should be blind to the ethics within the industry) and Forest Shuffle (atrocious balance means the game crashes hard after the first few honeymoon plays, on top of the inelegant and clunky scoring bonanza). Thanks for responding, Chris. And sorry if I come across as harsh. I don't particularly care about Kutna Hora (not a top 20 game for me, as evident from my BGG profile's ratings), but I simply think this does a disservice to you as reviewers and severely undermine your credibility. Maybe you want to be the fast/junk food guilty pleasure of board game reviewers, if so all the more power to you. But I feel it's a shame that the largest review collective and veterans within the hobby does not leverage its strengths, does not perform basic due diligence, and does not take its position more seriously. It undermines your credibility.

what do you mean? it isnt yet out anywhere, in CZ it comes out on dec 10

@@benediktcz What are you talking about? I bought this a couple of weeks ago at my local bg store (Belgium)

@@Ceruleannn really? i am sorry i thought it was not out yet, since it is a CZ game and it is not yet out in CZ

@@Ceruleannn Yes, it seems to be emerging slowly across Europe now, but not yet in the UK (and seemingly not in the US yet either)

I re-watched our review to see what you mean and I'm honestly perplexed. What do you mean by "it lacks every aspect the review has to have"? I'm genuinely curious because I still stand by this review, but if you can share some helpful insights, I can try to keep them in mind for future reviews.

While I do not agree with the Kutna Hora review (and I agree they misunderstood some elements), they're still just extensive opinions, and you'll never find an opinion everyone agrees about. I love the game. There's only one DT review that was an absolute disgrace imo, which was Dreamscape, for which he got the rules all wrong, and based his review on playing a game the wrong way. That was hard to watch.

@@DTChrisYi This is the internet.... that won't happen. LoL

@@DTChrisYi Ok, let's see. I have a feeling that you just sit down and talked about it, but not prepared enough. 1) Beginning, you did not even paused and think more about the box cover and think about it thematically before saying it's terrible. It has to have a reason why is it looks like this. I undestand that customer do not ask such questions but you could provide a different view on that so that the customer would know. That's the reason why I go to review, to get more interesting information. 2) You mention re-wood components but you are all guessing what it actually is and how it is created? This information was published by CGE and you did not even take a minute to read it and introduce it correctly. 3) You do not mention how much thematic this game really is. The theme is what the game builds it's core on. I would expect it to be more discussed. For example you do not mention that there is a real story behind the city itself that the players can read in the rules. The game makes super thematic sense after you read it. 4) You express your thoughs on the mining explicitely but this game is not mainly about mining. It is about building the city. Mining is just part of it that is the accelerator that you need to work with. 5) Hearing that something is weird or odd and do not say why ... (Tom) 6) Each economic game has it's tactics that has to be discovered. In this one you guys complain about defensive strategies. Maybe it's not about defensivness at all - it's about exploring the game itself and it's tactics, you make this a negative. This makes me think you did not played it enough. 7) Same argument here, you mention that it's not good that someone has a majority in one industry, this is economic game, you have to react if someone's bumping too much. 8) Is this game comparable to any other games on the market? If this game has unique mechanisms in compare of others, maybe it could raise your final score if you think about it. You did not mentioned this at all. 9) Is it worth the price? How would you rate the production overall? 10) How the rules are written? Are they readable enough or total disaster? No information. 11) Is there AP in this game? 12) For which kind of players is this game? Will this game enjoy begginner or it's for hardcore gamers only? 13) Is the setup quick or disaster? 14) How much randomness is in the game? I cannot tell from the review. 15) How's the game replayability? Are you satisfied enough with the gameplay to play the game again? Does it feel each time different enough?

Each time someone has said this, I've asked what the point of the game is and and they explain it, I tell them I got it but just didn't enjoy what it was doing. It's a clever game at what is representing, but no group I played with ever felt its economy actually lived up to its concept. Feel free to elaborate a bit if you'd like, maybe you can help enlighten me better. -Chris

Deal with the Devil is actually a good game. I'm not sure why it gets so much hate.

Or... you should not take this review as an absolute truth. Have you played the game yourself? And you need to play this game more then once (which DT did not do) to form a solid opinion. You can tell that some of the things they dislike about the game are coming from non-working strategies or thing they expected to work but didn't. Which is not a solid argument for giving a game mediocre scores. Ofcourse they can dislike the game but i feel they do so because of wrong reasons.

We all played it more than once. Chris is the one who played it the most and gave it the lowest score.

There's nothing miss about this game. I played it 7 times so far with several players and they all loved it.

​@@DTWendy Yes, my taste usually aligns with you and Chris, so this review definitely gives me pause on this game. Looking forward to your review of Nucleum, I think you guys will like it.

So "not liking it" = "didn't getting it"? I just don't understand when people think you HAVE to like a game. I almost liked it! It's okay! It just wasn't something I want to keep playing.

Yeah its hard to like a game if you don't get it so they are sometimes pretty equivalent@@thedicetower

Sure thing! There's no such thing as an objective review.

Your loss.

@@andymcguire237 I canceled my cancellation gonna give it a chance

Too bad for you this is a great game

@@Naomania I’m going to give it a chance

Because of one review? May watch several before making a decision.