Android review at rpg.net

www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14082.phtml

I rather like Shannon Applecline's review style. And being an RPGer, his taste is an odd mix of Euro and AT.

The funny part is how many times Barnes is quoted in the review.

The other funny thing is that he got distracted by touting how good the conspiracy system is, and didn't really detail the light/dark card system.

Man, I so wanted to like this game.

I wanted to love this game. I'm a big fan of cyberpunk and the personal plot cards are genius. Then you sit down to a long and not too interesting pick up and deliver game. Its go so much going for it- except the gameplay.

Steve"Lamenting what could've been"Avery

Reviewer wrote:

Complex scoring systems get me down (which is part of the reason that I almost exclusively play Carcassonne on the Xbox these days).

I'm always astounded by people who play a lot of board games and think Carcassonne's scoring is too complex.


I'm less and less enthusiastic about Android with each review although I'd still like to play it sometime. However, I find myself more and more interested in Cosmic Encounter. Unfortunately in both cases I rarely have more than 2-3 players for AT games and both seem like they'll work best with 4+.

I like this guy's style too. His approach is almost journalistic in the way he provides "evidence".

For the last several days, I've been reading through the Android rules in my spare time, in preparation for a first game this coming Saturday. Only after I was satisfied that I understood the rules did I punch out and sort the components last night.

[Warning: be very careful when punching out the Android puzzle pieces. It's important for them to not be marked by ragged punching, though of the course of many games, those puzzle pieces will probably get damaged anyway. After sorting out components into lots of little baggies (which never ever occurred to me until I loaned my copy of the original Arkham Horror to Kevin Wilson years ago, and he returned it with all the components nicely organized in baggies) I was puzzled by the rectangular gap in the box insert. After experimenting, I noticed that you could store the cards in that gap if you tilted them diagonally just so... almost a perfect fit.]

Anyway, just from careful study of the rules, I can see where this game might mechanically resemble a pickup-and-delivery game with Euro scoring. But to me, theme trumps nearly everything. Android is loaded with theme and actual narrative. At it's heart, this game is about stories, more than anything I've ever seen before in a board game. To judge this game by mechanics while ignoring the theme would be like watching Aliens with the sound turned off. It pointlessly diminishes the experience. I expect Clearclaw to strip a game to raw materials and an absence of fun, but I expect better from the people here at Fortress: AmeriTrash.

In general, I don't like Euros, and I despise rail games. I probably loathe both categories of games more than anybody else at this site. I was so excited to discover the AmeriTrash movement, because I have always loved AmeriTrash games, but I didn't know exactly why and I didn't have a convenient label for what I loved. Anyway, even though I hate rail games, I do enjoy an old AT pickup-and-delivery game called The Roaring '20s. The rules are clear and simple, but the games packs a solid punch in terms of theme. It turns out that all I need to enjoy pickup-and-delivery is an exciting theme... car chases, tommy guns and secret hideouts.

So I fully expect to enjoy Android. Sure, the game is essentially about moving about the board and collecting VP, maybe some pickup and deliver elements too. But the themes are so great... murder, conspiracy, secrets, betrayal, and surprisingly personal story elements. How can I not relate to a character who is worried about money or in a bad mood, or the character who is trying to win back his estranged wife? Like Arkham Horror, this is a game where the theme must be savored. Read the cards aloud as you play or else stick to drab, brown EuroGames.

Mad Dog wrote:
However, I find myself more and more interested in Cosmic Encounter. Unfortunately in both cases I rarely have more than 2-3 players for AT games and both seem like they'll work best with 4+.[/quote]

I bought both Android and Cosmic Encounter last weekend, and have been reading up on the rules for both games. Although I generally prefer chaotic games with at least a half dozen players, my gut instinct is that Android will probably play really well with just three players. The FFG Cosmic Encounter genuinely looks like it should have been published as a game for 3-6 players, and that five or six is best.

Oh- I so very much want to love this game. The subplots are sublime and the narrative is awesome. The problem is that you spend more time figuring out how to efficiently move around the board that it becomes secondary. There are lots of little details to keep track of as well. It detracts from the narrative experience. There are things in the game I *absolutely* love...just not enough to play it again.

Steve"JadedCop"Avery

Hey guys- that article is by Phil Reed, not Shannon. It's a good review, although I think it's pretty charitable. Frankly, I think ANDROID is XXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XX XXX, XXX and XXXX. Gag order in effect until Gameshark tomorrow.

I feel like I read that review over a week ago when he posted it on TOS. Surely not. Nothing of value over there.

-MMM

Mad Dog wrote:

I'm less and less enthusiastic about Android with each review although

Actually I'm the opposite, the more 'shit' reviews I read on it the more interested I get, especially when you see the nature of the complaints.

Reminds me of a time years ago when I read a review of Tiamat's "Deeper kind of slumber" album. The reviewer bagged the shit out of the album and gave it 0 stars, but he made it sound so wierd and oddball that I went out and brought it based on the 0 star review. They ended up becoming one of my favourite bands (and that their best album IMO).

Octavian wrote:

I feel like I read that review over a week ago when he posted it on TOS. Surely not. Nothing of value over there.

-MMM

It probably takes rpg.net over a week to filter through all the crap on TOS in order to find something worth posting as a real review. Since most of what passes for reviews there are just user comments that were given geekgold.

Octavian wrote:

I feel like I read that review over a week ago when he posted it on TOS. Surely not. Nothing of value over there.

-MMM

Nah, Barnes is in it, so of course it has value. I'm surprised you're wasting time trolling here instead of fixing that.

I secretly have a desperate need to be accepted by your kind. I troll because I love.

I'll send you a coupon for a free backrub. Merry Christmas big guy!

Someone sounds a little cut because BGG wasn't soley quoted. Awwww.