Trashdome - Settlers Of Catan VS Risk (new or old)

the game "Settlers" reduces it to an abstract placement of a tiny piece of wood with no consideration for terrain type. Very abstract.

Hmm...that sounds an awful lot like RISK, where massive armies are represented by the abstract placement of a wooden cube or other piece into an abstract territory with no terrain type at all.

Surprise! All games are abstract. Some more than others.

Malloc wrote:

Fuck all you Pussies.

Risk is why we exist, and Risk get my fucking vote!

-M

1 vote for original Risk
1 vote for Star Wars
1 vote for Clone Wars
1 vote for New Black Risk

When Settlers has a version that I can hold off 10 armies attacking Greenland with my 2 armies maybe I'll vote for Settlers.

When a new version of Risk comes out that lets me build a road so I can get 1 extra victory point and win with 10 victory points, I'll stop voting for Risk.

I'll vote for RISK when they put out a version that completely changes the way I think about gaming and that my friends and I spend almost two years straight playing every weekend.

Risk - bit of DoaM stomping and a ton of dice rolling to capture all the other guys land.

Settlers - expansion, building, and trading to maybe capture some of the other guys land and win some impressive victory points. (Probably made that sound less interesting than it should have sounded).

Both are classics in their own right, Settlers is probably the more challenging and satisfying of the two, but Risk when played with the right group will provide the more downright fun.

Vote: Risk

Star Wars Original Trilogy Risk is great!

I played that last week and won as the Rebels within 30 min! Usually the game takes 2 to 3 hours but I got lucky and found the Emperor

Just a great game! Kicking the ass of Settlers in Toys R Us as Settlers stays on the bottom shelf under a tin Box of "Bunco"

Risk when played with the right group will provide the more downright fun.

Agreed. FUN IS THE NAME OF THE GAME!

If you want Elegance, try another site

the*mad*gamer wrote:

Star Wars Original Trilogy Risk is great!

I played that last week and won as the Rebels within 30 min! Usually the game takes 2 to 3 hours but I got lucky and found the Emperor

We once played three game in about 40 mins and I got two turns total ! The first two games the emperor came out first both times, the Imperial player both times bluffed and placed it away from the Deathstar, and the rebel player went for it anyway both times. The third game the Hutt player managed to stomp through and get his 10 planets on his first turn before I had done anything apart from defend badly.

But I was voting on vanilla Risk - Settlers with expansions would go close against Risk:SWOT but not head it.

but Risk when played with the right group will provide the more downright fun.

And played with the wrong group- or even just one wrong player- RISK will give you PLENTY more misery, boredom, and unbridled anger.

I'd almost go so far as to say that if SETTLERS hadn't have come out when it did, the hobby games business as we know it today would not exist. It was the right time for it, just as the older "Adventure game" generations were winding down and settling into careers, families, and other comittments and video games started the last phase of their acclimation into mainstream culture.

Without SETTLERS, a lot of people would have both dropped out of the hobby and there's a lot of people who never would have gotten into it. As such, I think there's definitely a case to be made to divide the history of the hobby into pre-SETTLERS and post-SETTLERS periods.

Look, RISK is a classic game. The new edition and the OT versions are the best it's ever been. But you're effectively picking a cave painting of some guys stabbing each other over a Rembrandt. Maybe you don't like the subject of "The Night Watch", but in technique, form, and execution it's not only vastly advanced over its predecessor, it also has a hugely expanded grammar with which to depict concept, theme, and action.

And another thing. "Killin doodz" doesn't make a game better. What matters is direct, meaningful competition and conflict. That doesn't have to mean anything that's in RISK.

And you themeinistas here...tell me how turning in sets of cards (yes, set collection just like in the Eurogames) is any more thematic than anything in SETTLERS?

Shellhead wrote:

Hmm. Good game with a bad theme versus a bad game with a good theme.

Could not agree more. My brother, father and I played a lot of Risk. After Settlers came out, we tried it and all thought "That's it?" It sat on the shelf for 8 years until I found BGG and convinced them that we should give it another try just in case we missed something. Nope. It has sat on the shelf ever since while Risk is the only game I have a hard time keeping off the table.

Risk

Michael Barnes wrote:

And played with the wrong group- or even just one wrong player- RISK will give you PLENTY more misery, boredom, and unbridled anger.

I'd almost go so far as to say that if SETTLERS hadn't have come out when it did, the hobby games business as we know it today would not exist. It was the right time for it, just as the older "Adventure game" generations were winding down and settling into careers, families, and other comittments and video games started the last phase of their acclimation into mainstream culture.

Without SETTLERS, a lot of people would have both dropped out of the hobby and there's a lot of people who never would have gotten into it. As such, I think there's definitely a case to be made to divide the history of the hobby into pre-SETTLERS and post-SETTLERS periods.

And the wrong set of people (dry eurogamers) would turn Settlers into a 3hr torture session !

And I purposely did not rate on reputation or 'what it did or didn't do the boardgaming', I chose the winner from where I thought the best fun experience for me would occur.

Michael Barnes wrote:

Surprise! All games are abstract. Some more than others.

Michael Barnes, folks. Not just a Cylon, but apparently Clearclaw as well.

FWIW, and this is the first Trashdome I've voted in for a long time:

RISK

Could not agree more. My brother, father and I played a lot of Risk. After Settlers came out, we tried it and all thought "That's it?" It sat on the shelf for 8 years until I found BGG and convinced them that we should give it another try just in case we missed something. Nope. It has sat on the shelf ever since while Risk is the only game I have a hard time keeping off the table.

My experience as well. "Settlers" is OK but it does not have that "magic" people think it does. It really is a pretty dull experience when you get down to it which is exactly the reason it will NEVER be a sensation in America.

Oh man, this seems like a slam-dunk win for Settlers, no? Settlers is THE gateway game and revives people wanting to play board games.

Risk is frickin' brutal cuz it takes forever, is almost entirely luck-based and the end game is ENDLESSLY dull

Oh man, this seems like a slam-dunk win for Settlers, no? Settlers is THE gateway game and revives people wanting to play board games.

Risk is frickin' brutal cuz it takes forever, is almost entirely luck-based and the end game is ENDLESSLY dull

There is no such thing as "Gateway Games", that is your elitism talking.

Settlers is not a good recruiter for the Hobby. It should come out as a diversion not as a leader in recruitment.