- Posts: 1112
- Thank you received: 623
You must accept that when your grandma puts up "thematic" wallpaper she's using the word "theme" in a way that would not be appropriate when talking about Moby Dick or Here I Stand. There's no redefinition here. Just context.
I don't think you can use the same terminology for different media, even if the terminology would easily map from one to the other. Whoever decided 'theme == setting' for boardgames should be horsewhipped, but it's too late now.
Whoever decided 'theme == setting' for boardgames should be horsewhipped, but it's too late now.
The verb form of theme means setting or ambiance.
The noun form of theme means subject, topic or motif.
Motif can mean either a decorative design or pattern, or it can mean a dominant idea in an artistic or literary composition
So you can have a medieval themed (setting) game with a theme (subject) of war and a theme (dominate idea) of sacrifice, that has components with a castle theme (decorative design).
Count Orlok wrote: Shut Up and Sit Down posted their review (Link) that seemed positive with reservations. I seemed to confirm some of my fears about the game, but aren't necessarily negatives to the right crowd. It seems like maybe the game is the most fun as you're figuring it out and how the factions work together, but doesn't necessarily have staying power beyond that initial novelty. I know most groups won't play it enough to run into that problem, but I would be very curious to see how much fun it would remain once everyone has a strong sense of the game and competitive play.
I'm reminded somewhat of my old (old) game group, where we played Here I Stand (tournament scenario) and Sword or Rome regularly for months. If anything those got better the more we played them, although you do start to see the flaws of the game (such as England being a bit boring to play in Here I Stand first edition).
In my mind much of the appeal is novelty. I haven't even played it that much, but I started out thinking it was going to be a top 10er for me. I still like it, but my enthusiasm basically fell off a cliff around game 10.
Now I regard it as a good game, but I don't think it'll have the staying power of better asymmetric games like Chaos in the Old World + Horned Rat or Dune. It's well designed with quite a bit of strategy and tactics, but the most interesting thing is just seeing how the factions interact and figuring out their strategies. After that the card play, improvements, etc are all pretty boring once there's nothing left to discover.
Ken B. wrote: Alright Barnsey, no one answered this, so I gotta know:
Kickstarter for Pax Pamir is wrapping up today. I watched that video and I'm all in. The theme and unique production are just...man, it looks amazing and a gameplay video hooked me even more.
Being as Pax Pamir is Root's spiritual ancestor, do I "need" Root too? (Understanding that "need" is a hideously abused word in our hobby and I use it fully ironically as you could bury me under the weight of all the games I own and it would crush my bones to powder and take years for anyone to ever find my lifeless husk.)
I've played Pamir about three times and it is a fun and strange game. I love the setting and theme, and with the new version you'll be able to actually read all the cool historical stuff on the cards.
3,139 backers pledged $244,607 to help bring this project to life.
Brief battle report:
I’m not sure what I think of the game. I need to play it a few more times to suss out if I really like it or think it’s simply fine. I wasn’t really paying attention to the strategies of the other players since I was so preoccupied with trying to figure out what I was supposed to be doing. Though the two Vagabond players didn’t really seem to affect the game at all. I wasn't blown away or disappointed. I definitely want to play it again though.