Post originally by Blackberry at 2004-02-18 06:13:17
Converted from Phorums BB System
I have to say that this is pretty much just a description of the game and how it's played. It doesn't really say anything about why you'd want to play this game, why you'd make certain moves, and how those decisions make the game good or bad. I guess, in the strictest sense of the word, it is a "review" of the game rules, but that's not usually what I expect a review to be.
Post originally by Shannon Appelcline at 2004-02-18 10:38:42
Converted from Phorums BB System
Blackberry,
I think you'll find my reviews are a mixture of descriptive and commentary, and that if Bohnanza has less commentary than most, it's because there was very little to complain about.
THE COMPONENTS contains description of the same and any commentary, to deliver a Style rating.
THE GAME PLAY is entirely descriptive, and then it's followed up by THE GAME DESIGN which is entirely commentary, to deliver a Substance rating.
Post originally by Scorpio Rising at 2004-02-18 12:29:07
Converted from Phorums BB System
I totally support Shannon on this. I find his reviews to be extremely helpful, in no small part because they do begin with an exacting breakdown of the materials of the game. You know exactly what you're dealing with here.
In the case of Bohnanza, yes, the commentary is relatively light. My reading of this is that he mainly had favourable things to say and those are always shorter than listing shortcomings and what could have been done to overcome them.
I suggest that you look at his reviews of, for instance, Tongiaki, or Age of Mythology to see reviews with a more substantial critical component.
For me, as I said, these reviews set the bar for being substantive, helpful, even authoritative.
- Scorpio reckons that makes them "review" enough for him.
Post originally by Cedric Chin at 2004-02-18 12:33:15
Converted from Phorums BB System
I've played Bohnanza only once **AND** felt that SA's lengthy description was necessary to understand the uncommon mechanics of the game. I also found the analysis and gameplay comments similar to me own thoughts of the game.
Post originally by Marius B. at 2004-02-18 17:41:21
Converted from Phorums BB System
I love this game to pieces and have played it many times.
The names of the beans sound funnier in German, though, and it seems that the German Weinbrand-Bohne (brandy-bean) has been replaced with the less colorful wax-bean in the English edition.
It has no effect on gameplay, but the drawing of the drunken brandy-bean is much cooler than the lame wax-bean.
Post originally by Blackberry at 2004-02-19 15:55:26
Converted from Phorums BB System
Many people in the USA won't play a game with German text on the cards, even if a translation is handy. They want English text on the cards. This is why no one played Ohne Furcht und Adel, but Citadels is a huge hit.
Post originally by Shannon Appelcline at 2004-02-19 23:11:37
Converted from Phorums BB System
I seriously considered the German edition, so that I could get the many supplements, but ultimately decided I didn't want German text on a game where you'd then have to call out the German names.
Post originally by Blackberry at 2004-02-20 12:46:08
Converted from Phorums BB System
Don't get me wrong. Your description of the game is excellent and even clarified a few things for me even though I've played it a few times. I also think your analysis, while maybe short, is spot on.
Linear Mode
