Second was Carcassonne, which needs no introduction - except to me because until yesterday I'd never played it. I have spent substantial time, over the last year especially, proselytizing about the current generation of board games to those who define the genre by Monopoly and yet had never played what must be the definitive game, the one that apart from anything else introduced the term meeple. Well, I finally did and, funnily enough found it to be very good. Hold the front page! My only problem was unfamiliarity with the tile distribution and therefore with likely probability of completing anything, but other than that I was sold. So that's today's shock news: bloke who likes board games likes popular board game. You read it here first.
I'm nervous about appearing sincere, just for once, but I've looked at Carcassonne for years and almost bought it twice. I have an uncomfortable relationship with boardgames, mostly - I like them, but I don't play them much. If we buy one, it usually sits in the cupboard undisturbed for ages.
ReplyDeleteMy main worry (excuse) about Carcassonne was the bewildering number of expansions. Is the game any good without them? (oooh ooooh)
Well, yesterday we played the absolute basic game because two of the four of us had never played it before and, as I wrote earlier, I did enjoye it. It is, in one sense, a sort of clever, upmarket twist on dominoes. The theme is, in the base version, simply a way of labelling patterns on what would otherwise be an abstract spatial awareness challenge. So, a classic Eurogame then.
DeleteMy reflection on expansions would be about the space required. The base game filled a normal pub table - while still allowing room for pint glasses obviously. By the time you'd added on a few expansions you'd probably be in Fletcher Pratt territory.
Both of the experienced players agreed that it played well with two people if that's a factor. And I came away with the impression that the basic design of the game would ensure replayability.