Search
Search results
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Last of Us Part II in Video Games
Jun 30, 2020 (Updated Jul 1, 2020)
Gameplay (2 more)
Graphics
Sound
I'm Not Mad, I'm Just Disappointed
Contains spoilers, click to show
It's been a while since I've written anything, but I couldn't let this one go by without saying anything about it.
The Last Of Us Part 2 is the biggest disappointment of 2020.
I finished the game a few days ago and have been letting it process in my mind in the hopes that it will somehow make more sense to me. So far that hasn't been the case.
Let me provide you with some context, I wanted to like this game more than anyone. The first Last Of Us is one of my favourite games of all time and because of the spectacular writing and performances in that first game, I was really excited to see what would happen to these characters. This was definitely one of my most anticipated releases in recent years and I'm genuinely in awe at how much of a let down it was, especially after the 10/10 reviews I had been reading leading up to the game's release.
Spoilers will follow from this point on as it's pretty difficult to discuss my reasoning for being let down by the game without getting in depth, so please tread carefully if you have yet to play through the game.
First off, I don't normally like to bring up my personal politics when discussing fictional media, but I do feel that it's necessary to mention that I am pro LGBTQ+ and none of my issues with this game stem from any sort of political bias that I may have.
The game opens slowly, juxtaposing the intense opening of the first game. However these slow opening few hours really allow you to drink in the breathtaking visuals and fantastic sound design. These elements really help to sell the cinematic nature of the game, along with consistently stellar performances.
Then we are shown the main conflict that will propel the story for the sequel. Joel is unceremoniosly murdered by Abby, a new character that we know nothing about at this point.
Now I don't have a problem with main characters being killed off in a story, in fact as a Tarantino fan, I relish it when it's done properly. The problem with Joel's death is the way that it was executed. First off, Joel and Tommy would never in a million years have blindly trusted this random faction that they've just bumped into enough to give them their names so quickly. They've both survived 25 years in the apocalypse and yet the writers still expect you to believe that they would be this naïve and stupid. Then, there's the fact that this is how they choose to introduce this new group that you are later expected to sympathize with and this character that they will later force you to play as for half the game. Why would anyone who is a fan of this world and these characters want to play and learn about this random ruthless killer?
Now, what you might be asking is "aren't Joel and Ellie ruthless killers at this point?" And you would be right, they are. However the point is that we were already invested in these characters before we seen them ruthlessly murdering infected and humans alike and therefore are able to put it down to them having to do what they had to in order to survive. With Abby you are introduced to her killing a beloved character from the first game for the sake of pure shock value.
The first game came out during an oversaturation period of zombie stories across media and yet because of it's stellar writing, it managed to stand out from the crowd and actually become one of the most unique games of the last generation in terms of the story it told. The story in this game feels so generic by comparison. I remember watching interviews with Neil Druckman in the lead up to the game's release where he would talk about how the main hurdle of writing this game was justifying it's existence after the first one ended so well. Really? You had seven years and another generic revenge plot was the best thing that you could come up with?
Another highlight from the first game was the fleshed out side characters that all felt deep and like they really existed in the world. Characters like Tess, Bill and Marlene all naturally fitted into the plot and felt necessary to the overall story being told. The same cannot be said for the side characters in this game. I have already mentioned how it is made impossible to sympathize with Abby and her crew after seeing what they did to Joel. There are two other new characters introduced called Yara and Lev. They are siblings, which put me in mind of Henry and Sam from the first game, but where Henry and Sam felt layered and genuine, Yara and Lev feel shallow and shoehorned in to give Abby's plotline some narrative weight.
Then there is the strange pacing of the story. I feel like I must reiterate, they introduce a character that murders the beloved protagonist from the first game and later expect you to sympathize with her. Then there is the fact that you play as Ellie for the next 8 hours or so before they present you with a shocking cliffhanger, only to then force you to play as Abby for the next 10 hours. Not only are they making you play as the character that murdered Joel and Jessie in cold blood, but every extra hour that they unsuccessfully attempt to make you feel sorry for Abby is another hour before you can get back to see how the cliffhanger, (that was introduced 10 hours ago,) is resolved. And then, they bafflingly make you fight Ellie while playing as Abby. Why would the game expect me to want to hurt this character that I care about as this brand new random stranger?
You are then eventually given control back as Ellie and the game lulls you into a false sense of thinking that you are finally done playing as Abby. Then Ellie makes the totally nonsensical decision to abandon a nice, cushty, quiet farm life that she's carved out for herself, to go after Abby yet again.
After that, you guessed it! You are forced to play as Abby yet again. Thankfully it's only briefly as we then at long last get to properly play as Ellie again. Not sure if you remember her at this point, she's the one that's in all of the trailers and posters and on the cover of the damn game?
Then we get what is probably the most anticlimactic ending in the history of gaming. Ellie lets Abby go. After Abby killed Joel and Jessie and crippled Tommy and after Ellie murdered all of Abby's friends and after Ellie abandoned her girlfriend and step-son and had her fingers bitten off, she's just like, "nah fam, I'm good."
I'm sorry, what?
You are going to break your promise to Tommy and let the person that murdered your father figure get away? Why?
If getting your revenge wasn't worth it, you should have really realized that back on the farm when you were surrounded by people you love and a chance at a family life. If you chose to leave that behind you must be committed enough to see it through, otherwise it is all for nothing. There is subverting audience expectations and then there is having your characters make nonsensical decisions and I feel like TLOU2 was full of the latter.
On a positive note, the gameplay is extremely fun and satisfying. Every blow lands with more force and every bullet seems to strike even harder than in the first game. It does get a bit repetitive after a while and the actual function of taking out a group of enemies hasn't evolved a great deal since the first game, but I still really enjoyed it. The upgrading and crafting systems have also been fleshed out. This, along with the immaculate graphical presentation, tight, fluid animations, brilliant audio and expectedly phenomenal performances make for something with so much potential, with only the writing and direction letting it down. Unfortunately, writing and directing are both pretty essential in a story driven game.
Before I summarise, I'd like to highlight that I am not against stories that explore the moral grey area and don't have clear heroes and villains. For example, Metal Gear Solid is my favourite franchise in gaming and the whole point of that series is to show that there is no black and white, but we all do things for our own reasons. A good story should be able to make you see the things from the "villain's" point of view without being like, "look see what you did to them? That is why they are the way they are! Look see, she is a good person because she plays fetch with dogs!" In TLOU2 it all just feels so forced and unnatural. A good storyteller should show a character's motivations and then show their actions and leave it up to audience to decide if it's justified, instead of strictly saying, "this character is 100% justified in the heinous act that you just seen her commit, now you must be on her side!"
I think that's all that I've got to say and I guess at the very least, this game has got people talking. You cannot accuse it of playing it safe, but there are a ton of different ways that the plot could have went that probably would have been a lot more satisfying for fans of the series like myself. 6/10
The Last Of Us Part 2 is the biggest disappointment of 2020.
I finished the game a few days ago and have been letting it process in my mind in the hopes that it will somehow make more sense to me. So far that hasn't been the case.
Let me provide you with some context, I wanted to like this game more than anyone. The first Last Of Us is one of my favourite games of all time and because of the spectacular writing and performances in that first game, I was really excited to see what would happen to these characters. This was definitely one of my most anticipated releases in recent years and I'm genuinely in awe at how much of a let down it was, especially after the 10/10 reviews I had been reading leading up to the game's release.
Spoilers will follow from this point on as it's pretty difficult to discuss my reasoning for being let down by the game without getting in depth, so please tread carefully if you have yet to play through the game.
First off, I don't normally like to bring up my personal politics when discussing fictional media, but I do feel that it's necessary to mention that I am pro LGBTQ+ and none of my issues with this game stem from any sort of political bias that I may have.
The game opens slowly, juxtaposing the intense opening of the first game. However these slow opening few hours really allow you to drink in the breathtaking visuals and fantastic sound design. These elements really help to sell the cinematic nature of the game, along with consistently stellar performances.
Then we are shown the main conflict that will propel the story for the sequel. Joel is unceremoniosly murdered by Abby, a new character that we know nothing about at this point.
Now I don't have a problem with main characters being killed off in a story, in fact as a Tarantino fan, I relish it when it's done properly. The problem with Joel's death is the way that it was executed. First off, Joel and Tommy would never in a million years have blindly trusted this random faction that they've just bumped into enough to give them their names so quickly. They've both survived 25 years in the apocalypse and yet the writers still expect you to believe that they would be this naïve and stupid. Then, there's the fact that this is how they choose to introduce this new group that you are later expected to sympathize with and this character that they will later force you to play as for half the game. Why would anyone who is a fan of this world and these characters want to play and learn about this random ruthless killer?
Now, what you might be asking is "aren't Joel and Ellie ruthless killers at this point?" And you would be right, they are. However the point is that we were already invested in these characters before we seen them ruthlessly murdering infected and humans alike and therefore are able to put it down to them having to do what they had to in order to survive. With Abby you are introduced to her killing a beloved character from the first game for the sake of pure shock value.
The first game came out during an oversaturation period of zombie stories across media and yet because of it's stellar writing, it managed to stand out from the crowd and actually become one of the most unique games of the last generation in terms of the story it told. The story in this game feels so generic by comparison. I remember watching interviews with Neil Druckman in the lead up to the game's release where he would talk about how the main hurdle of writing this game was justifying it's existence after the first one ended so well. Really? You had seven years and another generic revenge plot was the best thing that you could come up with?
Another highlight from the first game was the fleshed out side characters that all felt deep and like they really existed in the world. Characters like Tess, Bill and Marlene all naturally fitted into the plot and felt necessary to the overall story being told. The same cannot be said for the side characters in this game. I have already mentioned how it is made impossible to sympathize with Abby and her crew after seeing what they did to Joel. There are two other new characters introduced called Yara and Lev. They are siblings, which put me in mind of Henry and Sam from the first game, but where Henry and Sam felt layered and genuine, Yara and Lev feel shallow and shoehorned in to give Abby's plotline some narrative weight.
Then there is the strange pacing of the story. I feel like I must reiterate, they introduce a character that murders the beloved protagonist from the first game and later expect you to sympathize with her. Then there is the fact that you play as Ellie for the next 8 hours or so before they present you with a shocking cliffhanger, only to then force you to play as Abby for the next 10 hours. Not only are they making you play as the character that murdered Joel and Jessie in cold blood, but every extra hour that they unsuccessfully attempt to make you feel sorry for Abby is another hour before you can get back to see how the cliffhanger, (that was introduced 10 hours ago,) is resolved. And then, they bafflingly make you fight Ellie while playing as Abby. Why would the game expect me to want to hurt this character that I care about as this brand new random stranger?
You are then eventually given control back as Ellie and the game lulls you into a false sense of thinking that you are finally done playing as Abby. Then Ellie makes the totally nonsensical decision to abandon a nice, cushty, quiet farm life that she's carved out for herself, to go after Abby yet again.
After that, you guessed it! You are forced to play as Abby yet again. Thankfully it's only briefly as we then at long last get to properly play as Ellie again. Not sure if you remember her at this point, she's the one that's in all of the trailers and posters and on the cover of the damn game?
Then we get what is probably the most anticlimactic ending in the history of gaming. Ellie lets Abby go. After Abby killed Joel and Jessie and crippled Tommy and after Ellie murdered all of Abby's friends and after Ellie abandoned her girlfriend and step-son and had her fingers bitten off, she's just like, "nah fam, I'm good."
I'm sorry, what?
You are going to break your promise to Tommy and let the person that murdered your father figure get away? Why?
If getting your revenge wasn't worth it, you should have really realized that back on the farm when you were surrounded by people you love and a chance at a family life. If you chose to leave that behind you must be committed enough to see it through, otherwise it is all for nothing. There is subverting audience expectations and then there is having your characters make nonsensical decisions and I feel like TLOU2 was full of the latter.
On a positive note, the gameplay is extremely fun and satisfying. Every blow lands with more force and every bullet seems to strike even harder than in the first game. It does get a bit repetitive after a while and the actual function of taking out a group of enemies hasn't evolved a great deal since the first game, but I still really enjoyed it. The upgrading and crafting systems have also been fleshed out. This, along with the immaculate graphical presentation, tight, fluid animations, brilliant audio and expectedly phenomenal performances make for something with so much potential, with only the writing and direction letting it down. Unfortunately, writing and directing are both pretty essential in a story driven game.
Before I summarise, I'd like to highlight that I am not against stories that explore the moral grey area and don't have clear heroes and villains. For example, Metal Gear Solid is my favourite franchise in gaming and the whole point of that series is to show that there is no black and white, but we all do things for our own reasons. A good story should be able to make you see the things from the "villain's" point of view without being like, "look see what you did to them? That is why they are the way they are! Look see, she is a good person because she plays fetch with dogs!" In TLOU2 it all just feels so forced and unnatural. A good storyteller should show a character's motivations and then show their actions and leave it up to audience to decide if it's justified, instead of strictly saying, "this character is 100% justified in the heinous act that you just seen her commit, now you must be on her side!"
I think that's all that I've got to say and I guess at the very least, this game has got people talking. You cannot accuse it of playing it safe, but there are a ton of different ways that the plot could have went that probably would have been a lot more satisfying for fans of the series like myself. 6/10
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Illumination in Tabletop Games
Oct 5, 2021
Ancient Medieval books. We all love ’em, right? Full of bright beautiful pictures of angels fighting demons, knights fighting dragons, dogs fighting squirrels(?), and monks fighting armed bunnies?? Hey, what’s going on here? Okay, I have played enough Alf Seegert games to know that everything comes with a hint of quirk, but now I need to pore through my non-existent collection of old tomes to find instances of monks warding off sword-brandishing rabbits. Ohhhhh, maybe this is about children’s books! Man, times were weird back in the day.
Illumination is a game about two monks who are tasked with illuminating the pages of manuscripts with drawings in the hopes of becoming the next head of the Scriptorium: The Scriptmaster, one might say. However, one of the monks gets a little itch and begins to draw irreverent subjects, like demons, dragons, and such. Which monk will earn the made-up-by-me title of Scriptmaster? Guess you will have to play to find out.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
As with many games that are well endowed with components, setup can be a bit of a task. The game will be focused around a few main areas. First, the three manuscript pages are placed on the table in any orientation, with the purple wild Drollery tiles placed on one text box on each page. The Monastery mat is placed nearby as well, with the Abbot pawn randomly placed on a blank station. This pawn will be moved around the map during play to determine which rituals may be performed at any one time. Each player will have their own player mat, upon which will be placed their starting gold (1 for the Reverent player and 5 for the Irreverent player), as well as their starting nine Illumination tiles. The rules mention separating all the Illumination tiles into stacks of three, choosing three of these stacks to flip over and place on the play mat without altering the order. This is very important to keep the tiles in their randomized order. The remainder of the tiles are to be placed nearby in stacks of three. Each player is dealt one starting Scriptorium card and a random Crusade card that will offer bonuses at the end of the game. Once all setup, the game may begin with the Reverent player’s turn.
On a turn, the active player will choose from their mat one row or column of three tiles to be played. They take the three tiles and place them upon one of the three book pages on the table, in the margins. From there the player can choose any tile from the margin to place onto the page in any order they wish, upon any quill icon they choose (except for coin tiles – those simply grant two coins immediately). If the tile is placed on a quill of a matching color to that of the tile, the player will immediately collect one coin and place it on the player mat. If the tile is placed on a quill and orthogonally touches a tile of the matching color, the player then collects a Ritual token of the same color. These Ritual tokens are used in sets of three, four, or five in order to earn VP for end of game scoring. Each purple Drollery tile is wild for the purpose of placement and Ritual token collection. Each tile placed will collect its earnings immediately, and any coins earned may be spent immediately as well.
A player may use coins for several purposes throughout the game: move a tile from the margin of one book to the margin of a different book, move the Abbot one space along the track for Ritual purposes, or to draw a Scriptorium card. The other resources are Ritual tokens, and may be spent during the turn as well. In order to spend these, the Abbot must be on the matching location on the Monastery board, and the player may spend three, four, or five matching tokens to perform the Ritual. They discard the tokens, place one of their cubes upon the appropriate icon on the Monastery mat for VP at game end.
At any time during the turn Scriptorium cards may be played. These are very special cards that allow the player to complete certain actions that break the normal rules. This could be a free movement of the Abbot, or switching places of two tiles on the player mat, or even banishing one of the opponent’s tiles to another book entirely.
Why mention the battles in the intro if they are not part of the game? They are. Once opposing foes are placed orthogonally from each other, and all involved tiles are completely enclosed by other tiles or board obstacles, a Bounded Battle will begin. Battles are simple to resolve as it requires players to count the number of combatants on both sides and whichever side has more forces wins the battle. The winner places their cube on the appropriate battle card near the Monastery mat, and the loser gains coins equal to the number of their tiles lost to battle. Tiles that are lost are simply flipped to its opposite side.
Play continues in this fashion of players choosing and placing tiles, drawing and using Scriptorium cards, performing Rituals, and resolving Bounded Battles until both players pass their turn. The game is then over and VP counted in all their places around the play area. The player with the most points becomes the next Scriptmaster Flex and is able to enhance or defile as many manuscripts as they like!
Components. This game has a lot of components, but they are mostly cardboard tiles, cardstock cards and mats, and wooden cubes. The quality is all very fine, as to be expected with Eagle-Gryphon games. The art, for me, is the biggest drawback of the game. I UNDERSTAND why it looks the way it does – in trying to stick with a Medieval manuscript theme some decision were made on the style. It just doesn’t vibe with me. I took a look at the new edition of The Road to Canterbury, by the same designer and publisher, and loved the look of it. I REALIZE that the tiles are supposed to be not only reminiscent of the art style of that time period, but also imaginations of monks and their doodles, but it’s just not for me. I do like the looks of everything else except the art on the tiles, and when that’s the majority of the components I am looking at, I sigh a little. I am absolutely no artist, and I can acknowledge that the art presented is very good and in line with the theme. Oh well.
The game play is very solid, and I do like it quite a bit. Everything makes a lot of sense as to why you are doing the actions, and the most difficult thing to comprehend the first time through is the Bounded Battles. You see, battles don’t immediately happen when you pit one foe against another. In fact, all tiles engaged need to be surrounded by other tiles or battleground obstacles before battle can begin. This allows both sides to add more tiles to help sway the balance of power, and can get a little confusing for some players. Not ME, of course, but SOME players (ok it was totally me the first time through). I am thankful that resolving the battles are pretty simple, and winning battles gives the victor a cool five points.
Other aspects I really enjoy are the Scriptorium cards and the Rituals. Again, the Scriptorium cards can be drawn for two coins during the game and can provide excellent rule-breaking choices to the players. Any time a game has cards that bend the rules, I generally am a fan. The Rituals are merely tokens that are collected and then turned in for points. This doesn’t necessarily sound that interesting until I reveal that a player board only has space for seven items: Ritual tokens AND coins included. So a player may be stacking up coins, and not have space for Ritual tokens or vice versa. Hard choices need to be made sometimes, but to help with that Ritual tokens can also be used like a coin, but not the other way around. So there is no buying Ritual tokens. Having that restriction of seven items on hand is a really nice touch, and makes each turn important.
So all in all I enjoyed my plays of Illumination. I have yet to try the solo version that is included, but I will soon. I feel that of the two Medieval series games I have played I prefer The Road to Canterbury, but I do like the different feel of Illumination. Having a solo mode is also very attractive to me because my wife and I do not always have matching schedules where we can game together. I like Illumination for the actual gameplay, but the art is a turn-off for me. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an irreverent 4 / 6. If you are looking for something a little different that features some interesting game play, tons of choices, yet is restrictive as well, take a look at Illumination. Try not to complete too many wine and candle rituals though. Those two things don’t mix very well in my experience.
Illumination is a game about two monks who are tasked with illuminating the pages of manuscripts with drawings in the hopes of becoming the next head of the Scriptorium: The Scriptmaster, one might say. However, one of the monks gets a little itch and begins to draw irreverent subjects, like demons, dragons, and such. Which monk will earn the made-up-by-me title of Scriptmaster? Guess you will have to play to find out.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rulebook, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
As with many games that are well endowed with components, setup can be a bit of a task. The game will be focused around a few main areas. First, the three manuscript pages are placed on the table in any orientation, with the purple wild Drollery tiles placed on one text box on each page. The Monastery mat is placed nearby as well, with the Abbot pawn randomly placed on a blank station. This pawn will be moved around the map during play to determine which rituals may be performed at any one time. Each player will have their own player mat, upon which will be placed their starting gold (1 for the Reverent player and 5 for the Irreverent player), as well as their starting nine Illumination tiles. The rules mention separating all the Illumination tiles into stacks of three, choosing three of these stacks to flip over and place on the play mat without altering the order. This is very important to keep the tiles in their randomized order. The remainder of the tiles are to be placed nearby in stacks of three. Each player is dealt one starting Scriptorium card and a random Crusade card that will offer bonuses at the end of the game. Once all setup, the game may begin with the Reverent player’s turn.
On a turn, the active player will choose from their mat one row or column of three tiles to be played. They take the three tiles and place them upon one of the three book pages on the table, in the margins. From there the player can choose any tile from the margin to place onto the page in any order they wish, upon any quill icon they choose (except for coin tiles – those simply grant two coins immediately). If the tile is placed on a quill of a matching color to that of the tile, the player will immediately collect one coin and place it on the player mat. If the tile is placed on a quill and orthogonally touches a tile of the matching color, the player then collects a Ritual token of the same color. These Ritual tokens are used in sets of three, four, or five in order to earn VP for end of game scoring. Each purple Drollery tile is wild for the purpose of placement and Ritual token collection. Each tile placed will collect its earnings immediately, and any coins earned may be spent immediately as well.
A player may use coins for several purposes throughout the game: move a tile from the margin of one book to the margin of a different book, move the Abbot one space along the track for Ritual purposes, or to draw a Scriptorium card. The other resources are Ritual tokens, and may be spent during the turn as well. In order to spend these, the Abbot must be on the matching location on the Monastery board, and the player may spend three, four, or five matching tokens to perform the Ritual. They discard the tokens, place one of their cubes upon the appropriate icon on the Monastery mat for VP at game end.
At any time during the turn Scriptorium cards may be played. These are very special cards that allow the player to complete certain actions that break the normal rules. This could be a free movement of the Abbot, or switching places of two tiles on the player mat, or even banishing one of the opponent’s tiles to another book entirely.
Why mention the battles in the intro if they are not part of the game? They are. Once opposing foes are placed orthogonally from each other, and all involved tiles are completely enclosed by other tiles or board obstacles, a Bounded Battle will begin. Battles are simple to resolve as it requires players to count the number of combatants on both sides and whichever side has more forces wins the battle. The winner places their cube on the appropriate battle card near the Monastery mat, and the loser gains coins equal to the number of their tiles lost to battle. Tiles that are lost are simply flipped to its opposite side.
Play continues in this fashion of players choosing and placing tiles, drawing and using Scriptorium cards, performing Rituals, and resolving Bounded Battles until both players pass their turn. The game is then over and VP counted in all their places around the play area. The player with the most points becomes the next Scriptmaster Flex and is able to enhance or defile as many manuscripts as they like!
Components. This game has a lot of components, but they are mostly cardboard tiles, cardstock cards and mats, and wooden cubes. The quality is all very fine, as to be expected with Eagle-Gryphon games. The art, for me, is the biggest drawback of the game. I UNDERSTAND why it looks the way it does – in trying to stick with a Medieval manuscript theme some decision were made on the style. It just doesn’t vibe with me. I took a look at the new edition of The Road to Canterbury, by the same designer and publisher, and loved the look of it. I REALIZE that the tiles are supposed to be not only reminiscent of the art style of that time period, but also imaginations of monks and their doodles, but it’s just not for me. I do like the looks of everything else except the art on the tiles, and when that’s the majority of the components I am looking at, I sigh a little. I am absolutely no artist, and I can acknowledge that the art presented is very good and in line with the theme. Oh well.
The game play is very solid, and I do like it quite a bit. Everything makes a lot of sense as to why you are doing the actions, and the most difficult thing to comprehend the first time through is the Bounded Battles. You see, battles don’t immediately happen when you pit one foe against another. In fact, all tiles engaged need to be surrounded by other tiles or battleground obstacles before battle can begin. This allows both sides to add more tiles to help sway the balance of power, and can get a little confusing for some players. Not ME, of course, but SOME players (ok it was totally me the first time through). I am thankful that resolving the battles are pretty simple, and winning battles gives the victor a cool five points.
Other aspects I really enjoy are the Scriptorium cards and the Rituals. Again, the Scriptorium cards can be drawn for two coins during the game and can provide excellent rule-breaking choices to the players. Any time a game has cards that bend the rules, I generally am a fan. The Rituals are merely tokens that are collected and then turned in for points. This doesn’t necessarily sound that interesting until I reveal that a player board only has space for seven items: Ritual tokens AND coins included. So a player may be stacking up coins, and not have space for Ritual tokens or vice versa. Hard choices need to be made sometimes, but to help with that Ritual tokens can also be used like a coin, but not the other way around. So there is no buying Ritual tokens. Having that restriction of seven items on hand is a really nice touch, and makes each turn important.
So all in all I enjoyed my plays of Illumination. I have yet to try the solo version that is included, but I will soon. I feel that of the two Medieval series games I have played I prefer The Road to Canterbury, but I do like the different feel of Illumination. Having a solo mode is also very attractive to me because my wife and I do not always have matching schedules where we can game together. I like Illumination for the actual gameplay, but the art is a turn-off for me. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one an irreverent 4 / 6. If you are looking for something a little different that features some interesting game play, tons of choices, yet is restrictive as well, take a look at Illumination. Try not to complete too many wine and candle rituals though. Those two things don’t mix very well in my experience.
