Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I have put off writing this review because I honestly didn't know what, or more precisely how to sum up my feelings about this movie. That's not a typo at the top. I'm giving this one star, and honestly I nearly didn't even give it that.
Previously I've mentioned that I will happily sit through a movie bawling my eyes out. I hadn't quite realised how important it was to have good characters behind the emotional pieces. Twice this movie brought a tear to my eye, and neither were when I particularly expected. I'll circle back round to one of those in a moment.
It is entirely possible that how these people were portrayed is accurate to real life, I honestly don't know much about the people apart from what most around the world know. I could make no emotional connection with them. So much so that at the beginning of the film when we have our first opportunity to sympathise with them I was left frowning at the screen wondering how this devastating story line left me not caring.
The redeeming feature in this film was the Armstrong's oldest son. For the most part they're just around in the periphery of the story, after all most people are there for the space film not the biopic, but he earned this star. Janet makes Neil talk to their sons about the mission he's about to leave for, the boy is just old enough to know what it might mean, how dangerous it is, and in that moment he gave a brilliant performance and I could feel his sadness and anger.
Until I saw Blade Runner 2049 I had not seen Ryan Gosling in a film in 15 years. (I have seen Murder By Numbers but didn't realise he was in it until about five minutes ago.) From that one film I was sold on him as an actor, he played that part really well and I could almost forgive him for doing La La Land. (I have not seen La La Land. However, thanks to the film's sponsorship of drama on ITV2 at a peak moment in time for series I was watching, I have seen the trailer hundreds of times and vowed never to watch it.) Gosling's role in this pained me. As I said, I don't know the people this film is based on, his portrayal of Armstrong could be entirely accurate but I didn't find anything about it believable. His devastation at the beginning of the movie appeared like it should have been a genuine heartbreak for him, and yet his performance didn't reflect that at all apart from some unconvincing wailing.
Claire Foy's Janet Armstrong, again, could be accurate I honestly don't know. Listening to her spend a lot of her time getting angry left me frustrated. Anger is a strong emotion, yet it was another performance that didn't leave me identifying with her pain. I knew where it should have been, but I couldn't find it in any of the scenes.
I feel like I could go on about this for ages. Originally I was going to give First Man two stars, which on my score card is for films that I didn't like but I can see that they're well done and could appeal to other people. Usually that would mean the subject matter isn't too my liking but the performances were good... well. Yeah.
While I can understand the chaotic nature of shuttle's in flight, starting a film with camera shots that are so violently shaky that you can't tell what's going on didn't sit well with me. From the very start you're left confused and not knowing exactly who or what you're watching. Unfortunately that was not the only time that shot was used. The film didn't seem glossy, if that makes sense. It's a film in 2018, we want to see the past in glorious high definition, but everything felt a little retro in an old kind of way. Shaky camera was a constant feature and when we see the exterior shots of the module in space I honestly though I was watching a less technicolour version of Red Dwarf. With one main difference, I like Red Dwarf.
Lots of production choices make sense to some degree. When we go from the landing to getting down on to the moon there is silence. I can see that silence would be a good tool in what is essentially nothingness. But would it have been silent? Wouldn't they have heard console beeping, com channels, and the sound of their own breathing? The silence was deafening, and dull.
When I came out of the film I really couldn't reconcile what I'd seen with what people had been raving about. There was no redeeming feature for me. So much potential telling a story that everyone knows, but doesn't really, and I was left with a bad taste in my mouth and the desire to watch Apollo 13 to reassure myself that there were better films out there.
What you should do
You're going to go and see it because everyone thinks it's amazing. You shouldn't bother. Don't watch it on DVD, don't watch it streaming... buy yourself a copy of Apollo 13 instead.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I want nothing from this film. Anything I could have would be a horrible reminder of me wasting my time at the cinema.
Previously I've mentioned that I will happily sit through a movie bawling my eyes out. I hadn't quite realised how important it was to have good characters behind the emotional pieces. Twice this movie brought a tear to my eye, and neither were when I particularly expected. I'll circle back round to one of those in a moment.
It is entirely possible that how these people were portrayed is accurate to real life, I honestly don't know much about the people apart from what most around the world know. I could make no emotional connection with them. So much so that at the beginning of the film when we have our first opportunity to sympathise with them I was left frowning at the screen wondering how this devastating story line left me not caring.
The redeeming feature in this film was the Armstrong's oldest son. For the most part they're just around in the periphery of the story, after all most people are there for the space film not the biopic, but he earned this star. Janet makes Neil talk to their sons about the mission he's about to leave for, the boy is just old enough to know what it might mean, how dangerous it is, and in that moment he gave a brilliant performance and I could feel his sadness and anger.
Until I saw Blade Runner 2049 I had not seen Ryan Gosling in a film in 15 years. (I have seen Murder By Numbers but didn't realise he was in it until about five minutes ago.) From that one film I was sold on him as an actor, he played that part really well and I could almost forgive him for doing La La Land. (I have not seen La La Land. However, thanks to the film's sponsorship of drama on ITV2 at a peak moment in time for series I was watching, I have seen the trailer hundreds of times and vowed never to watch it.) Gosling's role in this pained me. As I said, I don't know the people this film is based on, his portrayal of Armstrong could be entirely accurate but I didn't find anything about it believable. His devastation at the beginning of the movie appeared like it should have been a genuine heartbreak for him, and yet his performance didn't reflect that at all apart from some unconvincing wailing.
Claire Foy's Janet Armstrong, again, could be accurate I honestly don't know. Listening to her spend a lot of her time getting angry left me frustrated. Anger is a strong emotion, yet it was another performance that didn't leave me identifying with her pain. I knew where it should have been, but I couldn't find it in any of the scenes.
I feel like I could go on about this for ages. Originally I was going to give First Man two stars, which on my score card is for films that I didn't like but I can see that they're well done and could appeal to other people. Usually that would mean the subject matter isn't too my liking but the performances were good... well. Yeah.
While I can understand the chaotic nature of shuttle's in flight, starting a film with camera shots that are so violently shaky that you can't tell what's going on didn't sit well with me. From the very start you're left confused and not knowing exactly who or what you're watching. Unfortunately that was not the only time that shot was used. The film didn't seem glossy, if that makes sense. It's a film in 2018, we want to see the past in glorious high definition, but everything felt a little retro in an old kind of way. Shaky camera was a constant feature and when we see the exterior shots of the module in space I honestly though I was watching a less technicolour version of Red Dwarf. With one main difference, I like Red Dwarf.
Lots of production choices make sense to some degree. When we go from the landing to getting down on to the moon there is silence. I can see that silence would be a good tool in what is essentially nothingness. But would it have been silent? Wouldn't they have heard console beeping, com channels, and the sound of their own breathing? The silence was deafening, and dull.
When I came out of the film I really couldn't reconcile what I'd seen with what people had been raving about. There was no redeeming feature for me. So much potential telling a story that everyone knows, but doesn't really, and I was left with a bad taste in my mouth and the desire to watch Apollo 13 to reassure myself that there were better films out there.
What you should do
You're going to go and see it because everyone thinks it's amazing. You shouldn't bother. Don't watch it on DVD, don't watch it streaming... buy yourself a copy of Apollo 13 instead.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I want nothing from this film. Anything I could have would be a horrible reminder of me wasting my time at the cinema.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Well where do I start? I love the fact that there is no substantial synopsis for this film, a lot have just gone with "the ongoing adventures of Newt Scamander" or similarly vague offerings.
It's difficult to separate them from their Harry Potter ancestry. They are of course the same universe. If you can sever the links then the films aren't too bad, but they're not amazing either. The other issue is that with the links you're obviously given lots of issues with continuity and timelines.
After only given a brief sighting of Grindelwald in the first film we're sold a creepy and scary version in this one very early on. His suspension during the transfer to the coach gives him the sinister grace of a dementor. This leads to the first of two problems for me. Abernathy in this whole introductory section is odd and you can tell something is up, so when we're eventually presented with that was happening it wasn't a surprise.
Here's problem two. Once Grindelwald is secured in the coach the rest of the sequence takes place outside, in the dark, in a storm. Very atmospheric with striking shots... most of which you can't see because of the lightning and rain. Everything is so fast that it's just a blur. It seems to be a popular occurrence recently and I will never understand why you would spend so much money on them when you can't see what's happening. One of the bits that you can see properly is the ghostly face of Grindelwald appearing in the coach window... which is a shame because it felt like it was awfully done and could have used some covering up.
As a quick note while I remember, I would like to acknowledge the impressive advances in wizarding technology. Early roombas and Fitbits. Great job!
Looking back over the notes most of them were about characters. Barely any about storyline. Just one thing that seemed completely out of place/inaccurate, and that was Minerva McGonagall. I'm not well enough versed in Harry Potter history but looking at the chatter I don't think her timeline matches with that of the film... but I'll leave that to the super nerds. If it is inaccurate it would have been very easy to avoid so it seems ridiculous to have had in at all.
The fluffy, feathered and scaly friends also need an honourable mention. *gets out soap box and steps up* Nifflers rule. I will fight anyone who thinks otherwise. Although, bad film! Getting my hopes up and then dashing them. You give them leeway with the animation considering they're fantastic beasts, but the only creatures that don't really have a decent presence on screen are the matagots that protect the Ministry of Magic. Even as hairless catlike creatures you'd expect something a little more impressive than what feels like CGI with a layer of detail missing.
I'm also intrigued by the phoenix. Is it Fawkes? How did Albus get his? Of course I could have missed things that answer all of the questions I have about it.
After reviewing all my notes I can (un)happily say that almost all of the women come off quite badly in this film. Bunty, Newt's assistant (I hope that was her name, she was fairly forgetable other than this point), came over as a little creepy with her comments that clearly show her affections for him. Queenie has a bit of a transformation in this one. She's still got her optimistic outlook but she's devolving a bit. Tina is taken by jealousy, which seems a little off for her. The newest addition of Nagini came out relatively unscathed and I'm hoping for an intriguing ongoing story for her.
The male characters came off slightly better. Jacob and Flamel were some welcome relief from this bleak installment of the franchise. Hats off to Callum Turner and Joshua Shea though. They both managed to pick up the Newt mannerisms really well. I can appreciate it even though it's one of the things I dislike about Fantastic Beasts, the constant head tilting.
Jude Law as Albus Dumbledore still doesn't sit quite right, but he made a reasonable job of it. He doesn't quite hold the same presence in the scenes as you'd expect him to for the man he becomes though. Everyone also got into a tizzy about his sexuality. Who cares? Whether he is or isn't gay makes no difference to the movie whatsoever. Just enjoy a film a don't worry about it until it's relevant.
It really is difficult to sum the story line up for this one. There's a reason that everyone has generalised the synopsis. It's just a lot of nothing in particular. It's part two of five. There didn't really seem to be a lot apart from filler. What I can tell you is that the first time I saw this (I went to the midnight screening at Vue originally) I fell asleep through a significant chunk in the middle and yet I still came out with the same understanding and enjoyment as I did after the second time.
What you should do
You're going to have to see it at some point if you're into the HP universe. Just a statement of fact there!
Movie thing you wish you could take home
That magic spell for collapsing all my belongings into a couple of trunks, I'm assuming it would come in handy for cleaning as well.
It's difficult to separate them from their Harry Potter ancestry. They are of course the same universe. If you can sever the links then the films aren't too bad, but they're not amazing either. The other issue is that with the links you're obviously given lots of issues with continuity and timelines.
After only given a brief sighting of Grindelwald in the first film we're sold a creepy and scary version in this one very early on. His suspension during the transfer to the coach gives him the sinister grace of a dementor. This leads to the first of two problems for me. Abernathy in this whole introductory section is odd and you can tell something is up, so when we're eventually presented with that was happening it wasn't a surprise.
Here's problem two. Once Grindelwald is secured in the coach the rest of the sequence takes place outside, in the dark, in a storm. Very atmospheric with striking shots... most of which you can't see because of the lightning and rain. Everything is so fast that it's just a blur. It seems to be a popular occurrence recently and I will never understand why you would spend so much money on them when you can't see what's happening. One of the bits that you can see properly is the ghostly face of Grindelwald appearing in the coach window... which is a shame because it felt like it was awfully done and could have used some covering up.
As a quick note while I remember, I would like to acknowledge the impressive advances in wizarding technology. Early roombas and Fitbits. Great job!
Looking back over the notes most of them were about characters. Barely any about storyline. Just one thing that seemed completely out of place/inaccurate, and that was Minerva McGonagall. I'm not well enough versed in Harry Potter history but looking at the chatter I don't think her timeline matches with that of the film... but I'll leave that to the super nerds. If it is inaccurate it would have been very easy to avoid so it seems ridiculous to have had in at all.
The fluffy, feathered and scaly friends also need an honourable mention. *gets out soap box and steps up* Nifflers rule. I will fight anyone who thinks otherwise. Although, bad film! Getting my hopes up and then dashing them. You give them leeway with the animation considering they're fantastic beasts, but the only creatures that don't really have a decent presence on screen are the matagots that protect the Ministry of Magic. Even as hairless catlike creatures you'd expect something a little more impressive than what feels like CGI with a layer of detail missing.
I'm also intrigued by the phoenix. Is it Fawkes? How did Albus get his? Of course I could have missed things that answer all of the questions I have about it.
After reviewing all my notes I can (un)happily say that almost all of the women come off quite badly in this film. Bunty, Newt's assistant (I hope that was her name, she was fairly forgetable other than this point), came over as a little creepy with her comments that clearly show her affections for him. Queenie has a bit of a transformation in this one. She's still got her optimistic outlook but she's devolving a bit. Tina is taken by jealousy, which seems a little off for her. The newest addition of Nagini came out relatively unscathed and I'm hoping for an intriguing ongoing story for her.
The male characters came off slightly better. Jacob and Flamel were some welcome relief from this bleak installment of the franchise. Hats off to Callum Turner and Joshua Shea though. They both managed to pick up the Newt mannerisms really well. I can appreciate it even though it's one of the things I dislike about Fantastic Beasts, the constant head tilting.
Jude Law as Albus Dumbledore still doesn't sit quite right, but he made a reasonable job of it. He doesn't quite hold the same presence in the scenes as you'd expect him to for the man he becomes though. Everyone also got into a tizzy about his sexuality. Who cares? Whether he is or isn't gay makes no difference to the movie whatsoever. Just enjoy a film a don't worry about it until it's relevant.
It really is difficult to sum the story line up for this one. There's a reason that everyone has generalised the synopsis. It's just a lot of nothing in particular. It's part two of five. There didn't really seem to be a lot apart from filler. What I can tell you is that the first time I saw this (I went to the midnight screening at Vue originally) I fell asleep through a significant chunk in the middle and yet I still came out with the same understanding and enjoyment as I did after the second time.
What you should do
You're going to have to see it at some point if you're into the HP universe. Just a statement of fact there!
Movie thing you wish you could take home
That magic spell for collapsing all my belongings into a couple of trunks, I'm assuming it would come in handy for cleaning as well.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Hamsters vs. Hippos in Tabletop Games
Oct 1, 2021
Deeply consider this question: what is your natural predator? We are the top of the food chain, right? Right? And what we all learned in school is that some animals are herbivores, some are carnivores, and some are omnivores. At least in the Midwest, that’s what we were taught. Now, I don’t remember ever being taught that hippopotamuses (hippopotami?) eat anything other than grass. However, I have been wrong so many times in my life that I am interested to find out why they would snack on fleeing hamsters. Perhaps a board game can help me!
Hamsters vs. Hippos is a press-your-luck tile flipping game where players are cute little hamsterinos escaping the zoo and nearing freedom. However, along the way they must traverse the hippo enclosure. Typically hippos only eat grass, but in this game universe they are attracted to the delectable little rodents and are as hangry as my kids after a day at the playground. The hamster who can collect the most lotus flowers from the hippo lily pads at the end of the game will be the winner and be able to escape the zoo in peace. All other players will be snacked.
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
To setup, determine the appropriate grid size for the number of players per the rulebook. Shuffle all the lily pad tiles face-down, place them in the grid, then place upon them nine lotus flower tokens. Each player will select their hamsteeple and mat and the game may now begin!
Hamsters vs. Hippos is played over four rounds and each turn players will have two actions they must complete. For the first action, each hamster must move onto the grid to explore a face-down tile, or explore another face-down tile if already on the grid. For the second action the hamster may continue exploring new tiles or be taken off the grid to score their collected lotus flowers. Movement can be orthogonally or diagonally, but every time they move, the hamsters must move to an unexplored tile. Flipping these tiles will reveal empty lily pads, some special actions to be taken, lotus flowers to be collected, or hippos that end the hamster’s round and makes the hamster forfeit their collected lotus flowers this round.
The game continues in this fashion over four rounds where hamsters are moving onto and off the grid, moving around the grid, collecting flowers, and possibly being eaten. At the end of the fourth round players total their lotus flowers they were able to keep and the hamster with the most lotus flowers wins!
Components. This one is easy. This game is a bunch of lily pad tiles, some cardstock player mats, wooden lotus flower tokens, and cute little hamsteeples. The tiles are good quality, the player mats are big and nice, and the hamsteeples are precious. I enjoy the lighthearted art style quite a bit – even the angry-looking hippo tiles. My only issue lies with the lotus flower tokens. They are very thin painted wooden tokens in two colors – pastel pink (worth 1 VP)and slightly darker pastel purple (worth 3 VP). I am not colorblind, but I like to make mention of items I would think are not colorblind friendly. The difference in color is not great enough, even for me of acceptable color differentiation. Another thing about these is they are very thin and delicate. Normally this isn’t an issue for me, but this is clearly a game my children want to play. When they play this with me I am always holding my breath just waiting for them to break a lotus flower. It hasn’t happened yet, but I might see about adding sturdier components to my copy when I play with little ones.
Game play is very very light. This is purely a press-your-luck game of deciding to move to a tile, flipping it over, and hoping for the best. There are a few special action tiles that can help mitigate the luck factor a little, but most of the time it’s a leap before you look scenario. That may turn off a large faction of gamers, but I will be playing this primarily with my children (who are nowhere near the suggested age of 8+). I could have reviewed this under our Kids Table series, but it doesn’t seem to be marketed specifically to children. As a game for adults, this is novelty at best, but for children it’s a decent press-your-luck style game. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a 4 / 6, but only because it works so well with kids. If I didn’t have children I couldn’t see myself playing it a whole lot at all. Consider this when you look at the amazing cover art and intriguing theme. It’s good for what it is, but will not be for all collections and play groups.
Hamsters vs. Hippos is a press-your-luck tile flipping game where players are cute little hamsterinos escaping the zoo and nearing freedom. However, along the way they must traverse the hippo enclosure. Typically hippos only eat grass, but in this game universe they are attracted to the delectable little rodents and are as hangry as my kids after a day at the playground. The hamster who can collect the most lotus flowers from the hippo lily pads at the end of the game will be the winner and be able to escape the zoo in peace. All other players will be snacked.
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
To setup, determine the appropriate grid size for the number of players per the rulebook. Shuffle all the lily pad tiles face-down, place them in the grid, then place upon them nine lotus flower tokens. Each player will select their hamsteeple and mat and the game may now begin!
Hamsters vs. Hippos is played over four rounds and each turn players will have two actions they must complete. For the first action, each hamster must move onto the grid to explore a face-down tile, or explore another face-down tile if already on the grid. For the second action the hamster may continue exploring new tiles or be taken off the grid to score their collected lotus flowers. Movement can be orthogonally or diagonally, but every time they move, the hamsters must move to an unexplored tile. Flipping these tiles will reveal empty lily pads, some special actions to be taken, lotus flowers to be collected, or hippos that end the hamster’s round and makes the hamster forfeit their collected lotus flowers this round.
The game continues in this fashion over four rounds where hamsters are moving onto and off the grid, moving around the grid, collecting flowers, and possibly being eaten. At the end of the fourth round players total their lotus flowers they were able to keep and the hamster with the most lotus flowers wins!
Components. This one is easy. This game is a bunch of lily pad tiles, some cardstock player mats, wooden lotus flower tokens, and cute little hamsteeples. The tiles are good quality, the player mats are big and nice, and the hamsteeples are precious. I enjoy the lighthearted art style quite a bit – even the angry-looking hippo tiles. My only issue lies with the lotus flower tokens. They are very thin painted wooden tokens in two colors – pastel pink (worth 1 VP)and slightly darker pastel purple (worth 3 VP). I am not colorblind, but I like to make mention of items I would think are not colorblind friendly. The difference in color is not great enough, even for me of acceptable color differentiation. Another thing about these is they are very thin and delicate. Normally this isn’t an issue for me, but this is clearly a game my children want to play. When they play this with me I am always holding my breath just waiting for them to break a lotus flower. It hasn’t happened yet, but I might see about adding sturdier components to my copy when I play with little ones.
Game play is very very light. This is purely a press-your-luck game of deciding to move to a tile, flipping it over, and hoping for the best. There are a few special action tiles that can help mitigate the luck factor a little, but most of the time it’s a leap before you look scenario. That may turn off a large faction of gamers, but I will be playing this primarily with my children (who are nowhere near the suggested age of 8+). I could have reviewed this under our Kids Table series, but it doesn’t seem to be marketed specifically to children. As a game for adults, this is novelty at best, but for children it’s a decent press-your-luck style game. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a 4 / 6, but only because it works so well with kids. If I didn’t have children I couldn’t see myself playing it a whole lot at all. Consider this when you look at the amazing cover art and intriguing theme. It’s good for what it is, but will not be for all collections and play groups.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Black Mirror - Season 3 in TV
Mar 3, 2020
Nosedive - 8
We had to wait almost another 2 years for the Netflix investment to show a product, and in time for Halloween 2016 we got the super-glossy re-boot of Nosedive, with a big name up front and lots of anticipation. The tone was instantly more playful; less British, more inclusive to a world audience. It tackled with a wry humour the universal phenomenon of popularity and everything being rated, most notably, people themselves. In a future world of sunshine and pastel shades it has become the norm to rate every interaction, from buying coffee to buying a house, in the hope of becoming one of the beautiful people rated above a 4.5. It cleverly questions the motivations for that desire, and the pitfalls of false behaviour and the manipulation from an elite standpoint. It isn’t necessary to imagine this future, as we are virtually there already, and all this episode does is heighten the idea to hyperbolic proportions. Rated down by many viewers because it is “annoying”, but that is entirely the point: the whole thing makes you want to scream!
Playtest - 6.5
Also available for Halloween (as was the whole season, in standard Netflix style) came a chance to explore what really scares us! And… they blew it. Sure, the idea that gaming and VR becomes so photo realistic it seems entirely real isn’t far away. But, making it personal to a very annoying character dissolves all tension quite early on. Some mild jump scares aside, this has to go down as a missed opportunity. Notable only for the re-occurance of the White Bear symbol.
Shut Up and Dance - 7
This is the one most likely to make you think, hmm, that is too far! An uncomfortable episode, not only because of the subject matter and ultimate revelation, but because of the intense nastiness that pervades it. No doubt that tension is intentional, and therefore effective to a degree, but for me it crosses the line of entertainment and becomes simply nasty. Being unafraid to tackle controversial subjects is to be applauded, but the execution has to be note perfect, or the risk is the backlash this episode received. A cautionary tale about surveillance, data theft, blackmail and our personal online responsibility. Not a bad piece, just a slight misjudgment on tone and delivery.
San Junipero - 9.5
Just when critics were sharpening their pens that Netflix had ruined the potential of Black Mirror in its first phase, comes an almost perfect piece of TV that is literally heavenly! Everything about San Junipero is a work of art! Another “blind” episode that takes a while to unravel; the pacing and realisation of which is so beautifully judged that, from a writing point of view, this has to be seen as the pinnacle of the show to date. Mackenzie Davis is extraordinary as the vulnerable, shy and naive Yorkie, looking for a connection in an 80s nightclub, filled with nostalgia and cultural memes galore. The music alone is not only sing aloud perfect, but chosen for storytelling reasons so clever it raises goosebumps! The relationship between Yorkie and Kelly, an equally great Gugu Mbatha-Raw, is filled with chemistry and nuance, drawing us in to a place so deep that when the penny drops on what is really going on it draws a gasp and then possibly tears – I know it did for me! The mechanics of the technology that would make this story possible does raise a lot of questions, but in the end it is better to accept it as an allegory for love, life and our ideas of “eternity”. Don’t look too deeply at the how, but marvel at the why, and this could be the best hour of TV you will ever see! So rewatchable, rich and rewarding; the only reason not to make this a feature length big budget film is that how could it possibly be improved?
Men Against Fire - 7
Revisiting yet again the technology of a brain implant that affects our vision of the world, literally and figuratively, this episode explores indoctrination and brainwashing, with the underlying themes of racism and basic human compassion. It is a fine analogy of how the media and governments would have us think of immigrants and the “dangers” of anything “not us”. A tad obvious, and doesn’t really go anywhere new once the twist is revealed. Visually quite stunning, but not as strong as other episodes that cover similar ground.
Hated in the Nation - 8.5
With a running time of 89 minutes, this is essentially what happens when Black Mirror pushes an idea to feature length. Allowing more time for character development does make a difference, and the tension build in this fine concept for a thriller also benefits from a few extra minutes. The ever reliable Kelly MacDonald is the cornerstone of a strong cast, on the hunt for the mind behind a series of killings by killer bee drones, targeted at a democratically elected “most hated” person every day, based on a public vote. An exploration of media vilification and how easy it can be to manipulate our idea of someone’s identity and judge their actions and even personalities based on one wrong thing they may have said or done. The episode is a who-dunnit? A why-doit? And, framed, with the backdrop of the inquest surrounding events, both a good cop movie and a courtroom drama. Charlie Brooker has hinted that some of these characters may return at some point. I’m all for it.
We had to wait almost another 2 years for the Netflix investment to show a product, and in time for Halloween 2016 we got the super-glossy re-boot of Nosedive, with a big name up front and lots of anticipation. The tone was instantly more playful; less British, more inclusive to a world audience. It tackled with a wry humour the universal phenomenon of popularity and everything being rated, most notably, people themselves. In a future world of sunshine and pastel shades it has become the norm to rate every interaction, from buying coffee to buying a house, in the hope of becoming one of the beautiful people rated above a 4.5. It cleverly questions the motivations for that desire, and the pitfalls of false behaviour and the manipulation from an elite standpoint. It isn’t necessary to imagine this future, as we are virtually there already, and all this episode does is heighten the idea to hyperbolic proportions. Rated down by many viewers because it is “annoying”, but that is entirely the point: the whole thing makes you want to scream!
Playtest - 6.5
Also available for Halloween (as was the whole season, in standard Netflix style) came a chance to explore what really scares us! And… they blew it. Sure, the idea that gaming and VR becomes so photo realistic it seems entirely real isn’t far away. But, making it personal to a very annoying character dissolves all tension quite early on. Some mild jump scares aside, this has to go down as a missed opportunity. Notable only for the re-occurance of the White Bear symbol.
Shut Up and Dance - 7
This is the one most likely to make you think, hmm, that is too far! An uncomfortable episode, not only because of the subject matter and ultimate revelation, but because of the intense nastiness that pervades it. No doubt that tension is intentional, and therefore effective to a degree, but for me it crosses the line of entertainment and becomes simply nasty. Being unafraid to tackle controversial subjects is to be applauded, but the execution has to be note perfect, or the risk is the backlash this episode received. A cautionary tale about surveillance, data theft, blackmail and our personal online responsibility. Not a bad piece, just a slight misjudgment on tone and delivery.
San Junipero - 9.5
Just when critics were sharpening their pens that Netflix had ruined the potential of Black Mirror in its first phase, comes an almost perfect piece of TV that is literally heavenly! Everything about San Junipero is a work of art! Another “blind” episode that takes a while to unravel; the pacing and realisation of which is so beautifully judged that, from a writing point of view, this has to be seen as the pinnacle of the show to date. Mackenzie Davis is extraordinary as the vulnerable, shy and naive Yorkie, looking for a connection in an 80s nightclub, filled with nostalgia and cultural memes galore. The music alone is not only sing aloud perfect, but chosen for storytelling reasons so clever it raises goosebumps! The relationship between Yorkie and Kelly, an equally great Gugu Mbatha-Raw, is filled with chemistry and nuance, drawing us in to a place so deep that when the penny drops on what is really going on it draws a gasp and then possibly tears – I know it did for me! The mechanics of the technology that would make this story possible does raise a lot of questions, but in the end it is better to accept it as an allegory for love, life and our ideas of “eternity”. Don’t look too deeply at the how, but marvel at the why, and this could be the best hour of TV you will ever see! So rewatchable, rich and rewarding; the only reason not to make this a feature length big budget film is that how could it possibly be improved?
Men Against Fire - 7
Revisiting yet again the technology of a brain implant that affects our vision of the world, literally and figuratively, this episode explores indoctrination and brainwashing, with the underlying themes of racism and basic human compassion. It is a fine analogy of how the media and governments would have us think of immigrants and the “dangers” of anything “not us”. A tad obvious, and doesn’t really go anywhere new once the twist is revealed. Visually quite stunning, but not as strong as other episodes that cover similar ground.
Hated in the Nation - 8.5
With a running time of 89 minutes, this is essentially what happens when Black Mirror pushes an idea to feature length. Allowing more time for character development does make a difference, and the tension build in this fine concept for a thriller also benefits from a few extra minutes. The ever reliable Kelly MacDonald is the cornerstone of a strong cast, on the hunt for the mind behind a series of killings by killer bee drones, targeted at a democratically elected “most hated” person every day, based on a public vote. An exploration of media vilification and how easy it can be to manipulate our idea of someone’s identity and judge their actions and even personalities based on one wrong thing they may have said or done. The episode is a who-dunnit? A why-doit? And, framed, with the backdrop of the inquest surrounding events, both a good cop movie and a courtroom drama. Charlie Brooker has hinted that some of these characters may return at some point. I’m all for it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Tomorrowland (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I have to be honest. I was confused when I first heard that a movie was being made called Tomorrowland, and even more so when I heard it that actually is based on the themed area of Disney parks. How could they do it? What would it be about? It was strange. The teaser trailer didn’t give a whole lot away either (as teasers are designed to do). When I saw the full trailer, I had a little more understanding, and it definitely piqued my interest, but I was still totally in the dark. And I wanted to see the movie! I guess Disney really did their job right.
In this film, Tomorrowland is a place of unlimited possibilities. Another dimension, where the inhabitants of that dimension actively seek out intelligent people, inventors, who can do something that can change the world for the better. We begin at the 1964 World Fair in New York where we see a young Frank Walker (Thomas Robinson) entering into the inventor’s competition with a jetpack that doesn’t quite work. However, a mysterious young woman named Athena (Raffey Cassidy) takes an interest in him, offers him a pin and instructs him to follow her. Thus begins Frank’s adventure and we move forward in time to the present day, where we meet Casey Newton (Britt Robertson).
Casey is the teenage daughter of a NASA engineer, who is no slough in the intelligence department herself. We are introduced to her as she is sabotaging equipment at a NASA launch pad that is scheduled to be taken down, which will leave her father without a job. We see Athena again, who has mysteriously not aged, leaving a pin for Casey to discover Tomorrowland on her own. Only, this pin is a simple advertisement. We soon learn that something has gone terribly wrong, and our world is in danger. Athena leads Casey to an aged Frank Walker (George Clooney), who has since been banished from Tomorrowland, but still feeds off of their signal and sits and waits for the end of the world, which he knows when it will happen. But he and Athena see something in Casey that will help save both Tomorrowland, and our world.
Given the conversations, the imagery, and the theme of this movie, it is clearly targeted towards children more than adults. Though, there is plenty for an adult to enjoy about the movie, it is important to understand that the movie is clearly targeted to a younger audience. I say this because I feel, as did my guests who attended the press screening, that the main plot device, the main conflict of the movie, is far too complex a concept for this younger audience to understand. So before you read any further, spoiler alert. You have been forewarned. If you do not want to know, skip the next two paragraphs.
The idea here is that Frank Walker built a machine that could see any point in time. Past, future or present. With this machine, he saw the end of our world. The proposed resolution to stop the destruction of earth is this: turn off the machine. The argument being that the world ends because we see it ending. It becomes a fixation of our mind, and so it will happen. Apparently, the people of Tomorrowland have been streaming this information to Earth for years, but instead of taking steps to prevent it, Earth has embraced it. One of my favorite lines, delivered by one of my favorite actors (Hugh Laurie) indicated that we had simultaneous epidemics of obesity and starvation on Earth. It’s mind boggling. But the Casey comes up with the brilliant idea of turning it off, which will prevent the destruction of Earth because people will no longer be so focused on it. It’s a little more complicated than that, but this is the gist of it. Way too complex for your average child to comprehend.
Another part of the resolution and the end of the movie was brilliant, but I think it was poorly illustrated. As I mentioned earlier, the residents of Tomorrowland were searching for intelligent people, often high IQ inventors, who could make the world a better place. At the end of the film, Casey idea is to bring not only intelligent people, but anyone who will make a difference. Dancers, musicians, doctors, pilots, farmers, etc. I think I even saw a waitress in there. These are people who may not normally be recognized as highly intelligent, but can make huge differences in the world. The idea was to not be so limited in thinking, and understand how everything can contribute to a better world. However, they did not really do a great job of pointing this out, so some movie-goers may miss this point completely and simply see it as a rebuilding of Tomorrowland to its former glory.
Other than those two issues, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It had a great amount of humor, action and endearing moments. It was visually stunning, and took a concept that I never thought could be made into a movie and did just that. The movie was brilliantly cast, even down to the minor characters like Hugo (Keegan-Michael Key) and Ursula (Kathryn Hahn). Of course the score was fantastic, it is a Disney film after all. And despite my issues with the complexity of the plot, I still think that everyone, young and old, will enjoy this film.
Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But it is entertaining, and definitely worth seeing on the big screen. So go check it out. In theaters everywhere, today.
In this film, Tomorrowland is a place of unlimited possibilities. Another dimension, where the inhabitants of that dimension actively seek out intelligent people, inventors, who can do something that can change the world for the better. We begin at the 1964 World Fair in New York where we see a young Frank Walker (Thomas Robinson) entering into the inventor’s competition with a jetpack that doesn’t quite work. However, a mysterious young woman named Athena (Raffey Cassidy) takes an interest in him, offers him a pin and instructs him to follow her. Thus begins Frank’s adventure and we move forward in time to the present day, where we meet Casey Newton (Britt Robertson).
Casey is the teenage daughter of a NASA engineer, who is no slough in the intelligence department herself. We are introduced to her as she is sabotaging equipment at a NASA launch pad that is scheduled to be taken down, which will leave her father without a job. We see Athena again, who has mysteriously not aged, leaving a pin for Casey to discover Tomorrowland on her own. Only, this pin is a simple advertisement. We soon learn that something has gone terribly wrong, and our world is in danger. Athena leads Casey to an aged Frank Walker (George Clooney), who has since been banished from Tomorrowland, but still feeds off of their signal and sits and waits for the end of the world, which he knows when it will happen. But he and Athena see something in Casey that will help save both Tomorrowland, and our world.
Given the conversations, the imagery, and the theme of this movie, it is clearly targeted towards children more than adults. Though, there is plenty for an adult to enjoy about the movie, it is important to understand that the movie is clearly targeted to a younger audience. I say this because I feel, as did my guests who attended the press screening, that the main plot device, the main conflict of the movie, is far too complex a concept for this younger audience to understand. So before you read any further, spoiler alert. You have been forewarned. If you do not want to know, skip the next two paragraphs.
The idea here is that Frank Walker built a machine that could see any point in time. Past, future or present. With this machine, he saw the end of our world. The proposed resolution to stop the destruction of earth is this: turn off the machine. The argument being that the world ends because we see it ending. It becomes a fixation of our mind, and so it will happen. Apparently, the people of Tomorrowland have been streaming this information to Earth for years, but instead of taking steps to prevent it, Earth has embraced it. One of my favorite lines, delivered by one of my favorite actors (Hugh Laurie) indicated that we had simultaneous epidemics of obesity and starvation on Earth. It’s mind boggling. But the Casey comes up with the brilliant idea of turning it off, which will prevent the destruction of Earth because people will no longer be so focused on it. It’s a little more complicated than that, but this is the gist of it. Way too complex for your average child to comprehend.
Another part of the resolution and the end of the movie was brilliant, but I think it was poorly illustrated. As I mentioned earlier, the residents of Tomorrowland were searching for intelligent people, often high IQ inventors, who could make the world a better place. At the end of the film, Casey idea is to bring not only intelligent people, but anyone who will make a difference. Dancers, musicians, doctors, pilots, farmers, etc. I think I even saw a waitress in there. These are people who may not normally be recognized as highly intelligent, but can make huge differences in the world. The idea was to not be so limited in thinking, and understand how everything can contribute to a better world. However, they did not really do a great job of pointing this out, so some movie-goers may miss this point completely and simply see it as a rebuilding of Tomorrowland to its former glory.
Other than those two issues, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It had a great amount of humor, action and endearing moments. It was visually stunning, and took a concept that I never thought could be made into a movie and did just that. The movie was brilliantly cast, even down to the minor characters like Hugo (Keegan-Michael Key) and Ursula (Kathryn Hahn). Of course the score was fantastic, it is a Disney film after all. And despite my issues with the complexity of the plot, I still think that everyone, young and old, will enjoy this film.
Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But it is entertaining, and definitely worth seeing on the big screen. So go check it out. In theaters everywhere, today.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Gekitai in Tabletop Games
Feb 20, 2020
We have all played Chess, Checkers, Go, and even more recent abstracts like Azul, Patchwork, and Blokus, right? Most abstract strategy games are loosely themed, if themed at all, have perfect information, and offer very little luck factors. Furthermore, classic abstracts feature that familiar grid-board with moving pieces we all grew up learning with our grandparents. Right, we all have played and loved these. So when my friend posted PNP files online for his new game featuring a grid-board and pieces that move around it, I said, “Great. I just printed another PNP game and now I need to do another one!” But instead, the designer, Scott, messaged me and let me know he had a copy for me… which he hand-delivered to me at a high school concert I was attending. Then he taught it to me there.
Gekitai is an abstract strategy game with very minimal rules. The phrase, “easy to learn, but hard to master” is very overdone, but it certainly applies here. For those that are wondering, the term, “Gekitai” is Japanese for “Repel.” You will see why this nomenclature is perfect for this game soon.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. Though I know the designer personally, I will be reviewing this game as an impartial judge. -T
Normally I like to include setup instructions here in this paragraph for my reviews, so I shall do that now. To setup, place the board between the two players and give each player their eight matching pieces. In my game, they are red and black glass beads. For convenience I will refer to the red ones as apples and the black ones as 8-balls. That’s it. You’re setup to play.
The object of Gekitai is to fulfill one of two victory conditions: play until one player has three of their pieces in a row (diagonally OR orthogonally) or finish their turn with all eight of their pieces on the board. Easy, right? It most certainly is! Oh, you want the catch? Ok then, here’s the catch: while players can place any piece on any empty square, once placed the pieces will repel all other adjacent pieces away from itself. This includes their own pieces.
So let’s say you start the game and place your first 8-ball in a corner closest to you. Great opening noob. I mean move. You see, I would just place one of my apples adjacent to your 8-ball and repel it right off the board. That doesn’t mean that I have captured your 8-ball or anything like that. You would be able to use it again next turn if you like, but this is the danger of outside spaces. When repelled, a piece (your 8-ball) continues one space in the direction away from the most recently-placed piece (my apple). So diagonally if diagonal from the just-placed apple, or orthogonally otherwise. Again, this would affect all pieces that are adjacent, not just your opponent’s. Think of placing a piece as someone doing a cannonball in an infinity pool. Everyone already in the pool will get pushed away from the point of impact and may even fall out of the pool, but be able to hop back in soon.
One note about pushing other pieces. One piece can only push one other piece. Here’s what I mean. When my apple is placed near another 8-ball or apple, it repels it, right? Well, a piece may only be repelled if there is an empty space for it to go. If another apple is blocking the pathway of an affected apple or 8-ball, no movement happens. The pieces has been blocked. In this way strategy plays in integral part in Gekitai – you must always be thinking about 10 turns in the future. Play continues in this fashion until a player has achieved three-in-a-row or placed all of their pieces on the board.
Components. Again, we are playing with a PNP prototype game package. Granted, this PNP is assembled by the designer and looks WAAAY better than if I had tried to assemble it myself, so we do take that into consideration. Components aside (because unless you order a copy from the designer via Etsy in the future, you will probably download the files and play on a sheet of paper with coins or other stand-ins), this is a typical, classic abstract strategy-style game. The board can look any way you like in a 6×6 board and you can you use any bits for your game. Heck, you could even play with real apples and 8-balls. But what we were provided is excellent and looks great on the table.
But gameplay. Like I mentioned earlier, I know the designer and his family and they are wonderful people. Luckily that makes no difference here because the game itself is absolutely wonderful! My wife typically kicks my booty in all abstracts. Ok fine, usually in all games. BUT! After playing Gekitai lots with her, she has only beaten me once! When we do play it she asks for rematches several times over and I just love being able to have a go-to game for when we have a few minutes between running around with the kids. I love it. She loves it. We at Purple Phoenix Games, with an enthusiastic guest score from my wife, give Gekitai a cannonball-esque 11 / 12. We suggest you go to the BGG page where the PNP files can be printed. You will want this in your collection.
Gekitai is an abstract strategy game with very minimal rules. The phrase, “easy to learn, but hard to master” is very overdone, but it certainly applies here. For those that are wondering, the term, “Gekitai” is Japanese for “Repel.” You will see why this nomenclature is perfect for this game soon.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. Though I know the designer personally, I will be reviewing this game as an impartial judge. -T
Normally I like to include setup instructions here in this paragraph for my reviews, so I shall do that now. To setup, place the board between the two players and give each player their eight matching pieces. In my game, they are red and black glass beads. For convenience I will refer to the red ones as apples and the black ones as 8-balls. That’s it. You’re setup to play.
The object of Gekitai is to fulfill one of two victory conditions: play until one player has three of their pieces in a row (diagonally OR orthogonally) or finish their turn with all eight of their pieces on the board. Easy, right? It most certainly is! Oh, you want the catch? Ok then, here’s the catch: while players can place any piece on any empty square, once placed the pieces will repel all other adjacent pieces away from itself. This includes their own pieces.
So let’s say you start the game and place your first 8-ball in a corner closest to you. Great opening noob. I mean move. You see, I would just place one of my apples adjacent to your 8-ball and repel it right off the board. That doesn’t mean that I have captured your 8-ball or anything like that. You would be able to use it again next turn if you like, but this is the danger of outside spaces. When repelled, a piece (your 8-ball) continues one space in the direction away from the most recently-placed piece (my apple). So diagonally if diagonal from the just-placed apple, or orthogonally otherwise. Again, this would affect all pieces that are adjacent, not just your opponent’s. Think of placing a piece as someone doing a cannonball in an infinity pool. Everyone already in the pool will get pushed away from the point of impact and may even fall out of the pool, but be able to hop back in soon.
One note about pushing other pieces. One piece can only push one other piece. Here’s what I mean. When my apple is placed near another 8-ball or apple, it repels it, right? Well, a piece may only be repelled if there is an empty space for it to go. If another apple is blocking the pathway of an affected apple or 8-ball, no movement happens. The pieces has been blocked. In this way strategy plays in integral part in Gekitai – you must always be thinking about 10 turns in the future. Play continues in this fashion until a player has achieved three-in-a-row or placed all of their pieces on the board.
Components. Again, we are playing with a PNP prototype game package. Granted, this PNP is assembled by the designer and looks WAAAY better than if I had tried to assemble it myself, so we do take that into consideration. Components aside (because unless you order a copy from the designer via Etsy in the future, you will probably download the files and play on a sheet of paper with coins or other stand-ins), this is a typical, classic abstract strategy-style game. The board can look any way you like in a 6×6 board and you can you use any bits for your game. Heck, you could even play with real apples and 8-balls. But what we were provided is excellent and looks great on the table.
But gameplay. Like I mentioned earlier, I know the designer and his family and they are wonderful people. Luckily that makes no difference here because the game itself is absolutely wonderful! My wife typically kicks my booty in all abstracts. Ok fine, usually in all games. BUT! After playing Gekitai lots with her, she has only beaten me once! When we do play it she asks for rematches several times over and I just love being able to have a go-to game for when we have a few minutes between running around with the kids. I love it. She loves it. We at Purple Phoenix Games, with an enthusiastic guest score from my wife, give Gekitai a cannonball-esque 11 / 12. We suggest you go to the BGG page where the PNP files can be printed. You will want this in your collection.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Citadels in Tabletop Games
Aug 13, 2021
It has been documented several times that I, Travis Lopez, would be a horrible city planner. So why do I keep playing these games that require me to build city buildings and components and why do I enjoy them so much? Well, truth be told, this is a game that I had traded for years ago, got rid of, missed terribly, and repurchased. However, this is the newer version that includes a lot more in the box. Does it mean that the game is better? More stuff means better game, right?
In Citadels players will be donning the mantle of potential Master Builders and will need to build the greatest buildings within the city and manipulate the powers of special people within its walls. The game ends when a player has built their seventh district building. The player with the most VP at this time will be crowned Master Builder and winner of Citadels!
To setup, decide which eight characters will be used in the game, gather their cards and tokens, and place their tokens in ascending order on the table. This is to remind all players which characters (and their rank) is in play. Assemble the district (building) cards per the rules and shuffle the deck. Deal each player four of these district cards along with two gold coins. The eldest player will begin the game as the current First Player (complete with crown mini) and will begin the first phase of the first round.
Citadels is played over several rounds, each with two phases played within. The first phase is the Selection Phase, where the current First Player takes the character cards, shuffles them, adds zero to two cards (dependent upon number of players) face-up on the table and one card face-down. They then choose from the cards remaining in hand which character’s powers they would like to enact for the turn. The cards are passed to the next player in line who will do the same, and so on around the table.
Once all players have chosen their character card, the Turn Phase can begin. The current First Player (the one with the crown) will announce the characters in rank order, with the lowest character going first. In a typical game using only original base characters, this is “1: Assassin.” Whomever chose the Assassin card will flip over their character card, perform its special power, and then continue with their turn. In this case, the Assassin’s special power is to announce the name of a CHARACTER to assassinate. NOTE: This does NOT mean the name of the PLAYER. So the Assassin could choose to assassinate the King character, not the Travis player. After the character has used their power, the player can continue with the rest of their turn, though some character powers may be used at any time during the player’s turn.
After the character power is used, the player will gather resources in the form of two gold coins from the bank or by drawing two district cards from the deck and choosing one to keep in hand. After this choice, the player may then build one district in their play area if they wish and if they can afford to do so. Once complete, the crowned First Player will call out the next character rank (2: Thief in our example) who will continue their turn in the same way. The game continues in this fashion until a player has built their seventh district. The round continues until all players have had an equal amount of turns. Players then count VP on district cards and bonuses per the rulebook. The player with the most VP at the end of the game is crowned the Master Builder and winner of Citadels!
Components. I have to say that I enjoyed the components in the older version of Citadels I used to have just fine. I had sleeved all my cards, and the gold coins were nice back in the day. This version, however, includes many more components and each one is higher quality than the previous version’s. The art on the cards has been updated and is much much nicer now as well. The addition of the crown mini, the character tokens, and other components not mentioned here merely increases my love for Citadels. Windrider has knocked it out of the park with this version. And that’s saying nothing about all the additional characters now included in the game! Oh boy, so much variability!
Along with that variability is the customization of the game. You can play with one of the six pre-constructed provided suggestions in the rulebook or create your own combination of different characters. With three versions of each rank, many possibilities are… possible.
I do love Citadels, and with the right group can be a show-stopper all on its own. Some players may get a little offended or sassy because there is a fair amount of Take That in Citadels with the character interactions, so if playing with people who don’t understand the difference between a game and real life, I would prep them appropriately. I love being able to outwit my opponents by drafting certain characters they didn’t think I would want. Keeping them all on their toes during the game is sneaky fun.
So for me, with the amount of replayability, high quality and excellent components, and cutthroat gameplay I simply adore Citadels. I can pull it out with different groups and have different play experiences and try to tailor the character offering to the strengths of my players, or simply use one listed in the back of the rulebook. Purple Phoenix Games gives Citadels an underhanded, yet scholarly 21 / 24. It’s a stunning, magical, wonderful game and one of Bruno Faidutti’s best ever! Surely this is already in your collection, right? If not, make it so.
In Citadels players will be donning the mantle of potential Master Builders and will need to build the greatest buildings within the city and manipulate the powers of special people within its walls. The game ends when a player has built their seventh district building. The player with the most VP at this time will be crowned Master Builder and winner of Citadels!
To setup, decide which eight characters will be used in the game, gather their cards and tokens, and place their tokens in ascending order on the table. This is to remind all players which characters (and their rank) is in play. Assemble the district (building) cards per the rules and shuffle the deck. Deal each player four of these district cards along with two gold coins. The eldest player will begin the game as the current First Player (complete with crown mini) and will begin the first phase of the first round.
Citadels is played over several rounds, each with two phases played within. The first phase is the Selection Phase, where the current First Player takes the character cards, shuffles them, adds zero to two cards (dependent upon number of players) face-up on the table and one card face-down. They then choose from the cards remaining in hand which character’s powers they would like to enact for the turn. The cards are passed to the next player in line who will do the same, and so on around the table.
Once all players have chosen their character card, the Turn Phase can begin. The current First Player (the one with the crown) will announce the characters in rank order, with the lowest character going first. In a typical game using only original base characters, this is “1: Assassin.” Whomever chose the Assassin card will flip over their character card, perform its special power, and then continue with their turn. In this case, the Assassin’s special power is to announce the name of a CHARACTER to assassinate. NOTE: This does NOT mean the name of the PLAYER. So the Assassin could choose to assassinate the King character, not the Travis player. After the character has used their power, the player can continue with the rest of their turn, though some character powers may be used at any time during the player’s turn.
After the character power is used, the player will gather resources in the form of two gold coins from the bank or by drawing two district cards from the deck and choosing one to keep in hand. After this choice, the player may then build one district in their play area if they wish and if they can afford to do so. Once complete, the crowned First Player will call out the next character rank (2: Thief in our example) who will continue their turn in the same way. The game continues in this fashion until a player has built their seventh district. The round continues until all players have had an equal amount of turns. Players then count VP on district cards and bonuses per the rulebook. The player with the most VP at the end of the game is crowned the Master Builder and winner of Citadels!
Components. I have to say that I enjoyed the components in the older version of Citadels I used to have just fine. I had sleeved all my cards, and the gold coins were nice back in the day. This version, however, includes many more components and each one is higher quality than the previous version’s. The art on the cards has been updated and is much much nicer now as well. The addition of the crown mini, the character tokens, and other components not mentioned here merely increases my love for Citadels. Windrider has knocked it out of the park with this version. And that’s saying nothing about all the additional characters now included in the game! Oh boy, so much variability!
Along with that variability is the customization of the game. You can play with one of the six pre-constructed provided suggestions in the rulebook or create your own combination of different characters. With three versions of each rank, many possibilities are… possible.
I do love Citadels, and with the right group can be a show-stopper all on its own. Some players may get a little offended or sassy because there is a fair amount of Take That in Citadels with the character interactions, so if playing with people who don’t understand the difference between a game and real life, I would prep them appropriately. I love being able to outwit my opponents by drafting certain characters they didn’t think I would want. Keeping them all on their toes during the game is sneaky fun.
So for me, with the amount of replayability, high quality and excellent components, and cutthroat gameplay I simply adore Citadels. I can pull it out with different groups and have different play experiences and try to tailor the character offering to the strengths of my players, or simply use one listed in the back of the rulebook. Purple Phoenix Games gives Citadels an underhanded, yet scholarly 21 / 24. It’s a stunning, magical, wonderful game and one of Bruno Faidutti’s best ever! Surely this is already in your collection, right? If not, make it so.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Scream (2022) in Movies
Jan 29, 2022
Ghostface (up until the reveal) (2 more)
The kills
Chemistry between Neve Campbell and Courtney Cox
Terrible killer reveal (2 more)
Rehashes everything from the original film.
Too meta for its own good
Movies Make Psychos More Imitative
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Scream franchise has always been this love letter to the horror genre while simultaneously embracing this self-deprecating demeanor that was meta long before it was the trendy thing for movies to do. All of the films would lay out the rules of a slasher or horror sequel while sometimes following a familiar formula, but often broke the boundaries of the stabby, blood-soaked mold it was proud to pretend to stay within the lines of.
Now, 11 years after Scream 4, Scream not only references its roots it drowns itself in the accomplishments of the previous films. The film is a huge nostalgic throwback to the first films, especially the original and Scream 4. But nearly every new character introduced in the new film is related to someone in a previous Scream film.
The film opens with Ghostface calling and playing a horror trivia game over the phone with some unsuspecting high school girl, the killer is narrowed down to once again be one of a close-knit group of friends, and the finale literally takes place in the house of one of the characters from the first film.
It’s established within Scream’s dialogue that the film isn’t a reboot or a sequel, but a requel. It brings back legacy characters to make way for new blood while staying within a formula that is almost a carbon copy of the original film. The kills are a little different, the technology is modern, and Sidney, Gale, and Dewey are all older, but this all feels too familiar to feel like a refreshing entry in the franchise.
The highlight of the film is obviously Ghostface. Roger L. Jackson, the voice of Ghostface, is the unsung and unseen hero (or villain) of the franchise. He has not only been the voice of Ghostface for all five films, but was also the voice of Ghostface in season three of the television series. We’ll ignore the fact that who the killer turns out to be has a serious height difference in comparison to whoever is running around the rest of the film, but there are some pretty brutal moments here; his leg stomp to Tara in the film’s opening, the knife through the neck scene where we see the blade go through the victim’s throat and out the side to surprisingly satisfactory results, and even a kill on the sidewalk in front of someone’s house in broad daylight.
Ghostface has his most memorable kill while using two knives in the hall of a private floor of a hospital and it’s fantastic. The original film is a personal favorite, but there are several scenes where you can see another and seemingly cheaper and less detailed mask is used (the opening scene where Drew Barrymore gets stabbed on the front lawn comes to mind). There’s none of that in the new film as Ghostface shines in absolutely every sequence until he’s unmasked.
Characters from previous films that were stabbed or shot or both, but were never shown dying on screen were rumored to appear in this film. The most notable being Hayden Penettiere’s Kirby Reed from Scream 4 and Matthew Lillard’s Stu Macher from the original. Unfortunately, the return of either character would have been more interesting than what we ended up with.
Sisters Sam and Tara Carpenter (played by Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega) have an interesting character connection that results in a repeating Tell-Tale Heart motivation that could finally trigger Sam losing her sanity. The twins, Mindy and Chad (played by Jasmin Savoy Brown and Mason Gooding) are arguably the most useful. Next to Jack Quaid’s performance as Richie, Jasmin Savoy Brown may deliver the best performance from the new cast members.
The aspects that make the Scream franchise scary and suspenseful is the fact that Ghostface is just a horror obsessed human much like the people watching the film from the other side of the screen. Before the killer or killers are revealed, everyone is a suspect and Ghostface can be anyone behind the mask. That sense of dread that lies within never feeling safe even around your family and best friends while simultaneously watching them get slaughtered one by one while you helplessly sit on the sidelines are terrifying concepts that would drive anyone crazy in real life.
The killer(s) in Scream are trying to claim the same kind of legacy Billy Loomis and Stu Macher received; the movie franchise based on their killings, the fame, and the notoriety. Scream is a movie formulated around another movie (the 1996 Scream) that has a movie franchise within the movie franchise (Stab) that is constantly referencing itself and other films in the genre all while trying to erase its ugliest moments. It’s exhausting and disappointing at the same time.
Ghostface is my favorite cinematic serial killer and I love the first four films (yes, even Scream 3 and Gale’s terrible bangs) despite their flaws and fluctuating factors of entertainment. I’ll see and support any new Scream film or TV series that comes along because of it. I know this new installment was successful and some enjoyed it, but it is honestly my least favorite in the franchise.
This new film feels like it’s trying too hard to be one of the original Scream films when it should have just been more of its own thing. This is something the film addresses, but originality should always triumph over retreading familiar territory; especially when it seems like its kills are being plunged into the same stab wounds.
Now, 11 years after Scream 4, Scream not only references its roots it drowns itself in the accomplishments of the previous films. The film is a huge nostalgic throwback to the first films, especially the original and Scream 4. But nearly every new character introduced in the new film is related to someone in a previous Scream film.
The film opens with Ghostface calling and playing a horror trivia game over the phone with some unsuspecting high school girl, the killer is narrowed down to once again be one of a close-knit group of friends, and the finale literally takes place in the house of one of the characters from the first film.
It’s established within Scream’s dialogue that the film isn’t a reboot or a sequel, but a requel. It brings back legacy characters to make way for new blood while staying within a formula that is almost a carbon copy of the original film. The kills are a little different, the technology is modern, and Sidney, Gale, and Dewey are all older, but this all feels too familiar to feel like a refreshing entry in the franchise.
The highlight of the film is obviously Ghostface. Roger L. Jackson, the voice of Ghostface, is the unsung and unseen hero (or villain) of the franchise. He has not only been the voice of Ghostface for all five films, but was also the voice of Ghostface in season three of the television series. We’ll ignore the fact that who the killer turns out to be has a serious height difference in comparison to whoever is running around the rest of the film, but there are some pretty brutal moments here; his leg stomp to Tara in the film’s opening, the knife through the neck scene where we see the blade go through the victim’s throat and out the side to surprisingly satisfactory results, and even a kill on the sidewalk in front of someone’s house in broad daylight.
Ghostface has his most memorable kill while using two knives in the hall of a private floor of a hospital and it’s fantastic. The original film is a personal favorite, but there are several scenes where you can see another and seemingly cheaper and less detailed mask is used (the opening scene where Drew Barrymore gets stabbed on the front lawn comes to mind). There’s none of that in the new film as Ghostface shines in absolutely every sequence until he’s unmasked.
Characters from previous films that were stabbed or shot or both, but were never shown dying on screen were rumored to appear in this film. The most notable being Hayden Penettiere’s Kirby Reed from Scream 4 and Matthew Lillard’s Stu Macher from the original. Unfortunately, the return of either character would have been more interesting than what we ended up with.
Sisters Sam and Tara Carpenter (played by Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega) have an interesting character connection that results in a repeating Tell-Tale Heart motivation that could finally trigger Sam losing her sanity. The twins, Mindy and Chad (played by Jasmin Savoy Brown and Mason Gooding) are arguably the most useful. Next to Jack Quaid’s performance as Richie, Jasmin Savoy Brown may deliver the best performance from the new cast members.
The aspects that make the Scream franchise scary and suspenseful is the fact that Ghostface is just a horror obsessed human much like the people watching the film from the other side of the screen. Before the killer or killers are revealed, everyone is a suspect and Ghostface can be anyone behind the mask. That sense of dread that lies within never feeling safe even around your family and best friends while simultaneously watching them get slaughtered one by one while you helplessly sit on the sidelines are terrifying concepts that would drive anyone crazy in real life.
The killer(s) in Scream are trying to claim the same kind of legacy Billy Loomis and Stu Macher received; the movie franchise based on their killings, the fame, and the notoriety. Scream is a movie formulated around another movie (the 1996 Scream) that has a movie franchise within the movie franchise (Stab) that is constantly referencing itself and other films in the genre all while trying to erase its ugliest moments. It’s exhausting and disappointing at the same time.
Ghostface is my favorite cinematic serial killer and I love the first four films (yes, even Scream 3 and Gale’s terrible bangs) despite their flaws and fluctuating factors of entertainment. I’ll see and support any new Scream film or TV series that comes along because of it. I know this new installment was successful and some enjoyed it, but it is honestly my least favorite in the franchise.
This new film feels like it’s trying too hard to be one of the original Scream films when it should have just been more of its own thing. This is something the film addresses, but originality should always triumph over retreading familiar territory; especially when it seems like its kills are being plunged into the same stab wounds.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Similo: Spookies in Tabletop Games
Mar 11, 2022
Anyone who knows my gaming preferences will tell you that I am not at all a fan of many party games. I just find them less that gratifying, with usually little to no skill or strategy involved, and also typically invites lewd and disgusting suggestions and behaviors. No thanks. However, upon seeing many reviewers that I trust showing off their hauls from recent conventions including games from the Similo series, I just had to find out why. Have I been missing out, or is this just another lame excuse for a “party game?”
Similo: Spookies (which I will just call Similo from here on out, as they are all basically the same, but with different themes) is a party card game where one player knows information and attempts to persuade the other players to choose the correct character SILENTLY. One game lasts five rounds or less, and many times players will want to play multiple games in a row.
To setup, shuffle the deck of cards and place it face-down on the table. The player chosen to be the “Clue Giver” will then secretly look at the top card. This card will be the secret character for the entire game. Along with this card, the Clue Giver will draw an additional 11 cards and shuffle them. Next, lay out the 12 characters face-up in a 4×3 grid, so that all players can see. Finally, the Clue Giver draws another five cards to act as their starting hand of clues. The game may now begin in earnest!
The game lasts no more than five rounds, and each round is played mostly the same. During the first round the Clue Giver will place a card from their hand onto the table in either Portrait or Landscape mode (I know there are different words to describe these orientations, but they are failing me now). When a card is in Portrait mode, the Clue Giver is letting the players know that the secret character has similarities to the played card. Landscape placement means that the secret character has differences from the card played.
At the end of the first round, the other players must discuss and decide one card from the grid to remove from play, based on the Clue Giver’s information. If the card removed is the secret character (or at any time the secret character is removed in this way) the players all immediately lose the game. However, if the players have removed an appropriate character card, then the game moves to the second round. Each subsequent round is played exactly the same way, except the number of cards removed will match the round number being played. For example, during the third round three cards will be removed. The only exception here is the very last fifth round. During this round there will only be two cards remaining, and the players will need to choose the correct one to win the game. Win or lose, all players will most likely request to play another game with a different Clue Giver.
Components. This game is 30 cards in a tuckbox. The cards are all great quality with excellent linen finish. They each have the character’s name on the upper left corner and a small thematic quip on the lower right corner. The big thing here is the utterly amazing character art by Naiade (Seasons, Tokaido, Isla Dorada, etc). They are each so wonderfully illustrated, and they have to be, considering the entire game is based on the similarity or differences of each card. I was so very pleasantly surprised to see this beautiful set of cards pop out of the box when I opened it. Zero issues with components here.
This game is low-key a thinking person’s puzzle. How can I get the group to exclude one card specifically and throw away all the others? What the heck is this Clue Giver trying to tell us? What exactly is an Oni? With the right group of gamers, especially those that share many inside jokes and experiences, this could be a nightly hit. Now, determining the difference between Frankenstein’s Monster and a Zombie may be harder than you thought, so do be careful with those technicalities.
This one really reminds me of a much more compact version of Deception: Murder in Hong Kong. There is a silent Clue Giver in both trying to guide the other players to the right answer using cards. If I can get the same feeling from a game featuring 30 cards versus about 300 I might have a replacement situation on my hands here.
For its tiny table presence, excellent artwork, and overall game play, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a bone-chilling 4 / 6. I know at this very second that my score is hanging in the balance. I want it to be a 5 so very badly, and I feel that it may actually get there, assuming I can play with larger groups of people and a variety of types of gamers. For now, I am happy with the 4 it is assigned. If you are like me and didn’t know you needed a smaller game in your collection that can give similo experiences to bigger boxes, give this one a shot.
Oh PS – You can also combine the different sets into a larger and more chaotic game. I’m not sure I have the huevos for that quite yet, but I think a good counterpart to this Halloween-themed set may be the Fables or Myths sets. Let me know if you have combined these two and if my hunch is correct. I’m going to go fanboy over Naiade’s art now.
Similo: Spookies (which I will just call Similo from here on out, as they are all basically the same, but with different themes) is a party card game where one player knows information and attempts to persuade the other players to choose the correct character SILENTLY. One game lasts five rounds or less, and many times players will want to play multiple games in a row.
To setup, shuffle the deck of cards and place it face-down on the table. The player chosen to be the “Clue Giver” will then secretly look at the top card. This card will be the secret character for the entire game. Along with this card, the Clue Giver will draw an additional 11 cards and shuffle them. Next, lay out the 12 characters face-up in a 4×3 grid, so that all players can see. Finally, the Clue Giver draws another five cards to act as their starting hand of clues. The game may now begin in earnest!
The game lasts no more than five rounds, and each round is played mostly the same. During the first round the Clue Giver will place a card from their hand onto the table in either Portrait or Landscape mode (I know there are different words to describe these orientations, but they are failing me now). When a card is in Portrait mode, the Clue Giver is letting the players know that the secret character has similarities to the played card. Landscape placement means that the secret character has differences from the card played.
At the end of the first round, the other players must discuss and decide one card from the grid to remove from play, based on the Clue Giver’s information. If the card removed is the secret character (or at any time the secret character is removed in this way) the players all immediately lose the game. However, if the players have removed an appropriate character card, then the game moves to the second round. Each subsequent round is played exactly the same way, except the number of cards removed will match the round number being played. For example, during the third round three cards will be removed. The only exception here is the very last fifth round. During this round there will only be two cards remaining, and the players will need to choose the correct one to win the game. Win or lose, all players will most likely request to play another game with a different Clue Giver.
Components. This game is 30 cards in a tuckbox. The cards are all great quality with excellent linen finish. They each have the character’s name on the upper left corner and a small thematic quip on the lower right corner. The big thing here is the utterly amazing character art by Naiade (Seasons, Tokaido, Isla Dorada, etc). They are each so wonderfully illustrated, and they have to be, considering the entire game is based on the similarity or differences of each card. I was so very pleasantly surprised to see this beautiful set of cards pop out of the box when I opened it. Zero issues with components here.
This game is low-key a thinking person’s puzzle. How can I get the group to exclude one card specifically and throw away all the others? What the heck is this Clue Giver trying to tell us? What exactly is an Oni? With the right group of gamers, especially those that share many inside jokes and experiences, this could be a nightly hit. Now, determining the difference between Frankenstein’s Monster and a Zombie may be harder than you thought, so do be careful with those technicalities.
This one really reminds me of a much more compact version of Deception: Murder in Hong Kong. There is a silent Clue Giver in both trying to guide the other players to the right answer using cards. If I can get the same feeling from a game featuring 30 cards versus about 300 I might have a replacement situation on my hands here.
For its tiny table presence, excellent artwork, and overall game play, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a bone-chilling 4 / 6. I know at this very second that my score is hanging in the balance. I want it to be a 5 so very badly, and I feel that it may actually get there, assuming I can play with larger groups of people and a variety of types of gamers. For now, I am happy with the 4 it is assigned. If you are like me and didn’t know you needed a smaller game in your collection that can give similo experiences to bigger boxes, give this one a shot.
Oh PS – You can also combine the different sets into a larger and more chaotic game. I’m not sure I have the huevos for that quite yet, but I think a good counterpart to this Halloween-themed set may be the Fables or Myths sets. Let me know if you have combined these two and if my hunch is correct. I’m going to go fanboy over Naiade’s art now.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Arctic Scavengers in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
One of the best parts of the board gaming experience is finding a fun group of people with whom to play! Sometimes, though, coordinating a game night is easier said than done. We all must occasionally forego the group experience and face the world as the Lonely Only. But fear not! The world of solo-play is a vast and exciting realm! What follows is a chronicle of my journey into the solo-playing world – notes on gameplay, mechanics, rules, difficulty, and overall experience with solo variations of commonly multiplayer games! I hope this will provide some insight as you continue to grow your collection, or explore your already owned games!
Welcome to the Ice Age. No, not the animated movie. I’m talking about the real deal. Arctic Scavengers is set in a post-apocalyptic ice age where the cold is deadly and the resources are scarce. Any surviving humans have banded together to form ‘tribes’ that are competing for dominance in this frigid tundra. Can you and your tribe outwit your competitors to become the most powerful group? Or will a bigger and more menacing tribe overpower you and jeopardize your survival?
Disclaimer: The solo variant is only addressed in the Recon Expansion rules. There IS another expansion – HQ – but I have not used that content in my solo plays. This review only encompasses the Base Game and Recon Expansion.
Arctic Scavengers is a deck-building game where players are recruiting mercenaries to their tribes, searching for general resources, and battling other tribes for contested resources. Each turn has two main phases – Resource Gathering and Skirmish. During Resource Gathering, you play cards from your hand to either recruit new mercenaries or search the junkyard for general resources. Any remaining cards in your hand are then used during the Skirmish phase – where the player with the highest ‘fight’ value wins the contested resource for that round. At the end of the game, the player with the biggest tribe wins!
The solo variant has some minor differences, but is played essentially the same way. In a solo game, the contested resource cards are divided into 7 skirmishes to be encountered throughout the game. You can decide when to engage in a skirmish – it is not a requirement to encounter one each turn. After each skirmish, you either win and earn a contested resource, or lose and must permanently discard a card from your losing hand. The game ends when all 7 skirmishes have been encountered. The other difference is that each time you have to re-shuffle your discard pile, you must permanently remove the top card of your new deck from the game. Beyond those changes, the game remains the same. At the end of the game, all cards in your tribe are worth certain numbers of points – the goal is to beat your own personal best score.
In theory, this game sounds super cool! But when I actually got to play it solo, I was seriously underwhelmed. The game feels stagnant in the sense that there is no tension or urgency in your strategy. Since YOU get to decide when to engage in a skirmish, it is possible to just while away the time building up your deck until you have enough cards to beat every skirmish. Yes, you permanently discard a card each time you re-shuffle your discard pile, but if you are able to recruit one or two new cards each turn, it negates the penalty of discarding a card. The ability to choose when to engage in skirmishes is seriously over-powered because there is nothing stopping you from ignoring skirmishes and amassing cards for end-game scoring.
The other grievance I have with the game is regarding the Junkyard – the deck of cards where you ‘search’ for resources. The solo rules do not explicitly address setting up the Junkyard deck at all. So do you use one or not? Not having the Junkyard deck can be a serious hinderance – certain mercenaries cannot be recruited without certain resources. If you DO play with the Junkyard, how many cards do you use? Do you use the corresponding cards from the Base game and BOTH expansions? Only Base game and one expansion? Again, not explicitly addressed. I’ve tried using all of the Junkyard cards and that is difficult – there are just too many cards in that deck. I have gone entire games without coming across a necessary resource just because the size of the deck is too large (and I’m apparently a poor card-shuffler). The simple solution to this ambiguity would have been to just address it in the rulebook. But it’s not there, so I’m left guessing as to how I should set it up every time.
I really like the idea of this game. I really don’t like the solo variant though. Not having forced skirmishes makes the game extremely boring for me – I don’t really need a strategy since I can just recruit cards until I can draw a powerful hand. If there was a timeline for skirmishes – maybe something like “You must encounter one skirmish every other turn” – the game would be vastly different. I would actually need to strategize what cards to recruit and how I should delegate my cards on turns with a skirmish. In most games, I will reach a certain point where I choose to encounter a skirmish (that I know I will lose) just because I am starting to get bored. I appreciate the sentiment of including a solo variant, but this one just does not work.
Arctic Scavengers requires decent strategy and it offers good player interaction in group games. In a solo game, however, it is just imbalanced and boring. This is one solo variant that I would not recommend that you try, unless you are including drastic house rules.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/06/solo-chronicles-arctic-scavengers/
Welcome to the Ice Age. No, not the animated movie. I’m talking about the real deal. Arctic Scavengers is set in a post-apocalyptic ice age where the cold is deadly and the resources are scarce. Any surviving humans have banded together to form ‘tribes’ that are competing for dominance in this frigid tundra. Can you and your tribe outwit your competitors to become the most powerful group? Or will a bigger and more menacing tribe overpower you and jeopardize your survival?
Disclaimer: The solo variant is only addressed in the Recon Expansion rules. There IS another expansion – HQ – but I have not used that content in my solo plays. This review only encompasses the Base Game and Recon Expansion.
Arctic Scavengers is a deck-building game where players are recruiting mercenaries to their tribes, searching for general resources, and battling other tribes for contested resources. Each turn has two main phases – Resource Gathering and Skirmish. During Resource Gathering, you play cards from your hand to either recruit new mercenaries or search the junkyard for general resources. Any remaining cards in your hand are then used during the Skirmish phase – where the player with the highest ‘fight’ value wins the contested resource for that round. At the end of the game, the player with the biggest tribe wins!
The solo variant has some minor differences, but is played essentially the same way. In a solo game, the contested resource cards are divided into 7 skirmishes to be encountered throughout the game. You can decide when to engage in a skirmish – it is not a requirement to encounter one each turn. After each skirmish, you either win and earn a contested resource, or lose and must permanently discard a card from your losing hand. The game ends when all 7 skirmishes have been encountered. The other difference is that each time you have to re-shuffle your discard pile, you must permanently remove the top card of your new deck from the game. Beyond those changes, the game remains the same. At the end of the game, all cards in your tribe are worth certain numbers of points – the goal is to beat your own personal best score.
In theory, this game sounds super cool! But when I actually got to play it solo, I was seriously underwhelmed. The game feels stagnant in the sense that there is no tension or urgency in your strategy. Since YOU get to decide when to engage in a skirmish, it is possible to just while away the time building up your deck until you have enough cards to beat every skirmish. Yes, you permanently discard a card each time you re-shuffle your discard pile, but if you are able to recruit one or two new cards each turn, it negates the penalty of discarding a card. The ability to choose when to engage in skirmishes is seriously over-powered because there is nothing stopping you from ignoring skirmishes and amassing cards for end-game scoring.
The other grievance I have with the game is regarding the Junkyard – the deck of cards where you ‘search’ for resources. The solo rules do not explicitly address setting up the Junkyard deck at all. So do you use one or not? Not having the Junkyard deck can be a serious hinderance – certain mercenaries cannot be recruited without certain resources. If you DO play with the Junkyard, how many cards do you use? Do you use the corresponding cards from the Base game and BOTH expansions? Only Base game and one expansion? Again, not explicitly addressed. I’ve tried using all of the Junkyard cards and that is difficult – there are just too many cards in that deck. I have gone entire games without coming across a necessary resource just because the size of the deck is too large (and I’m apparently a poor card-shuffler). The simple solution to this ambiguity would have been to just address it in the rulebook. But it’s not there, so I’m left guessing as to how I should set it up every time.
I really like the idea of this game. I really don’t like the solo variant though. Not having forced skirmishes makes the game extremely boring for me – I don’t really need a strategy since I can just recruit cards until I can draw a powerful hand. If there was a timeline for skirmishes – maybe something like “You must encounter one skirmish every other turn” – the game would be vastly different. I would actually need to strategize what cards to recruit and how I should delegate my cards on turns with a skirmish. In most games, I will reach a certain point where I choose to encounter a skirmish (that I know I will lose) just because I am starting to get bored. I appreciate the sentiment of including a solo variant, but this one just does not work.
Arctic Scavengers requires decent strategy and it offers good player interaction in group games. In a solo game, however, it is just imbalanced and boring. This is one solo variant that I would not recommend that you try, unless you are including drastic house rules.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/03/06/solo-chronicles-arctic-scavengers/