Do not miss this amazing post re: ANDROID

I surely don't think that AoC is a retrograde step. It is an attempt to move from War of the Ring to a multiplayer game with the same kind of tension and the same sense of theme. It definitely doesn't live up to the ambitions. My group discussed this and we felt it had to do with the fact that the interaction between board and adventure track is much more direct in WotR than in AoC. It is easier also to have a zero sum game with two players than with four.

It also doesn't mean that the game is bad. I think a lot of people were putting their hopes on this one. This was supposed to be *at least as good as* WotR. It didn't, but it doesn't fail as a game.

And failing in an attempt to move forward is not the same as retrogression. As scientists say, the fact that your experiment fails is progress as well.

Didn't FFG/Kevin Wilson write that the game just wasn't designed for 2 players? Or am I mistaking it for some other game?

Concerning the way it was launched I think an important aspect of it was a) shortly after the Mutant Chronicles debacle which certainly taught FFG to NOT hype a game until it's ready, and b) that it isn't a licensed game. The latter meaning that a licensed game generates lots and lots of attention based on the license alone. But a noir investigation board game does not and thus they had to try something else.

Thanks for the bump, Barnes.

I must confess that I myself haven't played Android yet, but I remain very, very curious, especially, as we see here, with the diversity of opinions on it. I suspect that a game that innovative might be doing something much different that we expected it to.

maka wrote:

Heh... funny you say that because I've only played it as a 2 player game... first without any modifications to the rules, then just adding one more suspect. The game works really well, and in some ways I'd say it works better than multiplayer, especially the card play (both players will get about the same amount of negative cards played on them). Also, it's easier to guess what your opponent's hunches are and the evidence game is less chaotic. And last, the downtime. Even then, my gf kept suggesting we do some kind of turn threading (using the time marker like in Thebes), but I'm not sure it would work that well...

I have played it as a 2 player game and as it stands it works fine. But I think the game would be even stronger if it was a 2 player only game, as you could tighten the parts of the design that don't quite mesh.

Didn't FFG/Kevin Wilson write that the game just wasn't designed for 2 players? Or am I mistaking it for some other game?

I think at some point he said they just didn't test it with 2 players or something along those lines...

I have played it as a 2 player game and as it stands it works fine. But I think the game would be even stronger if it was a 2 player only game, as you could tighten the parts of the design that don't quite mesh.

Ah, I see what you mean... Maybe variants for a better 2 player game could be created. Do you have any ideas?

I was just having some thoughts about this game that came together like peanut butter and chocolate. I recall Michael mentioning about Android at one point he could see an expansion that takes away several aspects of the game, something rarely done. Now I'm thinking about if they released a 2-player expansion. Games sometimes get expansions adding more players so why not one specifically for less players. I actually think a lot of longer AT games can benefit from 2-player scaling because many of us have a hard time finding local players for the longer and more complex games. What do you all think? Should FFG be looking into an official 2-player expansion to this game?

Jur wrote:

The mechanics for personal issues are easily the best part of the game and will undoubtedly be used in other games.

Indeed, already being employed to some degree in Innsmouth Horror , no doubt due to Kevin Wilson's involvement.

I've played four times, haven't played in a while, but still get a funny feeling in my chest whenever I see the box art. The damn thing struck a chord in me that resonates still; I know it's more about me than the game itself... but then I'm the same guy who champions Insane Clown Posse's Talisman ripoff. The tying together of science fiction, RPGs, CDGs with knots of cynicism -- though ultimately (and perhaps fatally) flawed -- hits me just right.

I've placed the game in the 'lifelong' category, alongside perennial greats like Twilight Imperium and Here I Stand. Android is one of those once-a-year events I'll always be looking forward to.

Honestly, I need more time to process it. (Can you tell?) After my first game I figured I'd wait until I was 10 games deep to really suss it all out and write what will be, for me, the definitive review. Could take a while, though...

Android is the result of a lot of thought about a number of game design topics for me, especially centering around characterization in games. I don't consider it the end of any roads, honestly, more of a first attempt at doing some very unusual things. I'm very fortunate to be in a position where I can often pursue new and wacky ideas in game design, something that is extremely difficult for freelancers to do, since companies don't particularly like to take risks. You can expect more weirdness from me in the future, I'm sure.

We look forward to it Kevin.

I have only played Android three times so far, and I feel that it will take several more games before I really know the game well enough to review it.

The first game was interesting but overwhelming, with five players. We were all Jyhad players, so the complexity wasn't a problem, and we really enjoyed the take-that cardplay. But one player had serious AP, and that slowed down the whole game badly. Every time he drew a card, the game ground to a halt. I manipulated the other players against him, telling them to punish him for playing slowly. That left me free from hinderance, so when we stopped the game early, I outscored the other players in every category.

The second and third games were just two-player games, and we finished each game in just over two hours. I won one and lost the other, to an opponent who plays a lot of both AT and Euros.

With the exception of the AP guy, everybody really liked the game, though nobody quite loved it. We talk about playing again sometime, but everybody is aware of the time commitment involved, especially for a multi-player Android game.

Since it may be many, many months before I get in those several more games, I will simply make some comments that would probably end up in my someday review.

So far, it feels like Android could really pick up speed with familiarity. Movement should be fast, almost every action should be fast. The novelty and depth of the cardplay and the plot cards seem to be the part that is slowing people down now, but maybe not so much after a few games.

Specific elements are hit and miss for me. The movement system is excellent. The movement of the clues is gamey, but a reasonable simulation of the chasing around of clues in a murder mystery. IRL, most murder evidence is found right at the crime scene, but it's more entertaining for a writer or director to have the detective running around to different locations. The board is a little busy, but I really like it. The informant and the reporter are nice touches, thematically and mechanically. The plot cards are brilliant and rich in theme, as are the other unique aspects of each character.

The activity at each location feels very empty compared to Arkham Horror. It's more like an afternoon of driving around running errands... go to the dry cleaners, stop at the gas station, pick up some stuff at the grocery store on the way home. The collection and placing of evidence feels dry, because it's just numbers on chits for the most part. The conspiracy's puzzle metaphor is perfect, except that it actually feels like a jigsaw puzzle and not a conspiracy. Same with the mystery, it's point allocation and not actual deduction. The artwork is not bad, but a little bit off from the theme, maybe a little too light or dry. Darker and grittier artwork would have fit the cyberpunk setting a little better.

So it's a mixed bag, lots of great ideas, but the varying distance between some of them and the narrative makes for an uneven result. I am hopeful that repeated play will make the mechanics feel more comfortable, and allow players to immerse themselves more in the narrative and theme.

But I liked the idea of the branching stories and the character development that was deeper than going up a point in a stat or getting a new piece of equipment. I think there's a VAST potential there for something really amazing, but it didn't happen in ANDROID.

And likely never will. Make no mistake, I respect the idea, and Mr. Wilson deserves credit for having the guts to go down that road, but for now I'm convinced that the kind of character development you're talking about just isn't possible in a board game.

Think about it, you might as well be saying feature-length films can boast the same kind of character development that television shows can if movie writers really give it the ol' college. We all know that's not the case. Board games are the film to RPGs' TV. You can get that kind of narrative arc in RPGs because, like TV, you spend a lot more time with the characters, and you're not restricted as far as what you can depict. Character arcs in films are much, much less nuanced; you establish your character, introduce an event which is an impetus for for the character to change, have him/her react, and done. There's no time between the rising action and resolution for anything other than bullet point-style development, you can't spend an hour exploring one little aspect of his/her personality like you can with a series.

Consider the fact that we've seen very few board games which don't boil characters down to a set of stats, gear, and special abilites. Are there many games where playing a different character fundamentally changes the game experience? Magic Realm does this, you have to play a wizard like a wizard, a knight like a knight, etc. You're going to have a distinct agenda and play style based on the character you're playing. BSG does this as well, leaders delegate duties, pilots fly sorties, and so on. Those games get you into playing a specific role, but there is no advancement for your character. That works because it plays to the strengths of board games, like one-session play times and more restrictive rules.

Still, I've yet to see more than a handful of games get this anywhere close to right. When and if we do, the ability to introduce personal growth or development from an intellectual or emotional standpoint may be within the average designers reach. Until then, that's an extremely long row to hoe.

KevinW wrote:You can expect more weirdness from me in the future, I'm sure.[/quote]

HOT DISH!

mjl1783 wrote:

But I liked the idea of the branching stories and the character development that was deeper than going up a point in a stat or getting a new piece of equipment. I think there's a VAST potential there for something really amazing, but it didn't happen in ANDROID.

And likely never will. Make no mistake, I respect the idea, and Mr. Wilson deserves credit for having the guts to go down that road, but for now I'm convinced that the kind of character development you're talking about just isn't possible in a board game.

Think about it, you might as well be saying feature-length films can boast the same kind of character development that television shows can if movie writers really give it the ol' college. We all know that's not the case. Board games are the film to RPGs' TV. You can get that kind of narrative arc in RPGs because, like TV, you spend a lot more time with the characters, and you're not restricted as far as what you can depict. Character arcs in films are much, much less nuanced; you establish your character, introduce an event which is an impetus for for the character to change, have him/her react, and done. There's no time between the rising action and resolution for anything other than bullet point-style development, you can't spend an hour exploring one little aspect of his/her personality like you can with a series.

Consider the fact that we've seen very few board games which don't boil characters down to a set of stats, gear, and special abilites. Are there many games where playing a different character fundamentally changes the game experience? Magic Realm does this, you have to play a wizard like a wizard, a knight like a knight, etc. You're going to have a distinct agenda and play style based on the character you're playing. BSG does this as well, leaders delegate duties, pilots fly sorties, and so on. Those games get you into playing a specific role, but there is no advancement for your character. That works because it plays to the strengths of board games, like one-session play times and more restrictive rules.

Still, I've yet to see more than a handful of games get this anywhere close to right. When and if we do, the ability to introduce personal growth or development from an intellectual or emotional standpoint may be within the average designers reach. Until then, that's an extremely long row to hoe.

This is also an excellent article for why "Civ-Lite" is a pipe dream.

dysjunct wrote:

This is also an excellent article for why "Civ-Lite" is a pipe dream.

It might be easier with licensed and some historical games though. as these have a preset level of identification with some of the characters.

It might also work where people identify with the civilisation they are playing