The Long Haul

I hadn't planned on reading The Long Mars on launch day, given that I was relatively underwhelmed by its predecessor, The Long War, but I happened to finish the incredible Dune on that day, and knew The Long Mars would be a quick and diverting read.

The Long Mars doesn't really depart from what Terry Pratchett and Stephen Baxter's co-written series has offered thus far. Some decades ago now, humanity experienced 'Step Day', giving them access to a technology that allowed them to simply and easily 'step' into an adjacent world, slightly divergent from our own 'Datum Earth' in some minor or major way, a rough exploration of a multiverse theory, in a kind of frontiersman way. This concept has so much potential for telling interesting stories, and that continues to be the huge strength of the series. There has been a steady progression of scope, as the title indicates, but the core concept remains the same.

The Long Mars still feels like a Sci-Fi 'travel novel' on a big scale. It remains very much a vehicle (more 'Twains', in this case) to explore these ideas, rather than being a great narrative in its own right, and, despite the genuine excitement I have for all that it's showing, this is where things rather come apart.

As a novel, it pretty much sucks. As with The Long Earth and The Long War, there never seem to be any notable stakes. Nothing is on the line, at least nothing over which the characters have any control. Where there is tension, it is short term, situational, and with generally little payoff. It wasn't until the last 20% of the book where any real threat or risk is truly felt, and then, it doesn't extend all that far.

In any one of these books, I would respect that, as a willing departure from narrative conventions. But across all three, it feels almost dull, which is precisely what this shouldn't be, given the promise carried by the setting. For the third time now, I've felt like we're perhaps building to some greater payoff in a later book, but so far, it's more like being strung along with not much to go on in the interim.

Aside from these general problems, I found some of the writing fairly clunky. Heavy exposition in the early pages seems to be the norm for books partway through a series, and here, I found it quite clumsy, almost distractedly so, with the characters seeming wooden, or excessively stating the obvious to bring the reader up to speed. I question how much 'real estate' of an already pretty short book should be devoted to this. Equally, I don't feel like anyone skipping the first two books would be hindered all that much from enjoying this one.

The gentlemen themselves

The characters themselves also fall short, feeling very distant from the reader. In some cases, I'm sure that's intentional but as much as many choose to push people away and not let them get too close, it's awkward when that extends to the reader. I still don't feel that much for most of the characters, even the ones that have stuck around since The Long Earth. Maybe it's a byproduct of my own frame of mind when reading this series, but so far it's three for three on this - combined with the general lack of stakes, it means I struggle to care about these people and what happens to them.

Ultimately, that's what The Long Mars is - another good offering on precisely the same lines as the rest of the series. If you enjoyed either of the first two books, like as not, you'll enjoy this. If you're not familiar with the series, but you love reading something that explores a fundamentally compelling idea, it's worth checking out the series, with the above caveats in mind. I know that Pratchett and Baxter are planning more books, and I still plan on reading them, despite all the issues I've acknowledge, because, at the end of the day, they continue to deliver something that is a quick and highly thought-provoking read, which is, for me, worth enduring the shortcomings.

What about you? Are you already familiar with the series? What have been your thoughts thus far? Should books like this be more focussed on delivering a solid narrative, or is the exploration of an idea sometimes enough to speak for itself? Share your thoughts in the comments. If you haven't already, you can also find me on Twitter, @mastergeorge

'A Game of Thrones' Board Game Review

Publisher: Fantasy Flight Games
Players: 3-6 (best with 6)
Playing Time: 2-6 hours

Game of Thrones (still better known as ‘A Song of Ice and Fire’ to the Sullied) has been gathering attention over the past four years, as the HBO show has climbed to stratospheric popularity. The game of A Game of Thrones (the board game) has been around much longer than the show, first released in 2003, but was given as second edition in 2011 (either unwittingly or presciently primed to profit from the show's rise).

A Game of Thrones places you at the head of one of six great houses from A Song of Ice and Fire in your own bid to conquer the Seven Kingdoms, capturing seven castles before any of your opponents do the same. The game has you mobilising troops, carefully managing resources, and making and breaking alliances in order to be crowned the victor. And as we know (and you can see what's coming here), when you play the game of Game of Thrones, you win, or you die.

Image featuring the old-style wooden pieces (Image: François Phillip, cc by 2.0)

Cardboard Crowns - The Product
I have bought a lot of stuff from Fantasy Flight Games. Their products are of a consistently high quality, and A Game of Thrones is no exception. It’s a standard ‘big box’ sized game, complete with board, plastic units, a plethora of cardboard counters and assorted cards, all with a great build quality.

Some of the beautiful House cards

What stands out immediately is just how good everything looks. The art is fantastic, particularly on the house cards, which depict several major characters from the books who function as your generals. The one thing that stands out above all others, though, is the board, a beautiful recreation of Westeros in all its bloody glory. As with many games of this size, there are a lot of components, making an alternative means of storage (a bit box or plastic baggies) if not essential, then an important addition.

This doesn't capture the magnificence of the board, but it does show some of the component sprawl. Also, essential Hobgoblin accompaniment.

The Fantastic Taste - The Flavour
It's hard to conceive of someone not having encountered Game of Thrones by now, the show has just become so pervasive. The game does a good job of not really spoiling anything. At most, if you go through the rulebook and dig into the context of the initial setup, there are some implicit spoilers for the first book/season, which, in the grand scheme of things, don't amount to much. I'm a big fan of the series, but I honestly don't think you have to be to enjoy the game. That said, you will get more out of the setting if you are already invested in it, but it's not a make-or-break - I have played with plenty of people not previously familiar with the world.

The game does a very good job of matching style and substance. I’ll talk more about the mechanics below, but it really does make you feel like you’re acting a part in that world, with devious machinations and warmongering bombast alike carried by the gameplay. I don't know whether the game was designed for this intellectual property in the first instance, or whether the game was developed independently of the licence, but I suspect the former. It just captures the vibe too perfectly to believe otherwise.

The Meat & Crackers - The Mechanics
As I said before, A Game of Thrones marries mechanics and mood very well (and you know that, where Game of Thrones and marriage meet, only good things can happen). The biggest part of this is the role of hidden information. During each round, the bulk of the action is split between players secretly assigning orders to their units, and then revealing and executing them. You can bargain all you like with your neighbour, but when it comes down to it, do you trust them not to attack you so you can shore up your resources? Do you use a defence order to hold the line, potentially wasting that action if they don't attack? Or do you lull them into a sense of security and come storming over their borders, knife between your teeth, while they still have their proverbial pants round their ankles?

I’m a sucker for precisely this mechanic. It creates a Diplomacy-esque moment of tension in every round, as everyone flips their orders and assesses the consequences. For me, the blind assignment of orders strikes an interesting balance between pure, calculated strategy, interpersonal relations, and evaluation of the other players' true intentions.

There are various other factors which enhance this process. One player holds the Raven token, which can let them switch out one of their orders after everyone’s have been revealed, potentially a major advantage. The relative influence of your factions define who enacts their moves first. Raid orders are executed first, and a well-placed, well-timed Raid can throw your opponent quite severely, frustrating their plans or advancing your own.

Orders in place.

Another thing I love about this is the scarcity of orders. There are only a limited number of each type, and, if you’re badly positioned, you won’t have access to some of the better ones. This means you have to prioritise your plans, since you can’t ever move or attack from more than three places in a single turn. It’s reasonably subtle, but forces some hard decisions at critical junctures.

The other major mechanic revolves around the influence tracks. These are absolutely crucial to staying on top. These define who has initiative, which orders you have access to, or who wins in a close fight. Every few turns (it’s randomised), these are opened up for bidding, and each player has to blind-bid with their power tokens to secure their spots. Since these Power Tokens are expended and not retained, you have to carefully prioritise which influence tracks you want to go after, or hedge your bets and try to be middling for all of them at best. The problem is, these Power Tokens are also needed to fight off the occasional Wildling threat, which requires everyone to pool resources to avoid mutually bad outcomes. This tension, between urgent, selfish need and the risk of penalties for all is a fantastic dynamic.

The influence system is also one of the minor issues I have with the game. Not that it’s a design issue, I don’t quite think it is, but it is where games seem to be most often decided, and I haven’t quite figured out whether people are just consistently sneaky, or whether it’s just bias from variance.

Every time I have played, there has been at least one round of influence bidding where one player has totally cleaned up, taking the best position and more or less defining the position of all the other players as they choose, which, more often than not, has been enough to close out the game. I don’t think this is just because those players have intelligently hoarded Power tokens (though it is partly so!), as I have hoarded like the lovechild of Smaug and Scrooge McDuck, and still not been able to pull that off. It becomes a little self-enforcing, as if one player gets to that position, though, it can be very hard for someone else to claw advantage back.

One other slight shortfall of the game is the balance of the houses. It’s hard to evaluate holistically, since there are a large number of elements that add up to make the whole, with different generals, starting troops and geographies, but there is definitely some imbalance, necessitating some specific early-game tactics from a couple of the houses to stop themselves being locked out of the game later on. The claustrophobic map, forcing players into each others’ way, combined with different viable strategies for each house, is partly a strength of the game, preventing anyone from being too comfortable, but the Greyjoys, Lannisters and Starks definitely have it worst off, and playing as one of those houses brings its problems. If everyone is on the same page, all’s fair in love and board gaming, but for newer players in particular, it’s something to be wary of.

Playing the Power Game - Accessibility
With the world of A Song of Ice and Fire becoming ever more popular, I can see more players approaching this game. On the whole, it is pretty accessible; a slightly-less cut-throat Diplomacy in a more interesting wrapper. It comes with some general caveats that for ‘big box’ style games, notably their relative complexity and extended play time, but, in general, while the right tactics at the right time are rewarded, the necessities are such that new players are not automatically frozen out. That said, with the balance issues I noted above, a new player in one of those seats faces more of a challenge, although that partly depends on the playgroup.

The View from the Wall - Summary
A Game of Thrones is a lot of fun. It lets you do all the things you want to do while playing in the Game of Thrones sandbox on this scale, with a blend of politics and warfare every bit as devious as the show. It’s definitely best with the full six players, as this has the greatest scope for interaction and politicking, but is perfectly playable with three to five. Some minor balance issues aside, it’s a very solid game. If you’re a veteran of the game, firstly, thanks for reading this far! You should already have been sold on the concept… Secondly, there are a couple of small expansions with different scenarios and setups to shake things up: A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons (though be warned, potential spoilers for those books implied in the setup), which don't seem to have been widely picked up yet.

The Best
Feeling like Tywin Lannister, making the masterful, cut-throat move that puts you ahead of your rivals.

The Worst
Feeling like the Mad King as someone stabs you square in the back.

Rating 
Five heads on spikes

What's Wrong with Watch Dogs

Okay, so I made a mistake. I let myself get excited by a game. I told myself I wouldn't, not again, the pain just wasn't worth it. But nothing quite compares with that siren-song lure of flashy marketing blandishments designed specifically to appeal to my geek brain. What better time to be reminded of this than during E3?

So, a couple of weeks ago, my mental train became the rhythmic judder of 'WatchDogsWatchDogsWatchDogs'. I pre-ordered it, I took a day off work so I could play it at launch, and went to some lengths to pre-load it so it was set to go on release.

Launch Day Expectation

There were two things that should have set off alarm bells from the start. Firstly, the review embargo - the date before which journalists are barred from publishing their reviews - wasn't until launch day. That bothered me. The obvious deduction from this is that the game publishers have concerns about how it is going to be received and are running damage limitation on their day-one sales and pre-orders. But this isn't a universal warning sign - there are plenty of great games which have held their reviews until launch day. So, hope against hope, I wasn't too put off.

Launch Day Reality

Much has already been written about the second alarm bell (which, in retrospect, was more of a biohazard containment failure warning klaxon), which was that the game would be delivered digitally, on PC at least, through UPlay, Ubisoft's carbuncle of a games platform. Needless to say, to the surprise of literally no-one, there were many, many problems extending from launch day into the rest of that week (some of which are still issues for me - read on). You can read plenty about this elsewhere, but needless to say, f&#! DRM and its criminalisation of legitimate users.

For anyone not familiar with what Watch Dogs is, you play as Aiden Pearce, hacker extraordinaire, blasting his way around a hyper-connected Chicago with pretty predictable, revenge-based motivations, unsurprisingly rooted in the death of one or more close friends or loved ones.

Snark aside, I had high hopes for the story. It struck me that a game about a morally-grey hacker going toe-to-toe with the seedy immoral underside of a hyper-connected, near-future Chicago, backed by a major studio ploughing AAA-level dollars into a game for which they've been driving the hype train for months sounded like it would be anything but boring.

Yeah, about that...

Early on, I was lulled into a false sense of security by a pretty engaging if slow-paced start. I was hoping this would be a nice slow build into something increasingly pacey and far-reaching, much like the 'classic' generation of 3D GTA games (461 words before the inevitable GTA comparison). What I got was something that slowly devolved into an increasingly formless mush.

For reasons that I shall explain below, I can't actually comment on the story in its entirety, but the 60% or so that I made it through was punctuated with weird tangents that didn't really go anywhere or mean anything on their own. There was a sort of meandering feel to the missions where none of them were that interesting in isolation, and I found myself waiting for a payoff that never really came.

The worst example that I played was at the climax of the first act. For reasons that don't entirely merit going into, Aiden decides that he needs to sneak into a prison to intimidate a potential witness into keeping his identity a secret, citing fears of risk to his family.

Partway through the mission, the situation changes when another group drag off the witness in question, ostensibly to kill him. Aiden reacts roughly along the lines of 'oh no, I have to get to him before they kill him'. I may just be a heartless bastard, but this made absolutely no sense to me.

You can play Aiden as a freedom-fighter style hacktivist, or a self-interested criminal - that's an intentional-if-meaningless choice the developers have given you. Here, his reaction didn't quite jibe right with either. While Aiden might feel a genuine sense of horror that this street thug is about to get killed (notwithstanding the scores of people Aiden himself kills throughout the game with far less provocation), he didn't exactly sneak into a prison to save him. What's more, if the thug does die, it solves Aiden's problem anyway.

I say 'solves the problem', but it actually doesn't. Nor does Aiden's 'Tryhard of the Year' intimidation attempt. Because by this point, there is already a clear threat to Aiden's family, and throughout the game Aiden's real identity as the vigilante hacker is repeatedly advertised on the radio with a repetitiveness seemingly designed to make me intentionally slam my car into a wall. What you are left with is a mission which does not advance the main plot, does not make an interesting climax for the first act, and which is ultimately pointless. This is one example, and a particularly egregious one, but it's not alone.

The story is best summed up as 'filler', something on which to hang the gameplay, which left me waiting for the real beat to drop and the pace and tension to ratchet up. I'm still waiting.

While, for me, the story is what usually makes or breaks a game, I accept that this is far from the only thing that matters, and games are many things to many people. I can forgive a weak story where there is excellent gameplay that carries the experience, particularly in an open-world environment which lets you to inject your own narratives.

My overwhelming reaction to Watch Dogs' gameplay was - it's fun. It was consistently enjoyable for the 23 hours I've somehow rack up so far. That said, it's nothing groundbreaking, which in itself, is fine - not everything can be truly new and exciting, except that, in the case of Watch Dogs, that's precisely what was being hyped as.

Hacking is the obvious 'innovation' here, and it makes you feel empowered in exercising control over the environment. For the most part, though, it is just hitting buttons at the right time, and when driving, it often doesn't work quite as responsively as it needs to. There's also a pretty limited range of things you can hack. In close-quarter encounters, it generally didn't feel all that impactful compared with using your guns.

I actually found the gunplay more satisfying than the hacking. It's very well implemented, and one of the stronger sides of the gameplay. The obvious problem with that is that the game is meant to be all about hacking. Shootouts are all too often unavoidable, and there generally isn't enough incentive to use your phone over your guns.

Beyond the main storyline, the map is packed with other things to do. And I mean packed, like a rush-hour tube full of sardine tins, to the extent that the icons on the map seem to be trying to crowd each other out.

Many of these side-quests and activities were very diverting, and I sunk a lot of time into them, with the attitude of 'just one more' again and again (and again). But given the choice between a better-developed story, one that grips me at my very core and leaves me trembling at the knees and coming back again and again (I'm looking at you, Bioshock Infinite), versus crawling around a map from location to location completing yet another flavour of 'find the thing', I think it's pretty clear which I'd choose. One of these I will happily experience over and over, repetitiveness be damned, while the other, well, I'd be unlikely to do it even once. Watch Dogs, sadly, falls firmly into the latter camp.

So, a good way into the plot, I found myself a pretty deflated. Not wholly disappointed, but disillusioned about so many 'almost good' things in the game that hadn't quite come to fruition. So now, we come to the big roadblock, rising from the ground in front of us as if guided by some unseen hacker; the giant red rubber stamp over my whole experience with the game.

My Watch Dogs experience. Sadly, I'm the car in this scenario.

While playing the online mode where you invade another player's game (where the game comes closest to brilliance), I died, and came back to my own game world, finding myself with...nothing. None of my unlocked weapons, skills, nothing. This was distressing, to say the least. Apparently, I was not alone. While everything remained tangibly unlocked in the games menu, it effectively blocked me from doing very much, and certainly from continuing with the main story. Astoundingly, this still appears not to be fixed, more than two weeks on. This from a game that was delayed for more than six months to get it right.

This was the defining test of the game for me. With no easy fix in sight, I was faced with starting over if I wanted to continue the story in the near future, and, confronted by that prospect, I discovered that I just wasn't excited enough to do so. Up to that point, I had been enjoying an admittedly flawed game, but this brush with a near-enough game-breaking bug was jarring enough to remove the last of the gloss, and I've barely been back to it. Disappointingly, I haven't even found myself craving to fire it back up, instead burying myself in tried-and-true alternatives, and that realisation was pretty disappointing.

The bottom line? Watch Dogs is a fun game, but it could, and should, have been so much more. The prospect of a fun game alone would not have been a good enough to draw to get me to content with UPlay and launch-day disasters, but that's just a testament to the power and success of the game's marketing engine (if you want an idea of how hyped this game was, when the delay was originally announced, Ubisoft shares dropped 26%). Would I still recommend it? Just. But only if you find it at a significant discount and, ideally, if you can somehow avoid using UPlay at all. Just wait for the bugs to get fixed first.

The Real Watch Dog

Gearing Up

Everyone loves a good gear up scene, so I thought I'd talk a bit about some gear I've been acquired over the last few months which, frankly deserves a bit of raving about. There are more pictures of all of these things at the bottom of the post, but the images, er, could be better.

First, the new bag. A couple of weeks ago, I got my Bag of Holding - something made by the excellent US company ThinkGeek, which I've been ogling online for a number of years. It's both a bag that's suitably capacious to hold the vast array of junk I tent to cart around with me from place to place and its own geek fashion statement.

There are a variety of video reviews online where you can get a good look at the bag, but it can fit A LOT of stuff in. I tend to carry around with me an iPad (dedicated tablet pocket FTW!), my work phone, my Kindle, and often a laptop as standard, not to mention various other smaller items (see below). The BoH comfortably holds all these, with plenty of room spare for whatever else I need to bring, though that does rack up the weight pretty quickly.

Speaking of all those small objects, here's a sample of what I aim to have with me on an everyday basis:

- torch

- 1-2 notebooks

- pens

- pencil

- portable battery (for phone/tablet charging)

- cables for kindle/Apple tech

- work ID & passes

- mouse

- headphones

Now, that's not actually that much stuff. It's just lots of small, fiddly things. The BoH can easily accommodate all of this, but you run into trouble trying to find any of it. Enter: the Grid-It!

This isn't actually full... I was using a few things at the time I took the picture.

I came across these some time last year, and recently got around do to buying a couple. It's a cross/cross of rugged, variously-sized elastic straps which an comfortable hold any small item in an organised fashion, meaning that they don't disappear into the depths of your bags, or smash into each over if they're breakable. 

A corollary benefit of this is that I tend to switch bags quite a lot. Previously, I'd often forget something in another bag, or spend a lot of time repacking them. Grid-It means I can swap it all out at once. I really can't recommend them enough for general utility, and they come in all sorts of shapes and sizes (or as part of a bigger gadget case).

The tin in the picture above actually contains a whole bunch more stuff - a variant of the urban altoids survival tin.

From this post so far, you've probably got the impression that I'm a bit of an over-prepared gadget nut. And that's a fair reaction, and something that leads me onto my last two things. 

A small but surprisingly handy one - it's always good to have a pen on you, but they're so easy to lose, and often just a bit too much of a pain to have in your pocket. True Utility's Telepen is the perfect answer to this. Clipping onto your keys, this tiny capsule extends into a small but functional and easy-to-grip pen, giving you something both forgettably portable and functional, since it's still easy to use despite its small size.

Lastly, my hoody. Another thing I've ogled on ThinkGeek for years, but made by a different company - Scottevest. The microfleece hoody is comfortable and very warm (meaning it's been a bit out of season recently, but still). Scottevest garment are extremely practical and functional. This hoody has about ten pocket or other functional compartments. Handwarmer pockets with magnetic closers, including a water bottle strap, velcro coin pouch and slipcase section. A double-ended zipping pocket on the side. A sleeve pouch. A sunglasses segment, connected to a transparent, touch-friendly phone pocket on the inside. There's even an extendible key-holder in one of the handwarmer pockets.

I'm aware that this picture does not do it justice.

All of these pockets have small slits to feed your headphone cables through, which you can then wire up into the cable management system in the neck of the hoody. Since I usually only have one pair of functioning headphones, I haven't wired them up too much (too warm at the moment for them to stay in there for long!), but the system works very well.

The whole hoody is great, and helps enable me in carrying round useful things on an everyday basis - notebook, pens, coins, glasses, etc. all fit snugly without overly distorting the lining, or being too heavy.

Right, I'll stop raving now, but all this stuff has proved really nifty and practical so far.

Pandemic (2013 Edition)

In the first of my reviews of some specific games, I'm looking at an all-time classic: the award-winning Pandemic. 

Pandemic 2013

Publisher: Z-Man Games

Players: 2-4 (five with expansion)

Play Time: 30-40 mins

Pandemic is a co-operative strategy board game in which players take the role of an elite, disease-fighting unit from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta. Using a unique set of special abilities, the team must work together, travelling the globe, treating infections, and conducting research to prevent a series of deadly diseases spreading into a global Pandemic.

I picked up Pandemic a week or so ago, along with the 'On The Brink' expansion. I had heard a lot about it, and had high expectations - which were easily met. My first impression was just how good the game looked - a lot of work has gone into improving various pieces and designs for this 2013 edition.

A large, but manageable number of components (plus: petri dishes!)

Gameplay

Pandemic is a very simple game to learn, and pretty quick to play. Adopting winning strategy and tactics, however, is much more challenging! There is enough scope to vary the difficulty to remain fun and challenging for veterans and newbies alike.

Each turn, a player moves their character, driving or flying round the globe, generally focussing on limiting the damage the diseases are doing. Then, they draw two cards from the Player Deck. These are generally helpful things: city cards, which you need to collect in order to cure the diseases, but which can also be used for fast travel or constructing research centres; or action cards, special one-off but significant advantages. After this, they reveal a number of cards from the Infection Deck, and mark the resultant spread of the disease on the board. 

The complications come in the form of Outbreaks and Epidemic cards. Outbreaks occur when disease in a city has reached saturation point, and spreads out to neighbouring cities (bringing you one step closer to losing the game). Epidemic cards are the fly in the ointment of the Player Deck. When drawn, they speed up the infection rate, and cause revealed city cards to be shuffled and placed on top of the deck. This speeds the game towards its sweaty, fevered conclusion. 

I LOVE these mechanics. The simple-yet-elegant Epidemic mechanic causes the same cities to recur dangerously regularly, presenting an immediate and worrying threat. The one upside is that it at least helps you determine your current threat level, as you know which cards go back on top. The outbreaks can cause chain reactions, which is usually a very quick way to lose the game suddenly. 

Challenge

I've mentioned losing the game a few times. As ever with cooperative games, it's you pitted against the game, and the game is holding all the cards. Too many outbreaks, over-wide spread of one disease, or drawing all of the player cards, cause you to lose. To win, you just need to cure all four diseases. It's that simple. 

The challenge comes in acquiring enough cards of the correct colour, and getting them in the hands of one players. The restrictions on hand size and passing cards around make this difficult, but not too frustrating (without this, the game would simply be too easy). The difficulty is scalable, as you can set the number of epidemic cards in the player deck at the start of the game. Four for beginners, five for normal, up to seven for Legendary.

The challenge actually scales really well - adding more players means that you receive fewer cards at the start of the game. You have more people to control and manage outbreaks across the board, but it's much harder to get the right colour cards into one person's hands to cure the diseases quickly enough. 

The 'On The Brink' expansion adds a few cool ways to ramp up the challenge, such as unexpected disease behaviour, a fifth, mutating disease, or a 'Bio-Terrorist' - one player working against the group to spread a new disease. I haven't really had the chance to try out most of these, but they look to change things up enough to keep the challenge high (if you need it!).

Pretty board, doomed world.

Social

Pandemic is a nice social game. It's easy to learn, quick to set up, and can be played in easily less than an hour. I find that more casual game players, are, understandably, less keen to learn and play some of the epic 3-4 hour 'big box games' (love them though I do!), but Pandemic hits the sweet spot of being suitable for just about everyone. 

The cooperative aspect is always a big tick in this area. Since everyone is working together, new players aren't trying to hold their own against more experience ones. People also strategise as a group, meaning that it's more relaxed, and a bit easier to chat during the game. 

The one downside to this is that there's little to stop experienced players dictating everyone's moves. This pretty much defies the point of the game, though, so I think most reasonable players just won't do this. It's fine to plan together and make suggestions, but everyone has to have their own agency as a player, or you may as well just be playing it solo (though that is surprisingly fun!).

Overall

Pandemic is a very well-crafted game, with some simple but powerful mechanics that give it a real challenging edge with lots of replay value. This is definitely something that both seasoned gamers and those that prefer casual games can enjoy together.

Seriously, the game has won so many awards for a reason...  This is definitely worth picking up, or finding a friend who owns a copy, so you can lose together in style.

Who's It For?
Pretty much everyone!

The Good
Simple, quick game which is accessible to all.

The Bad
You will lose a lot, and want to keep playing. Okay, so that's not actually a negative, but it's really hard to come up with one for this game.

Rating

(Five petri dishes, out of a possible five)


If you want to see more on Pandemic, check out the Tabletop episode: