The recent
board game Terraforming Mars has been incredibly well received among
enthusiasts, and has shot to the top of the rankings at BoardGameGeek. I
had a chance to try it out myself not long ago, and while I can see
some of the appeal, my own reaction was a bit more cautious.
The
on-the-nose title tells you exactly what this game is about. Players
manage and deploy resources in an effort to make Mars habitable by
raising the temperature, increasing the percentage of oxygen, and
introducing large quantities of water. Each turn, players are dealt a
number of cards which they must choose to buy into their hands (or
discard). Those cards are then paid for and played to manipulate the
planet and earn victory points.
There's
plenty of good flavor throughout, and a generally satisfying resource
system with a few neat quirks -- energy converting into heat, cards
being limited by temperature/oxygen requirements, and the like. Each
player also gets a starting power that nudges them toward a particular
strategy that varies from game to game. It all fits together fairly
well, and strikes a good balance of allowing satisfying decisions
without making them cripplingly difficult to make.
But
I am a bit worried about a snowball effect at work here. Though there
are multiple resources in the game, one particular form of "money" rules
them all -- it's how you're able to choose which cards to keep each
turn, and it's required to play them all too. (Some other resources can
discount that cost, but will rarely eliminate it entirely.) This "money"
growth does seem to be equal opportunity -- what I do won't generally
stop you from what you want to do. But since it's also generated largely
from new cards you play, it's literally luck of the draw.
I've
seen games in which the "he who gets ahead stays ahead" problem is
quite pronounced. Terraforming Mars is not at that level. But I do think
there may be a problem here, and it gives me pause. Add in a few other
cosmetic shortcomings, and I question whether the game would have
staying power for me. (The art on the cards, for example, is quite
inconsistent -- a mix of photos, photo-realism, and art, and all of it
not that great.)
No comments:
Post a Comment