Unicorn Fever has the players wagering on unicorn races in a colorful rainbow kingdom. Six unicorns race three times, with players having an opportunity to wager on which will place first (or in the top three). They also have some limited means of influencing the outcome, and a chance to acquire special powers to last them throughout the game.
Put simply, I don't feel this game is bringing anything that Camel Up doesn't do better in every way. It's possible -- perhaps even likely -- that the designers were well aware of that earlier game, and were deliberately setting out to make the "gamer's game" version of it: more sophisticated, more involved.
It's certainly more complex. There's kind of a lot going on here, and I'm not convinced all the rules and mechanisms are carrying their weight. For example: there's a deck of cards full of minor boons and pitfalls you can play face down on different unicorns; they're revealed just after betting is finished (but before a race is run), and in theory they can affect how well the unicorn will do in the race. But the effects are so minor that when you take the action allowing you to play such cards, you actually play several -- and even then, the random luck of any given race seems to ensure that many of the cards played don't have any effect at all.
There are two kinds of bet you can place on a unicorn: one that it will take first place, and two others that it will take first, second, or third. The payout gap between these is so enormous as to seem fickle: first place nets you more than three-to-one over the lesser bets, making them the best bang for your buck. But only one unicorn in six can win, of course, and so in the end, it feels almost random in each race run who scores big and who gets nothing.
Perhaps my frustrations with the game stem from having played it at the maximum player count of six. The game purports to take that many, but when so many opponents are taking turns between your actions and gobbling up (what are probably?) good bets, you aren't left with much of a sense of agency over your own actions in the game. Where this is especially punishing is in the game's inclusion of a "take this action to go first in the next round (race) of the game" action. The theory was likely that players at the back of the pecking order would get dibs on this as others acting first do other things. In practice, it's so hard to get paid through the random betting that you're kind of just as well off choosing the "go first" action (with its minor benefits). And if a player who goes early in round one reaches that conclusion? Then the same player(s) are going to go last for the entire game; they arguably aren't really missing out on much amid the randomness, but they're certainly going to feel like they are. The BoardGameGeek community has decided this game is best for only four players, and I would agree with them.
But all of those drawbacks I mentioned feel like problems that Camel Up had already solved. The rules are simpler, the pace much faster, and the connection between decisions and rewards much stronger. Even with each opponent acting between your turns, there's always something you can do to inch closer to a winning score. There are short term opportunities for the round and long-term opportunities for endgame scoring. There are even some mini-expansions available if you feel the need to dial up the complexity in the direction of Unicorn Fever.
I can say that the art in Unicorn Fever is solid. The cards have fun illustrations. They and the board are full of vivid colors. The sculpted unicorn racers are goofy and light. And yet all of that arguably speaks to a strange mismatch of flavor with game mechanics. It looks light, playful, and family friendly. But it's actually quite complicated, takes longer to play that you'd expect, and is difficult do plan strategy for effectively.
While I could recommend many other Lorenzo Silva games, I would not recommend this one. I give Unicorn Fever a D.
No comments:
Post a Comment