Projecting

It seems to me that abstract board games don't move up the charts of Board Game Geek as fast as games with some thematic hook. So when an abstract game does reach the upper echelons of the game rankings, it's probably worth a look.

Project L was released in 2020. Since then, it has reached the top 400 on the BGG chart. It's a tile-laying, polyomino game -- and while it's easy to characterize many such games as feeling "like Tetris," this one really does give off Tetris vibes.

The game uses dual-layered "cards," each with a geometric pattern of squares to be filled in with pieces. Said pieces are colorful plastic "tetrominoes" that cover one to four squares. When you place pieces perfectly onto a card's shape, you've completed the card -- you'll score the points it's worth at the end of the game, you take a specific bonus piece that card gives upon completion, and you can dump out the pieces you used to then use on other cards.

On your turn, you take 3 actions from a limited number of options. You can draft a new card to be filled in; cards come in two difficulty levels, and you can have in total up to 4 in front of you at once. You can "upgrade" one of your unused pieces; you start the game with only a "1 square" and "2 square" piece to place, and this action lets you "trade up" by 1 square for something else (or take a new "1 square" piece). You can, of course, place one of your pieces on one of your cards. And finally (once per turn only), you may place on each of your cards one single piece.

I've played the game a few times, and I don't feel like the strategy runs all that deep. It sure seems to be all about maximizing that last ability. Because it normally takes an action just to place one piece, you'd better be doing the "place one piece on all your cards" action every turn, because that's like being given free actions. There is perhaps some nuance to this; I've personally found it better to keep three cards going rather than the maximum-allowed four -- because it's too hard to have enough pieces to be working on four cards at once.

Still, if the strategy is straightforward, there's still room to enjoy the activity. Here's where the game departs from the feeling of Tetris. Where Tetris is all about leaving possibilities open for the pieces that might come (when you can only see the next piece), in Project L you can plan exactly what pieces you need to pick up to fill in exactly the cards in front of you. It doesn't quite feel like "strategy," but it most certainly is "planning ahead."

Yet I do question whether the opening turns of the game have too big an impact on the outcome. I mentioned earlier that when you complete a card, you may get points and/or a bonus piece for your supply. The "or" there is a big deal -- early in the game, you will happily take a card that gives you no points, so long as it gives you a piece to get the ball rolling. A card that's worth an extra point that doesn't give you a free early piece feels utterly worthless in the opening rounds. (And a card that gives you only a small, "1 square" piece isn't much better.)

While the cards are divided into two decks ("easy" vs. "difficult" to complete), I think the designers should have made it so that every card in the "easy" deck awards you some critical bootstrapping piece. They did not -- and indeed, there are enough cards in the deck that feel like early "whammies" that the drafting row of four cards can actually fill up with them. Specifically, in a four-player game, it seems rather common that one player will get a whammy, while the other three get something better. Needless to say, that one player has never won the game (in my experience).

But like I said, the activity is still enjoyable. And the game is also brisk at 10 minutes per player (at most). So even if you're "the unlucky one" in the scenario I detailed, I think you can still have some fun filling cards -- and, more importantly for this position, not have the game drag on too long. Still, I think the game isn't reaching the full potential of its mechanisms; with stronger development, I think the experience could have been more even on the early turns, allowing players to always enjoy the core of the experience.

Yet I have enjoyed that core whenever I've played. And if someone suggested next game night, "want to play Project L?", my response would probably be, "sure." So... I think I'll give the game a B-. I'd say maybe some house rules could smooth out the experience, though the simple rules set the game has is also part of its appeal. Maybe you just have to accept Project L for what it is, or find a polyomino game that's more your speed.