Thursday, 04 December 2008 05:43
You know how those evil, conniving network executives are- they completely ignore how awesome shows are and just go around cancelling stuff willy-nilly and demanding changes. In Sci Fi's BSG series, they made the most dreadful and completely inexcusable omission ever, at least since Tom Bombadil was cut out of LORD OF THE RINGS. This casualty, beloved by millions and billions of fans, is Mufft. The image above shows how seamlessly he would fit into the cast and crew of the new BSG. For him to not be represented in BSG is one of the greatest crimes of the century, up there with the Holocaust and New Coke. It's like they took all the fans of the show, raped them, rounded them up in cattle cars, and sent them off to the gas chambers, burned the corpses, and then flushed their ashes down a toilet that goes straight into a sewer somewhere to hell where the devil and NBC hold court.Since those dirtbag, fascist network executives (probably the same people who mercilessly cancelled FIREFLY when they weren't able to see the brilliance of _cowboys in space_, an idea not even ever thought of as long as you discount MARSHALL BRAVESTAR) probably won't listen,here is your chance to petition Fantasy Flight Games to include Muffit in a BSG expansion. It's the right thing to do. If they don't do it, it's like they are collectively slapping us in the face over and over again and peeing on us at the same time because WE ARE TEH FANS and we must be heard. It will not be acceptable if Muffit is replaced by a foxy girl or computer graphics- IT MUST BE A MIDGET IN A SPACE DOG COSTUME BECAUSE THAT IS THE ABSOLUTE PERFECT DEPICTION OF THE CHARACTER. I will be printing T-shirts, bumper stickers, and buttons to support the campaign.
But in the mean time, I have reviewed BSG over at Gameshark.com. If you aren't patient enough to wait for the site to load- almost definitely Game of the Year.
Set as favorite
Share on Facebook, Digg, etc
Email this
Hits: 5061
Comments (45)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/hide comments
JoelCFC25
said:
 |
... Great review, thanks. I read a bunch of BSG reviews on the other site yesterday afternoon...dying to play it now. Minor fix for Abner: first line of the 2nd paragraph above the map board image--you mean "assume the role of one of GALACTICA’s principal characters". Fix it you frakkin' toaster! |
Shellhead
said:
 |
... I have only faint memories of the original Battlestar Galactica. I was definitely in the target audience for the show, and at an impressionable age. But one year after Star Wars rocked my world, there was already a slew of me-too efforts, and BSG just seemed fairly generic. Then Ridley Scott's brilliant Alien arrived the next year, and ruined me for space opera-type sci-fi for good. So when the new BSG series came along, I greeted it with stone-cold indifference. I don't get cable, and I haven't been impressed with the glimpses of Sci-Fi Channel offerings that I've seen over the years. I did hear good things about the new BSG from friends, but nothing specific enough to get my attention. But when I heard that the new BSG game would be co-op plus traitor(s) and published by FFG, that grabbed my attention. FFG has had a great track record in recent years, publishing so many good boardgames, especially ones attached to high-profile licenses. It wasn't completely great news for me... one of my game-designer friends and I teamed up to submit another game to White Wolf in late 2007. Very specific feedback to our initial proposal pushed our game in a whole new direction, which turned out to be... co-op plus a traitor. After making revisions and submitting a finished game last December, we were told that they wouldn't get around to working on it until early 2009. So when I heard about this BSG game, I just knew that FFG would do a better job with the concept, probably rendering our game dead on arrival. For an analogy that would make more sense in the very near future, it would be like White Wolf publishing Murder City after FFG published Android. So far, I've only played BSG once. It was a four-player game with all three other players being big fans of the modern show. My hopes and fears were both realized at once: BSG is a great game, and my hopes of publishing this second game with White Wolf are dead. Like BSG, we had players secretly contributing cards towards a group task each turn, only our task was the same every turn, though the specific cards also did various things. BSG trumps that in every way, with dual-purpose cards that can be used for the group tasks or for other things, plus that destiny deck that introduces some random noise into the skill checks, giving potential cover to a traitor player. There are a lot of other good ideas in BSG, and they all work well together, delivering a theme and setting that even a non-BSG fan like myself can really appreciate. Where Shadows Over Camelot only offered traitors the opportunity to sabotage the team through sub-optimal efficiency, BSG gives traitors all kinds of options, especially if they manage to get into leadership roles. And there is even a potential incentive for a traitor to oust himself... a one time cheap shot on the way out the airlock that could prove a decisive blow. The one factor that is both a strength and weakness to BSG is the complexity. In general, it's good, because at any given time, there are several things going on, giving players meaningful choices to make and also cover for traitorous sabotage. However, that creates a steep learning curve for the first game, and due to the traitor element, it's important to cover the rules thoroughly before starting, so that a traitor doesn't out himself with too many mysterious grabs for the rule book. |
Bullwinkle
said:
 |
... Midget in a dog costume? Boring. A dog in a midget costume, now that would be cool. |
waddball
said:
 |
... Only played once so far, and I really liked it, but we had a bad lull in the middle, maybe 18 turns or so with no basestars. The crisis checks were still fun and were running us out of resources, etc., so the challenge was still there, but it got a little dull and repetitive without the cylon fleet. I was surprised when I counted after the game and found that only 10 of 70 cards are cylon attacks (I expected about a third, I guess), so a single deck manipulation ability (Boomer, Roslin, scouting) that puts one or two to the bottom of the deck can create a long pause. Which as a human, you supposedly want, but...it's just less fun, with fewer interesting things to do apart from the skill checks (and less context, then, for the metagame discussions). Other than that, though, great experience, dying to play again. |
Bullwinkle
said:
|
...No, wait...how about a monkey in a dog costume IN A MIDGET COSTUME? What, are you trying to win an Emmy? |
Sagrilarus
said:
 |
... Dude -- Muffit was a real robot. How else could he have gotten through the smoke-filled ventilator duct to save everyone from the raging inferno that had cut them off from the rest of the ship? Sag. |
vandemonium
said:
 |
... I haven't read your article yet, but dammit Michael, you had me at "Petition- Bring Back Muffit" I am putty in your hands sir. Mold me. |
YourBestFriend
said:
 |
... I am glad that you enjoy and appreciate the board game. Minor note: The proper spelling is: "Konieczka" Thank you for your support!! |
Michael Barnes
said:
 |
... Well here's the deal...at first I thought it would be funny to mispell your name a different way each time. But then I thought of the lifetime of hardship you had to endure when teachers, receptionists, nurses, and baliffs went to call out your name. And how sad it must have been to go to the amusement park and you wanted to get a keychain with your last name on it and they didn't have it. So I settled on doing it just one time throughout the article. Bravo on the game, my friend. Very well done indeed. Can't wait to see what you're working on for an encore. |
Malloc
said:
 |
... Muffit II was played by a chimpanzee named Evolution, who is referred to by the nickname of "Evie the Chimp". |
goldenboat
said:
 |
... The original BSG made me want to blow my brains out -- I'll take my 1970s primetime TV space opera unalloyed with seriousness, thank you. The mixture of exodus story, lip gloss, and nonsense like (well) Muffit never went down with me and I recoiled from the original series in disgust, to quietly roll up Traveller characters by myself in the corner. Years later I would warm to the Buck Rogers show, which was basically BSG stripped of all pretension. And still years after that I decided to watch the pilot for the BSG re-imagining, telling myself I'd give up when it started to stink ... and to my amazement I am still on board, although there were a couple times last season when I felt myself lunging for the remote. With only ten episodes to go I will hang on for the bitter end, and thanks to reviews like this I suppose I'll be playing the game, too ... |
Merkles
said:
 |
... I'll admit it--I loved the original BSG (Moffit, Boxey, and even the episode with the android played by the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz) AND Buck Rogers (ah...Erin Gray was etched upon my 11 year old brain). Heck, I even wrote a 100 page handwritten script for the original BSG and sent it in to ABC Television---and never heard anything back...the bastards! Sure it was geeky, but I was 11 and in Star Wars withdrawl. Despite all that, I LOVE the new BSG...it is something that regular, non-SF types even get into. Which gives me hope for this game being more accessible to others. I've just gotten my preorder from Amazon (but I'm officially getting from the kids for Christmas, I think) |
the barefoot killer
said:
 |
... Huh. I consider Battlestar Galactica to be one of the best games I've ever played. Why? Largely because it's as (or more) thematically evocative as other FFG games but is much more simple than most of the their other games to learn and to teach. I'm really surprised people think it's complicated. |
Michael Barnes
said:
|
... A couple more games under my belt, and I am totally willing to say it's one of the best games I've ever played. We played again tonight and we were talking about how it had a "just right" level of detail...we also talked about whether it's going to have longevity and my argument there is that, like a game such as DIPLOMACY, the game largely rests in player interaction and engagement moreso than in rules and mechanics...it's more about PLAYING than following structure or maximizing benefits. And to me, that's one of the key barometers that a game is going to have staying power. It really isn't complicated if you've played it one time before...we had a total newbie (the famous Billy Motion) up and playing in five minutes. Lord Von Tush PM'ed me...he wanted to know how it played with three...I think it scales surprisingly well and kind of automatically without any goofy fixes or variations since the number of crisis cards is naturally reduced. You do miss some of the crazy suspicion/paranoia that you get from having a larger pool of suspected Cylons, but the remainder of the game is so good (and difficult) without it that it kind of turns out to be a small loss. Merkles- didn't you hear? That was the script they used for the entire run of FIREFLY. |
Shellhead
said:
|
... I have one potential concern about BSG, from the one game that I played. We had a married couple in our four-player game, and they're pretty good about not teaming up against people in regular AT games. But since BSG is kind of co-op (or actually two teams that don't know who is or isn't on the team at first), they worked out a coordinated move that feels like it a) breaks the power curve of the abilities in the game and b) provides too obvious a loyalty test for both participants. She was playing President Roslin and he was playing Admiral Adama, so they both were getting Executive Orders. After making vague remarks in that direction for a while, and using happily married couple telepathy or something, there was a turn where they took turns playing Executive Orders on each other to ultimately result in an avalanche of actions for one of them. It didn't happen to break the game due to a whole run of terrible die rolls on those consecutive actions, but it could have. Anyway, the implications were troubling. In future games with those two, the idea will be raised, and if either the Admiral or the President balks at the teamwork, it will look pretty obviously traitorous. And if they do execute the action-multiplying manuever, it will give the humans and unfair advantage over the Cylons. |
dragonstout
said:
 |
... Shellhead - According to the FAQ, there's been errata so that Executive Order can only be used once per turn. |
Shellhead
said:
|
... Good. It makes sense, too, because it's just an Executive Order, not a damn time machine. Thanks for the tip. |
moofrank
said:
 |
... We did our first game with 3. It still works, and seems well balanced. With only one Cylon and three players, you are missing some of the interpersonal dynamics that come into play with two Cylons and 5 players. That completely makes the game. And I am with Barnes on this. Best game in the past couple of years. Perhaps since Prophecy. The downside is that there is a SIGNIFICANT learning curve. The number of actions on the board, and a hand full of 10 action cards tends to paralyze the first play. The first 5 player turns might take an hour as everyone takes it all in and adjusts. And while I adore the game, my reaction to teaching to a group of new players will probably be on the order of "Just kill me now." |
Michael Barnes
said:
|
... But the payoff on that learning curve is that it's the kind of game that gets better when players are over it. When you've got people who know what the range of possible actions are, how to best handle certain situations, and- most importantly- understand the finer points of the kinds of interaction the game requires then it goes from "great" to "possible all time great". Experience pays off, and particularly with the Cylon player I think knowing what to anticipate makes the potential of the game even greater. I do think a lot of the complexity is in that there are quite a few sub-systems...the space thing, the offices, jumping, traveling, etc...but since those systems map directly to narrative and theme, they don't really interfere with the atmosphere or pacing. But really, each subsystem is something pretty simple. There's no exceptions, conditional rules, scads of counters to keep track of, or anything like that. As long as new players have a firm handle on what their character can do and what is and isn't important in certain stages of the game then I don't think it's too much of a hurdle to teach. Probably the stupidest comment I've seen online about the game is that people have complained that the game is too hard or becomes unbalanced (since the BSG story is so balanced as it is) if you lose a crew member with a skill or specialty that nobody else has. Boo frackin' hoo. If you can't overcome that difficulty, then you're doomed to lose anyway. In the game and in real life. I've also seen a complaint that the game comes down to fuel...if you use the Scout cards to deploy the Raptors like you're supposed to and you plan in advance for late-game fuel shortages, then there's no problem. If you're an idiot and expect the game to be perfectly balanced and fair to you as an individual, then yes, then you're probably going to run out of gas 3/4 of the way to Kobol. |
Gary Sax
said:
 |
... I have no problem with a game like this being, say 60/40 Cylons or even slightly more. Just like War of the Ring supposedly is, I think it fits the theme perfectly. |
Space Ghost
said:
 |
... Hell, Twilight Struggle is 60/40 (at least) in favor of USSR and it is still great to play. |
Mr Skeletor
said:
 |
... Just got back from Eurogamesfest, where I got to finally play both this and Dominion. One was a smart idea wrapped up in a pretty ordinary game. The other was a fucking sensational design which draws out exactly what it is that makes games worth playing - mirth and fun around the table. See if you can work out which is which. |
Michael Barnes
said:
|
... I'd be OK with an 80/20 split, as long as the game is fun to play...don't you think it'd be much more rewarding to win with only a 20% chance of victory than doing so when you've got even odds? BSG really puts DOMINION in perspective...BSG is a complete package, DOMINION is a fun game that never reaches its potential because it's so...neutered. Still think it's a good one over all, but we're also talking about two totally different kinds of games. |
Gary Sax
said:
|
... Completely agree. It makes wins all the sweeter. It also comes down to the fact I have no problem losing games, it rolls off my back and I never think about it again as long as I had fun. I think TOS people have a major problem with losing games. |
Michael Barnes
said:
|
... I just don't get it... You have these Euro guys saying that they don't luck, random elements, player interaction because it somehow limits their chance to win a game...yet having all these "balancing" mechanics and restrictions just makes it where poorer players are on an UNFAIRLY equal footing. Who the hell started that kind of thinking anyway? If you care so much about winning, how is that winning a game where everybody has an equal chance is MORE satisfying than winning against the odds or completely piledriving everybody else? I was thinking about co-op games since one out of every two games released these days is co-op...and I think the popularity has to do with the fact that there is a mutual win or loss and Eurogamers and their ilk would rather win or lose as a group than be singled out. The danger with the popularity of co-op games (which I like very much) is that competition and conflict could become even MORE de-emphasized and discouraged in game design. BSG has cooperation and intense competition...that makes a big difference, I think. |
Mr Skeletor
said:
|
... I don't buy the 80/20 argument. The game just has not been out long enough yet to make the call that the humans can't - how about spending some time developing strategy you lazy fucking nerds. It's like people claiming the game has too much downtime? WHat the fuck? Did you even play it? |
Michael Barnes
said:
|
... I don't really know- or care- what the actual win/loss percentage is...but I'm totally willing to accept that the humans rarely win, if that's what the case turns out to be. Downtime is one thing this game DOESN'T have...if you're not involved in every single minute of the game...you suck at playing games. |
Mr Skeletor
said:
|
... The most telling thing is the regular 'calculatron' crew who are claiming that as a cyclon its best to reveal early as you are more dangerous revealed. They then pull out their stat maths to prove it. And that is true - if you are a pencil necked social misfit who has no idea how to interact or work a crowd then you are more powerful as a revealed cylon. |
moofrank
said:
|
... I have wondered about that. It really isn't that bad to be a revealed Cylon. I do suspect that it might be worth revealing shortly after the second set of loyalty cards are given out. At that point, group think demands that someone is thrown into the brig. Unless you are pretty certain that another person is the target, you do want to reveal at that point. However, if you are certain you can remain unrevealed, the chaos and mistrust is far more valuable. ...and of course lots more fun. |
YourBestFriend
said:
|
... Dead right moofrank. Of course the 'calculatrons' say its best for Cylons to reveal themselves early. As soon as all the Cylons are revealed, they have a much easier time mathing out the game. Hidden Cylons make teamates turn on each other and add uncertainty - the calculatron's mortal enemy! |
Shellhead
said:
|
... It amuses me to imagine a fun murderer like Clearclaw or DDJ playing Battlestar Galactica, denying being a Cylon. |
Protoss
said:
 |
... I want to buy this game, but I'm a bit scared of the comments about it being a pain to teach to new players. I'm always the one explaining new games, and most of the others do not bother reading the rules. And I agree that you need to know all the rules from the start. Otherwise the "hidden" cylon is not hidden for long when (s)he starts grabbing the rulebook all the time. How about this idea for teaching new players. Let them be human during the 1st half of the game. When it's time for the second loyalty card to be passed out then the new players can also enter in the draw. This way new players have time to learn the game and ask questions etc. By the way, I like this site. A lot of good stuff here. For Aiur. |
Michael Barnes
said:
|
... I think it's probably a good idea to "guarantee" that new players aren't the Cylons...with this stipulation. If you're the one doing the teaching, don't let anybody know that you're stacking the deck. Otherwise, the new player won't learn how to roll with the interaction component. There's actually a lot you can kind of teach as you go along- crisis cards, space combat, jumping, etc...I wouldn't worry too much about it. I don't think it's ultimately any harder than teaching any other game we regularly talk about here. |
dragonstout
said:
|
... Yeah, I taught it to my usual gaming buddies + one wife of a buddy who doesn't play that many games, and we had pretty much no questions. Teaching went very smoothly. First few turns took a long time reading the cards, but I warned people that would happen. |
Shellhead
said:
|
... When I first bought BSG, I carefully read through the rules a couple of times. But I'm more of a learn-by-doing kinda guy, so it didn't all stick. So our first game included about 45 minutes of reading rules out loud to everybody before starting. Usually I set up a new game and play a few turns solitaire just to work through all the main rules, then read the entire rule book, but I didn't have enough time with BSG. From here on out, I think I will teach new players by just playing through three sample turns with all cards face up and one of each crisis card type. |
Michael Barnes
said:
|
... Playing it solo is a great way to nail it down...and strangely, it's kind of fun on its own like that. Of course, you know who the Cylon is up front but trying to win the game is still a challenge. |
Mr. Bistro
said:
 |
... Geez, how did I miss this article? Glad to see this game getting more love. It's the kind of game that makes you feel rewarded for being a gamer. I don't think BSG is too tough for new people, though. I found it best to let them flounder their way through their first game. Most will latch onto 2-3 actions they do over and over again, and still have fun playing. When the second game comes around they'll feel much more comfortable and discover how useful locations like Communications are. One thing I discovered is to show people the four Cylon cards before the game, and warn them against reading them if they get them (nothing like spending time reading a Loyalty Card to set off alarms for the rest of the players). |
the barefoot killer
said:
|
...One thing I discovered is to show people the four Cylon cards before the game, and warn them against reading them if they get them (nothing like spending time reading a Loyalty Card to set off alarms for the rest of the players). Good advice. I also institute a "Ten second rule" when playing with new players -- everyone looks at their loyalty card for ten seconds after they're dealt out. Should be enough time to make any "You are a Cylon" cards clear and keep it from being obvious who was dealt the "You are not a Cylon" cards. |
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|