Barnestorming- March of the Ants in Review, Bloodborne, Mushishi

If there were no huge divergences from the rules sent to reviewers before/during the Kickstarter campaign and those published at retail, what is the difference? If it is not a substantively different game, why does it matter when it was reviewed?

Are you kidding me? Even non-"huge" changes can alter a game in profound ways. Since you're probably the designer in disguise you should already know that. Also games that are not "substantively different" are still different games as many, many discussions here and on BGG have compared similar games. So you tell me, why would you go by a review that is for a minorly changed and slightly different game over a review of the actual game? Not to mention the bias of the reviewer wanting you to help add more stretch goals for themselves to benefit. Its like believing everything a used car salesman tells you.

SatelliteTransmission wrote: @Gregarius: Are all 4X games space-themed?

I don't know. It seems that way based on my experience, but I really couldn't say. I don't see any reason why a 4X game needs to be set in space, it just seems the most common setting, and a reference that most people are familiar with.

Is a game with mechanics inspired by space-themed 4X games like Eclipse or TI:3 necessarily a "4X Space game in disguise"? Based on your thinking, I'm just not sure how we ever escape a sort of solipsism where everything is derivative of everything else. Like language…or fantasy tropes…or the fact that all organic matter is made of carbon… In other words: of course the game owes a debt to other games. That inspiration was mentioned very vocally in the Kickstarter materials. It's like your eating a blueberry muffin and complaining that it has too many blueberries.

I don't know why I feel like I'm being attacked here... I like the game. I supported the Kickstarter (although obviously I didn't pore over all the materials). I have no problem with it being inspired by other games, or even taking concepts directly.

I will say that the ant setting isn't particularly integral to the game. It could be in space as I said before, or it could be Mad Max with upgradeable vehicles searching the desert wastes for oil or water. It could be roaming Medieval Knights upgrading their mounts and armor while attacking neighboring fiefdoms. No matter which of those themes was applied to the game, I'd still probably find it useful to refer to a Space 4X game because it is a convenient shorthand to convey a lot of information.

Isn't Runewars kind of a 4X game?

I have so many questions and issues regarding your review of March of the Ants that I'm not quite sure where to start. Well, I guess my basic question is: What is an example of an "ant-y" mechanic that you would have liked to have seen in the game? Or a game that has mechanics that really reflect the theme in a way that you appreciate or enjoy? These kinds of concrete examples would help me understand your point of critique in the review. In my opinion, the theme, art, graphic design and mechanics of MotA are thoroughly integrated -- the relationship between theme and mechanics is actually one of the things I appreciate most about the game.

Frohike already listed most of what I was going to specific call out as examples of real-world material that could have been used as a basis for more "ant-y" mechanics so I won't repeat those, but quite frankly your comment reveals that you don't have an understanding of what "theme" actually is, at least as I define it. March of the Ants is the poster child for "pasted on" theme. You can literally replace all of the images, nomenclature and flavor text in the game- without touching any of the mechanics- and it could describe any number of settings. This isn't helped by the fact that the mechanics are so clearly derivative of other games. There is nothing ant-specific about, for example, the action selection mechanic. Do other players get those knock-on actions because it reflects something about the ant subject matter? Absolutely not. It's that way because TI3 and other games are that way.

What you are basically stating is that because the game has "ants" in the title, has pictures of ants, and because the rulebook tells you that these cubes are ants is that the game has a somehow "integrated" theme, which is absolutely not the case here. Compare Tigris & Euphrates. The theme there is not what is pictured on the tiles or the box, nor is it "pasted on". It is integrated in the gameplay, which explicitly describes the rise and fall of civilizations along four specific vectors or metrics. When you place a religious leader token into another player's kingdom, it has a very specific thematic resonance and effect. There is absolutely nothing in March of the Ants that describes any kind of specific THEME. It has nothing to say about its subject matter, it is purely representative. it's like reading a story with no subtext.

Contrast this game with something like a Phil Eklund design...look at something like Origins, that starts out with players effectively developing the early human brain, which in turn affects the remainder of the game. That's thematic.

I challenge you to name ONE aspect of March of the Ants that could not be altered to be about spaceships, cowboys, cavemen, classical civilizations or sea life by simply replacing card art, text and nomenclature.

Bonus round- would you be willing to disclose how much you backed the game for?

@Mad Dog: If there were no huge divergences from the rules sent to reviewers before/during the Kickstarter campaign and those published at retail, what is the difference? If it is not a substantively different game, why does it matter when it was reviewed?


ANY divergences between the rules presented during a Kickstarter campaign and what is available at retail is BIG difference. If the rules presented to lure Kickstarter backers and the rules available to retail customers are two different things, than those early rules are irrelevant and SHOULD NOT be assessed in a publically available, published review of the game. At that point, the "review" is a "preview" at best, a shill at worst. Any review of a Kickstarter game prior to its retail availability should not be trusted. Full stop.

@Gregarius: Are all 4X games space-themed? Is a game with mechanics inspired by space-themed 4X games like Eclipse or TI:3 necessarily a "4X Space game in disguise"?

4X games generally have the exact same theme- 4X. There are many, however, with different settings and contexts for that 4X theme to occur. March of the Ants would be an example of one.

This is a pretty lively discussion; you all seem to be pretty passionate about the topics involved. I'm going to ignore ad hominem (e.g., I don't "have an understanding of what 'theme' is") and focus on the substance of some of the responses to my original post. A post that was filled with questions because, honestly, I felt like Barnes' review was pretty cursory and didn't provide examples to support his perspective. I'm glad he's provided some details and examples in the forums, though -- now a real dialogue can take place.

@Frohike: Have you played March of the Ants? Many of the ideas you listed are in the game as Evolution and Event cards. For example, the Fungal Outbreak is based on the zombie ant fungus you mention.

@Mad Dog: I agree that any rules change matters, but I disagree that a typical Kickstarter backer is eagerly pouring over a Beta Rulebook.pdf in order to make their backing decision. Choices are made for a wide variety of diverse reasons; for example, there's a portion of the tabletop games' community that is most focused on components and will back/purchase a game simply because they enjoy the sculpts of the models included. I also doubt that someone who is trying to both develop a reputation as -- and monetize their practice of -- reviewing games is shilling a product they don't enjoy or think is terrible in order to squeeze more stretch goals out of their $35 March of the Ants backer pledge. I re-watched UndeadViking's 30+ minute in-depth review and I just don't get that feeling, at all. It is also common practice for early reviewers to make the constant caveat that "these are prototype components" or "these aren't the final rules" throughout their written and video reviews. But we can agree to disagree.

@Barnes: Yes, we have completely different understandings of what theme is, which I believe is the root of the difference in our perspectives. One of my favorite articles on the topic, that helped frame my understanding of theme, was published a couple of years ago by Mark Major, [url=http://http://www.leagueofgamemakers.com/theme-vs-mechanics-the-false-dichotomy/]Theme vs. Mechanics: The False Dichotomy[/url]. My take-away from the piece is that theme is a combination of flavor (art, graphic design, narrative, setting) and rules (conceptual actions players take); it is both "virtual" and "conceptual," a product of my imagination as a player that is evoked by all of the above.

By this definition, I believe March of the Ants is highly thematic. When I reveal and place a meadow hex using the Explore action during the Worker phase, or use my head evolution bonus (vicious mandibles!) to defeat a centipede in the Soldier phase, the combination of the rules and flavor of the game truly do give me the sense of controlling a colony of ants scuttling about doing various things that ants do.

I'm not sure if this answers your challenge of naming "ONE" aspect of MotA that cannot be reskinned into a different theme, but I read an article on BGG where the designers described researching ants in order to create all of the Evolution cards. The Blasting Head Evolution is directly based on species of Carpenter Ants that suicidally explode in self-defense, spraying toxic goo from their heads. To me, this is a mechanic that is highly flavorful and thematic.

Is it unique to ants? I'm not sure you could say so. I mean, couldn't we just reimagine the Blasting Head evolution as Bob-omb from Super Mario Bros., a little self-destructing dude that kills Italian plumbers instead of ants? That's kind of what I meant with the "avoiding solipsism" questions posed to Gregarius. I'm not sure I could ever come up with an answer that satisfies your criteria.

Again, in my understanding, 4X is not a theme. It is a description of play experience and player goals, of what you can expect to do in a game facilitated and framed by the rules and mechanics while playing and trying to win it. The question about all 4X games being space-themed was rhetorical: there are dozens of 4X games with a huge variety of themes.

Bonus Round: I backed March of the Ants for $35 dollars. My wife also bought a copy for her brother, so our family is in for $70.
Bonus Round #2: How is that relevant? Other than the fact that I own the game and have played it numerous times…which is how I developed my opinions and understanding of the game…?

I haven't played the game. You just asked for unique, weird, ant-y things that could possibly be thematically interpreted through actual game mechanics and dynamics, somewhat incredulously (or maybe I misread that), so I gave a list. I'm not sure weird ant-y things as flavor text on cards counts as what I described, but again, I haven't played the game so I have no idea whether those card events are integral to the functioning of the game or just a "do this one-off thing in the game that sort of has an analog with this text on a card."

My point was that I believe the game already does that, in spades. Could it do more? Of course! The mind of an ant is a difficult thing to fully inhabit.

One thrust of Barnes' review, or even further his forum post that hyperbolically describes MotA as the "poster of child of pasted-on theme" (a title which, IMHO, belongs to true Eurogames like Power Grid), is that there is nothing ant-like about the game's rules or mechanics.

So I was hoping he could provide an example of what something like that might be.

Mad Dog wrote: I Not to mention the bias of the reviewer wanting you to help add more stretch goals for themselves to benefit.

This is the reason I only backed on of the three games I did a KS Preview of. I saw it as a conflict of interest to be gaining monetarily as a consequence of doing the preview.

That ninja game, I don't give a fuck. That game was totally bad ass. Should've funded.