Prevent the Spread of Cube Confusion in PANDEMIC Hot

WOW! What a surprise I would have thought you would have hammered this game. I will have to try this and use the Cube Confusion angle, HA!

How does this compare with other cooperative games? I have Lord of the Rings and Shadows over Camelot. I would assume Arkham Horror is still your coop game of choice?

It's a great design. It's smart, compact, and thematic. It's a good example of how Euro or Family style games don't have to suck.

As for other co-ops...

ARKHAM HORROR is probably the best in the genre, but it's huge, sprawling, and not as approachable. But some of the interaction in PANDEMIC is similar, where you're dividing up work and sending folks to take care of hot spots where disease will break out. The game even has its own version of the Elder Sign- Eradication. You could almost retheme PANDEMIC to be a very, very simplified ARKHAM HORROR and it might work.

LORD OF THE RINGS is also huge and sprawling, but the cooperation there is a lot different. It's about sacrifice and doing what's best for the group more than a division of labor sort of thing. Plus it has the whole "journey" thing and it creates more a sense of exhaustion than PANDEMIC, where you're just panicking and racing against time.

SHADOWS OVER CAMELOT...good god. The first two times I played it I have to admit I thought it was brilliant. But after that, the realization that all I was doing was playing a cooperative game of Rummy with a dumptruck full of bells and whistles piled on top of it and the fact that the game isn't actually any fun dawned on me. It's an unbelievably shallow game, and as such it fits right into DoW's policy of releasing beautifully produced games without a lick of depth or sustainable interest. The best game of it I ever played was when this guy at my store (who we'll meet later on in THERE WILL BE GAMES) flipped the traitor card over as soon as he got dealt it. There was no possible way to win because he just plunked catapults down every turn and it was over in like 30 minutes. I think he couldn't really do that since the rules forbid the player to reveal like that, but it showed how a bunch of rules and whingdings are just propping up a really stupid game.

Nice review. Just thought I'd mention a somewhat important typo

Gah. The typo is in the description of what happens when you draw an "Epidemic" card. And this comment system *really* can't handle any sort of pasting. :(

I had more content here, but it got lost the last 4 times I tried to edit this post. Mainly, I'm just holding off purchasing Pandemic until I see if it has any longevity or not.

I really enjoy your reviews, but this is one -- the first one, in fact -- that I disagree with.

I'm especially surprised at how mildly you scold Pandemic in your closing graf for wasting its thematic potential with wooden cubes and nameless diseases. Why do you feel Pandemic has a proper amount of abstraction, given the simplicity of its mechanics? Shouldn't it take the Days of Wonder approach and whore up that simplicity with gorgeous components?

Anyway, I'll shut up now.

Michael, everything you say regarding SHADOWS OVER CAMELOT may be factually correct, but I still have a great time playing it and so does everyone I have introduced it to, even those of us who have played it repeatedly.

Of course I would probably be singing a different tune if the same mechanics were overlayed with a theme like, say, the German postal system.

This is a case where a terrific theme and high production values outshine (possibly) weak mechanics.

Nice review of Pandemic, btw. Sounds like a keeper.

A telling photograph. The only way to survive the Andromeda Strain was to cry.

I'm pretty cautious these days about adding to my collection, because my comic collection and my gaming collection are already competing fiercely for limited space. But Pandemic is very tempting, especially after this review. I like co-op games, especially to cleanse the pallet between brutal AmeriTrash competition games. The first actual novel that I ever read (after my Hardy Boys phase) was The Andromeda Strain, and one of my all-time favorite non-fiction books was The Hot Zone, so I really like the theme for Pandemic. Matter of fact, when I play Cults Across America, I try hard to get control of the CDC guy, just for the sheer joy of unleashing an epidemic and making those die rolls each turn to spread the disease.

However, I have mixed feelings about the other major co-op games on the market these days. There is a fine line to walk between playing cooperatively and letting one or two players tell everybody else what to do.

Arkham Horror is a terrific game, and it sounds like the upcoming Kingsport Horror expansion will finally solve the problem of the slightly tedious dicefest endgame. Our group would play this game more often if it wasn't such a hassle to set up and take down.

Lord of the Rings is too scripted. PLaying it with experienced players is like watching The Rocky Horror Picture Show with hardcore fans at the midnight movie... this is the part where we throw toast and this is the part where we all shout "asshole!"

Shadows of Camelot seems like a missed opportunity. It *is* essentially a shallow game of rummy, yet layered with rich theme and fantastic components. And the traitor concept is a great idea, but poorly executed. The first time I got to play this was with a group of mostly Euro players, and yet the game was fun enough that we played it four times in a row, until we finally won. The second game day that Shadows of Camelot hit the table, with that same group, was less fun, as the more controlling fun murderers at the table tried to boss everybody around.

The last time I played Shadows of Camelot was the funniest, with a mixed group of AmeriTrash and generic boardgamers. We had almost full set of players, so it should have been a relatively easy game except for the possible traitor, but bad luck started to make everybody paranoid. In the end, Camelot fell due to a flurry of finger-pointing, as three different players were falsely accused of being the traitor. As it turned out, there was no traitor that game.

So this Pandemic game is definitely on my radar, but I will probably hold off for now.

Mainly, I'm just holding off purchasing Pandemic until I see if it has any longevity or not.

I think it does. Not, however, if people keep playing it 3-4 times in one sitting. It's a light game, it's not a very complex one and it's not this hugely deep thing at all...for a short game though, it's got plenty of replay value. Just don't glut yourself or it _will_ get old.

What was that typo? We'll fix it.

Why do you feel Pandemic has a proper amount of abstraction, given the simplicity of its mechanics?

Because of the scope of the game. It's not meant to be an epic simulation of epidemiological efforts to control the spread of real-world diseases at all, but that's a very specific framework for the mechanics. It's meant to be light and I really get a sense that Leacock set out specifically to make a game about spreading infections and trying to control them and that makes the theme work. More detail, more chrome, or whatever would put the game into a different class. It really wouldn't be appropriate for a game at this weight/complexity/duration level to have a whole lot of detail because then you'd be getting into a situation where the subject matter outstrips the possibility the game system can afford. It's just right for what it is- a 45-60 minute, "all audiences" sort of game.

It kind of goes back to the "Civ Lite" problem. A 45-60 minute game can't support that kind of theme without major sacrifices and abstractions. But civilization is a much larger topic than infectious disease, and there are therefore more abstractions in a smaller theme that can work without causing the loss of important detail. It is disappointing that the game doesn't name the diseases, but you know I think I've had more fun coming up with various fictional diseases. In one game, we were actually trying to cure the world of radical Islam. And now, it's Cube Confusion.

Now, all that being said, I would really like to see a game that took the same subject matter and treated it seriously and with a much more complex, epic-scale game. But this game doesn't set out to be that, so you can't fault the game for something that it's not aspiring to be.

Michael, everything you say regarding SHADOWS OVER CAMELOT may be factually correct, but I still have a great time playing it and so does everyone I have introduced it to, even those of us who have played it repeatedly.

Hey, I hear ya...I know plenty of folks who adore it and there's no doubt that it's a game that has an immediacy of theme and involvement that's really appealing to a lot of people...I just feel like the game is a big hoodwink, dressing up a lot of nothing in a bunch of pomp and circumstance. Back when it came out, I played it maybe 50 times in my store- I was always demoing it and there were very few people who came away disappointed with it. So what the hell do I know about it?

You know what you like and what you don't and, ultimately, that is what playing games is all about. It doesn't matter if a game is "good" or "bad". The ultimate question is, do you have fun playing it?

There's no denying that chess is a "good" game, but I simply don't enjoy it. Conversely, Zombies! is not considered a classic by any stretch, yet I always have fun playing it.

I'm looking forward to Merlin's Company, the expansion for Shadows Over Camelot. Expansions have done a lot to beef up other co-op games, why not SOC, too?

Arkham has expansions. Lord of the Rings has expansions. Pandemic doesn't and it doesn't appear that any are planned. That's a problem with the game for me.

I'm glad some people are enjoying Pandemic though.

For those who don´t like co/operating there is Black Death± you can compete from the other perspective. Not a great game, but at least it is in the right spirit.

Games can't be simple and be good, and they NEED expansions?

Mayhap you also think that a game is always better the more people that are playing?

All of these concepts are traps that have severely weakened American Hobby gaming.

Making games complex, and adding rules for EVERYTHING was an 80's and 90's obsession. The same sort of design goals that produced Supremacy, Rolemaster, and whatever the guy who created Campaign for North Africa was thinking.

Even the terribly simple Talisman began to drown under the weight of its expansions, as the errata grew. Ditto for the Dune expansions, and doubly so for Wizwar (btw. 3 cards of my creation are in the second expansion set. )

Then there is Cosmic Encounter. (After dealing with 9 expansions, I grew to loathe the game. I couldn't even look at the box. Someone made me play the basic 4 player AH-Hasbro edition. And I started liking it again.)

And sometimes a game idea really wants a simple basic implementation. Co-op games don't really lend themselves to long drawn out implementations because you can easily see that your opponent is a random dummy propped up by a handful of rules. Arkham Horror only gets away with it only because of its story elements.

If you made Pandemic longer and more involved, a basic disease story just isn't going to sustain the extra length and complexity.

The original Supremacy was a pretty simple game. The Armies and Navies were pretty abstracted and didn't include anything about aerial units although I think they were implied. The market had a pretty simple mechanic. Combat was fairly simple (If I remember correctly, you get 1 die for being the attacker, 1 die for numerical superiority and 1 die for L-Star Supremacy and divide by 3 for the casualties. I think the defender got 1 die for being the defender). Searching for resources is pretty simple as is researching for nukes or L-stars. I never got any of the expansions because I didn't have the money at the time, but I have a feeling the mucked things up considerably. The problem happens when you try to make something into something it's not (the tricked out Civics are a perfect example of this). The complexity has more to do with mission creep than the game itself.

This is a game I think I need to own. I like Co-op, and really dig the theme.

It doesn't matter if a game is "good" or "bad". The ultimate question is, do you have fun playing it?

That is right on the money, and that's something that I think a lot of hobbyists have really lost sight of...who the fuck cares about mechanics, was it fun? When I played DUNGEON last week, I thought "man, this game completely sucks but I love it!"

PANDEMIC is fun. That's why I like it. SHADOWS is not fun, which is why I don't like it.

Frank is really getting at what Eurogames have done _good_ for the hobby...the old idea that there had to be rules for everything has gone by the wayside and the good Euros have shown how judicious abstraction can make for better, more playable games. SUPREMACY is a good example, the basic game is really pretty abstract but all those expansions add so many rules and details it turns into something else entirely- and it becomes much less playable in the long run.

I like expansions, but they're not really appropriate for every game. I don't think PANDEMIC needs any, because it's pretty much just right how it is and I don't see the need to take it any further. Something like ARKHAM HORROR or DESCENT you want expansion because those are systems that can explore new areas and ideas.

Lord of the Rings is not fun for me without at least one expansion. It is too Knizia, Euro, pure, whatever. I also dislike Arkham without the Dunwich expansion. These are just my opinions on these specific games with and without expansions. It doesn't mean every game needs expansions. Nor that you feel the same way I do.

Shadows may be fun with the new expansion (as LotRs became fun for me with an expansion). That's my point. If you are happy with Shadows as is, then don't buy the expansion. If you don't like it and the expansion might create a positive gaming experience for you, don't snub it before you know anything about it.

Pandemic sounds too much like Lord of the Rings without expansions. I enjoy the extra "orthogonal" complexity that the expansions add to the bland base game. I'm bored in a basic Knizia LotRs game. I used to teach LotRs with just the base game because it was more simple and "pure", but when a friend said that the game was simplistic and just down to tile draws, I couldn't argue.

There are a lot of people who feel that LotRs is great without expansions. That's fine they can enjoy that game. I want something more than that though, and hearing that Pandemic "doesn't need" expansions flags memories of the base LotRs game.

On the Underground is an example of "judicious abstraction" in a Euro, but I find it immensely thematic and fun. I also admit that living for 6 months in London probably colours my opinion of the game, but it is fun for me so I play it. Your experience with the CDC might do the same for Pandemic.

I'd play Pandemic (I'll try almost any game once), but I can't see me purchasing it without any expansions planned.

OK, let's give this one a chance, if it's fun...
But frankly, I'm afraid that the only way I could really consider playing a game on the topic would be the possibility to play the VIRUS !

Would it have been that difficult to make some plastic (or wooden) blobish pieces to represent viruses and whatnot? The use of cubes just seems like a cop out.

This is one I'm not so sure about despite the good review. I think I'd like to see the actual game first.

Ok, Michael. This is the second or third time you've used that word that I'm aware of. I have a vague idea but what exactly does an "archivist" do? Sounds like a word a librarian with an ego might use. And it's good to see that you are/were a "fellow" although I never really doubted that.

BillN

I'll probably be picking this one up. Looks like it will fit with the lunch crowd at work. "How's your sandwich? Hmm? Now let's go cure some bubonic plague, eh? BLEEEAHAH!"

Shadows has a steep curve of declining fun. The first time you play it, it literally blows your mind. It eventually settles into a sort of groove where if you like the people you're playing with, it's fine, but definitely scripted. And I don't want to be the "Grail" guy anymore...you know, the guy who juggles the Grail quest so it doesn't get away, and people can go about their "real" business? Man, I hate that job. Never again.

I love LOTR, and I think it's mechanically sound and manages to be as thematic to the source material as I think a Euro can be. Knizia was on a tear in those days, no doubt about it.

But anyway, Pandemic gets called "Euro", but it has variable player powers, a world map, stays pretty true to its theme AND it has random card draws AND random events popping up. Hell, this thing is skirting dangerously close to just being a plain ol' American style boardgame, like you'd find on the shelves of Target. (That is NOT meant to be an insult.) It's got cubes and action points, and that's about it for "Euro" elements.

Anyway, I've read the rules and Barnes' review, and I expect to enjoy this for what it is. Proof that ultimately...just give us GOOD games.

I've long held that Pandemic is not a Euro, really. (I got to play a couple of prototypes over the last couple of years. The designer is an American, and his games are much closer to AT games but with Euro-like simplicity.

His one other published game is the odd Lunatix Loop, which is exactly like Speed Circuit crossed with Spy Hunter.

Btw. The reason for wooden cubes is that they are cheap. If you are doing a

I was always seemed to get stuck on the Excalibur quest, with that whirlpool that eventually starts to resemble a flushing toilet it you look at it long enough. That's basically what it is, a place to flush some cards if you can't make combos elsewhere.

Pandemic is pretty good. The best thing about it (besides the theme) is that it's a coop game that plays in like 45 minutes. Lord of the Rings, while definitely a superior game, is much longer. This is a bit on the abstract side, and the cubes definitely don't help at all, nor do the generic disease names. However, the way the game works definitely fits the theme. I'm not that convinced that the players have much control over whether they win or not. Not that I really care about that, but there's not a whole lot of "experience" in this game to carry you through otherwise. Lord of the Rings had all of the artwork, the location names, the narrative text. This pretty much just has city names and wooden cubes. So the game really needs to shine to hold your interest. I'll try it a few more times.

The typo was:

"They call for the player to reshuffle the draw pile and place it back on top of the draw deck"

Nice review again.

Also, I think it could be fun to do a "mini"-expansion. Just add maybe 5-10 more roles. It'd be a cheap way to maybe add a little more replayability.

I know I'm not the only person looking forward to Kingsport expansion. Shellhead even noted that it "fixes" an end-game problem. If the expansion "fixes" problems in Shadows then it might allow the game to reach its potential. I understand bashing of the base game of Shadows, but why hate an expansion that you know nothing about?

I don't hate the basic LotRs game (I reserve hate for Amen-Ra, Puerto Rico, and other games that rub me the wrong way). It's just boring. The expansions fix that for me. And there's even the Sauron expansion for those who want to join the dark side.

Terra sounded like a boring game on paper. It is actually the nastiest Euro that I've played, once you get the hang of it. It's a shorter and nastier game than Diplomacy. The game comes from player interactions (and how the mechanics almost require you to steal points on problems where others have done most of the work).

Maybe there is enough interesting player interaction to make Pandemic fun, but it sounds too much like LotRs without Sauron (one player dominating strategy, better to play with hands up, and so on) mixed with the set collecting mechanics from Shadows Over Camelot.

I'd like to play it and be proved wrong. There are enough bad games released each year already; I'd like another fun co-op game (but right now the Shadows expansion seems to have more potential than Pandemic).

I'm not that convinced that the players have much control over whether they win or not.

But in the game we played, we didn't have control...that's really kind of the point of the game, to get in control of out-of-control situations. If you let a bunch of cities hit the outbreak point, then you're at the mercy of the infection card draws. Particularly if you've got potential outbreak cities next to each other. If you play smart and cooperate well, the infection draws and epidemic cards are manageable. Experience does pay off, when you really get how infections work and what the really dangerous situations are you get better at it.

Yeah, that should have been "shuffle the discard pile and put it back on top of the draw deck". Abner must have been nodding off.

I hope you didn't get this game for free.

Alright, I picked this up yesterday... let see if Barnes was full of Crap or not.

:)

-M

Ha. Yeah I missed that. I thought it was just Barnes-speak.

Well, every turn each player does take the role of the infector. You draw the cards that add disease cubes. Drawing an epidemic card as part of your regular card draw is always a possibility too. Now if you got to DESIGN your own disease that would be something...

Good review, Michael. Pandemic is a lot of fun, enough theme to keep me interested but there's something else that kept a couple eurogamers I know playing multiple games. Yeah the theme could have run deeper, but as was mentioned in the review it would have made the game less accessible and would probably lengthen game time. The mechanics of infection and outbreak are good and end up being thematic. Once you have an area loaded up with cubes (lets say Asia which is so often the case) and the chain reaction outbreaks hit or threaten to hit it gets tense. Tense is good. Hey, a family game where you kill the world if you lose, what an awesome idea.

The advanced stage of Cube Confusion:

I enjoyed Pandemic. It's the kind of game that I will play with people who are fun murderers. It's fast, and because it's cooperative, you can avoid some of the undesirable traits that some people exhibit in competition. My only complaint is that it lacks a bit of flavor. Otherwise the design is solid.

I just played Pandemic this weekend. It is a very good game. I think Michael's review is fairly spot on. I understand (but have no source for) that the designer chose not to name the diseases because it would be seen as insensitive for anyone who has been effected by said disease. I can't say I'd blame him there...

I have no problem coming up with names for the diseases on my own so that is not worth spending much time on as a complaint.

- Red - Scarlett Fever - (Scarlett from G.I. Joe was victim 0 obviously)
- Yellow - Old yeller - Spread by rabid dogs
- Black - Just the good ol Plague
- Blue - hee hee The Moody Blues... hee hee...

I think it's particularly telling that Essen is on the map and represents a possible disease vector...all kidding aside, I'm fairly certain that the blue disease is in fact Cube Confusion.

Michael's comments are my sentiments about the game without having played it. It was a concise, well-written review.

We need more of the family-style gateway games in the marketplace that are accessible to everyone. Forget about the Eurogame-Ameritrash argument for a moment. The goal is just to get good games, that are appropriately thematic. Period.

I think someone else mentioned that. They are spot on.

And it looks like Pandemic fits the bill nicely...

They should have named the diseases though. What were they thinking when they didn't think to do that? (sigh)

Ryan B.