Dice game without innovation

I like playing dice games, especially if they have a worker placement mechanism. As a reference here like Kingsburg, Kingsport Festival, Alien Frontiers or Iacta Alea Est apply. "Marco Polo" does not reach the play value despite copying individual mechanisms of these Games.

It starts with the rule and is very colorful, too colorful to the eye. Instead sections (text) to structure paragraphs clear is painted in the game usually vigorously with color, what the search more difficult if time a question arises. The rules are more than fully explained, probably for the reason that the target group of the publishing house is not to be scared, because the publisher himself considered the game as "complex" what it is not. "Due to the complexity of the game we will dedicate ourselves to the first basic gameplay". Complex is something else, Kanban Automotive Revolution, for example, or Zhanguo, just not "Marco Polo".

This "non-complex" game actually runs from straight. Dice, dice and use Goodies (here: Goods and camels and money) receive, move the only character on the playing board or exchange goods and camels against other things (victory points, movements of goods), here called jobs. That's it. This is already the first major point of criticism: What has the game now, what has not another Würfeleinsetzspiel? Where lurks the unexpected, the new?

The Marco Polo lovers may reply that the 10 character cards that always leaves a different course the game with random assignment of the characters. That's right, it will always take another biting in frustration at the edge of the table because his solid character is simply too weak in comparison with the characters of his teammates. In short, the characteristics of the characters are not balanced and there is fast an imbalance, which interferes with the gameplay. This should have recognized the publisher and editors need to emphasize in order to avoid this potential frustration these superfluous character platelets ersatrzlos from the game.

As superfluous in this game is the money. It may be that the authors considered it clever to use money as a regulator, in order to carry dice actions that are already occupied by other players. Then you have to pay namely, as much money as the eyes show the cube to be used. This rule is superfluous as a goiter, as well as the additional function of money (money 3) which can be occupied by any number of dice. By monetary rule, which means that you have to pay if you want to run a by a teammate already assigned action, the game only delays and makes it unnecessarily annoying. How to do it right is the game "Euphoria", which runs round a lot and makes available already used actions even without money. Alternatively, the authors were able to introduce their own dice action tableaux that allow any player to be able to use the key for him actions. The cash requirement in this game acts as a brake or a patch mechanism to without really playful counterpart to offer to complicate a simple game.

The deck of the 31 city maps, of which 9 are placed on the cities of the board, suggesting diversity, yet takes only repeated on the basis of mechanics' turn in the and get the "back. This is not enough when a game long to remain interesting, even if these actions in every game can be in other places. It is the same with the 44 order platelets. We give "it" and get "the". This posturing is us since the "Settlers of Catan" known where a settlement for 4 different goods cards could be built and the city for 2xWeizen and 3x Ore. The redundancy of city maps and order platelets results in a pseudo diversity that inflates the game material without the play value as linear raise.

The 5 rounds that lasts the game is to be able to act to little reasonable. Kingsburg has only 5 rounds, but does Kingsburg all actions for the use of dice Game outset available. "Marco Polo" stingy here, because a lot of the actions put the city (or cards) to come, where the character has to come firstonce. This "need to move the character to the action possibilities" delays the game, bringing to the total gaming experience not seen a game win. It would have made more sense to integrate the action possibilities of city maps in the generally accessible actions (similar Kingsburg) to create and other city bonuses (eg VPs, cube repeats, black dice). Or you would have to increase the playing time by at least 3 laps which the buyer target group would have scared off (instead of 20-25 minutes per player then about 35 minutes = 2 hours at 4 players).

Now what has this game to recommend it to players what is new and fresh and stands out from other games in the genre? Nothing, absolutely nothing. So then is also the biggest disappointment that the publisher Hans its target audience is faithful in luck at "Marco Polo" and missed it, to look over the rim of the lid to spendieren frequent players at least in one version of the game real game complexity. Surely this would have much editorial work requires, the game experts have however it thanked.

For casual gamers who know no other Würfeleinsetzspiel, "Marco Polo" may seem exciting new, but it will be launched at the control range and perhaps you would prefer to resort to the usual, because well-known, "Catan". The high volume players will frown upside down and pick up instead of "Marco Polo" on game night "Euphoria", "Kingsburg" or "Kingsport Festival" off the shelf.

"Marco Polo" is a nice little game, but in the variety of good to high classic games of many international publishers, it now ranges from no more that a game is just "nice", it will not gather dust on the shelves game. I do not like it: From the basic equivalent of a star also the personal opinion.