Archaeology: The New Expedition Review

[@kotieerwee2593]

The format of your reviews is in my opinion currently the best of all the channels on the market. I find myself coming more and more to your channel for an informative review. Thanks for the contribution and keep up the good work.

[@ferver-san]

Hands down best and most professional review format for boardgames.Good Job

[@claymeyer5046]

Agreed! He talks a little too fast, but it's understandable because there's a lot of content!

[@Avelice0]

Your reviews are always the best. I love how organized and professional everything is.

[@boardgameknight2791]

My copy of this game in 2018 has cards that are all the same size. Very good quality components.

[@madifinley7018]

I'm glad I saw this review. I saw several positive reviews and I was disappointed that I missed it while it was in stock. I'm glad I didn't get it now. Best board game reviews on KZbin. Keep it up.

[@TheHorseradish22]

Fantastic review, honest and objective. Keep it up!

[@spongekathotpants]

I can't relate to your complaint about meaningless turns. The player turns are sooo short that even in a 4 or 5 player game after dumping your hand you'll again have enough cards in hand within a minute or two to trade with the market, thieve cards or interact with the Ruin card who's purpose is to mitigate the randomness you complained about. As a quick filler I've played this many times with family and gamer friends with not one complaint and always with requests for immediate subsequent plays. It's not our favorite overall filler but is in regular rotation as one of our preferred fillers. As a light filler there is plenty of room left for table talk and complaints "Pot Shards AGAIN!!" so we aren't overly dependent upon the game for a good time and if the expected randomness of a card game means a player was never in the running then that's okay because we can shuffl'em up for a third 20min game.

[@JonGetsGames]

+Kathryn Dowell It's great you guys have had such a good time with it, many people have reported wanting to play it back to back and I was really hoping to find that experience in the game for me and my group. Unfortunately this didn't end up happening for us. I try to play every game I review at least 3 times, and for this one I got 4 plays in but by that point had trouble convincing my friends to give it another go because they were so uninterested in it.

[@rockthemic12]

All the negatives seem a bit thematic. That is, I imagine much of archaeology is mundane (e.g. just finding pot shards). And the more impressive discoveries have an aspect of luck (e.g. finding a map). I believe Zee Garcia recommends this game specifically for 2 people, which seems like it could mitigate both the negatives a bit. That is, the “boring” turns are at least happening quickly as players ping back and forth. And hopefully with 2 players both players will at least get some of the higher value cards.

[@morroch3857]

I have also experienced the card size issue. As a complete coincidence, I've been learning some fancy shuffling so I've been paying attention to cards more than usual and there's a slight discrepancy with the cut. Having said that, I love the game. I understand completely the issues you mention, but it's been a hit with my family. I do wonder if we'll burn out on it pretty quickly however as it is extremely light. It has been interesting to play with different personalities - I'm extremely conservative with my hand limit whilst my wife and children have a more bullish approach. They lose big, yes, but have also won with some stunning strings of cards. We also had a hilarious game featuring a run of three thief cards chasing after a high value item only for a sandstorm to appear and make everything irrelevant. Funniest boardgaming moment I've had so far. Fortune and glory, I guess. Thanks for the video.

[@davidwayneflowers]

Love your reviews. I've been looking forward to playing this version of the game for a while, but coolstuff hasn't had it in stock in months. My wife and I play the older version of the game a lot. I think 2 players is actually the best player count (at least for the old version). We've played with more and the game really changes. Being able to quickly just go back and forth makes those dull, nothing turns burn quicker than with other player counts. 2 players also mitigates the maps luck issue quite a bit. With 5 players, someone is going to draw 2 maps and that is 1 more than everyone else. That often forces people to sell them to the market and whoever is to the left of that person that decides to sell gets to grab it and cash in (when 2 or 3 are required). If luck pans out for one person, they can collect 3 in the game. That means it is quite likely that some players will get 0 and other players will get 2. Quite a large differential. In a 2 player game, the stats are much more likely that you will be closer in spread, either 3-3 or 2-4. Sure, 6-0 is possible, but doesn't really happen. It also matters when the maps come up so being the 2 in a 2-4 isn't all that bad if you get your two before they get theirs. Regarding the sand storms, in the original version it was actually much more of a threat. There were 8 of them and no tent. In that version of the game it feels that the person that didn't get wiped out by the sandstorm was more of a determining factor of who won than who got the map cards. In fact, the sandstorms in that version are so frequent and frustrating that I often go for the low value cards to cash them out quickly. My wife is the opposite. She likes the high value cards and likes to push her luck. So if the sand storms go her way, it is hard to keep up with the value she can create. If they go my way, I am laughing every time she has to dump a talisman or pharaohs mask to the market. If in this version the sand storms are no big deal, I'd suggest removing the tent option and see if that helps. I'd also suggest giving 2 players a couple of plays. I think it is the best count. If you still don't like the game, let me know and I will be happy to purchase your copy.

[@JonGetsGames]

+David Flowers This is some great insight, thanks David! These are good points about the 2p experience, do you remove several "suites" of artifacts in the 2p game for the original? Unfortunately I offered it up to my group of friends along with 40 or so other games before they went to Auction and one of them grabbed it. He and his wife had the most positive reaction to the game out of anyone I played with, so I hope they get enjoyment out of it where I wasn't able to.

[@davidwayneflowers]

+JonGetsGames The "removed" suites didn't exist in the original cut of the game. The original cut of the game only played 4 players. They added these new suites to better balance the 4 player game and enable the 5 player game. For the 2 player mode, not as much changed. They did some balancing of values between the two versions that I think will help the game, but I haven't played the new version yet so I can't say for sure. Here are the differences between the two versions that I can tell. Card Differences: * 2 fewer pot shards (16 in this version vs 18 in last) * 2 fewer coins (12 in this version vs 14 in last) * Added 12 Broken Tablets (not in last version - added for 4 or 5 player mode only) * Added 5 Broken Pendants (not in last version - added for 5 player mode only) * 2 additional thief cards (10 in this version vs 8 in last) * Added tent cards (not in last version) * Pharaohs' Mask payout (1:4, 2:12, 3:26, 4:50 in last version vs 1:4, 2:15, 3:30, 4:50). A good change in my opinion as in the previous version it was often too costly to hold onto the masks and they were sold to market very often to complete other sets (so you weren't holding these for thieves and sand storms). With the reduction of the thief card count and the increase in value for multiples, holding masks has become more viable. * Broken Cup payout (1:2, 2:15 in last version vs 1:2, 2:12 in new version). A good change in my opinion as well. The 15 payout for the 2 card set was very powerful. This lowers that impact a bit. Still very strong set, but not as OP as the older version of the game. * Talisman payout (1:3, 2:7, 3:14, 4:24, 5:40 in last version vs 1:3, 2:10, 3:20, 4:32, 5:45 in this version). A good change in my opinion as well. Talismans suffered from the same effect as the pharaoh masks. They were hard to justify to hold on to. To much risk, not enough payout unless you well for them all (which everyone would find out very quickly and attack you or the sand storms were devastating). The increased payout here makes these more appealing to actually collect. * Coin payout (1:2, 2:5, 3:10, 4:18, 5:30 in last version vs 1:2, 2:6, 3:12, 4:20, 5:30 in this version). Again, a good change in my opinion. Coins were one set where people typically would cash in if they had them all, otherwise used as a bit more dense way to save up for things like Pharaoh's masks if you only had 2-3. Increasing the payout for the 2-4 sets will encourage more partial set sells, which is sort of the theme of the coins as compared to the "broken *" sets. Game Play Differences: * Added 1 more player (plays 2-5 vs 2-4 for last version) * The number of thieves used in a game changed. In last version it was always 8. In this version it is 2 per player. We always found the thieving to be a bit heavy with 8 so I think this is probably a very reasonable change which can easily be backed out if you want. * The Pyramid numbers have changed. In the last version the small chamber was 1 map for 3 treasures, 2 maps for 5 treasures, and 3 maps for 7 treasures. In this version it is 1 map for 2 treasures, 2 maps for 5 treasures, and 3 maps for 8 treasures. This changes the game play a bit. It increases the "press your luck" feature of the game. Previously the smaller chambers were more advantageous to grab in a maps/treasure ratio. This resulted in the large chamber almost always being taken last and as a result. They often never get taken as one player will hold a map if they know another player needs it for the large chamber. This fixes that issue in that it now makes sense to go for the large chamber when maps are plentiful. It removes that tension of having to hold on to that card though even though it is worth 3 in the market (rather powerful). It is an easy change to back out if you want, but the changes seem reasonable to me. * There was no limitation on the older version of only going to the Pyramid once per turn. A minor change as this would have rarely come up. * Addition of new monuments is interesting. It changes only a small part of the game, but gives a different flavor to each game.

[@davidwayneflowers]

+JonGetsGames It seems my recollection was wrong. There were 8 thieves and 6 sand storms in the original. So same number of Sand storms. Just no tent. So maybe backing out the tent will help the play. maybe not. maybe it will increase the "luck" feeling since it randomly hurts more people than others. Anyway, still a good review. Nice to see an opposing view and have it out there for others that like/dislike different things in games to base their judgement from.

[@stefangestwicki4076]

Kudos on not being swayed by popular opinion. This is one that's definitely still on my radar, though you certainly make good points. As always, I enjoyed your well organized and passionate review. P.S. I got my hands on Isle of Skye (partially based on your recommendation) and boy is that game good. No boring turns in that one.

[@richie3008]

Thanks so much for mentioning the dodgy cards! Thought it was just my copy... People should definitely be aware of it too. Also, I don't usually like being negative but there has been such a positive buzz for this game recently, it was nice to see more grounded review of it that looked at some of its fairly significant issues. I do actually enjoy the game when I'm in the mood for it, but it's far from a perfect card game - great review!

[@jellevancamp7190]

Spot on review, as always. I totally agree and i am amazed you could name two positive points of the game. :)

[@JonGetsGames]

Sometimes it can be abit of work to find some positive or negative points, I do think this one had promise it just didn't come together for me at all.

[@mana_station]

Great review!

[@raccoon0413]

Very well organized review with nice video editing. Insta-subscribing ! The only thing I'd like to mention is that you're moving your hands a bit too much and too fast.... the hands are kinda distracting me lol. Anyway, 'hands down' for the game! ;)

[@JonGetsGames]

+Raccoon You're not the first person to mention this, and honestly theres not much I can do about it. I'm an excitable and energetic person, especially when talking about board games, and this presents itself with various levels of flapping. My sister has been poking fun at me about this for pretty much my whole life actually :P

[@redbloke1964]

+JonGetsGames keep the hands going Jon, it must be some Italian blood that you have , nothing wrong with being passionate and gesturing to complement that! Great reviews! :D

[@JonGetsGames]

+redbloke1964 Haha, well I am 1/4 Sicilian :)

[@guillermoz4914]

I talk with my hands too...great videos!

[@landmarkforum3652]

If you like light, push your luck card games, check out Sea of Clouds. Delivers on its fun and whimsical premise.

[@JonGetsGames]

I actually just bought Sea of Clouds last week and really enjoyed my first play :)

[@Iskreemman]

I would say 2 is actually the best player count and luckily my copy didn't have and production issues. Too bad it fell flat for you but you can't like everything and there's too many great games out there to mess around with one that you're not crazy about.

[@Iskreemman]

*any production issues

[@JonGetsGames]

+Richie Turner Well that is good to hear. Another friend of mine had played it at 2 and didn't recomend it, but it's good to hear that it works well at that count for some people. You would definitely get back to your turn again quicker.

[@Keindzjim]

Is there a hand limit?

[@JonGetsGames]

Honestly I don't remember, sorry.

[@BGBarbarian]

I disagree with your opinion on this one. I think you might have been expecting too much or had a bad day or something. This game isn't supposed to have amazing awesome interesting decisions every turn. It's a quick push your luck set collection card game.

[@JonGetsGames]

+Michael Cross I'm glad that you've had a good time with the game, I got a bit frustrated trying to figure out what was going on with this game that made people online like it so much and us be so bored by it. I love many games that are lighter and quicker than this one, and have tried to hold this one to a similar standard as those. In this end it's just personal preferance I suppose, and sometimes you find yourself at odds with the majority.

[@EfrainRiveraJunior]

People like UNO and Phase 10. Your negatives are positives depending on how you see it.

[@TheMrE]

Hi Jon Perhaps you're taking this game way too seriously? The game is quick and interesting and the fun originates in no small part in the player interaction, not from the gameplay per se.

[@JonGetsGames]

+TheMrE It's of course possible, but I have quite enjoyed many light and quick card games in the past and this one simply missed the mark. Many people have given it high praise so obviously it is possible to have fun with the game, but I found virtually no interesting decisions and unfortunately couldn't find the fun for me.

[@Keindzjim]

In some way it reminds me of Jaipur