I address ARCS negative reviews

[@DJ_Death_Star]

I am an old man. I have played thousands of board games, card games and just games in general in my life. The one thing I take away from all of that experience is that not every game is for everyone. People need to stop expecting that companies make every game for them. Getting mad that a games company makes a game you don’t like is absolutely ludicrous. We have gotten so bad in today’s society that if everything doesn’t go our way and that things aren’t handed to us without work, we cry foul. This needs to stop. People need to try things outside of their comfort zone and keep an open mind. There are certainly games I do not enjoy, but I still play them to make a full table, or because I know my group will play games they don’t like that much because we all want to play them. If you do not want to play a game, then don’t, but if you keep an open mind and try new things, you might just think differently. Great video, and great perspectives.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

Very well said, I have zero to add to that perspective.

[@VexylObby]

And I think we could add to that by saying we should be careful when we cherish our favorite games so much, as to not assume that our favorite game is for everyone too. Me introducing my favorite games to my circles has always had mixed results, so thus reading the room has always been important. To invert that again (to your sentiment), when we look at new games, we should read ourselves and ask if the game is for us or not. If not, that okay! We successfully read the room.

[@enragednerd1884]

The most valid critique is the rulebook. The rulebook is awful and most nuanced things we had questions for were nit covered anywhere in FAQs or forums.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@enragednerd1884 interesting I will have to take a look at the rulebook again. I felt like this game was surprisingly simple to learn. Admittedly I may have used videos to do so.

[@amunt3r]

@DJ_Death_Star Of course. But part of the problem with the current industry is all the hype a new game gets when (i) it looks cool or has really attractive components and (ii) it has a fairly novel mechanic, or one that's applied in a new way. Like 'trick taking' for The Crew or (LOL) Arcs. Often the hype obscures the unfortunate truth that the underlying game (Arcs) is poorly implemented and will ultimately prove frustrating once people twig to how arbitrary and luck-based the game is, with little scope for player strategy to offset it.

[@kimklisiak6421]

I'd love to see videos on you looking at negative comments on some other games you like and giving your counterview. I don't think I've seen anyone do that!

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@kimklisiak6421 thanks for the feedback, yeah I think it might be an Interesting angle.

[@EngMadison]

Board Gems does this on several games. He'll read the 4 ratings.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@EngMadison don’t know who they are I will have to check it out thanks

[@EngMadison]

@Neon_Gorilla reading low ratings like this is a fun premise. I tend to read 4's and 8's (and geekbuddy reviews) when I'm considering a game. 1's and 10's can get weird. But 4 and 8 are nice sweet spots for people who really like or dislike the game, but aren't playing weird games or overhyping it.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@EngMadison I really like that idea, I might have to steal that from you!

[@MarkBlasco]

Part of the issue with game length is that you can't really plan ahead on much, and if you aren't leading, you don't even know what you're going to be able to do until the first card is played. Often you need to pivot multiple times per round based on what the lead card is, which can lead to lots of thinking time on your turn.

[@MarkBlasco]

And by pivot, I don't mean the game turn, I mean change up your strategy based on what is played.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

Totally true…that is why experience in pathing is important. Once you understand that taxing can lead to battling (or anything else at that) and the steps needed to get you there those choices become less daunting…very easy to stare at 6 cards for 5 minutes.

[@MarkBlasco]

@@Neon_Gorilla that's all true, but consider the difference in how many actions you have to take and what the consequences are. If you got a fleet into the right place to attack last chapter, and now you have a red 2, you can seize the initiative and then wreck house. If you don't have any red cards, you need to find a path to get to a weapon planet, which may take several turns, then tax, and then get the initiative, and then play a card to attack. By that point the chapter is nearly over.

[@georgegoldie7007]

​@@MarkBlasco I don't agree with this. You can always do something that works for you in my opinion. It may not be as powerful as your cards suggest, or the ultimate plan you hoped for, but very few players will get to use their cards to their full extent. That's by design. If you are deciding to be aggressive, it's probably because you already have good access to weapons (and/or fuel) and relevant guild cards, so then you aren't as reliant on the cards. Also if you get Administration cards your fleet can still be useful and get you captives and tax. It also stops players building fresh ships

[@HeyImBode]

Interestingly enough, the defender is not just given an advantage via intercepts, but via the logistics of movement. Should a gate block a catapult movement, the attacker is straining their own battle action pips just to get there. Thus mitigating a volley of blue dice before a conclusive blow and immediately allowing the defender an equivalent or greater amount of pips to fire back Combat is certainly not defender favored because of this, but to reveal this dynamic, it takes a pretty holistic view of the action economy AND positioning

[@Neon_Gorilla]

Great articulation of friction I have felt as an attacker and never thought as an advantage for the defender

[@leonpetrich5864]

What I usually see is that attackers move into enemy space when they have the last turn, grab initiative, have the first turn and then have all the pips they want to completely annihilate whatever is in that zone. And that feels really awful because you can't prevent it when you went first and another player might just take initiative immediately.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@leonpetrich5864 that is actually a pretty specific set of cards and or resources needed to pull that sequence of. Then a fair bit of luck to not roll intercepts and take a bunch of damage or luck to roll the much less likely skirmish dice for damage. The fact that this typically happens seems unlucky for you. Now if you left the planet poorly defended and they only have to deal 2-4 damage and intercept damage dealt back to them is low that is a tactical error assuming you cared about losing control. In this instance they only take 1-2 trophies for the warlord ambition which is not particularly hard to overcome.

[@leonpetrich5864]

@@Neon_Gorilla I guess we just had some rare RNG. I played only 1 game and that sequence happened 3 times, one player did it twice and I did it once. Dont get me wrong, I had fun and I will definetly play more but that in particular felt way over the line in terms of volatility. Which is fine if it's really rare.

[@adamhintz5889]

This is chock full of great insight! I think something that I'm realizing is that this is a game that is heavy on tactics (which I define as "what can I do with the game state at this moment") rather than strategy ("what can I plan to do 2, 3, 4 turns from now with good or perfect information"). The genre of space battles / "4X" is, I think, much heavier on the strategy in general, and so I can see how people expecting a strategic space war game would feel frustrated at being unable to enact a long term plan. That being said, I think it can be a lot of fun if expectations are set accordingly :)

[@Neon_Gorilla]

you said it perfect, expectations are key and planning in this game is a bit of a fools errand.

[@Kufunninapuh]

I'm 5-6 games in by now on different player counts and I gotta say I'm not sure about this game yet. I will say this though: We are a group that generally don't choose all out war in games like Inis, Root or 7 Wonders which are games that we've played a lot. I think the main reason is that it can feel a bit personal and we want to stay friends. Just introducing Arcs as an opportunistic, mean game where you have to be flexible made a world of difference. Everyone is in on the fact that stealing is often the best option and we're all here to win which completely changes the feel. The first game we ever played was pretty much spot on 45 minutes per player but each subsequent has been way longer. I expect that curve to flatten out and reverse as we are now quite comfortable with the rules but are still really trying to figure how out how to get good at the game. A huge factor in dragging out play time for us is not so much how to do something but actually figuring out what we want to do. Leaders and lore helps a bit with this but I am really looking forward to the campaign game in that regard. If that wasn't a carrot I'm not so sure I'd keep playing the base game even though the ever changing puzzle has some allure.

[@lorenzoc.5136]

If you are looking for a good mind puzzle, with often-narrow room for manoeuvre, high interaction among players and some luck-driven features, that's what Arcs is. If you are instead searching for a full immersion in a lore, or for a full emotional engagement in a space opera, you might get disappointed. This because the rules at the base of the game system are just abstract mechanical shenanigans that make everything work, but that don't represent/evoke much the setting. While playing, most of the time you will find yourself worried about card suits (or the number/ pips printed on them), rather than being immersed in the game setting. For me, when looking for that kind of experience, the "briscola" card game is more than enough.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

I never was under the impression that this was going to be an oath like high theme experience. It is 4d shell and I like that. For me having any lore.thematic elements stopped away is a plus....I like void fall for this element.

[@stevekingswell9143]

Very thoughtful review, thx

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@stevekingswell9143 thanks Steve

[@johnathanrhoades7751]

I am loving Arcs 😊 But these are very valid criticisms! If you don’t like these things in games you will likely not like Arcs. People have said “just draft the hands” but that would be like drafting hands in poker. I’d very much recommend playing something else that you will already love rather than do something that drastic. (unless you find it’s really fun that way. Who knows. But it’s antithetical to the kind of game this was designed to be)

[@Neon_Gorilla]

yeah, I think there is alot of flexibility build into the system when considering you can surpass, copy or pivot and if you really want the lead you can seize...on top of that you can plan ahead and build/tax in psionic planet for example to give you more action on the lead suit. The only balance problem that might rear its head in games that people struggle to surpass is the disparity between doing 3 and 4 actions as compared to 1 and if they seize that guarantees you will give up the initiative at the end of the round and have at least one less action. The punishment can feel bad. With that said I a going to trust Leder, this has been play tested a ton and to judge balance off of a handful of games seems short sighted.

[@MDJ0983]

You know, this game is a tough one for me. I generally don't like take that games, however the puzzle in this one and the card play sold me on it. I really enjoy it and I'm not good at it, but it 's hard to get folks to play more than once since it can feel so mean. It is strange that when I do get to play, the excitment of what I want to do and accomplish, really diminishes the hard feeling or despair. I really love the tough decisions that have to be made, and the way things can change so quickly.

[@Duaneski]

We played one game. What we were excited for going in: trick taking, quick snappy turns, alternate play styles. What the game experience delivered: Neat action selection system, not very reminiscent of trick taking. Deliberate, strategic turns. Dice chucking dudes on a map gameplay. Emergent game states that left us scrambling. It took about 3 chapters for us to figure out purposeful attacking. Taxing other people's cities became a central goal in chapter 3. Unfortunately one of the players had a real rough game. (3p game). Everything he thought to do got countered by one of the other two players. I'm not sure if he was unlucky, just fell victim to the game state, or something else. Either way, the game was good, but did not deliver on our expectations. We all LOVE trick taking, and felt a big let down at that. The turns weren't snappy. They were head scratching and ponderous (tho we agreed that could get better).

[@Neon_Gorilla]

Yeah I clearly see how those expectations were not going to be met. Thinking of this as a trick taking game will lead disappointment. I too love trick taking but also appreciate the concept being altered to use as a game mechanic for action selection rather than the main gameplay feature. I think you experience is a good synapses of what people can expect.

[@snoopymate25]

Great video! Really enjoyed your thoughts and analysis!

[@Neon_Gorilla]

Thanks Snoop, I watched a bunch of your stuff before I got the game! Thanks for the content!

[@johnathanrhoades7751]

1. Game Length: When I played two handed solo it went about 90 minutes. But I don’t do AP much. If you have AP players it will bloat incredibly. 2. If you don’t like poker/restrictive play/trick taking games/jockeying for turn order/etc. you will not like this. Maybe there are exceptions, but generally not. I love it! But if you don’t like bleu cheese it doesn’t matter how nice the bleu cheese is you won’t like it. And that’s fine, not everyone needs to or should like everything. 3. Uh…yeah. It’s a knife fight in a phone booth. Having played Root or COIN games or Oath or Pax Pamir I have yet to play a conflict light game designed by Cole. This is a bit harsher than some, though, yes. If you don’t like that kind of game you won’t like this and that’s fine! There’s a reason Euros are more popular than war games.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

you got it I like the description of knife fight in a phone booth that is perfect!

[@johnathanrhoades7751]

@@Neon_Gorilla Credit for the phrase goes to the Heavy Cardboard KZbin channel, but yeah.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

shout out Edward! @heavycardboard

[@rain1224]

One of my issues is that move and attack pips scale in value with the size of your fleet (ie. moving 1 space costs 1 pip, whether its 2 ships or 8 ships), which means the value of half the action deck depends heavily on your fleet size. If you didn't produce well, or if you get attacked, you have yet another way of not using your pips efficiently

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@rain1224 hadn’t really crossed my minds since this is the same exact way ROOT movement works. Certainly adds to the efficiency puzzle.

[@Triston_Yocom]

I saw others comment this but this was an awesome video! I hope this was a successful video and other games get a similar one looking at negative reviews and your response to them!

[@Neon_Gorilla]

thank you! I don't know if the success was from it being about ARCS or format but I certainly will try it again.

[@115-Gaming]

Great video! I tried a similar video on my channel but I think yours turned out better! Mine came across as more serious and antagonistic than I intended, but I think you hit the right balance between validating and disagreeing with some of the negative opinions on the game!

[@Neon_Gorilla]

have you continued to play ARCS and has your opinion evolved over time?

[@115-Gaming]

@@Neon_Gorilla for sure! I think I’m around 45 games right now, split between base and campaign games. That was a big reason that drove me to make my video, because I agreed with a lot of the negative takes in my first 10ish games or so. Having had a similar experience with Root (I hated it for a loooong time) I kept pushing through and challenging myself to figure the game out more and after that ten game point or so is when it really clicked for me!

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@115-Gaming yeah that is exactly what I think I am trying to get at, ROOT and ARCS alike aren't easy dopamine, there is no consolation prize. You get what you earn and sometimes the best you can do is compete for second or even better may form an alliance. (which I have seen the other member in my initial alliance win multiple time). I think games like these create stories which I why I enjoy them. I love the euro efficiency puzzle as well but this is not that.

[@YeetMcmaet]

I’ve read the rule book 12 times. I want it so bad lol

[@Neon_Gorilla]

Wow that is impressive! I will say the rulebook did not do it justice. When learning I could not imagine the tension the game would create

[@garyspartan67]

There has only been 1 game in my life that I flat out quit in mid-game...that was my 1 and only play of Galaxy Trucker. Arcs' overall punishing nature reminds me of that. If it were a shorter game (1 hour or less), I think people would be more tolerant of the fact that it can be brutal. But when someone is in it for 2.5 to 3 hours or more, a brutal game can turn itself into a nuisance and new players will be resentful that they wasted their time. And that often leads to hate reviewing a game. This game would only work for a dedicated play group that wants the brutal experience it provides. Not for newbies or casual gamers. If someone tried bringing this to the table and needed a "4th" I would say no thanks and that they could thank me later. And this is on this game's reputation alone. I will never play it because I don't want to ever have that feeling I had of helplessness and brutal chaos that I had when I played GT all those years ago. Thank you for taking the time to go over the negative reviews and provide a well-reasoned perspective here. I think a lot of the bigger review channels are gushing over this game without considering much of what you've described. Subbed. 👍

[@Neon_Gorilla]

Welcome aboard and thanks for giving me a chance. I think the broad question with this game is: Does it interest you (and your group) enough to put in enough time to explore the design sufficiently to learn the ins and outs? If the answer is yes then much of the initial negative expereince related to time and feeling like a bad hand screws your game will fade away quite considerably.

[@foyoGames]

My 1st play of Galaxy Trucker, I also disliked it big time, could have been the teach or who knows. But my 2nd game of Galaxy Trucker ...amazing.

[@玩物喪志-v5w]

This 24 mins video felt like made by someone who loved this game so much who puts out a specific 24 mins defence to the critiques lol. Nothing wrong with it just that when I watch this I felt that way. “Yes there is a lot of take that in the game, but that’s what this game is about!”. You said you are agreeing but it didn’t felt as if you are agreeing. Anyway I haven’t played the game because I basically believe there is no way I can table this game. This is the biggest negative I felt on the game. If you think root is hard game to table and teach, arcs is way harder by a mile. There are not a low proportion of gamers who doesn’t like trick taking games and a lot of people who doesn’t get trick taking fun. Surprised no one on bgg commented this. But for me this is the biggest problem I have on this game.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@玩物喪志-v5w thanks for watching

[@ImaginEric]

There is no way Arcs is a more difficult teach than Root. In Arcs everyone is playing the same game. In Root you have to learn not only the game mechanisms, but you need to learn how every faction operates. It is essentially learning 4 games at the same time (base).

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@ImaginEric I have mostly ignored people saying it is a hard game to teach because I have no idea what their group is like but I agree while it’s not candyland it certainly is not rocket science or even ROOT:)

[@玩物喪志-v5w]

@@ImaginEric Well not fully trying to disagree. but to get roots going you only need to first learn how your own faction works. not the others. You only learn the others after playing a game taking care of your own and when you consider winning =] (I mean sure when you only know about your own faction you also trying to win). For Arcs, I wouldn't even try. perhaps first try explaining how trick taking game works may be a better starting point. It takes time to click what trick taking games trying to do.

[@IslanKleinknecht]

I've been finding it fascinating reading all the mixed responses to this game.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@IslanKleinknecht exactly why I made this video. Pretty incredible how different people can have such a different experience.

[@AlbnS]

​@Neon_Gorilla I personally believe this is the nature of most of Cole Wehrle games I've had the chance to play (Root, Oath) : someone around the table will inevitably have a terrible game. Either from bad decisions, or simply bad luck, it's pretty rare that everyone had a chance at the W. The fact that those games usually last for 3hrs makes this even worse, but it is something I'm preparing myself beforehand. It's a bit weird since they're so competitive, but I'm trying to play for the experience, not for the win😅 0:01

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@AlbnS I have had a blast losing root

[@BeefyChud]

I tried Brian Boru and didn’t care for it. I tend to like dudes-on-a-map, and i tend to like trick taking, but I felt the tactical nature of trick taking obscured the tactics of area control. It’s like why do I want to play a tactical game so that I can then play a different tactical game? Maybe I’ll like arcs, but i don’t have high hopes that it will be for me.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

I haven’t played BB but think I may like it. This certainly has what you described not liking. It adds what some might deem as unnecessary friction on top of a dudes on the map games. For those who like say a complicated multi layer Lacerdaesque puzzle and also happen to like dudes on a map this might be the game for them.

[@txsportsfreak02]

People should not play this game if they don't like conflict. If you don't like worker placement don't play architects of the west kingdom. If you don't like push your luck games then don't play ra. All 3 of these games are great, but they are not for everyone.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

this does seem to be a good prerequisite

[@COOPFORTWO]

Very helpful video, thank you. Good to confirm this game isn't really for me. -jesse

[@Neon_Gorilla]

Appreciate you watching!

[@fenirob]

Cool video. I can't believe I haven't seen your channel before. SUB commenced.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

Welcome aboard!

[@ViscountCharles]

You’re suggesting that other reviewers only played the game 6-12 times before publishing their thoughts??? I suspect that you are being WAY too generous. Many of the "big name" reviewers have fully embraced the churn of new titles, and are only playing each one around three times (once to learn, once to 0ay, and once more to prepare for their "review"). As for BGG ratings, we have even LESS quality control.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

I can't speak for them but I am sure that is true for some...the incentive system is set up to put out as much as fast as possible...This is the inherent flaw of having publishers fund this work rather than the audience...

[@nitrorev]

A lot of the negative reviews seem to be fixated on the same "critiques" of lots of non-euro games. Euro gamers seem to have an aversion to any kind of randomness in games and see it as a negative. What dice provide is uncertainty that requires risk-management and mitigation, which may or may not be for you. Random hands might not be balanced but managing the imbalances and adapting to the novelty of your situation is part of the challenge. If you were given the same hand every time to ensure balance, you would probably end up pursuing the same strategy game after game. A negative review of the latest Marvel movie from a critic who already didn't like superhero movies isn't going to be meaningful to a viewer who comes from a different perspective. I don't bother reviewing games I don't like because the target audience is people who like very different games from me.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@nitrorev i do think the skill gap in that “luck mitigation” is the under estimated leading to misaligned expectations on what can be accomplished. I think in root it’s hard to blame the roll of the battle dice and card draw as they are not central to making the faction work. When you get smashed it is easy to chalk it up to not knowing how to play the faction. With the lack of asymmetry and seeing other people destroy you using the same rule set it is really easy to blame the core provider of actions in the cards. High skill gap deep and investment to understanding meta elements is not for everyone. Many just don’t understand the game enough to know that is what they are disliking and blaming it on the low hanging fruit which is any element that has perceived luck. Thanks for your take btw!

[@nitrorev]

@@Neon_Gorilla Hard agree with everything you just said. So many games these days are designed with the mindset of "we have to make a positive impression in the very first play through so keep the players on-rails and minimize any punishing elements". These types of games are optimized for game reviewers who don't really have the time to invest dozens of plays into a game because they need to constantly move onto the next thing. While those games can still be good, they lack the kind of stakes and teeth that make more sandbox-type games exciting and replayable. Ambitious games like Root and Arcs are optimized for the long term by giving the players lots of freedom and consequences for their actions. The trade-off is that you might turn some people off but the end result (in my opinion) is a better game that will stand the test of time because it DEMANDS replaying over and over.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@nitrorev I love “optimized for long term” any game easy groked might give me immediate dopamine fix but I am done with it in 4 plays. I love getting my ass kicked and the struggle to learn how to win over time. We are aligned

[@MarkBlasco]

I am one of the people who doesn't enjoy the game. Honestly, drafting the cards at the start of each round would probably fix the game for me, since it would remove a lot of the luck of the draw. I'm not saying the game is bad, I think it accomplishes what it attempts to do, but it falls flat for me.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

How many plays have you gotten in?

[@MarkBlasco]

@@Neon_Gorilla only a few, so I'm definitely not an expert. But in all of the games I've played, I've seen someone (or been the person) who drew a great hand of cards that let me do what I was all set up to do. I've also drawn hands of cards that all focused on things I was not ready to focus on. Again, I'm not saying that the game is inherently bad, but the number of hoops you have to jump through to be successful feels more like work than fun.

[@larsliebrand2274]

What, in your opinion, makes a great hand?

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@larsliebrand2274 this is a good question as the value of my hand changes every single time another player leads with a particular card that I may be able to surpass or its value changes as other players make moves on the board that effect what my actions should be. It’s like a hand can only be judged in retrospect of what happened during the chapter and could you utilize it to further your interests.

[@MarkBlasco]

@@larsliebrand2274 the cards that let you do what you've been setting up to do. If you have tons of people on the row of cards, you want to be able to grab those. If you have ships in position, you want to be able to attack. If your fleet is destroyed, you want to be able to build back up. In games like Root, even if you can't always have a big turn, you still get to choose what you do on your turn. In Arcs, I found that half of the game I was not doing what I wanted to do effectively, and had no real option to change that. And I get it, that's what the game is, but it felt more frustrating than fun. For everyone else who thinks the game is amazing, I'm glad for you to have something you love. I personally will never have any desire to add it to my collection.

[@LutinesqueLutin]

This game isn't for me. I dislike the agressive confrontations.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@LutinesqueLutin yep look the other way for sure :)

[@ackbooh9032]

This feels like a game where it is paramount to (1) frame players expectations (conflict, zero-sum feeling, trick prevalence and trick tactics, mitigate randomness), (2) enjoy and master trick thinking and card counting, and (3) understand the game gets better with a good understanding of the mechanics and the detailed contexts (or worse if you dislike the core aspects)

[@Neon_Gorilla]

#1 is alot of games but certainly could be applied here. I will say court cards and not being able to declare any ambition you want makes people stray from a particular play style. #2 card counting is an aspect that can help...trick taking mentality is less and more of a min max decision on what card you need to lead with in order to declare the ambition or maximize the actions. #3 I don't know if the game gets better but easier to play with you can see the forest through the trees. Many mistake thier ignorance to all the interconnecting aspects with "the game wont let me do what I want". This is sort of true but there are ways to adjust strategy and still move forward in the game.

[@ackbooh9032]

​@@Neon_Gorilla Thanks for the detailed feedback on each of the lines! I haven't played Arcs yet to be clear, and I'm trying to see if it is a good one to buy and invest time in, and manage expectations (also thinking about my play group). Your review and answers here are extra helpful since you don't sugarcoat, and you make it clear that it is a good game in its genre (and given that characterizing a game like Arcs isn't so easy!)

[@Bigjeffro]

Thank you for taking the time to go over how the card play works. I now know that I would not enjoy this game. When I saw the game mentioned trick taking, I was really bummed, seeing as Root and Ahoy are two of my favorite games. I have played too many games where you get stuck with next to no actions while others are rushing further ahead. Even if you are winning, at least one or two people are having an awful experience.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@Bigjeffro glad I could help!

[@Osborne4Life]

Oath is my favorite game of all time, so for me to say I was disappointed after my few plays of Arcs is quite the slap in the face. I get that Arcs is more tactical-more of a gamer’s game-than Oath is, but even with Root, I found some joy in the interactions and world building I was doing, which Oath absolutely excels at. But with Arcs… it just felt like a regular board game. Not terrible, but not amazing.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

Interesting take I haven’t heard “regular” with arcs before. I can’t think of anything like it but I do know everyone’s take is associated with their past experiences and none of our is the same.

[@calebgoodman8955]

I think the blighted reach expansion might be what you’re looking for. It seems to add a lot of that wobbliness that root and oath are known for. While base game was intended to give a more basic experience you can whip out at any table.

[@joshschneider8894]

Thank you for helping me find out this game is not for me. I'll choose a game that delivers a good experience to the people at my table every time. I can't ask my friends to endure 15 hours of commitment to one game for it to get good, when there are so many consistently good interactive experiences out there. Getting to see both sides weighed well is helping me to pass on the hype train. Thanks

[@Neon_Gorilla]

It's important to know what you want out of a game and the experience you want to give to your friends. Thanks for watching

[@mattjenkinscomic]

Love the game. Nightmare to teach. Two of my friends got migraines while learning it lol. First couple chapters I learned to not even teach prelude actions or read any cards in the court. Explain the influence/secure action but tell them to not even bother reading them. At least for the first game.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

that is essentially what we ended up doing is using the court for captive fodder and that is about it, I introduced prelude action mid game as a "by the way". That seemed to do well. I think some people who understand hand management principles of a trick taking game will pick it up a bit fast as that seems to be a big hang up in turn speed and one less thing to have to think about.

[@kroomiester]

I’ve played arcs 3 times. One time at each player count. I have many of the same criticisms as the people who have reviewed it negatively. My primary issue with the game was the warped political environment based on the warlord ambition. The issue with warlord is in a 3-4 player game, you don’t want to fight the player you’re primarily competing against for the ambition because it’s more than likely you’ll give them trophies in the process. This leads to the other player or players being targeted specifically because they are not in the lead. In my opinion, take that games should encourage players to directly interact with the current leader, not passively interact with them by pushing those behind further down. I didn’t mind it at 2p, but I prefer other 2p war games and euro games over it

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@kroomiester fair, if i am understanding you correctly and were in that position though I would form a temporary alliance to neutralize the leader. This often happens in my games. Similar dynamic to root. I think the beauty of this game is it very much takes on a different personality base upon players experience in games like this and playing styles.

[@kroomiester]

@@Neon_Gorilla I don’t think you understand the situation I’m describing: If I have 3 trophies, and another player has 3 trophies, and the third player has 0 trophies, it does not make sense for either of the players ahead to fight each other, but rather to see how much each of us can loot from the third. If we attacked each other there’s a possibility for a negative outcome, whereas if we fight the third player the worst outcome is neutral

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@kroomiester hmmm, I might have to think about that a bit. I seem to recall when I go into battle there is a high likeliness of me taking more trophies than I give up. It also depends in the dice you choose. Rolling skirmish for example would have you give up zero with possibility of taking trophies correct? I think risk as actually defined by the number of ships they have defending when you are intercepted. I could be missing something though, I am a visual learner :)

[@TpDgreat]

now hes trying to lecture you how to play the game omg this dude,,he doesnt understand the negative comments, hes just trying to defend nothing,,idk why he needs to do it but here we are,, when he read those comment about the trick taking mechanic criticism he tried to tell us a deep explanation like the trick taking is a deep mechanic, its a trick taking mechanic its not that deep jeez and a bad hand is a bad hand. dont tell "it depends" pls its not that deep again its a trick taking mechanic if they didnt how it was implemented on this game then they dont like it. now if i roll a bad roll and im sure its a bad roll i guess hes just gonna say well its depends? XD

[@christagregg9363]

This was helpful!

[@Neon_Gorilla]

glad you found it helpful.

[@nikosmessis]

My biggest problem with the game is that red and orange suit colors are pretty similar. My second biggest problem with the game is that the sections are not called arcs. 😛

[@Neon_Gorilla]

I think if those are your biggest issues that is a good sign I suppose

[@nikosmessis]

@@Neon_Gorilla Yep, very good sign. I have been enjoying it a lot but time will tell

[@Toadbabe]

Great job collecting, categorizing and discussing the negative reviews. I was intrigued when a reviewer stated you could get an epic space story in a much shorter amount of time than a lot of bigger box games. However, the rest of that review and others gave red flags for my group. Your video crystallized that the “take that nature,” the belief that we will never overcome the frustration of the card mechanic and the investment required to fully get the game make this game a pass. Thanks and happy gaming!!! BTW, I don’t like the art, but art is not a deal breaker for me.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

The only caveat I would add is the campaign is probably what they were referring to and it being only 3 games long. I have not played it but I do think it changes things up quite considerably. This is next on my list to explore.

[@Toadbabe]

@@Neon_Gorilla Possibly, but I think the only campaign review I saw scared me off on how each person receives a Fate (and potentially a new Fate in subsequent acts) that’s includes changes to the rules. It becomes extremely messy and you are only able to handle it if you’ve done the investment you mentioned and keep track of everything in the game. Anyway, I still look forward to your review of the campaign.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

yeah I am interested in how convoluted it gets

[@silverfang6668]

I can always tell when a game is going to be good by the excessive hate/antihype threads being posted.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

This one is particularly polarizing…must mean best Game of all time? ;)

[@smoogums89]

I think trick taking as a mechanic is generally only associated with lighter games. I can't think of a single trick taking game that takes more than 30 minutes. My personal favorites are the Crew and For Northwood. I really really dislike the idea of a longer game having trick taking as a major mechanic because of the RNG associated with it. If I do poorly in a game of Brass I can't just blame my card luck because there's so much space to plan around it and I'm not losing much action economy taking a turn to get a wild. Losing actions or having to mitigate often would put a really bad taste in my mouth especially if I'm playing a longer game that isn't a quick reset.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@smoogums89 I think brass is actually an apt comparison I would have to crunch the numbers on odds but it does a very similar thing by giving specific city cards and resource cards as a mitigation to the luck of the draw. I have had a very similar feelings albeit less often when I can’t build the beer I need to sell and realize those potential points. It is full of potential points that need an extra step to be achieved and each hand needs to be planned out but those plans can be dashed if another player blocks you path or builds the resource you were planning on….wow a lot of similarities now that I think about it…your point is taken though. Everyone has a different tolerance for luck in games. Some may draw the line at Brass while others might venture out to something like ARCS. I will say there are more paths to problem solution than in brass. Once you are blocked in brass there is no undoing.

[@Crumplebutt]

That's part of the game though. Taking a bad situation and figuring out a solution. It may appear to be hopeless but if you watch what the table is doing and think about it you can usually squeeze out a solution. And that is satisfying.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@Crumplebutt some will never spend enough time to find this joy unfortunately…

[@orbesteanu4tsa]

This is a mit - "having a bad hand" - you can pivot your strategy even without getting any aggression cards and still win. A good player sees many opportunities with the hand they are being dealt, and its almost impossible to not get the initiative at least once in 1-2 Chapter of gameplay...

[@Neon_Gorilla]

Agreed

[@oerthling]

IMHO the "bad hand" thing is just a matter of perspective. First: Everybody has a "bad hand". There are no inherently better cards. It's situational and number of action pips is reverse order to initiative strength. But mainly, the trick is not to look at your hand and sum up action pips. That only leads to consistent frustration, because you'll never get all and usually not even most of those actions. Look at the hand as 1 action each. And then be happy about the exceptions that result in more than 1. Paying a card to seize initiative is costly. But the upside needs to be considered. You grab initiative at a crucial point, getting extra actions and be the one who can set another ambition in your favor. Seizing initiative comes at a price, but is often worth it.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

you make a great point in not looking at your hand as a sum of potential actions. I think a new player can get hung up on this as a misguided expectation.

[@michelecarbone2896]

Wait I though having a 7 in hand would be better than having a 2!

[@oerthling]

@@michelecarbone2896 It depends. 7 is great for getting initiative and freedom of choice when it comes ambitions. But bad for action pips.

[@naturesfinest2408]

Having a "bad hand" means that others, usually, have a "bad hand" as well. If you get all administrative cards, go crazy on the taxing, take items, you may lose the initiative but you know they will have to do it with a seize becauae they wont have one higher than yours.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@naturesfinest2408 this is a very solid point I had not thought of!

[@benhorner9801]

I usually lean towards co-op games, and really don’t get on with heavy Euro style. Arcs has been one of my favourite games that I’ve played in long time. I enjoyed the player interaction, I really like that you have to make the best of difficult situations. I think my favourite element is that every action has a consequence and you have to weight up the risk benefit.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@benhorner9801 I think you hit it on the head in make the best of a difficult situation…I think in order to enjoy this game you have to enjoy just that

[@manolios]

This hand thing can be solved veeery easily with a drafting a card or two at the beginning of a chapter , when all players draw their full hand. Typical mitigation mechanism for trick taking games.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@manolios I’m interested in which truck takers have you draft? A major feature of trick taking is you don’t know what’s in somebodies hand so open drafting would lead to less interesting card play imo.

[@manolios]

@@Neon_Gorilla Not a huge open draft. Just one card, to mitigate for a samey or very low hand.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@manolios I have heard this a few time and am skeptical but interested. I see a problem in open information is a killer in trick taking, especially if it is the thing in which you really want to do the other player now has an idea on what you want to accomplish let alone the card number they can lead with and you can't beat. I also think it will be marginally useful in fixing "bad" hands. The card you really need has to be there by the time you choose so turn order will be highly impactful. I am sure some have house ruled this though, interested to hear how it worked out.

[@hidingindanielsroom7268]

"This is the type of game that really needs a lots of plays to appreciate" - you say. Than probably it is just a badly designed game. I'm a simply man and play something I enjoy from the beginning. 😉 But from the 2nd play at most.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

Equating design quality with number of plays needed to appreciate is certainly a fallacy. This is mostly because everyone's ability to learn is different. I remember I had to work so much harder than other kids to understand geometry proofs. In fact I had to go to summer school to do so. Part of it was my learning style and the other was the desire to put in the work to learn them was not there until I had to go to summer school. Geometry did not gel with me which is why I never pursued it at a higher level. I would not question its worth though because it was tough for me to grasp. It's ok that you want to like things immediately but your preference has no weight on the quality of design. No offense...the only statement you can make if you can only get through 2 plays is it's not the game for you.

[@hidingindanielsroom7268]

@@Neon_Gorilla I feel some passion. 😄I'm just saying people usually don't sit down for a 3rd play if they were frustrated in the first two.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@hidingindanielsroom7268 I do

[@dcrbdh]

This was a good video. I’ve seen other “react to criticism” videos that boiled down to “your negative opinion is invalid”. There are individuals in the Leder games community that are surprisingly invalidating and they try to silence dissonant voices. I expected the same based on the thumbnail. This was a good discussion. I enjoy Arcs, but I don’t love the attitude of some from the community.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

Thank you this is actually the best praise I could hope for from this video….i am a huge believer in respect of others opinions as they are all formed from different game experience basis. I simply wanted to say #1 this genre might not be for you and that should be apparent in a 10 min over view of the game. #2 it might take a few plays and understanding of the systems to really know if this flavor of take that game is for you. Thank you for watching and commenting!

[@Bob_Co]

Thumbnail was hilarious. Having a handle like wngspn4lf reveals one lacks the depth for any useful criticism. 😂 But really, I love reading the 1&2 score comments on games in general. Most are pretty funny, and nearly all are dismissible.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@Bob_Co glad you appreciated that, the comment is real but unfortunately I made up the user name to protect their identity :)

[@AllinWhenPlaying]

This game is a victim of TLDR popultion. This game is way, way more complex than it seems on the surface, revealing new depths each time you get better at it. Trick taking is a massive influence on the game, but you need to go through 7 stags of grief to acknowledge this. There's at least 3 moment of "OOH I GET IT NOW" at least - and this is only if you're already very good at standard cards based trick taking games. So, what is happening, people are getting to first, second or any other milestones - and say "ok I know what it is". And at that time, it is true for them, but not true in general. This game takes a long time to fully understand, and that may not be for everyone. Someone plays with a more experienced player or doesn't get involved enough to see the detail - and then they post "worst experience ever" experience.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

Agree. It all comes down to if the initial impression is compelling enough to inspire long term exploration of this design. I actually don’t think it is particularly complex. I think the Dynamic game state and knowing how to pivot to new goals and mitigate damage when doing so is the hard and fun part. I think many get caught up in this binary good hand bad hand idea and aren’t inspired to find out how to manage a “bad” hand. Which I think that is a good indication that the game is not for you. It certainly doesn’t make it a bad design just that the design did not inspire them to explore further and find out ways to push past a “bad” hand of which there are plenty.

[@AllinWhenPlaying]

@@Neon_Gorilla Spot on! In retrospect, I should rather say nuanced, than complex.

[@christhecontemplator6606]

The name of the game is Arcs, not straight line. Adaptation is key

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@christhecontemplator6606 lol I had to read this a few times..clever

[@pierreclaverie3884]

The aesthetic is amazing but tbh it is very bad for colour blind people.Just saying

[@puremarbib]

Just got Arcs and i absolutely love it. Definitely going into one of my favorite games of all time I was looking into some reviews by curiosity to see what others think about it and, damn, was i surprised that the game is so polarizing. This really made me realize how large the board game community is! The fact that this game is constant conflict is what i find the most appealing in this game! You are constantly interacting with others on the table, table talk is a HUGE factor, you can never stop paying attention. This is what makes this game so amazing, its not just a race to who makes the most points like most other games, even after the game we kept talking about it, and the errprs we all made.

[@CalebvanderLeek]

Is it worth giving credit to 115Gaming who had this exact same idea for a video 3 weeks ago? Not ruling out the possibility that you came to the same idea independently, but if he was an inspiration give him a shout! kzbin.info/www/bejne/hXOpnaesnq9jl8U

[@Neon_Gorilla]

I have never heard of 115 games.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@CalebvanderLeek I just took a look at it and while premise is similar just like all reviews are similar in nature we are doing different things. He is reading through specific reviews. I aggregated and addressed global critiques. As a rule, i tend to watch very little (maybe a how to play) content on games I am reviewing to avoid bias. This video was actually inspired by a video game video I watched where someone was reacting to reviews on steam.

[@CalebvanderLeek]

@@Neon_Gorilla thanks for your detailed response! That makes a lot of sense, just wanted to make sure as I was surprised to see what seemed to me a similar video. But I agree the premise is slightly different and I think your execution is cleaner and more helpful (with some nice animations to boot!) Love you videos, thanks!

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@CalebvanderLeek thanks Caleb appreciate the kind words.

[@115-Gaming]

Haha, this kind of video idea is by no means an original idea of mine. No need to give me credit for a pretty popular video format!

[@chrisedwards6573]

No. I listened to your video and it comes down to "This game is mostly luck and you need to accept that, and there's these potential mitigations." but those don't actually happen as often as expected. Player elimination is a very real problem. The game is much longer even with experienced players as long as they're really considering their turns and not just rushing through speed-chess style. And absolutely the game is almost entirely governed by luck; what hand you draw, what cards come out in the court, and what the dice do. You can play your game perfectly and lose because luck doesn't favor you. Leaders and Lore exasperate this. You really just ignore the criticisms. That's okay if you enjoy this, but it's not balanced because of the overreliance on luck and 'table meta' which is a BS concept. Depending on players to keeping players with better luck in check doesn't work. I kickstarted this; it was a better game in it's earlier iterations. A lot of what comes down to luck now WAS mitigated with good decision making and pivoting strategy then. The revision just made the game bad. Not worse, but bad. If you enjoy it, fine. To me, it's a $200 mistake I'll never make again.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

Wowsa I sense some passion here…I think the beautiful thing is you are welcome to your opinion and I leave plenty of leeway for that is this video..I would recommend using real quotes if your are going to quote me though…it is intellectually dishonest otherwise. Leder games is not the place for you if you don’t appreciate the game slapping you in the face. I would suggest perfect information low interaction euros. I think the good news for you is this is likely to sell out and resell will be high so not quite as an expensive mistake.

[@fumanchu7]

I don’t think this is a purely luck based game. Cole Wehrle games rarely allow for turn optimization based on a perfect information environment, and often include direct player confrontation. His games are sneakily closer to traditional wargames than traditional euro games. Having played Arcs multiple times, I think the game asks its players to navigate turns with bad options a lot more often than letting a player optimize a turn with good options. It forces the player to struggle, which will put off a lot of players to the game. I’m a player that loves the struggle part of game. It’s why I love Terraforming Mars without the expansions. I find the early part of the game struggling to build any engine the most fun. The expansions start with the players already having the beginning of an engine. For most it makes the game more fun skipping past the slower early turns. That’s exactly where I find the most fun thought, putting me in the minority if boardgame players.

[@michelecarbone2896]

I love when people try to reason you into liking something you don't.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

I think I give leeway and reasons why it’s not for many…I love when somebody makes a comment that is not intellectually honest.

[@michelecarbone2896]

​@Neon_Gorilla I find your video fair and helpful and equally unnecessary. These one sided gamexplains are not my favourite format that's all, it's one sided.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@michelecarbone2896 then don’t watch…

[@LiterallyUnplayable]

@@michelecarbone2896your comment about it being “unnecessary” isn’t the same as “I love when people try to reason you into liking something you don’t.” You’re deflecting and committing a fallacy. He is clearly not trying to convince you into liking the game and mentions many many times that it’s not a game for everyone. It’s more like he’s reaffirming those who do like it that just because others don’t, shouldn’t deter you from keeping at it.

[@christophe08111981]

I think the hype is justified. Trick-taking is, despite having stood the test of time, not that prevalent in modern boardgames, and I think even non-existent when we talk about higher complexity or area control games. Innovations are very cautious, with The Crew and the Fox in the Forest coming out of nowhere. So no thing questioning the hype. That being said, I personally are not big on trick-tacking and rather play other mechanisms, but I can absolutely not only aknowledge the hype, but also say that this is a great game for the sole reason that I am willing to play the campaign next, even if I'm not fond of the core mechanic :D

[@Neon_Gorilla]

it is becoming clear that the brilliance of the game depends on the player and their personality. That is different than people that say it is broken and/or unfair..those people don't the desire to explore the design and understand the tricks and strategies that can be employed. I think more than almost any game I have played this is a love or hate for people. There are some but not too many are in the middle on this thing.

[@2532robh1]

BGG always has some annoying negative reviews and low ratings on some absolutely amazing games.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

I found one that I think was deleted but said game is actually a 4 but am giving it a 1 to balance the fake 10s lol

[@Redskies453]

People feel they need to balance other players excitement with an equal amount of negativity. I feel like all the problems in this video would have become apparent on watching any half decent review. Like you weren't aware that you needed good cards to play more actions? It's the core mechanic.

[@user-cw4zj6kc8u]

If you have all your cities built and score all three ambitions when flipped to orange you can straight up have 0 power and then win the game with 34 power. You are never out of the game if you play your cards and resources right.

[@Nychuus]

I like how the aggregate complaints about this game are what makes me like this game.

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@Nychuus I think that is totally true for me as well. To each is own…

[@foyoGames]

I gotta play this game

[@Neon_Gorilla]

it is worth a try for sure

[@jamesconnolly849]

AI cringe

[@Neon_Gorilla]

🖐

[@jamesconnolly849]

@ god forbid you do your own research

[@Neon_Gorilla]

@@jamesconnolly849 ur silly