Santa Maria Review - JonGetsGames

Here is my Santa Maria board game review. Look below to skip to each section of the video:
Positive Review Points - 14:19
Neutral Review Points - 19:54
Negative Review Points - 24:40
Variability - 27:25
Player Count - 28:42
Conclusion - 29:45
Support me on Patreon! / jongetsgames
Support me through PayPal: www.paypal.me/...
Follow me on Twitter! / jongetsgames
Subscribe to my GeekList! bit.ly/JGG-Geek...
Like my Facebook page! / jongetsgames

[@TyvanTV]

6 years later and I still can't find this game. Reprint already!

[@TyvanTV]

6 years later and still no reprint =(

[@nigelgraves174]

Regarding the -2 points for the Bishop tiles: isn't that to stop players who have no intention of completing those objectives from blocking others? As it costs money to place a Monk where someone else has already placed one, I guess it discourages blocking for the sake of blocking.

[@JonGetsGames]

Ooo this is a good point. I've discussed it with others but this line of thinking never came up. I still think it feels a bit clunky, but perhaps this was an issue the designer spotted and wanted to try and tighten up. Thanks for the input.

[@bushibayushi]

But this should be handled differently - you should get a -2 penalty only if you don't complete the objective. This would prevent players from blocking only for the sake of bloking. Right now you get -2 whether or not you complete an objective (just for the presence of your monk tile there), which is weird.

[@Nain1982]

I agree with this assessment.

[@kosterix123]

The -2 is a bit harsh.

[@draydyoc857]

In regards to the variant where all the blue dice are at the bottom of the gameboard with the white dice.Does esch player have to limit themselves when using blue dice in correspondence with the track that awards extra blue dice.For example,other players have gotten farther than me on that track.I have only been awarded one extra.In this variant does that mean I only get two blue per round until I progress farther on that track,or do I get to keep choosing them using however many I can beflre they are all taken?

[@JonGetsGames]

Unfortunately it's been too long since I played (or owned) this game to be able to answer your questions.

[@dddmmm21]

Man, this game is excellent but it has one of the worst graphic designs I've ever seen... I swear the whole game was designed using PowerPoint at best... Those creepy smile faces still hunt me in my dreams!!!

[@Dough_Dough4]

Same case with Terraforming Mars. Great game - Ugly art

[@iamspamus8784]

Great game. I forgot about it. I have only played once, but it was really fun. As usual, very good video explanation.

[@ryanrose8712]

Obviously the game is longer with 4 but it isn’t a long game to begin with. I think it plays well with all player counts. Regarding replay ability I think this generally comes from how the dice available interact with your board layout. This will be different every time

[@boardgameknight2791]

Thanks for being brave enough to talk about the theme in this game, Jon. Most reviewers skip over this critique cause you get a bunch of people responding calling you a whiny liberal. Your point about the theme being presented poorly is a complex one and you articulated it well. I hope others don't just get pissed off and think you're telling them they're bad people for liking the game. Cause, I think that's gonna be the predictable response, unfortunately. Its contrast of a lighthearted take on a terrible part of California's history (and I'm assuming it's about the colonization of Santa Maria, where I'm from in central Ca.) is weird. Not saying it's wrong, or that it shouldn't have been made, or that people shouldn't play it, it's just weird. We learn in school about what actually happened in Santa Maria and other towns along the mission trail - pretty terrible stuff. So, I'm ok playing a game about it, but I feel kinda crappy playing one that comes across as so ignorant, if it is ignorant, which it may not be. I'll still play it though despite. Ostby's designs are so so good. But my native friends probably won't feel good playing it, so I will have to be thoughtful about bringing it out. Although, there is the chance this is all an ironic statement, in which case its kind of a brilliant piece of art. It HAS generated a good amount of discussion on the subject...

[@JonGetsGames]

Thanks for your comments here. There have been a few very long threads on BGG about this too and the designers said they were intentionally trying to juxtaposition the strangely happy art on such an ugly theme in order to highlight the issues. Unfortunately for most I think it just came off as off putting.

[@boardgameknight2791]

@@JonGetsGames I saw those threads too. Funny how our feelings about a piece of art change when we get access to the artist's intentions. "No, no, everyone, we aren't being ignorant, we're being ironic". It has definitely gotten a discussion going, and I think that's pretty neat.

[@joshuaanderson7405]

With regard to the ‘lighthearted’ approach to the underlying theme, I can’t help but wonder if it is an overt jest aimed at us (the board game community in general) as we have so often consumed what are perhaps insensitive themes in the name of entertainment. We clamor for thematic relevance in our games... which is often ironic in the extreme. Happiness points being derived from things as grotesque as a conquistador track could only be ironical I think, or so I choose to believe anyway.

[@boardgameknight2791]

wow, Joshua. If you're right, then this game is BRILLIANT! I really hope you're right about this.

[@Brian-qe2fx]

You could not be so f'in sensitive. My god.

[@XD-rd8zd]

The theme is awful - not only because if about cruel stuff, but also because it makes you ignore the good stuff that happened in cruel era - like missionaries demanding to treat natives as human beings (btw, how many people know that while the terrains of today's USA was colonised, the Pope was demanding to treat native Americans as full righted brothers? Or later - that cloisters was collecting money to buy out slaves to freedom?). The behavior of game designers is STRANGE, but SO IS our ignorance, no?

[@stevenbonham7136]

2 player and solo are fun!

[@dddmmm21]

I am really not bothered by Colonization themes, I think it is a perfectly fine historical theme for a game. And I don't think embedding the gaming world with pc culture will do us any good... But while I dont find the choice of theme insensitive or anything like that, I simply find its implementation very poor... It is all clearly pasted on... The name of the game (Columbus ship?), the tracks, the ultra creepy smile faces... it is just an ultra poor design... But I still love this game, which shows it is mechanics are really a winner... what an oddball...

[@dddmmm21]

OSCAR MIGUEL CERNA LOLI - As a latin American myself, I am not offended... Feel free to feel offended yourself, but remember you don't speak on behalf of anyone else but yourself... And remember you can always choose NOT to buy the game...

[@raymyers700]

Well said. It becomes annoying that it even has to be mentioned with the assumption that I cannot assess such matters myself. I'm finding this is a more a generational thing to tell people that they are wrong and that it's ok that they don't know they are wrong and then follow that with a prediction of your response to that. The game is amazing mechanically and that's all that matters to me :)

[@ErikHungerbuhler]

Thanks for the review. I especially appreciate you calling out the theme as being problematic. It is a fun game mechanically, but the whole time I played it, I was a little put off by what I was doing.

[@benlauson555]

I love the theme. Very happy colonization happened! Many prosperous countries now exist because of it.

[@legolasegb]

It wasn't genocide. I think a little self-awareness would be good here. You didn't complain about terraforming in Gaia Project and the amount of damage that would do to indigenous life forms (rational or otherwise). If you want to delve into the horrors, of board gaming, the list is endless. Colonization isn't simply bad, and neither is conversion. Neither is terraforming. You just assume that your people are colonizing or whatever in a way that respects any native cultures/life that happen to dwell there. When I roll into Germany with my Russian foot soldiers, I'm not obliged to condone the horrific rapes that happened at the end of WWII. I simply won Axis and Allies.

[@mattlowder]

legolasegb gtfo

[@legolasegb]

Sry, mate, did I start to melt you? JGG also reviewed Heaven & Ale. He didn't feel the need to say anything about the hundreds of children who have been killed by drunk drivers. Just because a game is about alcoholic beverages, doesn't mean that it somehow condones everything bad that people have done with it.

[@EaTuaVez]

very bad explanation off a big game, i think you have other good explanations, but this was very bad

[@AxemJinx]

I think Negative #1 could have been researched and presented more evenhandedly. A cursory glance at the game's BoardGameGeek forum page would reveal two multi-page threads on the subject which contain not only extensive discussion, but also several insightful comments by one of the designers, Østby, about his and Svenssons's intentions. If you actually read those threads, I did not get that impression from watching this video. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I will say my understanding is that the lighthearted generic theme (yes, especially the smiley faces) is supposed to ironically unsettle you. For example, you play the role of a colonist; did the colonists care (in general) about the specific names of those whom they exploited? Again, I'm not looking for a debate; I just wish the designers' perspective was given more mention beyond just the historical context supplement that came in the box (which I appreciate regardless, personally). Also, while I understand your points about the blue-die-drafting variant, you come pretty close to saying, "I like it better this way, and therefore it should have been the official way," which comes across as slightly arrogant, even though I doubt that's your intent. At the very least, it feels disingenuous, since there is a valid reason for designating it as an "advanced mode" which you yourself touch upon, at least indirectly: that because your blue dice are your own in the basic mode, you're burdened with less decision-making while learning the general structure of the game the first time around. On a positive (?) note, I will agree that the variability of this game was over-sold to me by other reviewers, though of course it does have some, and the expansion will probably help. I'm going to be more careful about verifying such claims through rulebooks (i.e. component lists, percentage used per game) in the future.

[@JonGetsGames]

Thanks for the reply, I do have some thoughts about it. When it comes to researching a game for a review I feel like everything I should have to look at is in the box. If the designers intended the game to come across that way then you shouldn't need to read through a long forum thread on BGG to understand whats going on. Almost no one who buys the game will do that, and I certainly wouldn't expect them to. Regarding the variant, I tried to articulate that I don't think it should have been the standard rule just because "I like it better". I think this because it makes the game better as a hole due to significantly reducing the roll of luck while playing which makes for a much better playing experience. It also goes well with the base rules of the game where you are drafting white dice, so as the rules go it feels clunky to have extra rules for how the blue dice work already. This is why I feel like that should have been the variant, and it would help out those players who tolerate extra randomness for the sake of some security of knowing some of the dice are always there's to take.

[@ericmatthews9673]

Oh god no. Sometimes I watch a review before spending hours and hours researching a game and I'd prefer not to have to hunt down every obscure thread just so I'm not lost when watching a board game review. Also when reviewers read and watch other people's opinions too much BEFORE locking in their opinion a meta develops. This is a known issue in movie and book criticism. Very good critics DO NOT look at everyone else's thoughts before publishing their own. Checking with everyone else first is the exact opposite from what a professional reviewer should do.

[@Nain1982]

I'm hispanic. When I first saw this game and the cover, I was a little offended. I couldn't believe that there was a game with this subject of an era where so many atrocities were committed. I felt like the artwork was a sort of mockery to something that could be delicate and the happy faces didnt' help either. But that was just a first impression and I wanted to give it a chance, as the designers have a good pedigree and I'd heard good comments about the game. After playing it, I don't think that the game is vicious in anyway, or that there's any action that makes you feel that you are reminiscing something terrible or atrocious. I think a lot of the criticism for the topic comes from people that haven't played the game. The game is abstract (although thematic to me) for one to feel anything offensive going on. There are definitely more games out there that do exploit more directly sensitive subjects. Also, like Axem mentioned, the designers did comment on their views and I don't think they would take this lightly. They did also take the time and effort to describe about the Era of the Conquista and of the terrible things that happened back them. This game is amazing. One of the best designed last year and I can't wait to see what the expansion has to offer.

[@sdotco]

Well done on talking about the problematic theme!

[@mattlowder]

Careless, thoughtless theme on an otherwise incredible game.

[@chuckm1961]

matthlowder Name a few of your favorite games, and I’ll find something offensive and insensitive about them.