Patchwork Review - with the Game Boy Geek

[@AgentKuo]

This is the best review of this game that I've seen, because the other reviews I watched I left still not really understaning how the score track worked, but now I do.

[@pikapomelo]

Looks pretty fun. Great job with the video as always. It's great to see enthusiastic reviews.

[@jeeperscreepers7]

can you spend buttons from 7x7 tile? or they just count as victory points at the end of the game. thx

[@stickermom2919]

jeeperscreepers7 no theyre victory points at the end, helpful to have

[@CTHenry]

I'd love know know your favorite economic games. Maybe a future video?

[@Kieran19106]

I've played it and I can't get a positive score

[@francoantonioregalado3036]

So, Blokus with economics? :D

[@fredwojtkielewicz8239]

You did get one of the rules wrong "whenever you move onto or past one of those spaces resolve the corresponding space" I:E: button income. You don't have to move past, just on.

[@geneinkc]

It's impossible to move "on" a button income or patch space, because they aren't spaces. The buttons and patches are on the edges between spaces, so you don't resolve it until you move past it.

[@wilhelmbackhaus4931]

I play Go and I don't know why he's calling this game an abstract strategy game.

[@whatshendrix]

It might have something to do with the fact that it IS an abstract strategy game, but I wouldn't know...

[@wilhelmbackhaus4931]

whatshendrix Fact? Well, that depends on your definition of abstract strategy games.It's not an abstract in my opinion (2P strategy games with no randomness or hidden informations), but I'd like to know why youthink it is.Also, It doesn't even feel like an abstract and to me it's motr like a euro game as it has indirect interaction (such as drafting tiles) instead ofdirect conflict as in Chess and Go, player board management without interaction, economic aspect, etc.Some games like Kahuna and Rosenkönig feel like abstracts but this one doesn't.

[@whatshendrix]

Backhaus Wilhelm I was just kidding, but on a serious note - I think you've been reading too much Wikipedia or something. By your definition Poker isn't an abstract game and I guarantee you people would think there's something wrong with your noggin if you refer to Poker as a non-abstract game. People use the term "abstract game" to distinguish between games with a real-world setting and an abstract one. All games fall somewhere on the abstract spectrum, but it's ENTIRELY in relation to how removed their setting is from the real world. Hidden information, drafting, board management, etc. play absolutely no role in whether or not a game is considered abstract.

[@wilhelmbackhaus4931]

whatshendrix It's just my definition (not from wikipedia or anything) and Poker and Backgammon are not abstract in my opinion.When I say "abstract" when I talk about board games, it's a game-term and it doesn't matter whether a game "looks" abstract or thematic.Putting Chess (non random board game) and Poker (random card game) in a same category is ridiculous.Anyway, this game has theme (which is as strong as any other euro games) and mechanically doesn't feel like an abstract, so I still don't know why he's calling it an abstract. :)

[@whatshendrix]

Backhaus Wilhelm That's fine, but as I said, people use the term "abstract" in relation to only one aspect of a game - theme, while your definition is concerned with other aspects. Every gaming site is going to list Chess, Poker, Backgammon and the likes of Patchwork as "abstract strategy" for that same reason. Your definition isn't concerned with theme and mainly separates deterministic from non-deterministic games and that's fine. That is a distinction everybody already makes, but not under the term "abstract strategy".