Reply: Gaia Project:: General:: Re: Poll: Gaia Project in relation to Terra Mystica

by bluesheep

Oh boy... I just had to open that can of worms didn't I :D? First of all, let's cool down a little, I feel like this discussion is getting a little heated and I didn't mean to insult you in any way. When I wrote the comment I had someone new to TM/GP in mind who might read this thread in order to help them decide which game suits them better.

Thunkd wrote:

bluesheep wrote:

Thunkd wrote:

Gaia Project is flat out an improvement on Terra Mystica. While I considered TM great before, I've had to downgrade it now that Gaia Project has shown to be superior.

I don't know... I'd be a bit careful with universal statements like that.

Why? What horrors will befall me for having a strong opinion? What am I risking here?

You probably took this one too personal as it was actually meant more as an introductory opening towards a second opinion. As I wanted to illustrate with my subsequent paragraph, there are a little bit more facets to this story than a simple 'GP is superior' might lead to believe. In general I am always a little skeptical once people start using absolute terminology such as always, never, etc. - in particular when it is used to state opinions as truths (more on that below).

Thunkd wrote:

bluesheep wrote:

There is definitely some interesting improvements like the more dynamic power mechanism

Huh? There's a slight tweak to power in that now if you can't take all the power you're due you just pay for what you take, and if you can't pay for all the power you're due you just take what you pay for, but other than that it's the same.

I think, I will leave this one for the other people that surely will chime in into this debate (it is the internet after all :p) - suffice to say, you might want to have a look at the rulebook again.

Thunkd wrote:

bluesheep wrote:

or the higher built-in variability.

I'm guessing you mean the variable map setup? Yes that's an improvement.

Yep, but in particular the variability on the tech track. I feel like this is a greater factor in deciding which factions to pick than the map.

Thunkd wrote:

I'd also say that the Tech tree is a huge improvement that makes the game more interesting. (Although it does require a bit more effort to teach and learn, but I think that's more than offset by interesting gameplay.) That alone makes it a much better game than TM.

The tech tree is very cool and I welcome it, but the way I experienced it, it's too wide open in order to really start feeling pressured by my opponents. A lot of the times you simply aren't competing on the same track as your opponents, as you made sure you don't end up in this situation during faction selection already. This might be an artifact from our 3p games, I haven't had a lot of 4p experience with GP yet, but there the tracks will surely see a little more competition. In 3p you run into the problem of a laughing third, as the two people battling each other on a track often have to get out of sync with round scoring or some other deviation from optimal play in order to get the upper edge helping them secure their contested track.

Thunkd wrote:

bluesheep wrote:

... TM sessions were more memorable...

I can't really comment on the "magic" you felt or how "memorable" your TM games were. Those are feelings you experience rather than features of the game. If you'd care to suggest what game features elicited those feelings, we could discuss the merits of them, but otherwise those are just intangibles that there's no way to evaluate.

bluesheep wrote:

I've always felt as if the stakes were higher and the game a lot tighter in TM.

I'm not sure why the stakes would be higher. I do concede that TM is a bit tighter in that it's harder to form cities and to connect your structures for the longest chain goal... but I like that GP is a little more open and allows you a bit more freedom.

Well, you kind of answered the question for yourself there, so I am not sure why you dissected my quote mid paragraph? Given the benefit of the doubt, I would suspect your reply was simply hastily written, otherwise I'd have to call you out on setting yourself up for a straw man argument.

Just to make sure I'll give a quick summary of the main points, I don't really want to go into too much detail as this has already been discussed a lot of times. The main reasons I feel that TM is tighter, is the more constrained economy (TM is coin starved and thus you will often see suboptimal passes only to secure ACT4, BON2/3 or the coin city token), the higher competition on cults (self-focussing and preventing GP's 'everyone goes up their own track' symptom due to the cult payouts), the tactical possibility of partial terraforming, the better cult scoring (delta VPs vs flat 4 points above LVL3), the fragility of city locations and similarly the vulnerability of networks.

You see, I actually enjoy the tighter nature of TM and I guess that is part of the reason why some of the people also voted the way they did. You enjoy the greater variety GP offers you to fulfill your plans and since you did not think it worth to mention the differences but simply called one 'flat out superior' I wanted to add some perspective with my original short reply to your post.

Thunkd wrote:

bluesheep wrote:

... there is still a significant group (20% at the moment of writing this post) that likes TM at least equally well if not better ...

The argument that a small minority believes something to be true isn't very compelling generally... small minorities believe that the earth is flat, ghosts are real, bigfoot exists, etc. Just because X number of people believe something doesn't mean they're right.

I am genuinely puzzled by what triggered this last bit of polemics, but I think of your statement as somewhat problematic. We are not discussing something that can really be categorized into right or wrong here, it is all just opinions and preferences regarding games. There is no greater, ontological truth to be found behind TM/GP (and epistemologists would argue there is no such thing at all - but that's a different story ;)), so pulling out the big guns and starting to label things right and wrong seems a bit out of place in this discussion.

Let me say that in conclusion, I think that GP has more to offer than TM. If that however makes it a better game is a highly individual question. I can point you to a lot of games that are great exactly because they work in a reduced and constrained framework, that are very conscious about their limitations and actually derive a deeply strategical playground out of what they have to offer - something often summarized as elegance. Both of our views have their place in this forum here, just try to stay a little bit cooler the next time we discuss something and we are all going to have a great time on future debates!