by Thunkd
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'm not upset, angry or "hot under the collar". I'm simply having an interesting discussion. I'm not sure why you think I need to cool down?
I feel like this discussion is getting a little heated
Not at all.
I didn't mean to insult you in any way.
You haven't. We've simply expressed differing opinions.
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.
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.I get that you think that, but I'm firmly of the opinion that it is as simple and clear as I stated it. GP is better than TM. I'm not hesitant to use a "universal statement" because I sincerely believe it to be true.
There is definitely some interesting improvements like the more dynamic power mechanism
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.Don't be coy. If I've gotten something wrong, please tell me. I appreciate the chance to correct any wrong information I may have.
or the higher built-in variability.
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.I agree that the tech track is a huge change in the game. I do think the variable map setup adds a lot of variability to the game though. In particular, there will be TM "theorycrafting" about how to play games given the races in play and the round bonuses which is entirely dependent on the static board. You can't really have those set scenarios in GP because the board changes every game. Each game you need to evaluate the board position and take that into account.
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.
I get what you're saying. And in a lot of games I like for things to be tight and for there to be pressure from other players. And while in TM there often was pressure on the cult tracks as it was a race to be in the lead, it wasn't a particularly interesting pressure. You either competed on a track or you didn't, and if you did, you were doing the obvious things to try and take the lead. It just wasn't very interesting. I find that what you lose in that race is more than made up for in the interesting abilities and bonuses that you get in GP's tech track. And I like the "openness" of the tech track in that it gives you the freedom to craft a strategy. Maybe you decide to become a scholar and pursue knowledge. Or maybe you choose to become a navigator. There's so much possibility and it's fun to figure out how best to play given all that possibility. But this probably comes down to preference, whether you prefer tight or open games.
A lot of the times you simply aren't competing on the same track as your opponents
True. But competition isn't the only measure of value. While you lose a bit of the jostling elbow to elbow here, you get to customize your civilization with special abilities which is really cool. Although I will say that the time an opponent passed and I went on to catch up to her on the fourth step of the navigation track and then take the fifth spot from her, was quite sublime.
... TM sessions were more memorable...
I've always felt as if the stakes were higher and the game a lot tighter in TM.
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.A straw man argument? What position have I attributed to you that you didn't make?
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)
I've never disagreed that TM is tighter. Only whether tighter is better. For example, the fact that the economy isn't as constrained in GP means you can do more cool things before you're limited by the economy. Tighter does add something, but so does looser.
the higher competition on cults (self-focussing and preventing GP's 'everyone goes up their own track' symptom due to the cult payouts),
Ehh... sometimes I'll give up on the cult track, or perhaps only pay attention to one track. So I end up dominating one track and not competing on any other track. In GP I almost always want to be playing on the tech track. At the end of the game I played last night, three players were in the fifth spot of a tech track denying it to someone who was on the fourth rung. If your worry is competition for tech tracks, I've see plenty of competition there so far.
the tactical possibility of partial terraforming,
This is a thing. It doesn't happen that often just to deny someone though. I think that simplifying GP to remove partial terraforming actually streamlines something that was a bit fiddly in TM.
the better cult scoring (delta VPs vs flat 4 points above LVL3)
I feel like this makes the tech track more interesting. In TM if two players were racing on a track, there's virtually no reason to go into it. Even if you're overtaken for 3rd place, it's not that big a deal. In GP, there's always an incentive to get to the third level of a track. Which means there's more incentive to do the fun stuff on the tech tracks.
the fragility of city locations and similarly the vulnerability of networks.
Agreed. This added a lot of tension to the game. But it also meant that you were sometimes screwed by someone who wasn't even intentionally trying to deny you. And again, it goes back to the tighter/looser preference thing. Some people are less conflict prone and want to build rather than battle. GP is going to be a more enjoyable game for them because of the fact that it's harder to block.
I actually enjoy the tighter nature of TM
I do appreciate some of that tightness, especially your last point. I just find that what is opened up is more fun. You get to do so much cool stuff with the Tech tracks! So I'm more than willing to trade of those constraints for what GP adds.
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'
Yeah... it is! In my opinion. I see why you disagree. I just think you're wrong. :)
I wanted to add some perspective with my original short reply to your post.
Which is why this back and forth is interesting and adds value. By discussing what we like and don't like we're informing everyone who doesn't know the game. They'll easily see which of us they are more similar to and find value in that person's perspective.
... 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.People routinely assert opinions about preferences this way. I'm surprised you've not encountered it before. Perhaps it would be better if you just accepted that I really believe that GP is the better game and take my statements as saying such.
Both of our views have their place in this forum here
Of course. And you're free to state your opinions as strongly as I have stated mine. Or just to reply to mine with a big ol' "Nuh-uh!"
just try to stay a little bit cooler the next time we discuss something
If you had bothered me or upset me in any way I would take your advice to heart, but as you didn't, there's not much cooler I could possibly be. :)