Musings On... Manila (#10)
Jeremy Avery: Three words: CHUNKY ZOCH BITS. That alone ought to be enough to raise the curiosity of any magpie in the gaming scene. But wait! That's not all! Manila takes some of the mechanics of Delonge's earlier effort, Goldbrau, adds in a dice game, mixes in a great Phillipines-smuggler theme, and manages to create one of the better games I have played in the past two years. It can hardly be called strategic, but the fun factor of the game is set at maximum from start to finish, and from my playings so far, this seems like a smash hit with the casual gamer crowd.Mike Siggins: I think that reaction is why I had problems with it. Here is a game that takes a while to get the bets down, and certainly no little planning to get hold of the key shares, but then it all comes down to a dice race. And a handicapped dice race at that! It is neither fish nor fowl. Granted, the theme is good and actually holds up well. But the key device, the race in, justs leaves it too much of a lottery.
Tom Vasel: One person complained to me that Manila had nothing to do with the bidding , but rather simply was about the shares. After playing several games, I'm inclined to agree with them. But the bidding is so much fun! I have a blast playing Manila, and the pieces are indeed cool, but the price for the game itself seems high (for what you get.)
Jeremy Avery: I will never make the argument that this game is highly strategic, and so, in that sense, I agree with Mike's assessment of Manila. But while I agre with his assessment, my opinion is obviously vastly different from his! True, it is mostly a dice game, but as soon as I understood that I instantly accepted as the most fun I have ever had playing a dice game. In this sense it reminds me of Royal Turf, with less of an emphasis on bluffing, and a higher luck ratio. Be that as it may, I enjoy Manila for what it is, which, for me, is a light enjoyable dice game/gambling game with economic considerations. Now Mike, you mentioned that it takes you no small amount of time to get bets down, and I must say that if Manila were to bog down, I can see how it would lose some of its lustre. The groups I've played it with have kept it moving ata quick clip, which is what I believe suits this game best.
Mike Siggins: We felt that the number of players was quite important. Some of the less appealing options were not taken with lower player counts. It was certainly interestiung to assess the value, long and short term, of the Harbourmaster and similar 'bets'.
Jeremy Avery: Complete agreement here: this game doesn't work that well with 3. I understand that a publisher shudders at the thought of putting "for 4-5 players" on a box, but sometimes I wish they's be that honest...
Tom Vasel: I won't argue that the game is a lottery. But isn't that all it's meant to be? Isn't it just a modified form of the Roulette table? The difference here is that players can affect what happens. They can watch how the boats move down the river and judge accordingly. They can see what other players do, and they can use this knowledge to their advantage. For a game that's largely luck, this one certainly makes you feel like you're doing something!
Mike Siggins: Well it is only Roulette in the sense that someone else is pushing the ball away from your numbers! No, seriously, I see the analogy and it stands up. We were not slow in placing bets, but with five players it can seem that more time is spent placing than racing, and then the race bears little resemblance to any thinking you may have put in. My first game saw me have worse than average luck, and it became a spectator sport - even the shares I got ended up as virtually worthless.
I don't think there is any major disagreement here, it is simply that we may be coming at it from different ends of the expectation range. For me, I have seen rather too many of these sort of games so another one, and a not an inexpensive one at that, just meant that I could play it and (probably) move on. There are are better dice games - Can't Stop, Diamant, several horse race systems, even Favoriten gives a better experience. But then that is how I feel about most games once they have declared themselves as middling, rather than poor or great. Since I don't think any of us (?) are saying Manila is great, that makes my decision easy. I'll play it if it appears on the table, but I won't be buying it.
Tom Vasel: Well, the only thing that keeps me from saying the game is great is the price and the size of the game (both too big for what the game is). But I can't think of a better dice game that has come out in the past several years - and yes, I like it better than Can't Stop. In Can't Stop, all you really have a choice is a few numbers. In Manila, you have a choice between several different things - some of them long shots, others of them obvious that they'll happen. And, no one can win the game in one turn in Manila. I do see Mike's point that one can become an observer about halfway through the game - but I had too much fun playing it to care. Manila is certainly not one of best designed mechanic-rich games I've played, but it is one of the most fun!
Mike Siggins: I think this comes down to personal philosophy then. Or probably nomenclature. For me a great game is something really, really special. It would almost have no faults, and I would be fortunate to find two or three great games per year. Translating to the BGG scale, we are talking a 9 or 10. Manila isn't there for me. However, you are both signalling 'borderline great' yet have flagged up some pretty sizeable issues, one of which (observing but having fun anyway) looks like the old Settlers argument again which, as my therapist reminds me, gets me all twisted up inside. On this game we can happily agree to differ, but what happens when a really great game comes along?
Or put another way: I don't believe a perfect game exists, so great is about as good as I have experienced. I just need to know what your terms are for the better than great games, and you both have quite a few.
Tom Vasel: A perfect game is one that is always fun for me to play. That's easy to define, and therefore I have several "perfect" games. Manila, while fun, doesn't reach this high plateau, so I don't bestow upon it the title of "great". At the same time, I don't want to dissuade people from picking it up - as I know they'll have a great time with it!
Jeremy Avery: Okay, my time to step up to the plate, because I do indeed feel Manila is a great game -- within its own subgenre. When it comes to games with a lot of dice-rolling, gambling type games (and in this category I'd include Can't Stop, Royal Turf etc.), I think Manila is not only great, I feel it is the best game of its type. (Now I wonder how on earth I explain the appeal of the game to me, since by nature I don't like dice-rolling games with a lot of luck!) Part of the appeal is certainly the bits, but it's the gameplay that makes it hit the sweet spot for me. The game is not at all complicated, and I like how though there are lots of different jobs for your workers to take, everything is focused on the boat races. And with every coin spent and worker placed, everyone is trying to outhustle and outguess the other players. And with pilots on the board, the threat of pirates boarding the ship, the insurance agent praying that God might spare all 3 ships...this game is very tense, and provides that tension in a colorful, thematic game, that doesn't scare away casual players.
And to me, knowing that know truly perfect games exists, my 10's and 9's are relative. The absolute best games, though not technically perfect, are my 10's. I believe I rate 6 games a 10. Incidentally, Manila for me is a 9.
Tom Vasel: Well, I still waver on Manila slightly. When at Origins, I went and looked at it several times, picking it up, thinking about buying it. But I couldn't get past the price. So obviously the game, while fun, wasn't fun enough to make me want it at all costs. Manila is a good game of betting, and while I may break down and buy it eventually, I haven't yet.
Mike Siggins: Okay, thanks for that discussion - interesting as ever. It seems clear from our views that if you pay the asking price for Manila, you are unlikely to go wrong unless, perhaps, you err on the side of control freak. For a fun, middleweight game, with above average reception here, you shoudl give it a look.
Tom's Rating: 8 out of 10
Jeremy's Rating: 9 out of 10
Mike's Rating: 6 out of 10
Tom Vasel is a game enthusiast currently living in Korea. He has written over 300 reviews, which can be found at www.tomvasel.com , and plays games solely to have fun. He writes a weekly game blog at www.Gamefest.com, also the home of his interviews with gaming notables, “Interviews by an Optimist.”
Jeremy Avery writes reviews for www.funagain.com, and is the designer of www.geocities.com/yahugaming - a web page devoted to helping people learn more about 'German' games.
Our guest reviewer is…
Mike Siggins has been playing all sorts of games for 30 years and writing about them for the last 20. For ten of those years he published Sumo magazine, which pioneered in-depth coverage of German Games. He served as a member of the editorial board of Games & Puzzles, on the Daily Telegraph Game of the Year panel, and is a founder member of the IGA committee. He is also a current contributor to Counter Magazine. His main gaming interests are innovative systems, sports games and narrative atmosphere. He is currently developing several boardgame titles for major publishers. Mike was born in 1961 and lives in Cambridge, England.
| Back to the
main page! |