Musings On... St. Petersburg (#3)

Tom: St. Petersburg is the darling game of 2004, winning both the International Gaming Awards and the Deutscher SpielePries, as well as being one of the five nominees for the illustrious Spiel des Jahres. Not only that, but I've seen hardened, cynical gamers just foam all over the internet about their enjoyment of the game. And indeed, on my initial playing, I did find it fun, enjoyable, and quite interesting. Produced by Hans Im Gluck and Rio Grande Games and designed by "Michael Tummelhoffer", St. Petersburg is a good game with two players, and a fair game with more. In my oh-not-quite-so-humble opinion, while the game is entertaining and fun, the strategy seems to be preset, and options often feel forced. It's a decent game, but barely good, and certainly not great.

Michael: I think you're being overly kind Tom. While I agree that the game is fun and well put together at some level, the points you made about strategy and options are my #1 complaint with this title, and need to be hit more aggressively. St. Pete seems to offer some variance in strategy and options when you first sit down with it, but the preset strategy aspect really comes to the fore after a few times through. The game has a definite constrained flow...get some income, then invest in aristocrats, get buildings when you have extra room to maneuver, and make sure to grab the aristocrat upgrades. That, as far as I have seen, is *the* strategy for this game, and there seems to be very little space for creative thinking or originality because of it. I'm not saying that there aren't exceptions, such as the quick building strategy which tries to end the game before the opposition can get very many aristocrats, but by and large most games of St. Pete seem to follow the basic pattern, and because of that, the replay value on this diminished pretty rapidly for me.

Chris: The key reason I rate St Pete highly is the one concession that Michael and Tom appear to make: the game is fun. I like playing this game (particularly with 2 or 3 players) partly because it does follow a certain comfortable flow. Is there really a "preset strategy" for this game? I don't think so. There are good and bad strategies certainly, but I still think it is important to adjust and adapt as the game proceeds. You must pay attention to what other players are doing, and the decisions are not always obvious. I think the complexity and strategic depth are just about right for a game this length. I should also mention that my kids (boys aged 8 and 10) like this game and think it is a great instructional tool for understanding the concept of cash flow.

 
Tom: I don't think the game is as bad as Michael states; I have enjoyed my playings of it and so have those I played with. I do disagree with Chris about the "preset" strategy; I don't believe that it's possible to win without getting as many aristocrats as you can. The only exception to this is in a two-player game, which is why I prefer two-player. There are also other requirements, such as it's almost a mandate that you MUST buy two workers on the first turn, etc., etc. I just wish that the game gave you more leeway for different strategies.

Michael: In all fairness Tom, I know that I've railed on the mainline strategy, but I didn't mean to imply that the game is bad in the 'I won't play it again, and dislike the experience of playing it' sense at least. I have had fun playing St. Pete, and wouldn't object strenuously to playing it again, but I think that's a product of its speed more than anything. I admit it, I'm a heavy game fan, and when a game doesn't have a variety of workable strategies or some form of variation / evolution from play to play (like an auction introduces for instance) I get tired of it pretty quickly, and that's what happened here. I enjoyed my first several outings of St. Pete, but it has some serious issues; the 'on a rail' feeling is one, but another which I think needs to be touched on yet, is the contentious broken cards: the Mistress of Ceremonies and the Judge (less so) either of which seriously tilt the game when they appear on the first turn, which is not at all unusual.

Chris: I think Michael and Tom might be confusing strategy with objectives. Sure, it is important to get the highest number of aristocrats - that is the easiest path to victory points. The challenge is in how best to achieve this goal while also not losing the race in mid-game VPs through buildings and upgrades. There's a balancing act of cash flow and timing that I find appealing. I do agree that there are some obviously bad opening moves that can be made, but isn't this also true of chess?

Jeremy: My first impression of the game was very dismal, finding it somewhat aimless, and very much an 'optimize the numbers' game, but as I started to understand the system, I began to enjoy the game more. Do I find it a deep and rewarding strategy game? Hardly! There's a lot of luck in the timing and availability of cards, but what it does do, it does well, I think: it has brought 'optimization' games (the likes of which include Puerto Rico and Princes of Florence) and made that sub-genre appealing and accessible to more casual gamers. I have taught St.P to many non-gamers already, and it has been a 100% hit so far. What I have grown to like about it is the easy flow to it. Once you've played the game a few times, you can run on "auto-pilot" a little bit -- to some this may be a negative that hurts replayability, but to me it has that pleasant "auto-pilot" factor of games like Balloon Cup or Mystery Rummy, so you know I mean that well. Here is a game that is enough of a game to make me come back to it, but not enough to scare away non-gamers. I allow it is not a 'deep' game, but played casually, I think I understand the 'hype' include the awards and nominations it has garnered.

Tom: Chris, comparing a game to chess doesn't raise its estimation in my eyes! And Jeremy, I'm not sure that I would compare the "auto-pilot" factor (must you coin a new term for every game!?) with that of simple card games. Unless, of course, you consider St. Petersburg to be a simple card game, and it is not. If the game is to be played on the simplistic level that you acknowledge, why the money, the four different piles of cards, the point values, etc.? Wouldn't that make people who played the game declare in their awe-inspiring voices that the game was "fiddly"? Of course not! (I like to answer my own questions.) Most gamers accept the level of complexity that St. Petersburg is for the medium-weight strategy it contains. I just don't think that the strategy matches the complexity.

Michael: I might also add that while I agree with Jeremy that St. Pete is light enough to make it accessible to non-gamers, in general, how accessible a game is to the casual set has little to no impact on how often I want to or do get a chance to play a game. If a game happens to be good enough that I actually enjoy it while still being light enough to teach to the less hardcore, wonderful; but being light in and of itself is worth a goose egg on my rating scale. As regards the optimization factor: the reason St. Pete fails within this genre, to my way of thinking, is because when one talks about games like Puerto Rico and Princes of Florence, yes, there is most definitely optimization at work, but both of those games have very small amounts of luck, and numerous ways for the players to thwart one another during the game. There is an interaction factor at work there, you can repeatedly get in the way of the other players. St. Pete offers very minimal interaction, and I always get the sense when I'm playing it that I'm attempting to crack the system, not thwart the other players. I am quite surprised to see St. Pete by and large escaping critique in this regard, because Princes of Florence, a game with *much more* direct and effective interaction is constantly derided for this inability to impact the other players.

Chris: Michael, your point about lack of player interaction is very valid. The most you can do to directly impact your opponents in St Pete is to buy an aristocrat they need or impact how many cards come up next round. This lack of direct conflict is often a plus in my family given my ultra-competitive sons. Most of the actions necessary to do well in this game are in response to the cards that show up rather than what other players do. This doesn't bother me as much as it might bother others.

Jeremy: Without trying to beat my own point to death, I think the thoughts Chris just shared, and what Tom said near the top (and in other forums) confirm my point, and my own ambivalence: it is simple. Tom, you say that the game becomes an exercise with generally one optimal move available to a player -- this quality lends itself to that "auto-pilot" frame of mind I am speaking of. You need to know St. Pete well to play well, but once you know it well, it is easy to play well. As Chris points out, it is not a game of direct conflict, or even any meaningful direct interaction, it is simply a game of trying to figure out what is best for me right now, with a certain nod to the future. I think this game is a middle-weight complexity game with a middleweight pay-off -- and I don't think it presumes to be anything but that. So, hate it or love it, it fits the bill for many casual gamers. Does that mean it will appeal to the hardcore crowd? Perhaps not, but then, St. Pete was never supposed to be that kind of game.

Tom: To sum up, I would have to say that I'm not opposed to playing the game; it's fun, entertaining, and certainly interesting. I do, however, believe that it does NOT deserve the lauding it has gotten, for I consider it, at best, a decent game. The two-player game (which perhaps it should have been released as) is a good one but lacks the simplicity of other, shorter two-player games (such as the Kosmos series). I do recommend St. Petersburg to math majors, as there is a lot of counting and math values involved. But frankly, there are better games that have come out this year that one can buy.

Michael: To me St. Petersburg is the game that could have been. The promise of a fast playing yet variable middle-weighter seemed to be there at first, but the power of the aristocrats and the lack of interaction with the other players really hurt it in the long run. I don't deny that there is fun to be had in the early going, but to me that simply is another way of saying "Play someone else's copy instead of buying it yourself". I agree with Tom that the two player game is the best way to play, but when I compare St. Pete with some of my other favorite middle weight 2 player titles it comes up short; while the 3 and 4 player games both have serious balance issues. 3 because one of the players gets to go first twice each turn, the 4 player scale because luck of the draw (already minorly irksome at 2) is further heightened. There are some good ideas in this one, but it's just not quite there.

Chris: I certainly do respect Michael's and Tom's somewhat negative feelings about this game. It isn't great, but it is enjoyable and I prefer it over many other lighter-weight games such as Lost Cities, Balloon Cup. I don't have high expectations of depth for a game that plays as quickly as St. Petersburg, but compared to other popular 2-player games there are more choices to be made and an appropriate level of complexity. Finally, one test for me is how much my kids like the game, and I was pleasantly surprised at their enjoyment.

Jeremy: Well, I am with Chris, so it looks like we split right down the line, 50-50. I am not going to go out on a limb defending this game, indeed, though I enjoy it, it only rates a 7 out of 10 from me. Yet I must say that there is no reason to punish this game for what it isn't when it is so strong being what it is: a middle-weight, casual-gamer-friendly optimization game. Easy to teach, easy to learn, easy to play. It has a good replayability factor for a casual gamer even if it does lack that extra "umph" that a gamer may want. As for this gamer (me), I find it fits a nice niche for when I get a bit of a Puerto Rico type craving, but have no gamers to fulfill it. I doubt I'm ever going to have a shortage of players willing to play St. Petersburg.

Tom’s Rating: 5.5 out of 10
Jeremy’s Rating: 7 out of 10
Michael’s Rating: 6 out of 10
Chris’s Rating: 8 out of 10




Tom Vasel is a game enthusiast currently living in Korea. He has written over 200 reviews which can be found at www.boardgamegeek.com, and plays games solely to have fun.

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 reviewers are:

Chris Brooks splits his time between working in the software business (he's the CTO at Corillian, http://www.corillian.com), driving his two active sons around town, and playing all sorts of games. To take the sting out of his taxing travel schedule, Chris often hooks up with gaming groups while away on business. So far he's managed to join groups in places like Brooklyn NY, Dallas TX, Phoenix AZ, Los Angeles CA, and Melbourne Australia. You can follow Chris' adventures at his weblog: http://www.chrisbrooks.org.

Michael Webb is a heavy game puritan -- when he's not busy losing Die Macher and Age of Steam in spectacular fashion, he spends time reading and finishing up his first degree (in History) in southwest Michigan.