![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shannon_aSo, Fifth Avenue. And that's some nice weather we're having, isn't it?
If there was an Alea game which dropped straight off the RADAR, this was it. I think it's a very unapproachable game, but I also feel like it was developed pretty poorly, and that's a shocker coming from Alea.
The basic idea of the game is that you're trying to build up skyscrapers next to spaces with multiple businesses. You build skyscrapers by collecting cards (in 6 colors) then using them (1 color + the wild black at a time) to win auctions.
There's a lot of little stuff to like in the game. For example, the color you bid in also determines where you can build. Similarly the value of your highest value bid cards determines how many skyscrapers you can build (inversely; for higher value cards, you build less).
There's a lot to dislike too.
I think the game died because of its opaqueness. It's not obvious what to do and it's not obvious what the value of doing those things is. I also think that the game offers three different ways that players can play dramatically wrong--a topic that's of sufficient interest that I'm planning to write about it in two weeks at BoardGameNews in a little piece I'll call, "A Game Designer in Every Box."
But, it's just kind of an awkward and ugly game besides that. My favorite is the fact that you can take one of four actions each turn, intuitively called, "A", "B", "C", and "D". Each action is also split into three parts: first you do something notable, then you draw cards (with the type determined by the action column on the little chart), then you move a commissioner. This is where I think the development of the game really fell down. This morass should have been polished into something evocative and intuitive.
I think I've missed one of my plays of Fifth Avenue in my records, because I used to pull it out once a year to play it again and see if it made any sense. This last time, I felt like I might just have gotten an inkling of the game that the designer and developer saw. And, I think it might be an interesting one. But there's too much cruft to dig through to bother.
L1: Ra. A+. (Plays: 15) [ Read my Review ]
L2: Chinatown. B-. (Plays: 1)
L3: Taj Mahal. A+. (Plays: 7)
L4: Princes of Florence. A. (Plays: 4+) [ Read my Review ]
L5: Adel Verpflichtet. B. (Plays: 2) [ Read my Review ]
L6: Traders of Genoa. A+. (Plays: 3+) [ Read my Review ]
S1: Wyatt Earp. B+ (Plays: 2)
S2: Royal Turf. A- (Plays: 6)
L7: Puerto Rico. A+ (Plays: 11) [ Read my Review ]
S3: Die Sieben Weisen C (Plays: 1)
S4: Edel, Stein & Reich B- (Plays: 1) [ Read my Basari Review ]
L8: Mammoth Hunters B+ (Plays: 5) [ Read my Review. ]
S5: San Juan A+ (Plays: 32) [ Read my Review; plus Glory to Rome review. ]
L9: Fifth Avenue C- (Plays: 3+)
If there was an Alea game which dropped straight off the RADAR, this was it. I think it's a very unapproachable game, but I also feel like it was developed pretty poorly, and that's a shocker coming from Alea.
The basic idea of the game is that you're trying to build up skyscrapers next to spaces with multiple businesses. You build skyscrapers by collecting cards (in 6 colors) then using them (1 color + the wild black at a time) to win auctions.
There's a lot of little stuff to like in the game. For example, the color you bid in also determines where you can build. Similarly the value of your highest value bid cards determines how many skyscrapers you can build (inversely; for higher value cards, you build less).
There's a lot to dislike too.
I think the game died because of its opaqueness. It's not obvious what to do and it's not obvious what the value of doing those things is. I also think that the game offers three different ways that players can play dramatically wrong--a topic that's of sufficient interest that I'm planning to write about it in two weeks at BoardGameNews in a little piece I'll call, "A Game Designer in Every Box."
But, it's just kind of an awkward and ugly game besides that. My favorite is the fact that you can take one of four actions each turn, intuitively called, "A", "B", "C", and "D". Each action is also split into three parts: first you do something notable, then you draw cards (with the type determined by the action column on the little chart), then you move a commissioner. This is where I think the development of the game really fell down. This morass should have been polished into something evocative and intuitive.
I think I've missed one of my plays of Fifth Avenue in my records, because I used to pull it out once a year to play it again and see if it made any sense. This last time, I felt like I might just have gotten an inkling of the game that the designer and developer saw. And, I think it might be an interesting one. But there's too much cruft to dig through to bother.
L1: Ra. A+. (Plays: 15) [ Read my Review ]
L2: Chinatown. B-. (Plays: 1)
L3: Taj Mahal. A+. (Plays: 7)
L4: Princes of Florence. A. (Plays: 4+) [ Read my Review ]
L5: Adel Verpflichtet. B. (Plays: 2) [ Read my Review ]
L6: Traders of Genoa. A+. (Plays: 3+) [ Read my Review ]
S1: Wyatt Earp. B+ (Plays: 2)
S2: Royal Turf. A- (Plays: 6)
L7: Puerto Rico. A+ (Plays: 11) [ Read my Review ]
S3: Die Sieben Weisen C (Plays: 1)
S4: Edel, Stein & Reich B- (Plays: 1) [ Read my Basari Review ]
L8: Mammoth Hunters B+ (Plays: 5) [ Read my Review. ]
S5: San Juan A+ (Plays: 32) [ Read my Review; plus Glory to Rome review. ]
L9: Fifth Avenue C- (Plays: 3+)