#67: Citadels
Once hailed as The Next Big Thing in designer gaming, now reviled in some circles, Citadels nevertheless claimed space #67 on The One Hundred. Oddly enough, it will play well with 2-7 players... and has fans at both ends of that spectrum. The designer, Bruno Faidutti, borrowed the key mechanism (the choosing of roles) from Verrater... and actually created a more enjoyable game.William Eldard: "This is a great little card game that reminds me of Puerto Rico, in that players select the roles they will play on each round. However, the mechanics for secretly selecting the roles is quite ingenius, and forces players to try to outthink their opponents. The artwork on the cards is beautiful, too."
posted by Mark (aka pastor guy) at 7:43 AM
4 Comments:
In what circles is Citadels "reviled?" I've known people that have fallen out of love with up, but no one who has grown to hate it.
Well, Matthew, I haven't grown to hate it--I started out that way! That isn't too surprising, as games with doublethink do nothing for me, but the real killers for me are the sometimes arbitrary assassinations and, particularly, the extreme downtime in every game I've played. This is a game I actively avoid.
If Analysis Paralysis sets in, this game can be death. But if all players are interested, attentive and can take their turns in a reasonable amount of time, this game works and works well. Definitely one that depends on who is playing.
Hate to disagree with Mark's commentary, but Citadels still isn't as good as Verrater and Meuterer. There's very little tension, and a surplus of chaos. That doesn't mean it can't be fun. However, I'm going to contest that it plays well all the way to 7 players due to the time it takes people to choose a role. If everyone can do it in 10 seconds, you'll be ok. If it takes everyone a minute to choose, anything more than 4P will be intolerable for a game of this weight.
Post a Comment
<< Home