Cerebria: The Inside World Review - with Tom Vasel
Video Statistics and Information
Channel: The Dice Tower
Views: 39,002
Rating: undefined out of 5
Keywords: board game, board, game, dice, card game, cards, catan, monopoly, tower, dice tower, vasel, review, tom vasel, vassel, settlers, gaming, GeekUsername: TomVasel, board game review, boardgame, uno, ticket to ride, apples to apples, educational games, educational, top 10, Richard Amann, Viktor Peter, István Pócsi, Frigyes Schőberl, Nick Shaw, Dávid Turczi, Mindclash Games
Id: 727i9OCoaEk
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 19min 4sec (1144 seconds)
Published: Thu Sep 20 2018
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.
I’ll obviously reserve judgement until I put my own copy through its paces, but my buzz for this game was tempered a bit after seeing Tom’s thoughts.
Anachrony is one of my favorite games (and Tom’s), and I absolutely love the unique theme of Cerebria, but it seems the game is loaded with too much weight and too little payoff.
If a game with an awesome theme can’t deliver a true sense of fun, how will it ever make it to the table over other proven titles?
Having played the game quite a few times on Tabletopia (solo, co-op, and competitive modes) since it was added there, I can tell you all a few of my thoughts on the review (and the negatives that he provided):
1) 4-Player game feels like 2-Player game:
I'm not entirely sure how he came to this conclusion for a number of reasons. First off, resources are NOT shared (except for Ambition) by the players, so you'd have to micromanage not only what they should do on their turn, but also take into account costs for doing so since each Spirit has their own pool of Essence, Willpower, and Emotion cards. Secondly, as you upgrade your Spirits, you are pushing towards a more asymmetric role on your team (i.e. being better at invoking/quelling or movement/fortifying). Eventually you'll have the power to do some things that your ally cannot do (especially with the asymmetric sides of the boards), or you'll be able to do it much better than them.
I would hope that these two things would make it so that your ally cannot possibly keep track of what you can do vs what they can do and allow you to make your own choices (similar to the way Spirit Island avoids quarterbacking by making every player incredibly unique) as the game progresses.
On that note, Tom made it sound like you have 5 actions you can do on your turn plus the Absorb action, when (and this is one of my only gripes with the review is that he completely glossed over this part) you actually have the 5 basic Spirit actions AND 5 Realm actions. So this means you have 10 different actions you can take in addition to the Absorb ability that you'll want to use each turn. With that in mind, I have found that I barely have enough time to think about what I'm going to do on my turn given that there are 10 different actions and I only get to choose 3 of them on my turn (plus the absorb action) in addition to the upgrading of the base 5 actions at any given time if I'm willing to give up precious Emotion cards from my hand.
Regardless of what the game had done to attempt to mitigate this issue, this isn't a game specific issue. It depends on the player...I'm sure some people will try to dictate the optimal moves of their teammates regardless of the game because they want to win. I personally think that there's enough variety and choices to make on your turn to dissuade you from taking your ally's turn for them (ala Pandemic). I've played the co-op version of the game and never saw the need to tell my ally what to do on their turn. But maybe that's just me.
2) Do a lot of stuff for a small payoff:
I have never felt this while playing Cerebria. When Tom was explaining things, it sounded like he said that you do a ton of things, trigger a Revelation, and score 1 point. (probably a technicality, but...) Scoring the fragments is a HUGE part of the end game scoring. Cerebria was originally based on only scoring fragments in the Identity, so the game could largely be determined based solely on that. So they added the Intentions to add smaller point values here and there to give the players payoff for doing the smaller things if they weren't making progress towards the larger Aspirations. You either get small payoffs throughout the game and the large one at the end, or you only get one at the end, take your pick.
The whole point of the game is to do smaller turns to build up to a state where you can make an insance swing turn that changes the control of the board into your favor. Whenever these plays are made it feels so good to be able to look a the board and think "Before this turn, my opponent controlled a ton of frontiers and Realms, but I was able to take all of those back, trigger a Revelation, score a Major Fragment, AND I'm well on my way to achieve the next Common Aspiration." The game is all about momentum and this is one of my favorite parts of it.
On that note, I'll go to the last point that I'll call a "negative"
3) It's obvious who will win about 3/4 into the game:
On the contrary, I have never felt this in the games that we've played. To quote a user in the YouTube commens section who brings up a very good point:
Cerebria has a bunch of catch-up mechanics to help the losing team come back into the game. Another thing that he missed is the real threat and power that lies in putting up fortresses onto the Identity. Whenever I've been behind (by a major fragment and 2-3 minor fragments) I've been able to add 1-2 fortresses to the Identity with careful planning and it puts the team back into the game.
Conclusion:
All in all, there is a lot to the game and it almost felt like Tom was just trying to spit out everything that's in the rules and, as a result, it sounded unnecessarily complicated and not smooth at all. When in fact, the game feels quite the opposite once you've got a firm handle on the rules. If you actually know the rules and listen to how Tom explains it, there's almost no cohesion to the explanation. It's like the guy who explains a game to you, and then over and over throughout the rules explanation says "Oh yeah, there's also this thing. There's this thing also that can happen. Also a niche situation where this happens." At it disorients the players intently trying to learn the game.
I've played Cerebria 5 or so times and I'd love to answer any/all questions anyone may have. Area Control is my favorite genre of game and this game immediately shot into my top 10 after playing even through the clunky interface of Tabletopia. This game is everything I've ever wanted in an Area Control game, so I may be a tad biased.
Also, for what it's worth. I'm not a backer on KS for this game.
TL;DR: Get back up there and read this if you'd like to hear detailed thoughts on the negatives that Tom expressed during the review.
I’ve played a few times on tabletopia since they updated to the final version of the game. I love it. I think it’s my favorite mind clash game. I disagree with Tom on most points here especially that the theme doesn’t come through in the gameplay. If you play with the B-side boards each spirit absolutely marries theme with mechanics. The light deck building aspect intrigues me. I also think the mechanics on how to generate and use the special team resources make this a very interesting team game and not just a 1v1 game.
I'm not a backer myself but I do enjoy Anachrony a lot. After this review I'm kind of pumped to try the game if I get the chance because most of his negatives I don't really mind, since I play often 2 players and I don't mind having to do a lot of work for a single point, I guess I relate the payoff to the % it gets me toward victory.
The one thing that he noted that might be worrying is that you know someone is going to win too early compared to when the game's gonna end, but if the 2 player duration of the whole game can be brought to 60-75 minutes I can live with that, so overall a useful review for me, despite it being lukewarm at best.
So much criticism for Tom giving his opinion on a game he reviewed. How dare he!
I wouldn't take it to heart. I find Tom's criticisms stretch only as far as his personal opinions on whether he liked the game or not. He's not particularly good at critiquing the game beyond that. You might love the game!
Seems like a fairly cool game. I wonder if my lgs has a copy to try out.
In general, while I like to hear Tom's opinion on games, it isn't very useful to me due to our tastes being so different (my tastes are much closer to rhado but I can't stand watching his videos). You gotta just try the game yourself and see how you feel after a couple of games.
I played this game at a con in june. I cannot see why you would not want to run it without 4 players if able.
Team games are a rarity and this one is a gem.
Edit: Im not a KS backer but gladly my friend is picking this up at retail.