Tom Vasel: One of the "big" releases at Essen 2004 was Reef Encounter by Richard Breese. The tremor of those who wanted the game was enormous. Why? Because Breese's track record with his "Key" series is so strong that everyone wants to play his new design. One of the strongest of the Key series of games was reprinted by as Aladdin's Dragons; and after playing it, one can see what the fuss is all about. With great components, an excellent theme, and good mechanics Aladdin's Dragons is a good strategy game that has a wide appeal. It won an award from GAMES magazine - Game of the Year - in 2001 and was certainly, in my opinion, a good candidate. The plastic treasure pieces are really cool, and one almost feels like they are playing with candy. The blind bidding system is neat and interesting, as all of the different auctions affect one another in various ways; and a good bluffing aspect pervades the auction phase. Eye candy is one of my favorite themes. Aladdin's Dragons should be on anyone's must buy list, unless they dislike blind bidding.
Chad Krizen: Ok, so there's eye candy. However, as much as I love candy, the sweetness of this game turns bitter very quickly. I don't mind blind bidding one bit, as I really like some other games in this genre such as O Zoo le Mio. But an hour and a half of nothing but blind bidding!?! Yeah, the theme is nice, and yes, the bits are pretty, but the "game" is practically nonexistent. Lay some chits face down, reveal them, and see who won. Repeat it for a few rounds, and that's Aladdin's Dragons. Where are the rest of the mechanics that make games fun and interesting? It's like watching astroturf grow, except less entertaining. If you ask me, all of this candy must be sleeping pills in disguise.
Jeremy Avery: Now those are some interesting comments! In fact, I know the exact feeling you are talking about, and could have expressed the exact same sentiment...but for Industria. Industria is auction after auction, trying to acquire certain sequences of tiles that will make it easier to place your tiles and score points -- not that it is horrible, but I found it overly long and dull. But Aladdin's Dragons is, to my mind, a different sort of beast. I admit the game is weak with 3 players, but with 4 or 5 players, it is the nature of the auctions, with a lot of important bluffing elements as opposed to straight-forward bidding conventions, that make it stand out and eliminate the problem you describe! See, in Aladdin's Dragons, I am not just trying to outbid you, I am also trying to make you pay much more than you should for lots I may not even want while picking up lots I want relatively cheap. Throw in the "magic" cards ("face-up" variant), the Guard space at the top, the different powers of the amulets -- which also happen to be your victory points -- as well as the constant juggling of your "candy holdings" (currency) and I find there is actually quite a bit to do in Aladdin's Dragons! You mentioned O Zoo le Mio, but isn't that just "bid, place tile, repeat"? Not liking blind bidding is one thing, but saying Aladdin's Dragon is bad and O Zoo le Mio is good, is plain ol' confusing to me.
Chad: The reason I think O Zoo is a good game and Aladdin's Dragons is a poor game boils down to play time. I can handle a half hour of pure blind bidding before getting bored, but not an hour and a half. The theme of O Zoo is also more appealing to me. I realize that this is my own personal taste, and that not everyone would agree. Anyways, this isn't a discussion about O Zoo, so I'll get back to Aladdin's Dragons. I will agree with you that there is slightly more than just the blind bidding. The bluffing aspect is nice, but pretty much just boils down to throwing your "1"s and "2"s on stuff that you don't want. The other bells and whistles only serve to break the flow of the game in my opinion. Out of all the non-blind bidding elements, the "magic cards" are the most frustrating, in my opinion. It's incredibly frustrating to have a move voided just because someone has some magic up their sleeve. It's kind of the same complaint that people have about the cards in Evo, except Evo is a fun game to begin with, so they don't bother me as much. I guess what I'm saying is that even though there might be slightly more than just plain old blind bidding going on, the extras just don't do anything to make things interesting to me. In fact, I think they just bog the game down.
Tom: What about the magic cards or the use of the tiles - they make a huge difference in the game! And I have never "thrown away" my small numbers; I try to put them where I think no one else will play their tiles. In fact, I feel that the theme is so strong that I've never really even thought of it as blind bidding. I like to send my strong thieves to certain places, and my weaker thieves to other places. This is a semantical difference - I know; but it helps me enjoy the game more. Zoo Sim is a good game, but I really don't think they are in the same category at all. Yes, both include blind bidding, but it's done in an entirely different way. And once again, I will state that the game is not nearly as good unless you use the tile abilities and the magic cards. They really change the game and add a lot of tension.
Jeremy: Those small numbers are part of the key to the bluffing. If I use my 1 in a space that my opponent really wants to claim, I put psychological pressure on him to up his bid in that area to be able to hang onto it. Imagine if he put a 6 there, then I put a 1, but he thinks it may be a 7, that forces him to put another number down, maybe an 8, which means I have tied up two of his 4 highest bids -- and it only cost me a 1! And one part of the game we haven't touched on at all: the bid you make for an artifact is also the price you have to pay, and each chip you place in that space requires payment in one currency! Not only are you competing against each other, but now there is an element of budgeting optimization that serves the game very well and adds even more tension into the game. To touch on one more thing, the magic cards, I must say that I find them fairly well balanced. Most of the "big" cards affect the card's owner as well, the only real difference being that he can plan for it slightly. And if you thing magic cards hurt the game, just make it a priority to snag the "spell-killer" artifact! There is even strategy in which tiles you pick up.
Tom: Sure, one might be able to make a case against the Basic game, where no magic cards are used. I still would argue that the game is a lot of fun but could understand that it might get monotonous and repetitive (for some people). But the Advanced game is fantastic and in fact is the only way I teach or play the game anymore. And besides - the pieces and artwork are just so incredibly cool and add a tremendous thematic flavor to the game. The treasure pieces themselves are some of my favorite bits in a game, even though every player I've played with has called the orange treasures Chiclets". (See, I can talk about food, too!)
Chad: Although I dislike the magic cards, I would have to say that the advanced game is more interesting than the basic game. The basic game would be as much fun as choking on the candy-like pieces of the game. The advanced game isn't as bad as choking, but isn't a whole lot better. I'm in the crowd that thinks that this game is monotonous and repetitive, even with the doodads of the advanced game. Cool artwork and pieces just isn't enough for me to save this one from my junk pile. The game might have been saved if monkeys were involved, but Chiclets? Not quite enough to interest me.
Jeremy: Chad, far be it for me to dissuade you from your loathing, but I am still not really clear on why you find it monotonous. Different bids in different areas give you different abilities such as switching the start player, allowing trades with the bank, acquiring one-time abilities, acquiring victory points (which also have special abilities), outbidding and outguessing your opponents, keeping other players honest -- and each turn takes about 5-15 seconds. I understand those who dislike this game because they dislike blind-bidding in general, but I don't understand the claim of the game being monotonous. Is Medina monotonous because all you do is place two wood pieces per turn? Is Princes of Florence boring because it just consists of 9 auctions and two actions per turn? Is Ticket to Ride boring because all you do is pick up cards collecting large sets? (Actually, I might have made your point by introducing the Ticket to Ride analogy...)
Tom: One point that could turn a person off from the game is that a bad turn, if poorly played, can really hurt a person. If I put my "9" where someone else put a total of ten or more, my "8" where someone else puts their "9", my "7" where someone else put their "8", etc., etc., I could have a turn where I win little or nothing. This doesn't just hurt a little; it can potentially lose the game for you. Now I've never had this happen to me, but I've seen it happen to others; and it soured their outlook on the game a little. I personally think this is poor playing, but it can happen to a lot of beginners, who then begin to rant against blind bidding. I try to warn people about this aspect in our games, but it can still crop up.
Chad: To answer Jeremy's last question, yes, TtR is somewhat simple and monotonous. I can still appreciate it though since it only takes a half hour to play. TtR is a light-weight game that has a light-weight play time. It just seems that Aladdin's Dragons is a light-weight game with a mid-weight play time, and that doesn't work for me. There just isn't enough variety of actions one can perform to keep the game exciting for an hour and a half. You're essentially "doing" the same thing every time it's your turn, and that's placing a chit. Overall, my sour outlook on the game stems from just not liking the game! It's boring, monotonous, and too long for what it is. However tasty the bits may look, there are just too many sweeter candies on my shelf to bother with this one.
Jeremy: Well, I hear what your saying, I just don't understand it. But then, I don't understand the appeal of Tigris & Euphrates either, it being a game of simply laying down tiles and all. Aladdin's Dragons rises above its simple rules, since each chit has a differing value, and the use of bluff, one-upmanship, and constant re-evaluation of what might be available on the different parts of the board make for a great game in my book. This is a middle-weight game with a middle-weight playing time; it has gorgeous bits, and a simple rule set, and has gone over very well with my casual gamer crowd and my game group, and I'm thankful that we enjoy it as much as we do. So, Chad, if I ever have a game day at my house, and you and Greg Schloesser are invited, I know what game not to bring to the table, but for any other group, when I have 4 or 5 players, this is one I would want to hit the table.
Tom: I agree with Jeremy (except of his comments about T & E). There are some people who, contrary to all that's good and holy, don't like this game. But most folk I've introduced it to do enjoy it, so I'm confident that I can always find someone to play it with - just not Chad, or other gaming curmudgeons. :) Aladdin's Dragons may be a blind bidding game to some folk; and indeed, it is a major mechanic of the game. To me, however, it's just plain fun.
Tom's rating: 8.5 out of 10
Jeremy's rating: 8 out of 10
Chad's rating: 3 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 reviewer:
Chad Krizen is a soon-to-be-college graduate, majoring in Landscape Architecture at the University of Wisconsin - Madison. After graduation this December, he hopes to work in land planning, residential development, and community planning. He's an avid gamer, and does most of his gaming with the Madison Board Gamers on Wednesday nights, as well as the Pegasus Game Group which meets Sunday afternoons.
Back to Table of Contents -- Game! # 13
To Game! List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2005 by George Phillies.
This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com