Jeremy: It really doesn't matter how good the game is going to be, as long as it has the Days of Wonder logo on the front of the box, people are going to be talking about it. Lush graphics and top notch production values have meant a veritable goldmine for the parakeets and magpies in the gamer world. Days of Wonder's Ticket to Ride, by star game designer, Alan R. Moon, sounded like a good idea, but Alan has done train games to death, hasn't he? Santa Fe Rails, Union Pacific...do we really need another train game from him? Well, when a game becomes a smash hit, winning the coveted Spiel des Jahres and sitting around the top spot in the Top 25 for the last couple of months, you know Mr. Moon has done something right. This lighter weight offering gets played, and played often! Lorna: I would agree with the quality of DoW production values which always adds the want factor of a game. They have really done a nice job. As for "another train game" the theme doesn't really matter to me, as long as there is an interesting game to go with it. I like several train games such as 1830, Age of Steam, Volldampf, UP and even Hell Rails 2nd Perdition. The difference between those and Ticket to Ride is that they have some interesting mechanics and challenging decisions to be made. To me the argument that because Ticket to Ride is a "light" game it's okay, if it lacks substance doesn't hold up. For one thing it's way too long to have no tough decisions to be made. Just put your brain on sleep mode and draw a card for 90% of the game. At least Trans America is over in 15 minutes. Tom: Well, I know that I initially compared Transamerica to Ticket to Ride in my review of the game, but the more I play both (and I try to avoid Transamerica), the more I see that Transamerica isn't even in the same class as T2R! In Transamerica, I kind of just lay tracks down, hoping to connect the right cities at the right time. In T2R, there's a tension in the air - just how long do I hold onto the cards I have in my hand? Yes, there's a lot of card drawing; but it goes quickly, and I never sit around bored. Knowing when to hold and when to play is the key to the game; and although I will admit that there is some luck in what tickets a player initially draws, I don't believe that anyone is ever dealt a losing hand. Ticket to Ride is one of my favorite games; I believe that in a few years, it will replace Settlers as THE gateway game (it's already there in my book). Lorna: Well, certainly the same can be said of TtR as in TA. Mostly I just lay tracks down and hope no one cuts me off from the city I'm going to. I don't see the tension at all, "Oh look! I have 6 red trains; should I start drawing green ones now?" That doesn't happen. It is, "Oh, I have 6 red trains, I'll lay them on the 6 red track on my path to my city!" I just don't see how that is different from TA or causes any tension. I will admit there is a decision to be made, whether or not to gamble on drawing more ticket cards. While that makes it slightly more interesting than TA, it certainly adds more luck and makes the game longer while you are waiting for someone to decide what to keep. As far as a gateway game, I can see TtR theoretically working although there is no player interaction whatsoever. In fact I did borrow my friend's copy to try with newbies, since it has been so highly recommended for newbies. Ugh, the most painful hour and a half I ever sat through, and I don't think they liked it at all. Certainly none of them has asked to come for games again at my house! Perhaps TA would have been better, shorter to hold their attention through the game. At least with Settlers you have to at least talk to your fellow game players...What is there to say in TtR?..."Uh, I have 6 red trains; I'll trade them for green ones?" Tom: You can say, "You fool! I was going to take that route. I can't believe you blocked me!" I do understand that there's not a lot of direct interaction (although I think blocking other's routes is interaction). But the game is fun and plays fast, and people can talk while playing about other things. This makes the game very social; one I can enjoy. And if a game of T2R took an hour and a half, something is dreadfully wrong. I've never played a game that's taken that long, and I've played the game 25+ times with numerous groups of people. Never have I had a game that has gone over so well, with so many people and that doesn't include the very nice internet version at the DoW website. Jeremy: Well, now, both of your comments are very interesting because my experience has been completely different. On Lorna's charge of game duration, I have to say I am shocked. If TtR ever lasted 90 minutes, I suspect I would loathe it like last week's garbage; but my playings have never taken longer than 45 minutes -- and that included over a dozen playings with newbies. I have a light objection to the game, but it is not tied to Lorna's objection of extended duration. My objection is more related to Tom's but in the other direction. See, since the first time I played TtR, I have been comparing it to another train game too...but not TransAmerican, rather Union Pacific. Tom's observation was nearly almost completely true...with a few minor changes (as follows): "...the more I play both (and I try to avoid Ticket to Ride), the more I see that Ticket to Ride isn't even in the same class as UP! In Ticket to Ride, I kind of just pick up cards in sets and lay tracks down, hoping to connect the right cities at the right time. In UP, there's a tension in the air - just how long do I hold onto the stock cards I have in my hand? Yes, there's a lot of card drawing - but it goes quickly, and I never sit around bored. Knowing when to lay down stock or place "just one more" train and draw stock is the key to the game - and although I will admit that there is some luck in the blind stock draw I don't believe that anyone is ever dealt a losing hand." I swear I am not trying to be a smart aleck!!! =) But these are my exact thoughts about Ticket to Ride. I agree that Tom's comments are a fair comparison of TA and T2R, but then I also believe much more strongly that my comments are a fair comparison of T2R and UP... Lorna: Well, I certainly admit that my newbie experience with this game may have been out of the ordinary. I have suppressed most of the memory and what I do remember reminds me of Dan Bosley's "Misadventures in Gaming." It went something like this: Newbie: "Why are we picking up cards?" Me: "to play them on tracks for points and to connect your cities" Newbie: "Why?" then plays trains... Me: "Um, no, you can't play the green trains on the red tracks..." Newbie: "Why?" Me: "Because..." Newbie: "What color trains should I take?" Me: "I need some aspirin..." At least they didn't stick any trains up their noses. I have also, of course, played with experienced gamers; and yes, the game did move faster but it still does not hit the right note with me. I have also tried the DoW version on their website in an effort to convince myself that all those gamers can't be wrong about TtR, but I am afraid they are! (Just kidding!) Obviously, we all have some different tastes and for whatever reason I simply cannot find enough challenge in this game to make me a huge fan. It's like green peppers. I despise green peppers and will eat them, if I am a guest and someone else has prepared them. I will hold my breath and swallow quickly and follow it down with a big drink of water, but at my house I'll pick those nasty peppers off the pizza! Same goes for TtR; I'll play to be polite but not at my house. Tom: Well, Lorna, sounds like you're dealing with some exceptionally slow people, and perhaps this isn't the best game for them. But I would contend that most people aren't like this, and that almost anyone can learn the game out of the box, as opposed to being taught. Jeremy, I really don't think the game is comparable to UP, except for the drawing of cards and the fact that both have plastic train pieces. I enjoy both games exceedingly, although the money aspect in UP is a big difference in my opinion. Yes, one could argue that the money is just a glorified form of victory points, but it still adds a different dynamic to the game. Ticket to Ride has no real "tricky" explanations, like the importance of UP stock, or the different types of tracks, and - in my opinion - is even easy visually; since one could occasionally confuse what tracks are connected on a UP board. I like them both but don't consider them in the same genre or even league. T2R is accessible to all; UP is accessible to most. Lorna: I agree Jeremy, TtR is nowhere as interesting as UP. I would much rather play UP then either TtR or TA. You really have to pay attention to what other players are doing in UP, you can for the most part ignore that in TtR, and you have much more direct and indirect interaction with other players. Yes, it's true in TtR you can "block" someone else's route and make them go the long way (giving them a better chance to get longest train); but unless you go all out in trying to block everyone else, what you do does not affect them. It all boils down to a matter of taste, I guess. Watch out for those green peppers! Jeremy: Well, there we are in fundamental disagreement. The game is by the same designer, uses a similar theme, a similar map, and uses an almost identical card drafting mechanic. UP is only one small step away from T2R. I have taught both Union Pacific and Ticket to Ride to non-gamers, and they have both gone over very well. I can go as far as to say that T2R has a bit broader of an appeal, but now we are talking about 75% liking UP and 85% liking T2R -- not a significant difference. And to me UP is the far more interesting game. I'll play T2R at the request of my friends, but like Settlers of Catan, I am starting to get sick of it and often "forget" to bring it to game nights. Contrast that with UP where no matter how many times my friends ask to play it, I am very happy to pull it out. And if you can teach T2R to someone, UP is not really all that more complicated. (UP stock isn't THAT complicated.) I have often thought that Union Pacific should be the new "Monopoly" -- the one game that everyone owns and knows how to play, and I still stand by that. I put UP at a perfect 10, and T2R at a 7. T2R simply is simple -- and that sword cuts both ways. Tom: Jeremy, I also agree that UP isn't that complex; only that it's slightly more complex than Ticket to Ride. Ticket to Ride is very simple and is, in my not-so-humble opinion, the best gateway game to hit the gaming market since Settlers of Catan. But let the numbers and awards speak for themselves, as the game is wildly popular. No, not everyone will like it, and there may be groups like Lorna's who just "don't get it." That's fine, and I understand that (kind of). But I will hold that the vast majority of people, even those who we would class as "non-gamers" will find this game enjoyable; and that the replayability factor is high. If I were getting rid of all the games in my collection except for a few, this would be one of the last to go. It's one of the few games that I can play both with a serious gaming group and with a group of "green" gamers and get the same satisfaction from both. Jeremy: I feel like I occupy the middle ground between you two. On one hand, I don't loathe it with the deep annoyance that Lorna does, but on the other hand, like Settlers of Catan, I think this game is grossly overrated and (for me) already nearly played out. Upon the first couple playings, it builds its appeal, and it's very easy to teach, and it has good tension for such a simple game. But, Tom, it was you who brought up the contrast between TransAmerica and Ticket to Ride, so I feel justified in contrasting Ticket to Ride with Union Pacific, and I still say that while Ticket to Ride is a good game, Union Pacific is a great game. In Ticket to Ride, I spend far too much time collecting a large hand of train cards before really beginning to claim routes, and the whole game experience is really just collecting cards and laying down sets. There's some tension in the timing, but it is still a very simple game. Boiled down to that I don't think it's hard to understand why there may be a slight backlash at this game -- there's not really a lot here. Is it non-gamer gold? I won't disagree with you there, but that doesn't make it the mark of a great game -- unless that is your only definition of a great game. It's a good game, that I really only keep around because I can teach it to non-gamers who can't handle a middleweight game. But if they can handle anything with a little more to it, I'd take them beyond Ticket to Ride. Tom's rating: 10 out of 10 Jeremy's rating: 7 out of 10 Lorna's rating: 5 out of 10 Tom Vasel is a game enthusiast currently living in Korea. He has written over 200 reviews which can be found at board gamegeek.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, Lorna, is a game player and collector who lives in Oregon. She works in the health care industry to support her game habit. She can frequently be found in Englishtown on BSW when not hanging out with her dogs Lilly and Rosie. Back to Table of Contents -- Game! # 15 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