Yes I think they were quite unimpressed on their podcast.
I’m hoping that it will be something to to chew on over Christmas. Its tough puzzle should give us a decent source of entertainment and conversation, since there are fewer things to do out in the real world this year. Looking forward to updating this thread when it inevitably turns out to not be all too much 
For sure, but maybe Roads & Boats is the closest thing out? Yes, it requires a lot of bits.
I think R&B probably leverages just about as much of this design space as you can without making it too fiddly.
In general, and I’ve thought ever since I first learned about R&B, I feel the R&B scale is just too small… but to scale it up any more than it is would mean keeping track of what items have been carried and by which transporters, and which transporters have moved already.
That is: I think the designers of R&B accurately identified the limit of managing things moving relatively freely on a tabletop without letting it scale out of control (for the most part)
Yeah, after NPI discussed Curios Cargo awhile back, I knew it was a pass for us, and this confirms it.
I think Calico is about as puzzily as I want to get.
It probably goes without saying, given my extensive post in the comments, but I didn’t agree with Quinns’ review of Etherfields. It’s not like Sentinels, where I didn’t recognize the game they were describing as being the game I played - I think some of his critical points are fair, for sure. But I think it’s a lot better than he’s giving it credit for.
Not really a review as such, but I remember feeling rather deflated when Matt gave Super Motherload a rather dismissive and derogatory “it’s fine” in a podcast episode, followed by very brief explanation that didn’t sound anything like the game I’d played and loved. It’s one of my favourites.
Edit: ok I’ve just re-listened and it turns out I’m not being very fair here. It actually got a full ten minute slot and was reviewed more favourably than I remembered, although it was very much damned with what I still think of as unfairly faint praise at the end. What I disagreed with, and still do, was the opinion that it abjectly failed to give the “serotonin hit” type response associated with video games, because it was the exact opposite experience to mine.
Super Motherload has a few interlocking elements to it: the communal board of gems and treasures you can mine, the light deck-building (with its own unique twists in both the way you buy cards and the way you play cards), and the cycling set of objectives that come up in the form of Major and Minor Achievements.
The clever twists in the deck-building are these: firstly, when playing cards, you have two actions on your turn, each of which can be used to either spend cards to extend the tunnels (and pick up any loot you find) or draw two cards. You do not automatically ditch your hand and draw back up to 5 at the end of your turn. In fact, the only thing that does happen at the end of your turn is that you discard down to five cards if you have more in your hand.
Secondly, rather than buying from a common market, players buy cards from four private stacks of four cards each. When you dig a gem or some gems, they all go onto a stack of your choice and when the value of those gems reaches the price of the top card, you gain that card and (usually) get a little bonus action as a reward for buying it. To be fair, Matt describes this pretty well, although unfortunately the bit about each player having their own private market and the fact that these markets are asymmetric gets rather lost.
And then there’s the achievements. I’d agree that the Major Achievements are pretty dull - they’re merely races of the type “first player to buy three cards from their red stack and three from their blue stack” which can be tense if two players are reaching for the same thing but are otherwise fairly uninspiring.
However, far from being the rote stream of petty tasks that Matt implies, the Minor Achievements, particularly how they interact with the other mechanics, are where the seratonin hits are to be found.
Let’s look at some examples. One of the achievements is the rather strange looking “have 9 cards in your hand”. Once you’ve grasped the card play rules, it quickly follows that one very boring way of claiming this achievement is to have the maximum hand size of five at the start of your turn, spend both of your actions drawing two cards, claim the achievement… and then discard back down to five at the end of your turn, thus wasting your entire turn to score a couple of measly points.
So far, so uninteresting, but why would you necessarily do that? Some diggy-diggy bonuses allow you to draw cards without wasting an action, as do some of the bonus actions you can get for buying or playing upgraded cards. So perhaps, just perhaps, there’s a way of getting nine cards into your hand and still have a productive turn in other ways? It’s a lot harder to figure out, and maybe the opportunity suddenly appears when you weren’t expecting it, or maybe you puzzle it out through good planning. Either way, when you do pull it off, there’s seratonin and possibly dopamine to be had.
Let’s look at another example: another Minor Achievement asks you to “have one [of a specific type of gem that I don’t quite remember, let’s just say for the sake of an argument that it’s] gold on each of your four card stacks at the same time”. This is much more fiddly than it appears at first; you have to spend a few turns deliberately avoiding buying cards so that the gold doesn’t disappear from one stack before you’ve got gold on the other three, which means that by the time you’ve pulled the achievement off, all your stacks are at bursting point, and sending one over the edge unleashes a combo of epic proportions that sees you buying all four cards in one turn, digging up a whole pile of new gems to get you most of the way to buying one from the next level, and setting you up for hitting the other minor achievements in your next few turns. Now if that’s not reminiscent of one of those insane Candy Crush board-clearing chain reactions, I don’t know what is.
In summary then, Matt was much more positive than I remembered, but I still disagree with the central conclusion that there was no “dopamine rush” type experience, and that board games are not a good vehicle for that in general. I’ve found myself describing this game as “Candy Crush: the board game” and I still stick by that description. It doesn’t always work out that way, particularly if players become super-defensive about not wanting to open up lucrative areas of the board (which, in my view is often self-defeating; those lucrative areas frequently lead to even more lucrative areas) and it’s one of those games where you have to have calm turns for your storm turns to punctuate. But in its favour, the odd rubbish turn doesn’t feel that rubbish because a) in this game a rubbish turn is a fast turn and b) your rubbish turn last time round set you up for an explosive turn this time. I’m just surprised that that aspect of the game seemed to have been utterly missed.
You’ve successfully sold me on a game that I’ve held in my hands on several occasions (love the video game), but ultimately waffled on. I’ve found it difficult to find opinions on “why SML and not ____?”, so this has been really helpful, thank you!
No worries my friend! 
I’m finding myself quite irked that Quinns called the Hansa Teutonica re-release “a marvellous new edition of perhaps the greatest eurogame ever made”, raved about the gameplay, the price, the included expansions, and even the box size, and then didn’t give it the “recommends” badge.
The only criticisms he levelled at the game were (a) that he didn’t like the theme/art; (b) it reminds him of Tigris & Euphrates (a game which they recommend); and (c) it’s possibly not for everyone.
The most critical part of the comparison with T&E was that both games have simple rules which give rise to significant depth/complexity, and that getting points is hard. The latter is nonsense IMO (or ludicrously overstated at best), and the former is yet another compliment – an achievement that board game designers should aspire to.
As the SUSD “recommended” list is comprised entirely of games which aren’t for everyone (by necessity – no game is for everyone!), that leaves us with “didn’t love the theme” as the only real negative in a vast sea of positives, and I’m absolutely baffled how that stopped them from slapping the badge on the game.
The major thing is this: People aren’t rushing out to buy games based on the “recommends” label alone – that’s just a filter that gets people to watch the review, which is what actually tells them if it’s a game for them. Why the heck they don’t want this game they clearly love to be included in that filtered list of games that they think people should learn more about is a complete mystery to me.
(And yes, I’m mostly just bothered by this because HT is one of my all-time favourites, and I’ve been waiting for years for SUSD to do a review; but I still think my bewilderment is valid.)
Interesting points; thank you.
I got the impression, and I may well be wrong on this, that when they introduced the “Recommends” badge it was a bit of a joke, a parody of the Dice Tower, and then they noticed that people were taking it seriously. But I also think that one of their filters for it is “nobody should bounce hard off this game”, going by the original idea of introducing games to first-time modern boardgamers. Maybe that’s what’s going on here?
I was having a similar conversation last night. I think they’ve got lost in thinking too hard about their position/role/responsibilities these days for the recommends badge to be much use to anyone but the SUSD staff anymore.
I think a recent podcast Tom’s criticism was basically that you couldn’t fully understand a game on first play. Which would be fine if that was about weight/volume/inaccessibility of rules. Instead it was about not getting enough strategy to play well. How much replay ability can you get from a game if you can play well first game? For me that one game. I’m no longer the target audience but I think it’s a precedent and filter I don’t like as it suggests games should be all accessible fluff with no depth of strategy or have anything to explore.
Problem with that is they have not been consistent with that idea. El Grande is recommended and looks just as beige and dry as HT, but is considered to be one of the best area control games ever.
Inis is recommended, but there are many people who bounce off of it, judging by threads on BGG.
TI4 is recommended, and it would be crazy in most cases to make that someone’s introduction to modern board games.
Quinns had almost nothing but praise for HT, and it appears far more accessible than many other games they have recommended (I have not yet played it), is just as drab in appearance as others, and was described by him as possibly being the greatest Euro game of all time. There is no justifiable reason I can see why it did not get the Recommends pear.
It may simply be that Tom revoked Quinns’ right to use the stamp, at the behest of R. Pear. 
Rules wise there’s not much more than Ticket to Ride, but the decision space is much greater. It’s really, really good. Matt was singing HT’s praises about a year ago as well. Considering they often knock a game they love because of price or availability this does seem an odd choice
On reflection I wonder if the furore around Blood on the Clocktower has kade Quinns nervous of recommending games he loves now? Probably subconsciously. Reaction to a negative surprise.
I think that’s an excellent point.
The Pear has always been arbitrary from the very start - at least from my view. I dont hold them to be strictly consistent when Im not consistent myself.
This is what I find concerning. And this isnt the fault of reviewers and the general public, but the result of our times. So many games are being released every year by the ever pacing hype machine where 95% of them will be forgetten by gamers next year.
On the other hand, I often tell myself that it’s none of my business.
The hotness is temporary. Trains are eternal.
Unless you are in Britain, where the trains are eternally and consistently late…
…or replaced by tiny buses.
As is the case with Ticket to Ride: London