Yeah, yeah, its a great game. It’s something that even our 6 year old plays well. It doesn’t surprise me that this game has sold 5 million copies.
My one quibble with the game is the scoring system. Clearly it’s an issue because the publisher changed it between the original release to the copy we just bought.
The original scoring system with the jockeying pawns looks a bit fussy, so I suspect that randomly pulling scoring gems from a bag is a better fit for the light filler mood of this game.
But better doesn’t mean correct.
I’m not the only one who is uncertain about the new scoring system. Otherwise the rules wouldn’t have included a variant where one merely earns set points for each place you finish.
I get the conundrum. Some puzzles are just harder than others. So there is already some randomness backed into the game, even if skill matters in the aggregate.
Which brings up the interesting design question, does adding randomness on top of randomness improve the game? Is it better to stack unfairness upon unfairness?
I don’t know, but I suspect we’re heading into philosophical territory about life, the universe, and everything.
I’ll give it 42 stars.