The New Science: The New Game I Don't Want To Play

Not a whole lot of gaming this week. What I did play was The New Science and the new Core Worlds expansion (more on that at a later date). I also played a ton of crokinole with my brother, an event that will go down as Crokegeddon 2013. Hoo boy. That was a time.

So yeah, The New Science.  Let's get on with this.


I've come to a bit of an understanding with worker placement games.  As far as euro mechanics go, it really has room for some cutthroat play, so points for that.  I adore Agricola, and I've had way more fun with Lords of Waterdeep than I had originally thought I would. Yet it seems that the designers of The New Science missed some key parts about what makes these types of games really click. Couple that with what has become the standard lack of polish and development with Kickstarter games and you have a game I want no part of.

Players pick a scientist they want to represent from what was described to me as "old" or "new" categories.  "New" is really pushing it, since they're still really damned old. You're playing the usual worker placement game, only the effects don't go off until all the workers are placed. Once they are, everything is worked out from left to right, top to bottom. It has a timing thing going on, which comes across as purely mechanical, and the turn resolution (and therefore the game) feels like one big process. By the way, all your worker placement is to progress up a tech tree. That may sound fun to any 4X fans reading this, but it's as if they broke the fun part off: The results. I'm not saying that anyone should take that as a valid criticism, but I don't want anyone to say, "Oooh, a tech tree, I love Civilization, this will be fun!"  It won't be.  You would also be incorrect if you said, "Oooh, words on a board, this game is dripping with theme!"  It isn't.  And you're wrong.  That is't theme.  They're just words.

Do not be fooled!

While I said that I've come to like a few worker placement games, the mechanic on its own is not enough to carry a game. Agricola and Lords of Waterdeep introduce new options turn to turn. It keeps thing fresh. The New Science completely ignores that concept. There is a deck of cards that sometimes has a neat temporary effect on the game, but it simply isn't enough. The board didn't feel all that tight either.  First player seemed to be the single most important, sought after thing, with "publishing" being second.  There seemed adequate amount of other things to do, but most of which were not interesting.  You get those moments in Agricola and other worker placement games where someone gets to something you really needed to get, leaving you wondering, "What do I do now?"  You get on with plans for a workaround. In The New Science, first player and "publishing" get taken, that should be where that moment hits, but instead you're left with a bunch of choices which mean next to nothing to you.

Finally, there's the interface. In short, it sucks. Things are too cluttered together on one side of the board, where things begin and end are unclear, and there's a few design choices that make you wonder why they would ever chose to do what they did. For example, experimentation.  In order to get to the point where you publish a certain discovery (which gets you victory points), you first need to experiment.  That means rolling a die.  The number you need to roll is on the board.  Now, placing your worker on the normal experimentation space means you add +1 to your die roll.  Placing it on the +1 space means add +2 to your die roll.  There's also a -1 space, which means you accept the roll as is.  You didn't read that wrong.  The board does not remind you that you get a +1 on the normal space and does not tell you that you actually get a +2 on the +1 space.  The reason for this?  Putting your worker down on the space at all counts as a +1.  Why even have that rule?  Why not just put that information on the board?  This, folks, is why publishers are a good thing. A number of them have a fair amount of experience in presenting games in the most easy to understand way possible. You don't get that with Kickstarter, never mind the vaporware factor. I could go on with why Kickstarter is terrible for the hobby, but this isn't the place. Some other time.

For a game about science, this is entirely illogical.

The bottom line is this: I know my mission is to leave all reviews as "open ended," but I'm closing the book on this one. I don't think I've found so much of what I don't like in games in one place in quite some time.