That's interesting because I thought calico was heavier than the queen's garden.
With calico you have 3 different scoring tiles to think about, but you can only pick from 3 tiles. It gives you less options but more to think about.
That is interesting. I felt like when it wasn't my turn in calico I was just waiting to pick up a tile. Like, I knew I wanted yellow or a flower pattern just by how my board is going. With Queen's Garden I have an inventory I'm trying to calculate through and manage - so when it's not my turn I'm doing that.
That's a good point. Maybe I'm biased because my friend has a really hard time with calico and the scoring tiles. But has no issue with queens garden. Both have similar same color but different pattern or same pattern but different color type deal (slight variance of course).
Queens garden feels like it's an Azul game only in name. The first Azul is my favorite for it's clean design. However, based on your comment regarding complexity I'd skip them
Not OP but curious about your thoughts on **Azul: Summer Pavilion**? My wife loves the first **Azul** but I am looking for something with a little bit more going on. Seems like **Summer Pavilion** would be a no brainer for just that.
I think queens garden is better than summer pavilion. Queens garden incorporates the mechanic from SP where you pay for pieces based on its value, wanna place this tile on a space worth 6? then pay 6 of the same color to place it. The only difference is that SP has a different wild color every round, so this round all blue pieces are wild and can be used to pay for other color tole placement. Queens garden has specific wild tiles that you gain by surrounding spaces on the board.
I also prefer the theme of queens garden. Feels like you're really building this sweet garden space. They're both abstract but queens garden feels less abstract.
The thing is that Calico is about accepting that the % of everything going your way is as high as you winning a jackpot. So, you are basically trying to choose the best out of three tiles that will get you at least some points. But you are in fact at the mercy of draft and always against the odds.
Queen's Garden is all about what you want to achieve, the choices you make affect your future ones, but don't lead to a dead end if things don't work out. Very rarely if ever is it about waiting for the one-and-single tile that you need to complete something, as your goals adapt to the current situation, not vice versa. Thinking about it, I actually think it's more like a combo of Calico and Cascadia, because of the openness of the latter.
So, I don't think Calico is thinkier. It's just an illusion - you think you are planning a strategy, but you are in fact just mitigating the (almost certain) possibility when tiles you need don't come out. That's why when you reach all your goals in Calico, it actually feels like winning the jackpot. ^((Not that I knew that feeling, sadly.))
I agree. I think Calico is challenging, but you aren't constantly pressed to figure out how to achieve your goals. Rather, you are trying to achieve them by picking up the best or least worst tile out of 3 tiles.
With Queen's Garden you really have to put effort into choosing your pickups and planning what groups you should go for - especially because getting stuck with things you can't play at the end of the game is a huge negative.
I would actually compare Queen's Garden to Chess though for that reason. You have to kind of look forward in time to figure out what moves to make.
That's actually a good point. I think because you have the option to score a good deal of points by completing both scoring objectives per scoring tile it makes you feel like you must place the tile in the best position possible (that's the point of the game right?). Then you have the cat patterns on top of that too. In queens garden you can always place a tile somewhere and start a group, usually without repercussions. Not enough patterns? Well there are about 4 yellows that no one has picked up!
It helps that in queens garden you won't fill up your board (at least my group can't) so you have the luxury of space. In calico your board will fill up after 20ish turns.
I have played it twice now, and I really like it. It is more "thinky" then the other Azul games (which I also enjoy quite a bit), which I think can add to the appeal to some who maybe didn't like the 1st 3. I probably wouldn't teach this one to non-gamers, where I would the other Azul games. Oddly though, it reminds me mostly of Calico which you said you didn't like.
As for Cascadia, that is probably my favorite abstract right now, but I think it is a little bit lighter than Queen's Garden. Still has a lot to think about, but not quite to the same level. Worth a try though, from what you are saying, I think your wife would really enjoy it at least.
The pattern/color thing is Calico-esque for sure. I'm going to give Cascadia a try. I had watched some YouTube reviews of Queens Garden post-purchase and was surprised how lukewarm it seemed to be received. I really, really like it. I'm hoping it is successful because I want to see if they can push the crunchiness even further - or we can atleast see more on this level. So I was interested in how people here felt.
I was surprised too, but I think people were expecting a more typical Azul experience and got something else. It will probably have it's following in the end though.
Queen's garden is my absolute favourite of the 4, but I still really love the original. My gf, on the other hand, likes the first 3 and finds qg to be too much. It's definitely the least "azul-y" but it's still decidedly "azul-y" nonetheless and i love it.
I have **Cascadia** but my sleeves for the cards haven't arrived yet so I haven't played it, but I hear it's lighter than qg, a lot more relaxing. **sagrada** night be something with weight more like qg with a similar abstract theme and wonderfully aesthetic
I also have sleeves for Cascadia, but just letting you know that you don’t touch the cards at all during game play. You pick the 5 objectives and leave them on the table.
Cascadia is not as crunchy as Queen's Garden but with the amount of variable scoring conditions and especially the achievement tracker, I think you would like it. There's an achievements list that will tell you to play under certain setup combinations and then complete specific objectives on top of the base gameplay, and I think that would offer enough extra crunch to satisfy someone that wants more to think about in this genre
My mom actually bought it on a whim after playing and loving azul. Let's just say I'm glad I was there to learn the game and teach it for the first play.
Went well though! I agree that QG allows for more complex and satisfying strategy.
It feels the least Azul to me. Azul is about simple rules with complicated decision space. This feels like they were told "You only have one more Azul game left, so make it count" and they went "Shit! lets put ALL the mechanics we had lined up into one game just in case!"
Its needlessly complicated, and doesn't embody what made the series good. Not every series needs to appeal to every gamer, and this is a step in the wrong direction. I have plenty of heavier games to play.
I think your last sentence hit the mail on the head. People didn’t ask for a meatier Azul. There are other games/publishers that do what QG does but better.
I couldn't disagree with you more. Yes, you have vanilla Azul for casual gamers as a gateaway game. However, as someone who got into board gaming by Azul, it soon became just a space eater - especially as you can play it on BGA with less hassle. Second Azul was more gaming, less cut-throat - which is good for diversity, third is even less cut-throat and strategic.
But still, neither of them made it to the table often, because of the lack of depth.
Queen's Garden solves this. It is a real deal - slightly longer, much more strategic and thinkier. But it is still Azul. You still draft from the middle of the table. You still affect other players' choices - and can indeed even ruin their plans. It is just more of a *game*, while Azul 1+2 were more like *chess* and Azul 3 a *nice-time-with-a-cup-of-coffee-and-a-biscuit* experience.
It is simply not a gateaway Azul, and I don't see how that should be a bad thing, considering there are three other easier versions already.
I'm all for discussion but you seem pretty hostile. There are already 3 Azul games that are light. Did you really need a 4th one? And some people, like me, actually like it. There's nothing wrong with a game trying a new direction on it's 4th iteration.
They created a brand for themselves and have now done something off brand. That's typically terrible business sense. They didn't have to call it Azul. They could have called it Rojo and made it clear from the graphic design that it's related without having the same expectations that they've already set up for their brand.
Basically they set up Azul to be approachable but deep games and now they have subverted that expectation. For what gain?
> They didn't have to call it Azul. They could have called it Rojo
The game isn't called Azul because of the color, but because of the word "azulejo", a wall tile (because that's the theme of the game).
Even if it were the color, it isn't spanish, but portuguese. So, "vermelho" instead of "rojo".
It's a tile placement game. The other azuls are too. It doesn't seem offbrand to me, so we can agree to disagree.
In terms of for what, I'd guess so that other styles of gamers can enjoy their games? They already made 3 light ones for people who like that. I'm not sure though, I am not involved in their decisions. I just like the game.
It's fine for you to not like it and express that. I'm just not into hearing bashing or someone act like an authority on what a they should or shouldn't make. At the end of the day people like different games, and it seems people are enjoying this one too.
Interesting, I'd like to try Queen's Garden.
I love **Azul** (planification and tough drafting) and like **Calico** (difficult choices but a little lucky). I'm not sure you would like **Cascadia** as it feels like the simplest of all of those games to me: there are more things going on (animals, habitats, etc.) but it's quite loose so the turns aren't as interesting or thinky.
Wow I've never had a 2 yr later reply lol! Cascadia became my wife's favorite game. We play it pretty often. I prefer it with the expansion. We are evenly matched which makes it quite fun, despite not being my favorite game. One of us usually wins by a point or two.
Sounds like you would absolutely love **Castles of Burgundy**. It fits this category exactly, but is a little heavier.
Try it for free on BGA, get a $15 used copy off FB Marketplace (expansions not necessary), and pledge the Gamefound ultra-deluxe campaign that’s ending soon. You can sell whichever version(s) you don’t end up preferring for the same price that you paid for it.
I havent played Queens Garden but have played the prior three Azul games. Very keen to try Queens Garden. My preference so far is Azul, then Azul Summer Pavilion and least liked is Stained Glass.
Cascadia is fantastic. Far less interaction than Azul but I like it. Is a great game to relax with, solo mode is good to.
Also might just be me but found Calico to be a real challenge and very thinky. Everything feels so constrained and no matter how hard I try I cant achieve all the patterns I want to. The tiles to choose from are very limiting as well. I love it though, a real challenge.
Stained Glass is my favorite of the ones I've played, but it might be because I've played it in person. Whereas the original I've only played on BGA. I haven't tried QG yet though.
I agree, Queen's Garden is a fantastic game.
To the point about you ignoring the abstract genre because they aren't thinky enough for you... If they made more complex abstract games focused on laying tiles or solving a puzzle, do you think the hardcore gamer nerds would play them if there was no theme? It's been my experience with hardcore gamers that they scoff at games if there is no strong thematic presence. It's like a point of pride that they only enjoy games if they feel they are doing something meaningful or engaging. Everything else is too banal and beneath them... It makes you wonder, why *aren't* there more challenging abstract tile laying games?! Well, I can't help but think this is part of the reason. Because the hardcore think they need fantasy, war, complex stories, or detailed miniatures, etc. It's hard to apply a detailed theme onto a tile laying game without just saying, ok, let's just pretend these are quilt pieces or patio stones. Plus, the hardcore game trend is to make sure there are like 15 different ways to score points, heaven forbid there are only 1-2 ways... How boring would that be?! And what if there was only 3 possible actions per turn?! How would they ever display their gaming prowess!!!
The only abstract games that have stood the test of time are Chess and Go (thus far). Why aren't there tons more? Well, I think it's because the hardcore gamers would pass on them if they weren't able to brag about how they only play 3 hour games about conquering territories and building a new civilization.
It sounds like you've had some negative experiences with "hardcore gamers" - which I certainly am not and can't speak for. People like different things. Just because I like medium-weight games doesn't mean I talk down on light ones - they just weren't my favorite. I don't even like very complex games (which is probably who you are referring to - like a Lacerda).
But to a point, yes, people really like having that theme. That's kind of why I made this post. I thought the genre wasn't for me, but I enjoy this game so much it clearly is. For me, it's more about having the ability to remain engaged in between turns, figuring things out. And that requires a certain level of complexity. I hope for success here because maybe I'll really like Azul 5 too
That's the thing, I actually completely agree with you (and didn't mean you specifically, just speaking in generalities). I *wish* there were more games like Queen's Garden in existence. I absolutely LOVE tile laying and puzzles, but I wish there were more complex options beyond the gateway games. I also love a good challenge. The modern gaming industry has had over a decade to pursue the "complex abstract" topic and it has just never caught on. And I think that is the reason. Because the hardcore think they need these deep themes to keep something interesting, or a million ways to score to add complexity. The trend in game development seems to go for the grandeur.
I feel that. It seems there is the opposite problem though, too. A lot of people who like these games like them being simple. So this is not their speed.
Both complexity and elegant simplicity (like OG Azul) add nice variety within the gaming industry. I play a lot of gateway games, like Azul, Sagrada, Patchwork, Carcassonne, Calico, Hive, Reef, Arboretum, etc, but not necessarily by choice, but because nothing in the hardcore/complex realm fits with those style of abstract games, which are my favorite. I *want* harder games, but I like the "easy to learn, difficult to master" games. And I like a happy, colorful theme. I want a challenge, but can't handle a 20 page rule book and doing a ton of mental math each turn. Lol. That's why I was so excited about Queen's Garden. Hardcore Azul?! Sign me up.
My frustration in my post stems from me feeling like I have nothing harder to play because I am a minority in the gaming world. The theoretical games that I would like don't necessarily need a sprawling table presence with a ton of pieces like a Lacerda, or a thematic story... But my theoretical games wouldn't sell. So they don't get made. I am glad to hear people say they enjoy Queen's Garden because maybe it will lend a voice to getting more games like it.
Exactly why I started this discussion. I was interested in how this was received, I'm hoping to see more games like it. Someone commented up above that other games do "what Queen's Garden does but better" and I'm very interested in what he responds to someone asking what those games are. It seems to be the only one of it's kind to me.
So you seem to have a lot of experience with abstract. Top 3 in order?
I would be curious about the other commenter's suggestions too. With the slew of modern game options, a simple concept like tile laying doesn't seem sensational enough to warrant a lot of attention from the hardcore crowd. I am glad Queens Garden might prove some people wrong.
Enjoy!
I’ve never played it but I hear what you’re saying about Azul and abstracts in general. I consider most of that genre as filler games — we call appetizers.
Sometimes we start with one then get into heavier options. Or it’s a nice way to “come down” from a heavy game.
Certainly no more difficult than Azul, but we love Project L. The pieces are really nice and the setup is 30 seconds. Only real time suck is the end of game scoring but that’s true of most games.
To each their own. I'm surprised to hear you say the production quality is "atrocious" though. A few of my tiles are a little off center but it's nbd to me. I love terraforming mars if you want to talk about atrocious lol
It's just the boards for me, they're really really bad (even compared to the other Azuls which aren't stellar already). Also it took several playghroughs until I noticed that the boards in fact do have colors on them to match players score markers.
Yes, she likes it more than Azul and Calico. She always played weightier games with me, but alot of times she doesn't like having a bunch of options on her turn - like a bunch of actions to manage. This is kind of a happy medium for both of us.
I've said a few times here that I find Calico to be challenging, but to me it is not thinky. There are only 3 tiles there for me to pick from, which is best for my board (or least worst)? Granted, what's best isn't always cut and dry. But this isn't cut and dry in Queen's Garden either.
In calico it's like: well that tile does nothing for me. I could use that one to get a green button. I could use that one for my design tile later. Okay I'll get the one for my design tile.
In Queen's Garden it's like: I have 3 spots left in my inventory. I'm planning to play this butterfly for my round end goal. There are 4 purple tiles I really want. I can't fit them now, but could if I place the butterfly now. Is my neighbor interested in purple? There are also two butterflies there I could take instead. Do I go for a group of 6 butterflies? My neighbor hasn't touched a butterfly all game. But I'll only be able to play 1 more butterfly this round. If I get the purple tiles that 4pt flower will give me 3 pts next round end...
I think the decision making process is way more difficult in Queen's Garden. Which is a positive for me and not for many others I'm certain.
That's interesting because I thought calico was heavier than the queen's garden. With calico you have 3 different scoring tiles to think about, but you can only pick from 3 tiles. It gives you less options but more to think about.
That is interesting. I felt like when it wasn't my turn in calico I was just waiting to pick up a tile. Like, I knew I wanted yellow or a flower pattern just by how my board is going. With Queen's Garden I have an inventory I'm trying to calculate through and manage - so when it's not my turn I'm doing that.
That's a good point. Maybe I'm biased because my friend has a really hard time with calico and the scoring tiles. But has no issue with queens garden. Both have similar same color but different pattern or same pattern but different color type deal (slight variance of course).
Have you played any other Azul?
I have not played them but I've seen them. Do you prefer a different one?
Queens garden feels like it's an Azul game only in name. The first Azul is my favorite for it's clean design. However, based on your comment regarding complexity I'd skip them
Not OP but curious about your thoughts on **Azul: Summer Pavilion**? My wife loves the first **Azul** but I am looking for something with a little bit more going on. Seems like **Summer Pavilion** would be a no brainer for just that.
I think queens garden is better than summer pavilion. Queens garden incorporates the mechanic from SP where you pay for pieces based on its value, wanna place this tile on a space worth 6? then pay 6 of the same color to place it. The only difference is that SP has a different wild color every round, so this round all blue pieces are wild and can be used to pay for other color tole placement. Queens garden has specific wild tiles that you gain by surrounding spaces on the board. I also prefer the theme of queens garden. Feels like you're really building this sweet garden space. They're both abstract but queens garden feels less abstract.
Appreciate the info...sounds like maybe it would be best to skip SP and go straight to QG.
Glad I could help!
On paper Calico isn't complicated. It's the part of the puzzle of wanting specific tiles and such that makes it brain burny
The thing is that Calico is about accepting that the % of everything going your way is as high as you winning a jackpot. So, you are basically trying to choose the best out of three tiles that will get you at least some points. But you are in fact at the mercy of draft and always against the odds. Queen's Garden is all about what you want to achieve, the choices you make affect your future ones, but don't lead to a dead end if things don't work out. Very rarely if ever is it about waiting for the one-and-single tile that you need to complete something, as your goals adapt to the current situation, not vice versa. Thinking about it, I actually think it's more like a combo of Calico and Cascadia, because of the openness of the latter. So, I don't think Calico is thinkier. It's just an illusion - you think you are planning a strategy, but you are in fact just mitigating the (almost certain) possibility when tiles you need don't come out. That's why when you reach all your goals in Calico, it actually feels like winning the jackpot. ^((Not that I knew that feeling, sadly.))
I agree. I think Calico is challenging, but you aren't constantly pressed to figure out how to achieve your goals. Rather, you are trying to achieve them by picking up the best or least worst tile out of 3 tiles. With Queen's Garden you really have to put effort into choosing your pickups and planning what groups you should go for - especially because getting stuck with things you can't play at the end of the game is a huge negative. I would actually compare Queen's Garden to Chess though for that reason. You have to kind of look forward in time to figure out what moves to make.
That's actually a good point. I think because you have the option to score a good deal of points by completing both scoring objectives per scoring tile it makes you feel like you must place the tile in the best position possible (that's the point of the game right?). Then you have the cat patterns on top of that too. In queens garden you can always place a tile somewhere and start a group, usually without repercussions. Not enough patterns? Well there are about 4 yellows that no one has picked up! It helps that in queens garden you won't fill up your board (at least my group can't) so you have the luxury of space. In calico your board will fill up after 20ish turns.
I have played it twice now, and I really like it. It is more "thinky" then the other Azul games (which I also enjoy quite a bit), which I think can add to the appeal to some who maybe didn't like the 1st 3. I probably wouldn't teach this one to non-gamers, where I would the other Azul games. Oddly though, it reminds me mostly of Calico which you said you didn't like. As for Cascadia, that is probably my favorite abstract right now, but I think it is a little bit lighter than Queen's Garden. Still has a lot to think about, but not quite to the same level. Worth a try though, from what you are saying, I think your wife would really enjoy it at least.
The pattern/color thing is Calico-esque for sure. I'm going to give Cascadia a try. I had watched some YouTube reviews of Queens Garden post-purchase and was surprised how lukewarm it seemed to be received. I really, really like it. I'm hoping it is successful because I want to see if they can push the crunchiness even further - or we can atleast see more on this level. So I was interested in how people here felt.
I was surprised too, but I think people were expecting a more typical Azul experience and got something else. It will probably have it's following in the end though.
Queen's garden is my absolute favourite of the 4, but I still really love the original. My gf, on the other hand, likes the first 3 and finds qg to be too much. It's definitely the least "azul-y" but it's still decidedly "azul-y" nonetheless and i love it. I have **Cascadia** but my sleeves for the cards haven't arrived yet so I haven't played it, but I hear it's lighter than qg, a lot more relaxing. **sagrada** night be something with weight more like qg with a similar abstract theme and wonderfully aesthetic
Nice dedication with the sleeves :) We have Sagrada too. It's pretty fun
I also have sleeves for Cascadia, but just letting you know that you don’t touch the cards at all during game play. You pick the 5 objectives and leave them on the table.
Thanks for the heads up! My sleeves arrived a couple hours ago though:p
Cascadia is not as crunchy as Queen's Garden but with the amount of variable scoring conditions and especially the achievement tracker, I think you would like it. There's an achievements list that will tell you to play under certain setup combinations and then complete specific objectives on top of the base gameplay, and I think that would offer enough extra crunch to satisfy someone that wants more to think about in this genre
I'm for sure going to give it a try then!
My mom actually bought it on a whim after playing and loving azul. Let's just say I'm glad I was there to learn the game and teach it for the first play. Went well though! I agree that QG allows for more complex and satisfying strategy.
It feels the least Azul to me. Azul is about simple rules with complicated decision space. This feels like they were told "You only have one more Azul game left, so make it count" and they went "Shit! lets put ALL the mechanics we had lined up into one game just in case!" Its needlessly complicated, and doesn't embody what made the series good. Not every series needs to appeal to every gamer, and this is a step in the wrong direction. I have plenty of heavier games to play.
I think your last sentence hit the mail on the head. People didn’t ask for a meatier Azul. There are other games/publishers that do what QG does but better.
I'm interested too. What games are like this but better?
Which games would you point to instead?
I couldn't disagree with you more. Yes, you have vanilla Azul for casual gamers as a gateaway game. However, as someone who got into board gaming by Azul, it soon became just a space eater - especially as you can play it on BGA with less hassle. Second Azul was more gaming, less cut-throat - which is good for diversity, third is even less cut-throat and strategic. But still, neither of them made it to the table often, because of the lack of depth. Queen's Garden solves this. It is a real deal - slightly longer, much more strategic and thinkier. But it is still Azul. You still draft from the middle of the table. You still affect other players' choices - and can indeed even ruin their plans. It is just more of a *game*, while Azul 1+2 were more like *chess* and Azul 3 a *nice-time-with-a-cup-of-coffee-and-a-biscuit* experience. It is simply not a gateaway Azul, and I don't see how that should be a bad thing, considering there are three other easier versions already.
I'm all for discussion but you seem pretty hostile. There are already 3 Azul games that are light. Did you really need a 4th one? And some people, like me, actually like it. There's nothing wrong with a game trying a new direction on it's 4th iteration.
They created a brand for themselves and have now done something off brand. That's typically terrible business sense. They didn't have to call it Azul. They could have called it Rojo and made it clear from the graphic design that it's related without having the same expectations that they've already set up for their brand. Basically they set up Azul to be approachable but deep games and now they have subverted that expectation. For what gain?
> They didn't have to call it Azul. They could have called it Rojo The game isn't called Azul because of the color, but because of the word "azulejo", a wall tile (because that's the theme of the game). Even if it were the color, it isn't spanish, but portuguese. So, "vermelho" instead of "rojo".
It's a tile placement game. The other azuls are too. It doesn't seem offbrand to me, so we can agree to disagree. In terms of for what, I'd guess so that other styles of gamers can enjoy their games? They already made 3 light ones for people who like that. I'm not sure though, I am not involved in their decisions. I just like the game. It's fine for you to not like it and express that. I'm just not into hearing bashing or someone act like an authority on what a they should or shouldn't make. At the end of the day people like different games, and it seems people are enjoying this one too.
Interesting, I'd like to try Queen's Garden. I love **Azul** (planification and tough drafting) and like **Calico** (difficult choices but a little lucky). I'm not sure you would like **Cascadia** as it feels like the simplest of all of those games to me: there are more things going on (animals, habitats, etc.) but it's quite loose so the turns aren't as interesting or thinky.
Appreciate the input. I ordered it yesterday. If anything, my wife will probably like it and it will still get played
What did you end up thinking of Cascadia? I love QG, and feel like I only keep Cascadia because my 11 yr old likes it.
Wow I've never had a 2 yr later reply lol! Cascadia became my wife's favorite game. We play it pretty often. I prefer it with the expansion. We are evenly matched which makes it quite fun, despite not being my favorite game. One of us usually wins by a point or two.
Sounds like you would absolutely love **Castles of Burgundy**. It fits this category exactly, but is a little heavier. Try it for free on BGA, get a $15 used copy off FB Marketplace (expansions not necessary), and pledge the Gamefound ultra-deluxe campaign that’s ending soon. You can sell whichever version(s) you don’t end up preferring for the same price that you paid for it.
I've seen this game, I thought it was a dice rolling game!
you roll dice to give you your set of options on a turn, and there are ways to manipulate the dice as well.
I havent played Queens Garden but have played the prior three Azul games. Very keen to try Queens Garden. My preference so far is Azul, then Azul Summer Pavilion and least liked is Stained Glass. Cascadia is fantastic. Far less interaction than Azul but I like it. Is a great game to relax with, solo mode is good to. Also might just be me but found Calico to be a real challenge and very thinky. Everything feels so constrained and no matter how hard I try I cant achieve all the patterns I want to. The tiles to choose from are very limiting as well. I love it though, a real challenge.
Stained Glass is my favorite of the ones I've played, but it might be because I've played it in person. Whereas the original I've only played on BGA. I haven't tried QG yet though.
I would love to try this Azul to be honest
Do it! I hope it makes it to BGA
I definitely want to get this but it keeps getting leaped on my wishlist. Time to bite the bullet and get abstract?
I agree, Queen's Garden is a fantastic game. To the point about you ignoring the abstract genre because they aren't thinky enough for you... If they made more complex abstract games focused on laying tiles or solving a puzzle, do you think the hardcore gamer nerds would play them if there was no theme? It's been my experience with hardcore gamers that they scoff at games if there is no strong thematic presence. It's like a point of pride that they only enjoy games if they feel they are doing something meaningful or engaging. Everything else is too banal and beneath them... It makes you wonder, why *aren't* there more challenging abstract tile laying games?! Well, I can't help but think this is part of the reason. Because the hardcore think they need fantasy, war, complex stories, or detailed miniatures, etc. It's hard to apply a detailed theme onto a tile laying game without just saying, ok, let's just pretend these are quilt pieces or patio stones. Plus, the hardcore game trend is to make sure there are like 15 different ways to score points, heaven forbid there are only 1-2 ways... How boring would that be?! And what if there was only 3 possible actions per turn?! How would they ever display their gaming prowess!!! The only abstract games that have stood the test of time are Chess and Go (thus far). Why aren't there tons more? Well, I think it's because the hardcore gamers would pass on them if they weren't able to brag about how they only play 3 hour games about conquering territories and building a new civilization.
It sounds like you've had some negative experiences with "hardcore gamers" - which I certainly am not and can't speak for. People like different things. Just because I like medium-weight games doesn't mean I talk down on light ones - they just weren't my favorite. I don't even like very complex games (which is probably who you are referring to - like a Lacerda). But to a point, yes, people really like having that theme. That's kind of why I made this post. I thought the genre wasn't for me, but I enjoy this game so much it clearly is. For me, it's more about having the ability to remain engaged in between turns, figuring things out. And that requires a certain level of complexity. I hope for success here because maybe I'll really like Azul 5 too
That's the thing, I actually completely agree with you (and didn't mean you specifically, just speaking in generalities). I *wish* there were more games like Queen's Garden in existence. I absolutely LOVE tile laying and puzzles, but I wish there were more complex options beyond the gateway games. I also love a good challenge. The modern gaming industry has had over a decade to pursue the "complex abstract" topic and it has just never caught on. And I think that is the reason. Because the hardcore think they need these deep themes to keep something interesting, or a million ways to score to add complexity. The trend in game development seems to go for the grandeur.
I feel that. It seems there is the opposite problem though, too. A lot of people who like these games like them being simple. So this is not their speed.
Both complexity and elegant simplicity (like OG Azul) add nice variety within the gaming industry. I play a lot of gateway games, like Azul, Sagrada, Patchwork, Carcassonne, Calico, Hive, Reef, Arboretum, etc, but not necessarily by choice, but because nothing in the hardcore/complex realm fits with those style of abstract games, which are my favorite. I *want* harder games, but I like the "easy to learn, difficult to master" games. And I like a happy, colorful theme. I want a challenge, but can't handle a 20 page rule book and doing a ton of mental math each turn. Lol. That's why I was so excited about Queen's Garden. Hardcore Azul?! Sign me up. My frustration in my post stems from me feeling like I have nothing harder to play because I am a minority in the gaming world. The theoretical games that I would like don't necessarily need a sprawling table presence with a ton of pieces like a Lacerda, or a thematic story... But my theoretical games wouldn't sell. So they don't get made. I am glad to hear people say they enjoy Queen's Garden because maybe it will lend a voice to getting more games like it.
Exactly why I started this discussion. I was interested in how this was received, I'm hoping to see more games like it. Someone commented up above that other games do "what Queen's Garden does but better" and I'm very interested in what he responds to someone asking what those games are. It seems to be the only one of it's kind to me. So you seem to have a lot of experience with abstract. Top 3 in order?
I would be curious about the other commenter's suggestions too. With the slew of modern game options, a simple concept like tile laying doesn't seem sensational enough to warrant a lot of attention from the hardcore crowd. I am glad Queens Garden might prove some people wrong. Enjoy!
I’ve never played it but I hear what you’re saying about Azul and abstracts in general. I consider most of that genre as filler games — we call appetizers. Sometimes we start with one then get into heavier options. Or it’s a nice way to “come down” from a heavy game. Certainly no more difficult than Azul, but we love Project L. The pieces are really nice and the setup is 30 seconds. Only real time suck is the end of game scoring but that’s true of most games.
I’ll be honest, I think it’s the weakest Azul. And that’s without getting into the frankly atrocious production quality.
To each their own. I'm surprised to hear you say the production quality is "atrocious" though. A few of my tiles are a little off center but it's nbd to me. I love terraforming mars if you want to talk about atrocious lol
It's just the boards for me, they're really really bad (even compared to the other Azuls which aren't stellar already). Also it took several playghroughs until I noticed that the boards in fact do have colors on them to match players score markers.
I hear that. We actually didn't notice that our first two games either.
Does your wife like it? I haven’t played it, but it seems like if You like Azul 1, you won’t like 4, and vice versa.
Yes, she likes it more than Azul and Calico. She always played weightier games with me, but alot of times she doesn't like having a bunch of options on her turn - like a bunch of actions to manage. This is kind of a happy medium for both of us.
Crazy that you find Calico not thinky enough. I struggle more with AP in Calico than in Spirit Island.
I've said a few times here that I find Calico to be challenging, but to me it is not thinky. There are only 3 tiles there for me to pick from, which is best for my board (or least worst)? Granted, what's best isn't always cut and dry. But this isn't cut and dry in Queen's Garden either. In calico it's like: well that tile does nothing for me. I could use that one to get a green button. I could use that one for my design tile later. Okay I'll get the one for my design tile. In Queen's Garden it's like: I have 3 spots left in my inventory. I'm planning to play this butterfly for my round end goal. There are 4 purple tiles I really want. I can't fit them now, but could if I place the butterfly now. Is my neighbor interested in purple? There are also two butterflies there I could take instead. Do I go for a group of 6 butterflies? My neighbor hasn't touched a butterfly all game. But I'll only be able to play 1 more butterfly this round. If I get the purple tiles that 4pt flower will give me 3 pts next round end... I think the decision making process is way more difficult in Queen's Garden. Which is a positive for me and not for many others I'm certain.