|<< What's the Point of Giving Thanks? | Catch-22: Chapters 24-32 >>|
Games: Coloretto & Zooloretto
Sometimes the simplest games are the most fun. And sometimes, not so much.
Take, for instance, the titles on my selection of Ten Great "Two-Minute" Card Games. Despite their simplicity, each has it's fans. No Thanks! has been my filler of choice for the last few years, and I've been playing Slide 5 for a decade or so.
But one game on that list that has always left me cold is Coloretto. The game is played with a deck containing cards of seven different colors (the cards have no value; only their color counts). On a turn, a player does one of two things:
When taking a row, a player puts the claimed cards into his play area. His goal is to get as many cards as possible in three colors only, and to avoid taking cards in any additional colors. At the end of the game, cards in the three chosen colors count as points, while cards in other colors count as negative points.
The central dilemma in the game quickly becomes apparent: you may draw a card in a color you desire, but you can't keep it; instead you must add it to a row and hope that another player doesn't claim that row before your next turn. Even if the row does gets back around to you, it's unlikely that it won't have been "poisoned"; upon drawing a card they don't particularly want, players will often assess the available rows, identify one that is attractive to another player and add the junk card to it, thereby lessening its value considerably. This is what makes the game so tense--and occasionally maddening.
The "draw a card or take a row" element of Coloretto is the sort of twist that I typically love. But, for some reason, Coloretto just doesn't do it for me.
So why is it on my list of "great" two-minute card games, you may ask. Well, I appear to be in the minority regarding my opinion of the game. It has a composite rating of 7.2 on Boardgame Geek, which is fairly phenomenal for a game this light. And, truth be told, I recognize its brilliance--which is to say, I appreciate Coloretto without particularly enjoying it. There just doesn't seem to be enough game in there to hold my interest.
Enter Zooloretto. Designer Michael Schacht took the central mechanism of Coloretto and added sufficient bells and whistles to make the thing interesting, but not so many that the game leaves the realm of light, family fare.
Each player begins with a zoo, complete with three animal enclosures and a barn. Here again you can elect to draw on your turn, but now you draw tiles from a bag instead of cards from a deck. The tiles show either one of eight animals (kangaroos, flamingos, gorillas, etc.), market stalls, or coins. A draw tile must be added to one of the rows--or, in this incarnation, trucks--in the center of a table. A player may instead take a truck, distribute the animals and stalls in his zoo, and drop out for the remainder of the round. An enclosure can only hold one type of animals; animals that cannot be fit into the main zoo are relegated to the barn.
So far, pretty much the same as its predecessor. But this game introduces the concept of money, which can be spent to shuffle animals around, steal them from other players, or discard them entirely. ("Paulie Panda has been sent to live with Uncle Chester, who has a big farm he can roam in ...") Market stalls can also be used to eke out a few extra points here and there. As in the original, too much of a good thing is bad: at the end of the game you score points for animals in your enclosures, but lose them for the unloved critters in the barn.
Zooloretto is cute, easy to learn, short (figure 45 minutes a game), and not too confrontational (though there is an element of screw-your-buddy in the mix). My only gripe is that there are a couple of obscure rules regarding money that strike me as both overly finicky and largely unnecessary (yeah, I know I'm a hypocrite: lambaste Coloretto for having too few rules and Zooloretto for having too many). Minor grievances aside, though, Zooloretto is one of the best
Also, here's Michael on Zooloretto's suitably as a "family game": "The first game ended in tears from my son, the second in tears from both of them ... I think you underestimate the meanness of this game." Actually, I don't--much of the game comes down to making life miserable for your opponents. My mistake, I think, is calling this a "family game." I was using "family game" as shorthand for "light strategy game for adults," not "great for the yungins." I will correct that now.Posted on November 22, 2007 to Games