Star Trek DBG Video Review

[Saibrock]

I just thought I'd plug my new video here, since it's on-topic.

[Space Elmo]

The page says the video is marked private.

[Saibrock]

Yeah, there was an editing error in that one, where I accidentally included two takes of the same shot, including a comically frustrated grunt after the first one didn't work out. I have re-edited the video and am uploading the new version now. I'll post a link to it here when it's done.

[Saibrock]

OK, here's a link to the final version of the video, and I've updated the link in the original post as well.

It took all day of re-editing and trying several times to upload the video. I'm about sick of messing with it now.

[Mr. Domino]

competent review, however I take issue with a lot of your negative points.

- playtime too long

I'll admit, this was an issue the first few times I've played, but this quickly was gotten over once everyone I was playing with had figured out how to play. Now, my 3-man exploration games (which is what I play most often) run about 45-50 minutes most of the time.

- rulebook unhelpful

I've heard this a lot since the forum got going (although, surprisingly, not at all from any of the 8 or 9 local players who've bought the game), so I'm willing to at least give it some credence, but I know from my experience that I had 0 trouble with the rulebook. I downloaded it from the website before the game came out, and once I had it in my hands, sat down and played it with 4 friends immediately. Did I do a few things wrong those first few games? Absolutely. There are definitely some things that are a bit vague in the rulebook (and when I say a bit, I really do just mean a bit, as if you're willing to think through what's being said, they're not hard to figure out), but the first incarnation of any rulebook for a game dealing with the interactions of a lot of different cards is going to have some faults - or should I quote from the Alpha Magic rulebook to demonstrate?

- spelling errors/misprints

You're absolutely right on this one, however, I place all the blame squarely on Bandai, not on Alex or any of the other people associated with the game and its production. Just look at the back of the rulebook, at the credits. Outside of testers, there are a total of six people listed as being involved with the actual production of the game. I sat five people around the table when I first got the game, and we didn't notice any of the problems with spelling and misprints until several games in, so I can very much see how six guys who are all concerned with getting the mechanics of the game to work and balance out might miss these as well, especially when you've got deadlines involved. Bandai should have a dedicated proofreader attached to any game that's this text-heavy and the fact that they don't with this game is just incompetent on their part.

- expansions aren't expansions

Ok, I'm going to apologize in advance for descending a bit into ******* mode here, but this is just moronic. What do you do with any expansion to any game ever made? You add it to what's already there! This is not rocket science, nor does it require a degree in advanced warp field mechanics. Is it really that hard to take the starbase deck from Premiere and the starbase deck from The Next Phase and shuffle them together? Or, barring that, you can just pick out 90 cards you particularly like from both decks and shuffle those together! Hell, my friends and I have been experimenting with a version of play wherein each player brings 45 cards to the starbase deck and those get shuffled together. Whatever way you do it is perfectly valid - the point of an expansion is to provide you with more ways to play a game you already love. The easiest and most balanced way by far is just to play one starbase deck or the other, or to shuffle them both together. With the scenarios, same thing. Play Premiere Exploration, play Next Phase Exploration, play Next Phase Exploration with Premiere ships, but for God's sake, Jim, play! Its designed for you to be able to experiment around with it, or, as I've said repeatedly, just to add all the **** cards together.

I mean, what would "instructions for combining the two sets" even be, and why would we ever want to follow them? Maybe its the CCG player in me, but I would never want to be limited to only a single way to play a game I paid my own money for.

and, last but not least

- the price point

I always get amused when people complain about board games being two expensive because they don't have enough "stuff" in them. Go play some Fantasy Flight games if that's all you care about. Really, go. We don't need you here if that's the case, and they have some truly excellent games on offer that will fill your need for bits. You talk a lot early on in your video about how much you enjoyed the game, and how much you loved the card interactions and the way the theme permeates every part of the game. Obviously, though, you didn't love them very much, because you don't think they're worth a dime. If you can't be bothered to pay for the R&D portion of a game, than you don't need to be playing Hobby board games, because that's a huge chunk of the "price of admission" as you call it, for every single game out there.

But, since you're so concerned about the price for how much you get, let's take a detailed look at that, shall we? The average price of a pack of Magic the Gathering cards these days is $3.99, which makes the price per card 26.6 cents. The price, then, of 300 Magic cards is $79.80. "But wait", you say, "That's different!". Well, yes it is. Lets take a look at those differences, too, then.

Magic: Has to pay artists for the art on every one of their cards.
Star Trek: Has to pay CBS/Paramount in order to use the Trek IP.

Magic: Development on the game is long since paid for, however, new cards still have to be developed.
Star Trek: Game R&D is a large part of the purchase price.

Magic: Has huge print runs, nigh-infinitely larger than Star Trek, making their price per card from a printing standpoint significantly lower.
Star Trek: Is printing the same set many times, which does reduce their printing cost, though not nearly as much.

Personally, I think that from a purely stuff perspective, Star Trek is the much better deal, but you're welcome to think whatever you'd like.


I apologize if I seem ranty here. Contrary to the opinion this might give you of me, I don't mind people having problems with the game. I don't think its perfect, just **** good. But your points, especially the last two I mentioned, are in my mind just ludicrous, and it really ****es me off anytime a reviewer tells his viewers/readers/listeners to only buy a product used, or only buy it cheap, or whatever. Companies like Bandai put prices on their products not because that's the price they have to use to line their pockets with gold and make insane profits - especially not these days - they use the prices they use because that's what they have to make on the product in order to continue functioning, and what you're saying is that you and others who watch your video deserve to have the game that Alex and his coworkers worked on, for less than what they're asking for it.

[Jan Horinek]

I agree with all the points here, some of them are put a little rude, but i agree with the content. I have one thing on my mind myself - why are some of the pictures so blurry. Some of them (Picard, ...) are visibly enhanced in Photoshop for some reason (no idea why), some of them are just left blurry. What source was used for those? Decipher did really well on their ST take, production-wise at least, so it is possible to do it nicely. I can imagine the money spent for the rights, it seems to be a bit of waste to me.

[Saibrock]

In regards the price of the game, I offered my opinion, nothing more. In my opinion, the game probably isn't quite worth the $40 price tag, but your milage may vary. I play games of all price ranges, from Looney Labs' "Are you the Traitor?" ($10), to the $100 I've invested in Fantasy Flight's Cosmic Encounter and its two expansions, and based on my experience, I felt just a little let down by what I got in the box for what I paid. It's not really about the bits (although I think the game could have included some), just about what the game offers.

It's not insanely overpriced, just a little more than I would prefer to pay.

[Jan Horinek]

The ST rights probably cost a lot, and the product is expected to sell better than usual once ST based. I've seen the components for Starfleet Captains, which really is an expensive game, and the components are of a bit funny quality. I'd say the price is what one can expect. Counting how many hours i've spent playing it, it was a good investment. I would pay much more if i went to a bar few times instead.

[qurgh]

As a long time Magic buyer, I was surprised by how cheap the Star Trek DBG games are. I'm used to paying $100 for a booster box of Magic cards once every 3-4 months (and then I only get 2, maybe 3, decks out of that box and I still have to pay more if I want a complete set).

Getting a complete game for $40, a game that is really fun, based on something that I love and that doesn't have the expensive buy-in that Magic has, is a great deal in my mind. I'd probably actually pay more than the asking price for this game, and I buy a LOT of games.