iPhone Small World 2 (By Asmodee Digital)

Having the tutorial as an external Youtube video makes it easily accessible by everyone, even people who don't own the app, and makes it easier to replace or update while not taking up space in the actual app itself, but I still have always felt that in-game links to external tutorial videos are a clunky, inelegant solution.

 

Just picked this up. Not sure how to add buddies to my buddy list. If I select someone in the Gamecenter setion and try to add, it says they are not connected to a DoW account. So, to play someone online, they absolutely must have a DoW account connected to their GC ID?

 

Yes, DoW linked account is needed for online play.

 

This is official: I give up! See you guys online -- later...

 

That logic is completely silly. The real barrier to asynchronous play is DoW themselves. They took what could have been a singular Universal app and shattered it across multiple versions. Async wasn't planned to be a feature of their TtR platform from the very beginning; they didn't see value in it then, and the data they see now is just confirming their bias.

 

Not at all.

Yes, DoW are seeing the complete lack of people taking advantage of the asynchronous play that they included in TtR Pocket two years ago as a good reason not to waste their time and money implementing it again in the full-scale TtR; you seem to be under the mistaken impression that this is somehow not a legitimate or logical stance for them to take. If they say that their stats show an insignificant number of people have used the feature, then there's no reason not to believe that an insignificant number of people have used the feature unless you possess hard evidence to the contrary.

DoW released a PC/Mac/iPad-only game with no asynchronous play because the folks there didn't (and still don't) believe the game suits such a mode, and by their own account it has only ever been a small but vocal minority asking for it to be added – this account of a vocal minority gels with what many developers have noted, despite the fact that diehard async fans often misrepresent their position as being the most popular (in general, asynchronous play is less used than synchronous play, and games against humans in general are significantly behind matches versus AI when a game includes one). However, DoW released an iPhone/iPod version of the game that was rather stripped-down but did include asynchronous play; this version was promptly bought by tens of thousands of people worldwide, almost all of whom never took advantage of the asynchronous multiplayer feature, and certainly aren't doing so now.

Now, you can believe DoW are telling the truth about their own product and the reasons they've given for not wasting their limited resources (and being a decidedly for-profit company, if there was any money to be made by updating the non-Pocket versions to draw in the async crowd, they would have done so), or you can believe they're blatantly lying about all of this, in which case I'd certainly expect you to have actual proof to justify that belief.

If you expect DoW to include an asynchronous multiplayer mode, you're going to have to do more than just argue that it should be included because it should be included: you're going to have to provide hard evidence that enough people would use the feature to warrant the expense of implementing it, because DoW's real data (not conjecture) from TtR Pocket over the past two years indicates that they simply won't.

 

Couldn't agree more sir.

DoW make amazing products and amazing games.

However the whole brouhaha with TTR was crazy. To create a premium iPad game and respond to people begging for async by creating an iPhone only version that DID feature async, but forced iPad players to either have to give up their hopes and stick with real time games, or have to possibly toss aside what, $20 in dlc and be unable to play anything other than the stock game either on their phone only, or 2x on the iPad.

It echoes the stupidity of Facebook, how many years did it take to get the iPad optimized app? They cited "well the iPad isn't mobile and doesn't need an app".

Anyway, this is a fools argument that has been discussed to death. DoW may be small, but they are one of the more prolific board game developers out there. At least 3 of their games got front and center advertisement on Tabletop. They have done very well for themselves, but the "test" on the iPhone release was so far from an objective test that it's foolish to take those figures and extrapolate them to assume the situation would be the same.

For me, I've never played an online game of TTR almost completely due to my inability to block off the time needed for a game. With people having very hectic scheduled and things that constantly pull them away from a game, having to tie yourself to your iPad while playing means you are stuck there, either having to forfeit or ignore anything else that comes up. It's ridiculous.

Sure, turns might only take a minute, sometimes less, but that also happens in ascension as well, but I know many people who ONLY play it asynchronously. I'm able to play with anyone no matter where they are because of that, something which doesn't exist in TTR outside of the insanely fragmented iphone versions.

So saying that "it doesn't make sense because turns can be ridiculously short" doesn't mean "no one will want to play that way". And Appletini, you are also a person who almost never plays online games, as you've mentioned before. I know you aren't pretending that you are, and are speaking based on facts given and extrapolating from the logical conclusion, but I also think it might be hard to see it as clearly from those of us on the other side of the table.

At this point in the game, I honestly think DoW, especially seeing how they approach projects with an idea in mind and being very stuck to that, they are resistant to change. Yes, it would be a cost for them to implement it and maybe fewer people would use it than someone would think based on the outcry, but the problem is that this whole debacle has become synonymous with DoW. Hell, I was honestly expecting SW2 to not have async based on that alone. Their continued push against it seems truly ridiculous, and they've not even truly given us a defined point as to why they can't. Even if it made a small minority happy, why not just do it and define your company as one who cares about its customers and wants to try and give even a small portion what they are so clearly begging for.

Actually, this reminds me of some suggestions given regarding Sw2, asking about setting time limits when creating or joining a game, and a persistent chat. The chat didn't get a ton of pushback, but I was also not able to focus as much durning those discussions. But the time limit seemed to get absolutely nowhere. It's a sign of their determination in only putting in what they want. Maybe I read it wrong, but I know it's the impression I've always gotten from them.

Just another few "it can take 3 seconds for a turn" games: Carcassonne, Lost Cities, Fluxx, Ascension/Penny Arcade... There are more, but I'm at a loss. Smarter people can figure it out.

Now I have to go ice my thumbs. because, typing

 

You're not a stupid person, ASiG, so this was an unusually short-sighted and ill-considered response on your part. DoW don't just have TtR for iPad and TtR Pocket: for the main part, the iPad version matches the computer version matches the web version, all of which would have had to have been updated if DoW decided to add in asynchronous play. You don't think DoW would have just updated the existing games instead of creating a separate stripped-down, lower-quality iPhone version if the former made more sense from a financial, development or gameplay standpoint?

How "objective" you might consider it is largely academic, because a clear chain of events remains: a small contingent of people demanded a version of TtR that had certain features, DoW somewhat reluctantly spent time and money creating a version that had those features, and then nobody used those features. If you expect Eric and company to change their minds, it'll take more than just calling them biased or lazy, or telling them their data doesn't count because you don't agree with it.

You can check with DoW directly for the stats on the insane number of people who have happily played and completed online real-time games, and continue to do so. While there are probably people in the world who can't spend more than a minute on a game without being interrupted, again, the number of people who are actually in that situation and aren't just using the possibility as leverage for their argument, seems to be grossly exaggerated.

I do play online games; it's online boardgames in particular that I've traditionally not been overly excited by, partially because most have used very basic web-based interfaces. That said, I have been playing them more and more over the past months, but only in real-time; I won't dispute that I'm not a huge fan of fragmented disconnected play in games that do fit asynchronous multiplayer, let alone the ones that don't.

The thing is, right now that side of the table appears for all the world to be, "We want async, so stop telling us why you won't add it, and just give us what we want already."

It's not really synonymous, to be honest. In fact, outside of the same couple of people in this thread, I'm having a hard time finding anybody anywhere expressing any concern (let alone outrage) about the lack of this feature, or providing compelling arguments as to why it should be added. If pretty much nobody is doing so here, on DoW's forum, on the Steam version's forum, or over on BGG, perhaps it really isn't that significant or important an issue as some would like to claim.

Well, not only did DoW never express anything that suggested asynchronous multiplayer wouldn't be included, they actually explicitly noted asynchronous play would be a central feature of the SW2 update because the gameplay suits it.

Well, because implementing features costs time and money, and while I see a few people here requesting/demanding asynchronous multiplayer be added with all that entails, I don't see a single one of them offering to pay for it.

The revamp of SW2 with proper multiplayer only came about because of Kickstarter; the original KS project was specifically to cover the costs sunk into revamping the iPad version while also launching a new physical edition, which confused matters. When the project was relaunched, DoW were able to promise the iPad update would be coming regardless because based on the performance of the previous KS they knew they would cross the threshold with their new one, and through the stretch goals they easily covered their costs.

Based on conversations I've had, it is highly unlikely DoW would have worked on or released the SW2 update for iPad had there been no chance at external funding (or at least, it wouldn't have been a free update), and there certainly wouldn't be Android or PC versions in the works.

Meh, I went back and forth with Eric over the decision not to include an undo function in SW2, and to this day I reject his arguments because they weren't logical, and explicitly contradicted what we've already seen in a dozen other boardgame apps. We've seen that the limited-undo function SW2 would require has worked in other digital boardgames, and indeed Eric's argument was not that such a feature wasn't technically possible, but that players would find it frustrating and confusing.

Somewhat ironically given the undo issue, only putting in what they believe would be in a game's best interest is actually one of the hallmarks of a successful developer. Ken Levine, the team at Blizzard and the folks at Valve to name but a few have all been very vocal about the fact that while they listen to feedback and requests, it is very important that players remember that they're just that: players, consumers, end-users, and not part of the development team.

We've seen the opposite here again and again over the past few years: the sheer number of smaller developers who have bent over backwards to include every possible request in order to win over the fickle TA crowd and subsequently sunk themselves into oblivion is ludicrous, and yet they never seem to learn. The reality is that most of the major successful game developers (iOS or otherwise) don't ignore players because they're big, they become big by "ignoring" the players, inasmuch as they only add, remove or change things that make sense, not just the things cried for the loudest.

You've hit on an important thing here: in the games you listed, each turn involves performing a sequence of actions that progress the game in some observable way: in Carcassonne, you always draw and play a tile; in Fluxx, you always draw and play your cards according to the current rules. There's no option to draw a tile and choose not to play it in Carcassonne, for example.

TtR is different because, especially when played at higher levels, a game can commonly consist of 90% drawing cards and nothing else, with train placement happening only at the very end. Amongst other things, DoW are of the opinion that potentially having multiple days of an entirely empty board doesn't make for either compelling gameplay or public perception of the game.

You could have played an entire game of TtR in the time it took you to put that post together; your arguments are invalid.

Seriously though, the folks at DoW are actually very responsive to communication, and are quite open to discussion even if they don't immediately promise to include everything you ask for. The fact that people seem content to sit here taking potshots at the company and fruitlessly arguing with non-DoW folks instead suggests that perhaps they're more interested in posturing than actually getting their ideas across to the only people who could possibly make them happen.

 

This thread has gotten hijacked with TtR comments.

 

SW2 needs more controversy to bring it back into the spotlight, that's all. To that end, I hear DoW are talking to the creator of Tanto Cuore for advice on a couple of new races and powers. >_>

 

They should add the Powers "Oversexualized" and "Hypersensitive", and the races "Maids" and "Gamers."

 

I'm still trying to learn this game. I like the layout and graphics etc. the gameplay is fast with very few options. I think it all comes down to which race you pick doesn't it? If you do not pick the right one you bet slaughtered right?

I decided to buy it because I have Ticket to Ride and anything this mob make is usually top class.

So I'm losing but getting closer however strategies are eluding me. First there's the race. You have to pick a good one no? Then when you conquer you can get more points under the rules of your race etc if you conquer certain areas no? And some areas use more troops no?

Anyway I'm still losing but it was like that with Ticket to Ride now I'm whipping its butt!!

 

Hi all

Been thinking of giving this game a try but the 9.99 price seems a bit high for a game that I might not like.

Do you all remember if Small World 2 was ever offered at a discount? If yes, then I may wait on the next time a discount comes by.

Appreciate any input.

 

Small World became Small World 2 after the v2 update.

According to AppShopper, it has been on sale before...most recently in September after the v2 update.

http://appshopper.com/games/small-world-for-ipad

 

Thanks for the link. Didn't know there is a website for past app activities.

Will monitor over Christmas and maybe bite the 9.99 if the new year begins without any discount.

 

Really? You're missing out as an iOS gamer if you've never heard of AppShopper. The site is owned by the TouchArcade folks, so you're free to cross-post links here as much as you want. Start throwing games on your wishlist and then just wait for notification of a sale. My list is a mile long and I basically buy everything.

 

Normally I put apps on the Itune Store "wish list" and check the list daily, as a result, I hardly miss any future sale or discount.

Because most app prices are cheap enough I haven't been bothered to check on past prices or discounts.

Lately I have asked about Agricola (already bought at the 6.99) and Small World 2 because I have a new found interest on IOS board game. Bought quite a lot of board games and quite a few of them could not sustain my interest and were deleted. Hence I am more cautious now.

Now I have kept the Appshopper weblink for future use. Thanks!

 

You have Carcassonne, right? It's the ultimate iOS board game adaptation. It's currently on sale for the first time since release in 2010. And, an expansion was released today. You can't beat that!

 

Yeah due to my recent interest on IOS boardgames, I have been monitoring Stone Age and Carcassonne. Was closed to pulling the trigger for Stone Age at 2.99 last weekend but decided I should focus on Agricola instead.

Ok, latest update, thanks to CzarCastic, I just bought Carcassonne. $6.99 seems to be the sweet spot for good IOS boardgames for me. Gotta learn how to play and then think of the add-on. Or should I get the add-on first?

I am highly attracted to Small World 2 because I have a preference for fantasy theme games.