We`ll get your website to have Domain Authority 50 or we`ll refund you every
cent
for only 150 usd, you`ll have DA50 for your website, guaranteed
Order it today:
http://www.str8-creative.co/product/moz-da-seo-plan/
thanks
Alex Peters
Tuesday, September 29, 2020
Tuesday, September 22, 2020
DOWNLOAD PUBG MOBILE 0.16.0 APK+OBB
PUBG MOBILE 0.16.0 APK+OBB
DOWNLOAD
===============================================
How To Install PUBG MOBILE 0.16.0 APK+OBB without Errors and Problems
===============================================
🔶🔴🔶🔶🔴🔶 DOWNLOAD HERE 🔶🔴🔶🔶🔴🔶
🌹 Please use IDM (Internet Download Manager) to download the files without any error.
Monday, September 21, 2020
Back From DesotoCon
Over the weekend I went to DeSoto, Kansas, to the home of a friend of mine who was transferred away from his post here in Galveston County. He grew up there, and has a lot of friends still in the area with whom he gamed for years. These guys go back to high school (Class of 1991). Anyway, he invited me to come up for the weekend of gaming that he holds every year at his house there and I accepted.
There were about 20 guys there. We had four six-hour sessions, Friday night, two on Saturday, and Sunday morning. A variety of games, from Nintendo Switch to boardgames to minis games to TTRPGs were played.
On Friday, I played Star Wars Miniatures. I managed one photo, and it's not a good one. I took the Dark Side and played a band of bounty hunters acting as mercenary bodyguards for the Emperor. Boba Fett, IG-88, LOM-4, Bossk, and Greedo. We lost to the Light Side, but killed Padme, Leia, Luke, and Obi Wan Kenobi, plus a couple of rebel troopers. Chewbacca killed the Emperor and Mara Jade. I left the scene with three of my five (Bossk and Greedo did not survive).
Saturday morning was a game of Age of Conan the Boardgame. It's a long game, and I managed to win as Aquilonia, more by luck than strategy. Fun, but one of the guys wasn't into it and kept saying that.
Saturday evening was a high level Pathfinder game. The five players took the parts of classic D&D characters: Mordenkainen, Bigby (me), Rigby, Yrag, and Melf. We went to collect a crystal from a temple sucked down into the Nine Hells, and ended up killing a pair of pit fiends. We then raised the temple out of the Hells and back to the Material Plane. I almost died from Strength loss but got restored just in time.
Sunday morning was D&D 5e. I don't recall much about it now (I'm writing this a month later), but I do recall a green dragon who fled the battlefield just before we could put it down. And my dwarf cleric fell off a cliff. Survived, but it put me out of the fight for the most part.
Friday, September 18, 2020
1500 google maps citations cheap
Rank the google maps top 5 for your money keywords, guaranteed
http://www.str8-creative.io/product/1500-gmaps-citations/
regards,
Str8 Creative
http://www.str8-creative.io/product/1500-gmaps-citations/
regards,
Str8 Creative
Saturday, September 12, 2020
Storium Theory: Limiting Your Limitations
Today, I'd like to write a bit about something that I think we all do as narrators from time to time: Limiting the options that players have for writing about a situation.
Limits are good. Limits, at their base, are a way of ensuring that the scene has focus. When we set up a challenge at all, we are putting limits on the scene in general - limits of saying "the scene is now about this problem, and it needs to be addressed." We're defining what the actual problem is, and to some extent unavoidably defining the sort of things that can be done to address the problem.
But it's important to recognize when we take these definitions too far.
I've been playing a roleplaying game outside of Storium recently, using some pre-prepared scenarios that I found, and I've been struck by something in reading those scenarios: Oftentimes, they focus extensively on what definitely won't work. They spend a lot of time discussing why the players should absolutely not try a particular tactic with a situation, and how many brick walls can be thrown in their way should they dare to attempt such a thing. They're not quite set up to allow only one path forward, but they dwell a lot on why solutions A, B, C, D, E, and F are all terrible ideas that will only increase the scenario's difficulty. They show the walls, not the paths forward.
I've noticed a similar mindset subtly sneaking into Storium games at times. In our challenge setups or narration, we can sometimes spend time focusing on what won't work - on the walls set up in the way of particular solutions. Maybe we show the player characters trying a solution and discovering it won't work in the opening narration. Maybe we just describe something as impossible on the card or in the outcomes or in the narration.
Sometimes, this is fine. Sometimes, this is appropriate.
But it is definitely something we should question.
Storium works best, I have found, when players have enough information to focus their writing without limiting their ideas. That is: The problem is well-defined, but the solutions are left as open as possible given the problem at hand.
If the problem is a powerful wizard who the heroes need to get past to get to their goal, the solutions could potentially involve all sorts of things - maybe the heroes manage to fight the wizard and drive him away, maybe they evade his attacks and race beyond him into the fortress. Sometimes, limiting those options is perfectly appropriate...but it's important to be careful just how far you take the limitations. For instance, it might be appropriate to say that the party has to fight the wizard, because he's set up a magical barrier over the exit or because it's just too dangerous with him raining magic around the area. But further defining that the wizard is absolutely invulnerable to non-magical attacks himself is probably going to take it too far - it'll most likely make players of non-magical characters struggle a bit to figure out how to participate in the fight. Or, alternately, it might be appropriate to say that the wizard can't be killed and the characters need to escape - the wizard is just too powerful and his defenses too strong. But it'd take it too far to say that his attacks are unstoppable and his defenses are so strong he can't even be shaken by the characters at all, most likely, because again, it seriously limits what players can write and the ideas they can come up with for the scene. Some characters might have things they can realistically write to make just running away interesting, but others might really need to be able to provide some cover for the others or manage to disrupt the wizard for just a moment (or at least, attempt to do so and get turned aside, if they're playing a Weakness).
Similarly, consider an investigation. Maybe you're asking players to find information on a criminal gang that has troubled the area. That's fine. But if you go to the extent of saying that the other gangs in the area definitely won't share their information, or that police contacts are totally mystified and have no knowledge of the gang at all, well, that's probably going to cause people some trouble. You're limiting the ways that players can write the scene, and that's likely to make it tougher for them to come up with ideas.
Remember: Storium is about helping people write. The things that you put in your narration should encourage writing, not oppose it.
That's not to say that you should totally avoid limitations. Yes, there are times that they fit the story. If it's expressly established that the gang is totally new to the area, for instance, it makes sense that the heroes might not be able to trust contacts that would be working from existing knowledge...but how are the heroes able to get the information? Word the challenge in such a way that you reveal the possibilities rather than set up the walls. And don't just give one option! Show a wider field of openings, something that lets the players still have room to get creative on their own.
And remember to ask yourself: What is this challenge actually about?
In the case of the gang, for instance: Is the question really about who the heroes are able to go to for the information they need? Or is it just about what they are able to find out? If the latter...does it really matter whether they are able to use their contacts with the police? Or is the question just about whether they find information about the gang in the first place?
I want to be clear: Sometimes it does matter how the players are able to accomplish something. Sometimes that can be a problem you need to address as narrator. Sometimes it can cause trouble for a plot if players are allowed to do things a certain way, even if that way fulfills the overall concept of the challenge. That's very true.
But not all the time.
Not even the number of times we as narrators think it is true.
So...when you're setting a challenge up, take a good look over the card and narration associated with it. Look over what you've written, and ask yourself:
Limits are good. Limits, at their base, are a way of ensuring that the scene has focus. When we set up a challenge at all, we are putting limits on the scene in general - limits of saying "the scene is now about this problem, and it needs to be addressed." We're defining what the actual problem is, and to some extent unavoidably defining the sort of things that can be done to address the problem.
But it's important to recognize when we take these definitions too far.
I've been playing a roleplaying game outside of Storium recently, using some pre-prepared scenarios that I found, and I've been struck by something in reading those scenarios: Oftentimes, they focus extensively on what definitely won't work. They spend a lot of time discussing why the players should absolutely not try a particular tactic with a situation, and how many brick walls can be thrown in their way should they dare to attempt such a thing. They're not quite set up to allow only one path forward, but they dwell a lot on why solutions A, B, C, D, E, and F are all terrible ideas that will only increase the scenario's difficulty. They show the walls, not the paths forward.
I've noticed a similar mindset subtly sneaking into Storium games at times. In our challenge setups or narration, we can sometimes spend time focusing on what won't work - on the walls set up in the way of particular solutions. Maybe we show the player characters trying a solution and discovering it won't work in the opening narration. Maybe we just describe something as impossible on the card or in the outcomes or in the narration.
Sometimes, this is fine. Sometimes, this is appropriate.
But it is definitely something we should question.
Storium works best, I have found, when players have enough information to focus their writing without limiting their ideas. That is: The problem is well-defined, but the solutions are left as open as possible given the problem at hand.
If the problem is a powerful wizard who the heroes need to get past to get to their goal, the solutions could potentially involve all sorts of things - maybe the heroes manage to fight the wizard and drive him away, maybe they evade his attacks and race beyond him into the fortress. Sometimes, limiting those options is perfectly appropriate...but it's important to be careful just how far you take the limitations. For instance, it might be appropriate to say that the party has to fight the wizard, because he's set up a magical barrier over the exit or because it's just too dangerous with him raining magic around the area. But further defining that the wizard is absolutely invulnerable to non-magical attacks himself is probably going to take it too far - it'll most likely make players of non-magical characters struggle a bit to figure out how to participate in the fight. Or, alternately, it might be appropriate to say that the wizard can't be killed and the characters need to escape - the wizard is just too powerful and his defenses too strong. But it'd take it too far to say that his attacks are unstoppable and his defenses are so strong he can't even be shaken by the characters at all, most likely, because again, it seriously limits what players can write and the ideas they can come up with for the scene. Some characters might have things they can realistically write to make just running away interesting, but others might really need to be able to provide some cover for the others or manage to disrupt the wizard for just a moment (or at least, attempt to do so and get turned aside, if they're playing a Weakness).
Similarly, consider an investigation. Maybe you're asking players to find information on a criminal gang that has troubled the area. That's fine. But if you go to the extent of saying that the other gangs in the area definitely won't share their information, or that police contacts are totally mystified and have no knowledge of the gang at all, well, that's probably going to cause people some trouble. You're limiting the ways that players can write the scene, and that's likely to make it tougher for them to come up with ideas.
Remember: Storium is about helping people write. The things that you put in your narration should encourage writing, not oppose it.
That's not to say that you should totally avoid limitations. Yes, there are times that they fit the story. If it's expressly established that the gang is totally new to the area, for instance, it makes sense that the heroes might not be able to trust contacts that would be working from existing knowledge...but how are the heroes able to get the information? Word the challenge in such a way that you reveal the possibilities rather than set up the walls. And don't just give one option! Show a wider field of openings, something that lets the players still have room to get creative on their own.
And remember to ask yourself: What is this challenge actually about?
In the case of the gang, for instance: Is the question really about who the heroes are able to go to for the information they need? Or is it just about what they are able to find out? If the latter...does it really matter whether they are able to use their contacts with the police? Or is the question just about whether they find information about the gang in the first place?
I want to be clear: Sometimes it does matter how the players are able to accomplish something. Sometimes that can be a problem you need to address as narrator. Sometimes it can cause trouble for a plot if players are allowed to do things a certain way, even if that way fulfills the overall concept of the challenge. That's very true.
But not all the time.
Not even the number of times we as narrators think it is true.
So...when you're setting a challenge up, take a good look over the card and narration associated with it. Look over what you've written, and ask yourself:
- Have I set up any limitations here I didn't intend to? Are there places where I suggest something is impossible where I didn't mean to?
- Have I set up limitations that I intended to...but that on second thought, really don't matter? Are there places where I have put limits that will make my players struggle to write, rather than providing useful focus?
Granblue Fantasy Versus Review (PS4)
Written by Alexander O. Cuaycong and Anthony L. Cuaycong
Title: Granblue Fantasy Versus
Developer: Cygames, Inc., Arc System Works
Publisher: XSEED Games, Marvelous USA, Inc.
Genre: Action, Fighting
Price: $59.99
Also Available On: Steam
Cygames has a lot of experience under its belt. Though most of its work has been on the mobile front, the titles are not the typical garbage gamers would expect for on-the-go appreciation. They've been successful in their own right, possessing the worth and worthiness to claim a loyal base. As proven by, say, the online trading card game Shadowverse and the action-adventure role-playing game Dragalia Lost, it knows its target audience well and delivers exactly what's wanted. Even collaborations on such popular series as Fire Emblem, Love Live and Fate/Stay Night have thrived. Among all their games though, one stands out.
As gamers who haven't lived under a rock all this time know only too well, Granblue Fantasy is a release that can be played on both the mobile phone and the personal computer. Though its gacha monetization system echoes that of lootbox titles, it has proven to be a robust, well-made, and addictive online RPG. It has done exceedingly well, and not just because it features a colorful cast of weird, diverse, and interesting characters. Renowned Final Fantasy composer Nobuo Uematsu had a hand in its creation, with Squaresoft veteran Hideo Minaba providing art direction.
Considering the success of Granblue Fantasy, Cygames has not surprisingly moved to expand the franchise. Enter Granblue Fantasy Versus, a fighting game starring the beloved characters of its predecessor. Needless to say, there is no reinvention of the wheel; mechanics found in other two-dimensional fighters carry over, and those used to the genre will welcome its utter lack of a learning curve. Playing it is as easy as finding an opponent, mashing buttons, and then moving on.
Granblue Fantasy Versus has a very simple gameplay loop, but one that can prove addictive due to the speedy —make that extremely speedy — nature of its combat. At its heart, it encourages players to experiment with combos, air juggles, and special moves, thus lending the game one of its biggest strengths; the pace never really drags. In fact, fights may sometimes feel a little too fast. Thankfully, crisp gameplay is far from its only plus. Taking cues from its parent franchise, it likewise strives to look good. Characters are drawn very well and blend seamlessly with elegant backgrounds. Animations are likewise top notch, smooth and free of stutter. In an obvious nod to its source material, everything just oozes quality.
To be sure, Granblue Fantasy Versus isn't flawless. For instance, issues in network connectivity pop up on occasion. Then again, online battles are invariably problematic; as the multiplayer mode of countless other fighters have shown, even the slightest lag can have a huge impact on gameplay experience. This won't be a problem for those interested only in its single-player component, of course, but offerings in the fighting genre are best enjoyed by competitive souls who want their competence challenged without regard for geographical limitations.
Roster size is also a fairly telling issue for Granblue Fantasy Versus. Launching with just 11 characters, it lacks the robustness veterans of the genre are accustomed to seeing. True, said characters are fleshed out in terms of combo list and personality. On the other hand, the restrictions in choice — at least until additional fighters are introduced as downloadable content — may wear down on those who expect a larger playable cast.
The aforesaid issues aside, Granblue Fantasy Versus promises hours upon hours of fun taken in bits and pieces. It might not reinvent the genre, but it's nonetheless one of the most polished fighting games out in the market. Highly recommended.
THE GOOD
- Colorful cast of characters
- Accessible to newcomers but with plenty of depth for longtime veterans
- Well polished
THE BAD
- Roster size might turn away those looking for a larger cast
- Online experience dependent on network connectivity
RATING: 9.5/10
Tuesday, September 8, 2020
Domain Authority 50 for your website - Guaranteed Service
We`ll get your website to have Domain Authority 50 or we`ll refund you every
cent
for only 150 usd, you`ll have DA50 for your website, guaranteed
Order it today:
http://www.str8-creative.co/product/moz-da-seo-plan/
thanks
Alex Peters
cent
for only 150 usd, you`ll have DA50 for your website, guaranteed
Order it today:
http://www.str8-creative.co/product/moz-da-seo-plan/
thanks
Alex Peters
Thursday, September 3, 2020
Top 10 Games Of 2019
Our favorite games that we played in 2019 (not necessarily published this year). As usual we've rated these games based on the amount of time we spent playing them, which should be the best indicator of how entertaining they are.
7 plays, 12 hours (average play time 1.71 hours per game)
This excellent game was a staple of our collectible card game diet in the early 2000s, and we started playing it semi-regularly again last year. This year we even bought some new cards (well, published in 2005, but new to us) and we're planning a series of booster draft games over the next few months.
Read the full review.
5 plays, 13 hours (average play time 2.6 hours per game)
After showing up at #6 in 2016 and #3 in 2017, Mansions of Madness dropped off our top 10 list last year, most likely due to the number of other miniatures-heavy adventure games we spent time on. It's a great game that plays almost like a light role playing game, with exploration and puzzle-solving taking precedence over tactical movement and combat, and the built-in app taking the place of a game master or villain player.
Read the full review.
5 plays, 13.25 hours (average play time 2.65 hours per game)
Western Legends has turned out to be exactly the game we were hoping it would be: an open world adventure game set in the wild west, where players choose whether to gain fame by being an outlaw, a lawman, a gambler, or, as was quite often true about the game's colorful historical characters, a little of each.
Read the full review.
5 plays, 13.25 hours (average play time 2.65 hours per game)
It's too bad that this Marvel Comics miniatures game didn't catch on and isn't likely to see any further development. It had a lot of interesting ideas and concepts that I haven't seen in any other miniatures games, with a strong campaign element and emphasis on character development over multiple games. In this case I think the Heroclix branding did more harm that good, as it really was its own game with very little in common with Heroclix.
Read the full review.
7 plays, 14 hours (average play time 2 hours per game)
We usually come home from GameStorm (Portland's yearly game convention) with a few new games, but they often tend to be impulse buys that we quickly lose interest in. Not so with Roll Player, which is a great combination of tactical dice rolling and fantasy adventure. Who knew a game about creating a D&D character could be this interesting?
Read the full review.
10 plays, 20.5 hours (average play time 2.05 hours per game)
Mythic Battles: Pantheon was our most anticipated game in 2017, and it clearly didn't disappoint -- it was our number one most played game in 2018, and its number four spot this year is still respectable. It's a great skirmish/board game hybrid that offers the best of both types of game: a ton of different miniatures, a unique card-based system for activating units and a selection of beautifully illustrated boards that simplify movement and line-of-sight. And with around 80 scenarios offering a change to the normal "move to the middle and fight" brawls that most skirmish games tend to be, it will be a long time before we've exhausted this game's possibilities.
Read the full review.
12 plays, 20.25 hours (average play time 1.69 hours per game)
This is the fourth year in a row that Conan has made our Top 10. It really is a fantastic adventure game, with a "one vs. many" style of game play that has the structure of a well-designed skirmish game combined with a board game's ease of play and the open-ended flexibility of a role playing game. Unfortunately the game's limited availability and high price point have made it largely inaccessible to a wider market of players, and an upcoming convoluted and confusing Kickstarter campaign doesn't look like it will help matters any.
Read the full review.
11 plays, 20.5 hours (average play time 1.86 hours per game)
We weren't sure what to expect from this game: how would it compare to Dinosaur Island? Would it be worth having both games? As it turns out, DinoGenics offers a very different play experience, and while the two games have obvious similarities, they are different enough that we can justify owning both. And while its core mechanics aren't all that innovative, DinoGenics has proved to be a little easier to get to the table on a regular basis.
Read the full review.
11 plays, 24 hours (average play time 2.18 hours per game)
Although we were avid collectible card game players during their heyday in the 1990s, Dune somehow passed us by -- we only recently started playing it. It is an old-school CCG through and through, with very complex rules that take a lot of repeat play to master, so this year we decided to commit to playing it regularly. The experience has been a lot of fun, but a little frustrating in that playing the game makes us want to buy more cards (the goal of any CCG), and cards for this one are very difficult to find.
Read the full review.
11 plays, 34.5 hours (average play time 3.14 hours per game)
This game took us by surprise in several ways. We were aware that it was coming but hadn't really planned on getting it. A friend brought it over and after a few games we were hooked, and bought our own copy a few days later. It's a "pick up and deliver" style game similar to Firefly or Wasteland Express Delivery Service, but much easier to set up and play, and of course the Star Wars theme is an easy sell on game night -- we've been able to play this game with several different groups and everyone has enjoyed it immensely. Still, we were a little shocked when it turned out to be our most played game of the year.
Full review to come.
7 plays, 11.5 hours (average play time 1.64 hours per game)
8 plays, 9.25 hours (average play time 1.15 hours per game)
Although technically you could mix together all the different versions of Legendary, we've never felt the need since each version of the game stands on its own so well, both thematically and technically, so we tend to think of each version as a separate game. If we were to add up the time we spent playing the different versions it would easily have made it into the top 5, and with an ever increasing number of IPs being added to the mix, if there isn't a Legendary game for you yet, there probably will be soon.
Read the full review of Legendary: Marvel.
Full review of Legendary: James Bond to come.
As of this writing we just got this game and haven't had a chance to play it yet, but it looks really interesting, with card and movement mechanics similar to Mythic Battles: Pantheon without the sometimes overwhelming amount of content. Plus the game components look to be of extremely high quality. We've been burned on two other Judge Dredd games this year (Judge Dredd: the Cursed Earth was a too-difficult co-op game clearly intended to be played solo, and Judge Dredd: Block War was an unplayable mess), so hopefully the third time will be a charm.
10. The Lord of the Rings Trading Card Game
7 plays, 12 hours (average play time 1.71 hours per game)
This excellent game was a staple of our collectible card game diet in the early 2000s, and we started playing it semi-regularly again last year. This year we even bought some new cards (well, published in 2005, but new to us) and we're planning a series of booster draft games over the next few months.
Read the full review.
9. Mansions of Madness Second Edition
5 plays, 13 hours (average play time 2.6 hours per game)
After showing up at #6 in 2016 and #3 in 2017, Mansions of Madness dropped off our top 10 list last year, most likely due to the number of other miniatures-heavy adventure games we spent time on. It's a great game that plays almost like a light role playing game, with exploration and puzzle-solving taking precedence over tactical movement and combat, and the built-in app taking the place of a game master or villain player.
Read the full review.
8. Western Legends
5 plays, 13.25 hours (average play time 2.65 hours per game)
Western Legends has turned out to be exactly the game we were hoping it would be: an open world adventure game set in the wild west, where players choose whether to gain fame by being an outlaw, a lawman, a gambler, or, as was quite often true about the game's colorful historical characters, a little of each.
Read the full review.
7. Marvel Strike Teams
5 plays, 13.25 hours (average play time 2.65 hours per game)
It's too bad that this Marvel Comics miniatures game didn't catch on and isn't likely to see any further development. It had a lot of interesting ideas and concepts that I haven't seen in any other miniatures games, with a strong campaign element and emphasis on character development over multiple games. In this case I think the Heroclix branding did more harm that good, as it really was its own game with very little in common with Heroclix.
Read the full review.
6. Roll Player
7 plays, 14 hours (average play time 2 hours per game)
We usually come home from GameStorm (Portland's yearly game convention) with a few new games, but they often tend to be impulse buys that we quickly lose interest in. Not so with Roll Player, which is a great combination of tactical dice rolling and fantasy adventure. Who knew a game about creating a D&D character could be this interesting?
Read the full review.
5. Mythic Battles: Pantheon
10 plays, 20.5 hours (average play time 2.05 hours per game)
Mythic Battles: Pantheon was our most anticipated game in 2017, and it clearly didn't disappoint -- it was our number one most played game in 2018, and its number four spot this year is still respectable. It's a great skirmish/board game hybrid that offers the best of both types of game: a ton of different miniatures, a unique card-based system for activating units and a selection of beautifully illustrated boards that simplify movement and line-of-sight. And with around 80 scenarios offering a change to the normal "move to the middle and fight" brawls that most skirmish games tend to be, it will be a long time before we've exhausted this game's possibilities.
Read the full review.
4. Conan
12 plays, 20.25 hours (average play time 1.69 hours per game)
This is the fourth year in a row that Conan has made our Top 10. It really is a fantastic adventure game, with a "one vs. many" style of game play that has the structure of a well-designed skirmish game combined with a board game's ease of play and the open-ended flexibility of a role playing game. Unfortunately the game's limited availability and high price point have made it largely inaccessible to a wider market of players, and an upcoming convoluted and confusing Kickstarter campaign doesn't look like it will help matters any.
Read the full review.
3. Dinogenics
11 plays, 20.5 hours (average play time 1.86 hours per game)
We weren't sure what to expect from this game: how would it compare to Dinosaur Island? Would it be worth having both games? As it turns out, DinoGenics offers a very different play experience, and while the two games have obvious similarities, they are different enough that we can justify owning both. And while its core mechanics aren't all that innovative, DinoGenics has proved to be a little easier to get to the table on a regular basis.
Read the full review.
2. Dune Collectible Card Game
11 plays, 24 hours (average play time 2.18 hours per game)
Although we were avid collectible card game players during their heyday in the 1990s, Dune somehow passed us by -- we only recently started playing it. It is an old-school CCG through and through, with very complex rules that take a lot of repeat play to master, so this year we decided to commit to playing it regularly. The experience has been a lot of fun, but a little frustrating in that playing the game makes us want to buy more cards (the goal of any CCG), and cards for this one are very difficult to find.
Read the full review.
1. Star Wars Outer Rim
11 plays, 34.5 hours (average play time 3.14 hours per game)
This game took us by surprise in several ways. We were aware that it was coming but hadn't really planned on getting it. A friend brought it over and after a few games we were hooked, and bought our own copy a few days later. It's a "pick up and deliver" style game similar to Firefly or Wasteland Express Delivery Service, but much easier to set up and play, and of course the Star Wars theme is an easy sell on game night -- we've been able to play this game with several different groups and everyone has enjoyed it immensely. Still, we were a little shocked when it turned out to be our most played game of the year.
Full review to come.
Honorable Mention
Legendary: A Marvel Deck Building Game
7 plays, 11.5 hours (average play time 1.64 hours per game)
Legendary: A James Bond Deck Building Game
8 plays, 9.25 hours (average play time 1.15 hours per game)
Although technically you could mix together all the different versions of Legendary, we've never felt the need since each version of the game stands on its own so well, both thematically and technically, so we tend to think of each version as a separate game. If we were to add up the time we spent playing the different versions it would easily have made it into the top 5, and with an ever increasing number of IPs being added to the mix, if there isn't a Legendary game for you yet, there probably will be soon.
Read the full review of Legendary: Marvel.
Full review of Legendary: James Bond to come.
Most anticipated game of 2020
Judge Dredd: Helter Skelter
As of this writing we just got this game and haven't had a chance to play it yet, but it looks really interesting, with card and movement mechanics similar to Mythic Battles: Pantheon without the sometimes overwhelming amount of content. Plus the game components look to be of extremely high quality. We've been burned on two other Judge Dredd games this year (Judge Dredd: the Cursed Earth was a too-difficult co-op game clearly intended to be played solo, and Judge Dredd: Block War was an unplayable mess), so hopefully the third time will be a charm.