Vassel's review was what led me to the game as well. A much more reliable and even handed voice than many reviewers I would say.
After watching the review, I can agree with them about the rules being on the cards instead of the rulebook. But that is some of what I like about the game. The base rules are simple. Play a card, play a power, draw a card. The complexity comes in with what characters you pick and their individual decks. And I've had games that have gotten quite a bit fiddly. This card is increasing damage, but this card is reducing it. This card is doing this, that card is doing that. Sometimes it just works out that way.
As far as the characters only doing damage or no player interaction, or the rest of the review even, they're way off. Maybe they should try playing a couple more games before they form an opinion. I guess if they don't like then they just don't like it. Entirely up to them.
I also enjoy the fact that I don't need to consult a rulebook with this game.
The more I think of the review, the more I wonder if they were saying something like this:
"And the game makes no sense…there's no board to play on or pieces to move! It's madness!"
"Yes…this game really needs to have something…something logical, something visible…such as characters that move when you roll dice."
"I really don't know why anyone would play this board game. Sentinels of the Multiverse is a TERRIBLE board game! All you have is cards!"
And I agree with them. Sentinels of the Multiverse is a terrible board game. Much in the way that the Mona Lisa is a terrible music video, to quote The Foldable Human.
For now...
Am I the only one that heard a slightly maniacal laugh when they read that?
Nope.
As somebody who writes criticism on the internet (movies, games, restaurants, books, etc) I started thinking it was a really amusing review, and slowly my stomach sank. It was as though they emptied the box on a table and started yelling at the pile of cards. It felt like a last minute homework asighment moreso than a review based on several playthroughs and some research.
That said, more power to them. I'm just sad that most of the comments on the thread where a lot better articulated than the "it is too simple and also too complicated" rants in the video.
(They're not really PA's PATV's program SUSD, they're just SUSD, also featured on PA)
On their main site, there are also a bunch of comments that do a better job of reviewing the game then they do (including one of mine, and I also tried to provide info to people asking about the game): Shut Up & Sit Down | Review: Sentinels of the Multiverse
I got the impression that there were two things that went wrong with the review. They were very, very univocal about the flaws of the game. So much, and actually unusually much for them, that it suggests to me that they formed a group opinion very early on, perhaps on the first game, which colored most of their experiences with the game. I often see that happening when people play a game that takes some time to get used to for the first time, and for some reason something in their head clicks to "this game is terrible". However, I would have expected the SUSD crew to be conscious of things like that, so this review disappointed me.
Secondly, it seems they have EVERYTHING, all expansions, all promos, everything. Their comment that `after 12 playthroughs or so, you have seen all the variety there is' suggests to me that they switched heroes every game, which is actually a terrible idea when learning the game, because so much of the interesting choices in the game (which there were none, according to SUSD) only become apparent when you get a bit familiar with specific decks. Skirting the surface instead of diving in deep is another thing that often goes wrong when people play a game with a lot of content for the first time, and once again I would have expected professional board game reviewers to know better.
Overal the review was , well, just bad, but it was also unusually bad for their standards. Usually they're amusing and do a decent job reviewing or showing games, so if you had to laugh at the intro, it's still worth it to check out their other stuff.
I completely agree with that, some of them are not well balanced because of the layout of the house when they start. All kinds of randomness can make it unbalanced for one side or the other, but for my group where everyone knows that going in and none of us are a super competative must win all the time type person it doesn't seem to be a big deal. Its a fun game that leads to all kinds of wonky stories. Thus the "we just have differnent tastes in games" portion of my comment.
Thats what I thought, Dominion and all of its clones are similar. Can't back this up statistically but I would be willing to bet most card based games are (excluding those that use a standard deck).