The Breakdown:
Players: 4-12
Playing Time: 30-60min.
Weight: 3/10
Publisher: Repos Productions
Mechanics: Party Game
Components: Game Board
1 Green Question Mark Pawn
10 Green Cubes
4 Exclamation Points (Blue, Red, Yellow, Black)
32 Cubes (8 each of Blue, Red, Yellow, Black)
2 Player Aids
Victory Tokens (1 & 2 Point)
Players: 4-12
Playing Time: 30-60min.
Weight: 3/10
Publisher: Repos Productions
Mechanics: Party Game
Components: Game Board
1 Green Question Mark Pawn
10 Green Cubes
4 Exclamation Points (Blue, Red, Yellow, Black)
32 Cubes (8 each of Blue, Red, Yellow, Black)
2 Player Aids
Victory Tokens (1 & 2 Point)
The Review:
Sometimes while perusing in my friendly local game store, I just happen upon a game that I really don’t know anything about. Perhaps the name catches my eye, or the box art, or, ironically, the concept. The idea of playing charades without talking really intrigued me and once I saw a demo of the game, I was hooked. Let’s take a look at what’s in the box.
Sometimes while perusing in my friendly local game store, I just happen upon a game that I really don’t know anything about. Perhaps the name catches my eye, or the box art, or, ironically, the concept. The idea of playing charades without talking really intrigued me and once I saw a demo of the game, I was hooked. Let’s take a look at what’s in the box.
There are a lot of little fiddly bits in the box for Concept, but very rarely (if ever) will all the pieces be used on a single turn. The board looks a little crazy, but this game is inherently subjective rather than objective. Meaning, the various symbols will mean different things to different people depending on how they are used. The cubes and markers are pretty standard quality and work beautifully with what the game tries to accomplish. The victory tokens are adequate, but honestly do not really fit in with any particular theme or art of the game (light bulbs?). The player aids are helpful, but again everything is subjective and the aids are merely suggestions on how to interpret the symbols.
Gameplay:
Objective:
Team of Two: Get someone to guess the word or phrase
Everyone Else: Guess the word or phrase
Set Up:
Simply place the markers and cubes around the board so that players can access them on their turns.
On your turn:
A team of two players will draw a card, choose one of the available words or phrases and use the markers to try to get other players to guess. The person who guesses the word or phrase receives two points and those who had the clue get one point if someone manages to guess it.
As an example, the clue: Dynamite. The team decides to place the main marker on “Object”. They place cubes of the corresponding color on various symbols to describe “Object”. In this case, they may place a cube on “Small”, “Red”, and “Cylinder”. They might take a second marker and place it on “Weapon” and use the cubes to explain that it causes a “Big””Fire” (AKA: explosion). See the above photo gallery for a picture of this set up.
Game Ends:
When all of the victory point tokens have been awarded. The player with the most wins.
Final Thoughts:
Concept is the quintessential party game, complete with the high player count, variable difficulties, and accessibility to just about anyone. The cards have extremely easy words like “milk” or “cookie”, while also having extremely complicated phrases and ideas like “a rolling stone gathers no moss”, “101 Dalmatians”, and the “Holy Grail”. Once players grasp the core concept (there’s that pun again…) of the game, they will typically move to the harder suggestions as they are more fun for the clue-givers and the guessers alike.
In all honesty, the rules are pretty awful and I’m surprised they got past play testing. The two-player clue-giving team is pretty pointless, you have to leave the room to really plan how you are going to use the symbols and it just does not work, just have one player give the clues (maybe use the two-player approach with kids?). Also the scoring is a little fiddly, so we just played for a while until we were bored of the game and then moved on to something new.
Positives:
Final Score: 7/10
Gameplay:
Objective:
Team of Two: Get someone to guess the word or phrase
Everyone Else: Guess the word or phrase
Set Up:
Simply place the markers and cubes around the board so that players can access them on their turns.
On your turn:
A team of two players will draw a card, choose one of the available words or phrases and use the markers to try to get other players to guess. The person who guesses the word or phrase receives two points and those who had the clue get one point if someone manages to guess it.
As an example, the clue: Dynamite. The team decides to place the main marker on “Object”. They place cubes of the corresponding color on various symbols to describe “Object”. In this case, they may place a cube on “Small”, “Red”, and “Cylinder”. They might take a second marker and place it on “Weapon” and use the cubes to explain that it causes a “Big””Fire” (AKA: explosion). See the above photo gallery for a picture of this set up.
Game Ends:
When all of the victory point tokens have been awarded. The player with the most wins.
Final Thoughts:
Concept is the quintessential party game, complete with the high player count, variable difficulties, and accessibility to just about anyone. The cards have extremely easy words like “milk” or “cookie”, while also having extremely complicated phrases and ideas like “a rolling stone gathers no moss”, “101 Dalmatians”, and the “Holy Grail”. Once players grasp the core concept (there’s that pun again…) of the game, they will typically move to the harder suggestions as they are more fun for the clue-givers and the guessers alike.
In all honesty, the rules are pretty awful and I’m surprised they got past play testing. The two-player clue-giving team is pretty pointless, you have to leave the room to really plan how you are going to use the symbols and it just does not work, just have one player give the clues (maybe use the two-player approach with kids?). Also the scoring is a little fiddly, so we just played for a while until we were bored of the game and then moved on to something new.
Positives:
- Inventive new take on the classic charades
- High player count
- Accessible to gamers and non-gamers alike
- Players can convey an amazing amount of information simply using markers and cubes, of which there are no limitations. Everything from timing of placement and amount of cubes (i.e. if you want to say something is REALLY big, you could put 4 cubes on the “Big” symbol) is critical.
- Can be hard to follow some players’ train of thought
- Fiddly scoring, weird rules
- Game is extremely subjective (player aids help to make it more objective)
Final Score: 7/10