Every now and then a game comes along that becomes my obsession for a short period of time. Those obsessions eventually fade as the next game comes along to steal my attention, but rarely one manages to keep my heart and become a comfort game for me. Istanbul was one of the first games that managed to worm its way into my heart and become a seminal classic for me.
Istanbul, designed by Rudiger Dorn and published by Pegasus Spiel in 2014 is a race game. You’re racing the opposing merchants to be the player to earn 5 rubies before the others. Throughout the game you’ll collect coins and resources, and use those to pay for those said rubies, by giving gifts to the mosque, selling at the market, upgrading your wagon, and visiting the gem sellers.
The main board of Istanbul is created by laying out 20 cards in a 4 by 4 grid. Each of these cards are an action space that you’ll utilize in your quest for the fastest rubies. One of these cards is the fountain, where the stacks of player discs begin the game.
The top disc of your stack as a sticker on it, that’s you. The discs below you are your merchants, and when you want to move onto a new action space, you’ll move your entire stack, and drop off a single disc onto the action space to take that action. On your next turn, you’ll leave that disc behind and move your remaining stack to a new action, depositing a disc again. Should you ever take an action a second time by moving yourself onto an action card where you have already deposited a disc, instead of shedding another one, you instead pick that disc up to replenish your stack. I think it goes without saying that if you move onto a new action, and you don’t have any discs to shed, you cannot take that action.
Keeping on with the race motif, almost everything in Istanbul starts out cheap and gets more expensive as the actions get used. The first gem to buy costs 12 coins, the first mosque tiles only require a showing of 2 goods, but by the end of the game, a gem can cost 18 or 19 coins, and those mosque tiles want you to have 4 goods before they bestow their power upon your carriage. It’s wonderfully satisfying to see that an opponent has JUST enough resources to take an action, but getting there first puts it just out of their reach again.
The other point of interaction with your opponents is just being in the space where they want to go. Your merchant existing in a spot doesn’t prevent anyone else from going to the same action, but they do have to pay you 2 coins for the privilege of standing next to you. It’s only right.
So, you run around the board, scattering discs to get coins, goods, and powers, all in an effort to earn rubies. The rubies can be bought directly for just coins or sets of goods, but there are a few extra ways to pick up a bonus ruby. If you manage to earn the favour of both mosque tiles that exist on a single card, you get a ruby. If you manage to completely fill out your cart, expanding your cargo capacity, you earn a ruby. First player to earn 5 rubies, wins the game.
There are two tiles on the board which have you rolling dice to earn goods or coins. The tea house has players say a number, then roll the dice. If your sum is higher than what you spoke, you get your bet. If it’s lower, you get a 2 coin consolation prize. Similarly, the Black Market lets you roll the dice, and if you get more of the luxury blue resource the higher you roll. These push your luck elements of the game can and will alter a player’s fate. If someone chooses to go to those spots and just happens to roll super well, they get a massive head start. That said, if someone goes there and fails two or three times in a game, they’ll be so far behind the other players that they might as well not even be playing. It’s an odd beast, gamble at your own peril.
Istanbul is fast and satisfying. I particularly love the phone implementation, as I can play a full 4 player game against some AI opponents in just 5 minutes. Perfect for when I’m idle, waiting for something to happen. Generally near the end of the game, you can figure out who is 4 turns away from ending it, and you are either in a position to get in their way, or you aren’t, and that’s just that. Thankfully, as long as players aren’t agonizing over their turns, by the time the game gets to that point, it’s over fairly quick. One more boon, because the game is ended by someone collecting their final ruby, there’s no need to count points. It’s just, done, and the player who achieved the goal has won!
It’s kind of amazing that I enjoy Istanbul as much as I do, considering how much I value discoverability in my games. Specifically with Istanbul, once you’ve played it, you’ve seen everything that’s there. But I find so much joy in running through game after game of Istanbul. And I’m not even seeking the mastery here, like I would be in Chess, I’m just enjoying the tight race that Rudiger Dorn has designed. Every turn feels like it has good decisions to make, and the action selection mechanic of dropping discs is super satisfying, especially when you can make it through a whole game without needing to go back to the fountain. I recommend Istanbul without reservation, and even more so when you add the expansions, but I’ll talk about those another day.
The following pictures contain content from the Arcs Expansion, during my webhost move, some photos were lost.
I like having control. If you’re already familiar with Arcs by Cole Wherle and Leder Games, that should tell you how this review is going to go.
In Arcs, Players are controlling space faring factions as they bump elbows with each other and vie for victory points. The core action selection mechanism is a twist on trick taking. Each chapter of the game deals each player 6 cards in 4 suits. Each suit has access to 2 or 3 different actions, and the numerical strength of the card is inversely related to the number of actions that card can provide.
Each round of the game starts with the player who has initiative. That player plays a lead card, and may choose to Declare and Ambition. The ambitions are how victory points are scored, and the ambition the lead player is allowed to declare is entirely based off the numerical value of the card. Declaring an ambition also reduces the numerical value of the card down to 0, which is quite important for the players who will be following.
The lead player takes however many actions that the card they played allows them to take, then the next player takes their turn. They can choose to Surpass (play a card of the same suit, but higher value), Copy (play a card face down to take a single action that the lead card has access to), or Pivot (play an off suit card, and take a single action that the card has access to. Any player can also play a second card face down to seize the initiative to go first next round, unless the initiative has already been seized this round. If initiative wasn’t seized, then whoever played the highest surpass card takes the initiative for the next round.
That’s the basic rules of how Arcs plays. I won’t really get into the details of what each action does, or battle, or the nuance of the ambition markers, because those aspects aren’t at the core of what I want to talk about. My experience with Arcs was a frustrating one. From the context above, you may have noticed that what you can do is almost entirely dependent on which cards you were dealt at the start of the round. I think everyone at our table every round said something to the effect of “This hand is awful!”. The ambitions you can declare are dependent on the cards you have, the actions you can play are dependent on the cards you have, if you’re void in a suit, the only way you can access those actions are if someone leads with a card of that suit, and you copy them, taking a single action.
A game of Arcs isn’t about doing what you want. Arcs doesn’t support players who have a grand strategy and goals that they want to accomplish. Arcs is about tactics, it’s about being opportunistic. Action efficiency means something entirely different in the context of Arcs, it’s not about how many actions you get. It’s about having that one or two REALLY GOOD actions that enable you to score an ambition. It’s about sneaking in to get a majority in the 11th hour, it’s about positioning yourself to have the chance to do things in the future. You need to be on your toes in Arcs.
And that’s all well and good, but ultimately, it’s not the type of game that I really enjoy. I mostly enjoy dice combat games like Eclipse. I like mean games like Food Chain Magnate, but I do not enjoy the feeling of being handcuffed. I don’t like being cut off from core actions entirely, just because I was dealt a hand of manoeuvre cards.
The last chapter of Arcs I played, I was dealt 5 manoeuvre cards. The actions available to the manoeuvre cards are to Move, or Influence. I felt entirely out of the game, because those to actions have absolutely nothing to do with the ambitions. And because I had 5 of the 7 manoeuvre cards, I was fairly certain that a manoeuvre card wouldn’t be lead. My whole round was a series of copy actions, taking a single action of whatever the lead card is. Unable to plan, unable to score, I felt dejected. Perhaps that hand of that calibre is an anomaly, but it cemented my thoughts that I prefer games where I can do the core actions of the game.
That last chapter ended in quite the upset, too. One player had a near monopoly on Fuel, so he put two tokens on the Tycoon ambition. The other two players manoeuvred and raided his cities, stealing nearly everything he had. On the final turn, one of the players took a single tax action, gaining a material, and the majority on both of the ambitions that were declared that round, and went from 7 points to winning the game entirely. The whole table was floored at the sudden change of fortunes. As I said above, opportunistic.
Make no mistake, Arcs is not a Bad Game. It’s just not a game for me. I prefer to have more control over what I can do, instead of putting my fate into the heart of the cards.
I do plan to embark on the campaign expansion with my friends. I look forward to what kind of crazy situations Cole Wherle has crafted for us. I don’t think it’ll change my mind and my preferences towards games that let me plan out a strategy. But with an updated mindset of what action economy means in the context of Arcs, I look forward to those great moments of upset and triumph.
Every few months, the conversation comes up about “Paid Reviews”, and there’s generally a thread or two that gets fairly heated at the concept that some people out there are taking money from publishers in return for a good review. I’ve already laid out my thoughts on paid reviews in my disclosure policy (spoilers, they’re bad), but there is a problem that doesn’t often get addressed during this discussion, and that’s how board game content creators should get paid?
Making content takes time, effort, and often money. Paying for equipment like lights and cameras, hosting fees, and set decorations are just some of the costs that come with trying to create board game content. Producing any kind of content takes time and effort, and I’m a firm believer in compensating people for their time and work. That said, I also realize that the mere act of interacting with publishers causes dual relationships that effect the integrity of the reviewers. So what is a content creator to do, then?
Tom Scott said in a video once that “A person’s threshold for what’s acceptable is just below whatever it is that they’re currently doing”. Some creators have no problems with taking thousands of dollars from a publisher to create sponsored content for them, and produce a ‘free’ review right alongside that sponsored content, with the only delineation between sponsored content and unsponsored content being a single line way down in the video description. Others, like So Very Wrong About Games, are very clear that they will not accept a dime from anyone in board game publishing, going as far as to say if they find out that a publisher is donating to their Pateron, they’ll refund that person every cent they’ve donated. I read a great article from Anime Herald titled “How to Get Paid to Watch Anime“, and the line “how much of your soul are you willing to part with? “Zero” isn’t an option.” rings very true here. Every method has some ethical quandaries tied to it, so the only question that remains is which of these methods are you personally comfortable with?
I’ve searched through various content creator one-pagers, websites, and brainstormed as many ways as I can think of for ways for someone to make money as a content creator. I’ve broken my findings into 3 categories, Money from Publishers, Money from Content Creators, and Money from Viewers. Take a look and let me know if there’s anything you’d add to these lists, and let me know which ones you think are acceptable or not.
Money from Viewers
I think the first way for content creators to make money is via ad revenue. Either pre/post video ads on YouTube, or banner ads and pop-ups on a website, creators can get paid by having an ad near or around their content. Unfortunately, ad revenue isn’t the cash cow you may think it is. There are tones of factors that go into how much money you can squeeze out of YouTube Ad Revenue, but a quick search estimates about $1 for every 500 – 1000 views. Now, looking at someone like The Dice Tower, they average between 1k – 6k views per video, earning between $5 – $20 per video. Also, building a business dependent on Ad Revenue is a terrible idea. It’s unreliable, inconsistent, and at any time YouTube can change the payouts, or their algorithm can just not push a particular video out to the audience. You can’t build a business on Ad Revenue.
So, other ways to get money from viewers, more directly. There’s creator merch (Board Game Hot Takes has a RedBubble store, The Nerd Shelves uses TeeSpring). Creator merch can be helpful, if people want to buy it. Some much larger creators, such as Linus Tech Tips report that 15% of their operating income comes from the merch they sell, but they also have several staff members dedicated to creating merch.
Ko-Fi, Pateron, Twitch Subs, YouTube Members are all ways to support your favourite channels, but each platform takes a cut of the cash too. Twitch takes 50%, YouTube, 30%, Ko-Fi, 5%. Each of these corporations thank you for your donations.
Some channels have had great success using referrals, either through Amazon or directly from a publisher. I think this option is most attractive to a publisher, as they only pay the creator for actual purchases that the creator generated, but they’re also a conflict of interest. Do you trust a reviewer to report on the negative aspects of a product, if they get a kickback for every sale they make?
Crowdfunding is an option for those that have a big enough fan base to warrant it. The Dice Tower, The Secret Cabal, and many others run crowdfunding campaigns every year to fund their programming. Jamie from The Secret Cabal has talked in the past about how stressful the lead up to the crowdfunding campaign is, as you really just don’t know if your fans are going to show up or not, and if they don’t, well then you gotta go and get a job!
Money from Publishers
Publishers will often collaborate with content creators to get their product out in front of a much larger, engaged audience. The “Shut Up & Sit Down Effect” has been a documented success, just like I’m sure getting a Rodney Smith “Watch it Played” video created can do wonders for getting your game out there. Now, while Rodney is the gold standard for a How-to-Play video, he’s a busy fellow, and might not take you on as a client. I’ve seen quotes from other channels saying the base price for a 15 minute video starts at $1,000, and goes up depending on the complexity. Rodney has quoted roughly 30 hours of work for a 20 minute, medium complexity game, but he also has 10 years experience creating this kind of content.
Overviews/preview videos are opinion-free content, showcasing the product, generally with many guidelines from the publisher. This is mostly for Kickstarter/crowdfunding purposes, but most creators I saw offering this service were starting at ~$250 per video
Some streamers will let you sponsor a live stream, where you need to provide a copy of your game, and pay a fee for their time. Phantom Meeple and Amanda Wong (Panda8ngel) were charging $200 USD for a 2-hour twitch stream back in 2022. Of course, Streamers are going to play the games they want to play, but how much would it cost for a publisher to “jump the queue” so to speak? One challenge here for the creators is managing burn-out. If they do a stream once a week, they have 52 streams per year. If half of those are sponsored, they have 26 streams remaining where they get to play the games they want to play.
Photography is an incredible skill, and shooting cardboard is a niche skill. Some creators offer social media posts creation. Kovray sells package deals where they will generate 5 – 10 photos of them playing a specific game per month for the publishers to use on social media, and charge $300 per month for the service with a 3-month minimum buy.
On the subject of social media, some creators will create a video ad, specifically for platforms like TikTok or Instagram, which when done right, can be much more engaging than a generic ad that most people have been conditioned to ignore.
I haven’t seen an offering for this yet, but I assume that most creators would be open to renting out ad space in their videos. Like, when someone has a Kallax of games behind them, with some boxes facing out, what would it cost to have a specific game out for a few videos?
The last idea in the getting money from publishers is to sell the games you get from the publishers after the review obligations have been fulfilled. This one seems debatable if it’s ethical or not. Kefka from No Pun Included, and many others fall on the side of “do not do this“, but I’ve asked a few non-media people about their opinions on the situation, and they don’t see a problem with it, so your mileage may vary.
Money from Content Creators
This category was the hardest to think of, and honestly, feels the most sleezy to me. Content creation should be a collaborative community, a rising tide lifts all ships situation. I don’t like the idea of trying to milk cash out of other creators, but these ideas just didn’t fit in the above category.
Some creators have a studio space that is always set up, ready for them to record. Sometimes it’s in their own home, like in the basement (The Nerd Shelves and Watch it Played), sometimes it’s a seperate location entirely (Actualol). But to offset the costs of the studio equipment, it may be worth it to rent the space out to other creators while you’re not using it. That said, a studio backdrop is fairly significant in a channels identity. Do you want someone creating very similar looking videos, or do you want to go through the effort of taking down all the set decoration each time a new renter comes in to record? It’s tough to say
Having expertise is valueable, and when someone is just getting started, they may not be so inclined to do all the research for all the various pieces of equipment that they may need. A savvy creator could build hardware packages (camera, lights, mics, everything you need to get started) and sell them as a “get started quick” package to someone who wants to build their own studio. This idea came from custom PC builders who do all the legwork of buying parts, putting the PC together, installing software, and selling the whole thing for more than they paid for it.
Lastly, again on the subject of expertise, coaching other creators. Being a source of wisdom for those starting out could be valuable. Maybe they have questions about what bitrate to stream at, or how to solve an annoying audio issue, a seasoned creator could build a consulting business to help those who need it.
In Conclusion
There is something to be said about how it feels somewhat impossible to just be an independant journalist. So many of these options, many would say are unethical or how it biases your opinions in ways that they no longer trust your reviews. For myself, as a blogger, my costs are like, $80 per year for this website. I use my phone to take pictures, and as somewhat of a tech enthuiast, I already have the computers and keyboards necessary to generate my content. But I sympthazise for those who choose to create video content, as it’s a much larger production than I need to deal with.
What do you think? Are there other ways a creator could make money that I’ve missed? Which of these options would you say are no-go? Let me know in the comments below!
A complimentary copy of The Binding of Isaac: Four Souls was provided by the publisher for the purposes of review
I am a big fan of the Roguelike video game genre, and while I’m not a huge fan of The Binding of Isaac specifically, it’s been impossible for me to ignore The Binding of Isaac, as it really was one of the first the rougelike games, before roguelikes became as popular as they are today. My main beef stems from the grotesque subject matter, references to abuse, and the cartoony body horror. Nevertheless, I’m always intrigued when a roguelike video game gets a tabletop adaption.
The Binding of Isaac: Four Souls attempts to distill the essence of the roguelike genre into a deck of monster, loot, and treasure cards, while offering a multiplayer experience that diverges from its digital counterpart. Played either solo, cooperatively, or competitively, The Binding of Isaac: Four Souls has lots of content to explore following its two successful crowdfunding campaigns totalling more than 8 million dollars.
Starting with the physical production, The Binding of Isaac: Four Souls has some odd design choices. A long, half empty rectangle box, a tiny pamphlet rule book, and 100 cheap, plastic pennies does not scream “8 million dollars” worth of components. It’s important to say here that the version I’m playing is the 2nd editions retail version, so no added content in my box, and there is space in this box to expand if you choose to do so. The cards themselves are good quality, and the art is very invocative of the video game. If you like bloat flies, and crying babies, you’ll have a good time with artist Krystal Fleming’s creations.
As for gameplay, The Binding of Isaac: Four Souls has players take on the personas of various heroes, each equipped with unique persistent items to aid in their quest to collect four souls and claim victory. On your turn you gain and play loot cards, activate abilities, and can choose to attack one of the monsters on the table. Should you defeat it, you’ll claim its rewards. The hook of the gameplay is that nearly every time you want to do something, you need to take a pause and “Pass priority”, where in player order, you ask everyone else if they want to react. All the card effects are arranged in a stack that gets resolved in a ‘last in, first out’ order that only gets resolved once everyone passes priority in succession.
This stack concept is the core of the game. Everyone can react to almost anything, creating a chaotic game experience. It’s rare to play extra cards during your own turn; instead, the real fun comes from using your cards to thwart your opponents’ plans. This aspect creates a high level of engagement and interaction, as the loot cards you hold are more often geared towards disrupting your opponents rather than benefiting yourself. If you like the ‘Take-That’ mentality, you’ll surely be howling with laughter, especially when what looked like a sure-fire victory for one player, turned into a 6 card combo that blew up in their face.
Interestingly, player elimination in The Binding of Isaac: Four Souls isn’t as harsh as it initially sounds. You will die while playing The Binding of Isaac: Four Souls. It’s less ‘elimination’ and more ‘minor inconvenience.’ Players who die lose a loot card, a coin, and exhaust all their cards, but then are plopped right back into the game, invoking that roguelike charm where dying isn’t that terrible and starting another run from a fresh start. That being said, the core of the game thrives with higher player counts, where the mechanics of stacking and interrupting are most effective, thus leading to more deaths. At lower player counts, the game can feels too simple and stagnant. It lacks the chaos that make the game actually enjoyable.
Unfortunately, combat feels arbitrary, as you’ll pick one of the two monsters on the table, and roll the dice a few times to see which of you falls first, either boosted by teammates, or sabotaged by opponents. I found the cooperative experience more fun, but that’s more of a reflection on my gaming tastes. I generally don’t like chaos, and I don’t like directly sabotaging my opponents. If you have good memories of Munchkin, or Exploding Kittens, you should have a pretty good idea if The Binding of Isaac: Four Souls is for you. It’s unfortunate that combat is so prevalent to the game, and yet it feels so pedestrian. I wish combat was more interesting, but the fun lies when players get involved with each other’s turns. Gloomhaven, this is not.
The Binding of Isaac: Four Souls offers a wild, interactive experience that shines with a full table of players. It’s a game built for fans who enjoy the aesthetic, unexpected betrayals, and don’t mind getting knocked down a bit. While it may not perfectly replicate the rougelike experience, it does manage to provide a unique and engaging way to enjoy the world of The Binding of Isaac with friends. If you like getting under your friends skin, or don’t mind having your own plans thwarted, The Binding of Isaac: Four Souls promises an entertaining time.
Eleanor Oliphant is Completely Fine is the kind of book that tells you everything that you need to know about the titular character. Eleanor is completely fine. How’s work? Fine. How’s life? Fine. Should life be more than fine? Well, that’s the book, isn’t it?
Eleanor is an accounts receivable clerk for a graphic design company in Glasgow, and has been for 9 years. She lives alone, she doesn’t socialize with her coworkers, she eats the same lunch and dinner every day, each Friday she gets a plain pizza and 2 litres of vodka and drinks herself to sleep each night. Sounds fine, doesn’t it? She feels there’s nothing wrong with this life, and feels no drive to change anything. Why would she? Everything is just fine, thank you for asking.
Eleanor seems to miss every social cue possible. She takes metaphors literally, and is unsympathetic to everyone around her. She’s not uncaring or unkind, but lacks an iota of empathy. She’s articulate, cold, and detached. When the office staff are giggling at her, she barely gives them a second thought before returning to her work. Eleanor bares the scars of a mysterious trauma on her face and hands, but she doesn’t pay it any mind.
Two things set the story in motion. Eleanor develops an unhealthy crush on a local musician and begins to fantasize herself with this star, motivating her to take steps to improve her physical appearance to become more fitting of the role as ‘rock star partner’, and she witnesses an elderly man fall to the street while outside with a new co-worker, Raymond.
From the start of the book you find yourself wondering ‘just what is up with Eleanor?’ Is she autistic? Asperger’s? As the book progresses, and you learn more about Eleanor and her life, and her past (which she speaks about bluntly, no matter how horrific the subject matter), you come to realize that this poor woman is broken, and has been for a long time. She’s a robot, a walking coping mechanism. She continues to get phone calls from her ‘Mummy’, in which Eleanor is relentlessly berated and verbally abused. Her only romantic experience in her history left her literally battered and broken on the floor.
Raymond constantly involves Eleanor in various tasks and meetings across the city, much to Eleanor’s chagrin. But in doing so, he introduces people who slowly show her what unconditional love looks like, even if she isn’t aware of it at the moment. Raymond’s mother, Sammy’s kids, all good people who continue to keep in touch with Eleanor and continue to disrupt her static routine.
Eleanor Oliphant is Completely Fine is broken into two halves. ‘Good Days’ and ‘Bad Days’. Golly did the bad days ever take a turn. Thankfully, by the time the turn happens, Eleanor isn’t alone anymore. Raymond is kind and caring, but never expectant. He offers assistance when needed, but never expects any kind of reward for his deeds. During the bad days, Eleanor is broken. Her world is shaken, her coping mechanisms fail her, and she spirals down into her rock bottom. Raymond shows up at her apartment when she doesn’t show up for work, and cleans her up, gently pushes her towards getting the help that she truly needs. Her boss and work is nothing but supportive, urging her to take as much time as she needs to recover. They don’t pry, they give space when space is needed, and encouragement when encouragement is needed.
On the surface, Eleanor is annoying. She misses obvious social cues, she’s rude to staff members everywhere she goes despite her own ignorance, and she speaks with a pretentiously large vocabulary. A lot of the negative reviews I read about Eleanor Oliphant is Completely Fine focus on how grating some people found the character of Eleanor, how unlikeable she is, or unrealistic. I get it, Eleanor is a difficult person to be around. I feel like all the people who dropped the book after 50 pages because Eleanor annoyed them are basically Eleanor’s co-workers. People who are judgmental, not curious. People who see someone odd, and instead of trying to find out what made them that way or what’s going on in their lives, just snicker with each other around the water cooler and move on with their day with a smug feeling of superiority.
I loved the depiction of counselling in the book. So much of media gets counselling completely wrong. Even Ted Lasso which was described as a therapy session for the nation when it first came out, got some of the aspects of counselling terribly wrong (I swear, if one more show has a counsellor date their former client, I’m going to throw a chair out the window). Eleanor gets MAD at her counsellor as the counsellor picks and pulls at her old wounds. This is good, counselling isn’t always comfortable and easy. Eleanor runs away from it, only to come back, and once she emerges the other side, realizing the good work that needed to be done to heal from her traumas.
Eleanor Oliphant is Completely Fine isn’t a love story. This is a book about Eleanor and her healing journey. This is a story about kindness, acceptance, and growth. This is the kind of book that sticks with you long after you read the last page. I highly recommend Eleanor Oliphant is Completely Fine. A 5-star book, a contender for my book of the year during a year when I’ve read some amazing books (Demon Copperhead and Pirinesi are the other two favourite books from the year so far). Just be prepared to pause all your reading for a week as you nurse that book hangover!
