"Modern Art" Opinions?
Jim Bailey
Please post any opinions about "Modern ARt" by Mayfair. How does it
compare to "Masterpiece" or "Adel V"? Thanks.
Jim Bailey
Geenius at Wrok
> Please post any opinions about "Modern ARt" by Mayfair. How does it
> compare to "Masterpiece" or "Adel V"? Thanks.
Haven't played either of the other two so can't compare. But I can say
that Modern Art has always gone over very well with nongamers (who have
been pretty much the only people in my life for the last couple of years).
--
"I wish EVERY day could be a shearing festival!" -- The 10 Commandments
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Keith Ammann is gee...@albany.net "I notice you have a cloud of doom.
Live with honor, endure with grace I must admit it makes you seem
www.albany.net/~geenius * Lun Yu 2:24 dangerous and sexy."
Michael T. Richter
news:384FC1D5...@lclark.edu...
> Please post any opinions about "Modern ARt" by Mayfair. How does it
> compare to "Masterpiece" or "Adel V"? Thanks.
I can't compare to either of the other two you've mentioned as I've never
seen them. I can comment on the game itself, however.
Modern Art is a typical Knizia game. (This can be a good thing or a bad
thing depending upon your tastes. For me it is a good thing.) It is a
simple bidding game with some thematic chrome related to acquiring and
promoting works of art from avant garde artists. Players take turns in
putting out paintings in a variety of auction styles and trying to get
sizable collections of a single artist. Scoring is accomplished by taking
into account an artist's number of sales in the current round as well as
performance in prior rounds. That last part addds a bit of planning and
strategy to what is otherwise mostly a tactical game.
I tend to suck at playing Modern Art because of a deep character defect: I'm
too competetive. I don't like to lose auctions and thus tend to bid more
than a picture could possibly be worth to me Just Because. Nonetheless, I
always enjoy playing the game. That's really the ultimate test of whether I
like a game or not in the end: do I enjoy playing in spite of losing.
On the downside....
Modern Art is the reason I won't buy a Mayfair game without looking at its
components first. The player screens are feeble and blow over in the slight
gusts from simple breathing. The money tokens require you to stick the
values on for yourself, the end result of which is a remarkably cheesy look
and feel. The cards struck me as a bit flimsy, but I can't quite place my
fingers on why. (There's been no actual damage done to them in play, so
maybe I'm just being paranoid.)
--
Michael T. Richter <m...@ottawa.com> http://www.igs.net/~mtr/
"get a life. its a plastic box with wires in it."
-- Nadia Mizner <nad...@onthenet.com.au> (in private correspondence)
Colin Bell
> Jim Bailey <bai...@lclark.edu> wrote in message
> news:384FC1D5...@lclark.edu...
> > Please post any opinions about "Modern ARt" by Mayfair. How does it
> > compare to "Masterpiece" or "Adel V"? Thanks.
> On the downside....
>
> Modern Art is the reason I won't buy a Mayfair game without looking at its
> components first. The player screens are feeble and blow over in the slight
> gusts from simple breathing. The money tokens require you to stick the
> values on for yourself, the end result of which is a remarkably cheesy look
> and feel. The cards struck me as a bit flimsy, but I can't quite place my
> fingers on why. (There's been no actual damage done to them in play, so
> maybe I'm just being paranoid.)
The German edition (I think it's made by Hans im Gluck) has good quality
components (although the player screens could be a little sturdier) and the
amount of text is minimal (only the list of what the five auction symbols
mean, printed on the back of the player screens, and you won't need that
anyway after about half a game) so you might like to consider that one
instead.
I agree with Michael's opinion of the game, by the way.
It's one of these 'youngest player' starts - last time I played it, it
transpired that the two youngest players at the table were born on the
same day, and it took a bit of brain-wracking for one to recall that he
had probably been born in the afternoon, and settle the matter...
Colin
Richard Heli
Jim Bailey wrote:
> Please post any opinions about "Modern ARt" by Mayfair. How does it
> compare to "Masterpiece" or "Adel V"? Thanks.
I don't know Masterpiece. Adel Verpflichtet features blind auctions, but has
alot of other things going on. In contrast, more than any other game probably,
Modern Art is *the* auction game. Not only do players take on the role of
bidders, they also each take turns as the auctioneer. And there are several
different styles of auction as well. The game is all about "what is the
perceived
value of this artwork". The artworks in MA are not real, but amusing
semi-parodies
of modern artists. But go over to the Game Cabinet,
http://www.gamecabinet.com, and read the reviews.
Note that Modern Art is currently no. 4 in the games survey:
http://scv.bu.edu/~aarondf/Top100/list.txt
(AV is no. 210 and Masterpiece no. 1907).
Justin B. Green
been responsible for non-gamers to pull it out of my bookshelf to learn to
play. Ironically, it seems to appeal more to the business-types than
artist-types (so does running a gallery, doesn't it?), but great fun was
had by all. It can be very cutthroat, and it's very difficult to develop
a successful strategy.
For art history lovers, Masterpiece might be a good buy. I don't know
what the modern game looks like these days, but my family's 1970s version
had reproductions of actual art from the Art Institute in Chicago. The
board was supercool, too: you moved your pieces around the "frame" of
a reproduction of a famous circular Rembrandt self-portrait. The game
play is fairly simplistic, however.
Christian Killoran
Colin Bell <c...@art.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ncm9034...@malus.art-render.com...
> It's one of these 'youngest player' starts - last time I played it, it
> transpired that the two youngest players at the table were born on the
> same day, and it took a bit of brain-wracking for one to recall that he
> had probably been born in the afternoon, and settle the matter...
And you thought those German rules were always elegant! Hey, that makes me
wonder...in tournament play of these games, is this rule used? I know some
folks who are competitive enough to seat themselves at a table based on
knowing who will play first!
Matt Crawford
Masterpiece was a family favorite for years. I'd agree with whomever said
that gameplay was fairly simple, though. If I see the paintings elsewhere,
I still remember a lot of the cards and probably owe about half of my
pitiful art education to them.
Richard Heli <he...@best.com> wrote in message
news:385010A2...@best.com...
>
> I don't know Masterpiece
Jeff Fisher
>
> Please post any opinions about "Modern ARt" by Mayfair. How does it
> compare to "Masterpiece" or "Adel V"? Thanks.
"Masterpiece" is a waste of time unless you are bonding with your kids.
I thought it was too simple even when I *was* a kid.
-- Jeff Fisher <>< Vancouver WA
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie!" while picking up a cudgel.
To reply, replace ".dont_spam." with '@'
David Vander Ark
>
> Jim Bailey wrote:
> >
> > Please post any opinions about "Modern ARt" by Mayfair. How does it
> > compare to "Masterpiece" or "Adel V"? Thanks.
>
> "Masterpiece" is a waste of time unless you are bonding with your kids.
> I thought it was too simple even when I *was* a kid.
>
> -- Jeff Fisher <>< Vancouver WA
end an evening when you don't have enough time to get in another round
of El Grande or another "heavy" game. It's so light that nobody gets
overly competitive or upset about who's winning or not. In short, a
favorite way for our group to end a night of gaming. I'd say it would
work quite well as a beer and pretzels game, because you can get pretty
silly trying to name all those goofy paintings (what's with that old
wrinkled guy by Rembrandt? etc.)
Jeff Fisher
>
> Jeff Fisher wrote:
> >
> > "Masterpiece" is a waste of time unless you are bonding with your kids.
> > I thought it was too simple even when I *was* a kid.
> >
> > -- Jeff Fisher <>< Vancouver WA
>
> I disagree--Masterpiece is a lot of fun with our group as a light way to
> end an evening when you don't have enough time to get in another round
> of El Grande or another "heavy" game.
Okay, I should have said that Masterpiece is a waste of money (unless
you get for free).
Here's how simple it is: grab some play money (or chips) and any bunch
of cards valued 0-10. Each player in turn draws a random card without
showing the others, pretends as if its value is quite different from
what's on the card, and then opens the bidding on the card. Whoever
finishes the last auction with the greatest sum of cash and card values
is the winner.
Unlike Modern Art, the values of the "Paintings" do not change in
Masterpiece, and the actions of the players have no influence on the
market. It's just bluff and bet with no strategy and few tactics.
I recommend waiting for the CheapAss Games version before you buy.
-- Jeff Fisher <>< Vancouver WA
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie..." while picking up a
David desJardins
> Here's how simple it is: grab some play money (or chips) and any bunch
> of cards valued 0-10. Each player in turn draws a random card without
> showing the others, pretends as if its value is quite different from
> what's on the card, and then opens the bidding on the card. Whoever
> finishes the last auction with the greatest sum of cash and card values
> is the winner.
You're apparently confusing "Masterpiece" with a different game.
Masterpiece doesn't have blind bidding (which would be rather pointless).
David desJardins
Jeff Fisher
I am referring to "Masterpiece, The Art Auction Game" by Parker Bothers,
1970. The entire rules are printed on two sides of an 8" x 8" slip of
paper, one quarter of which repeats the dramatic (and totally
irrelevant) promo from the outside of the box.
There are two kinds of auctions, private and Bank. In a private auction,
the owner knows what value card is attached to painting, but nobody else
does. In a bank auction, nobody knows what value will be attached until
the auction winner draws it from the pile.
I remember playing the game as a 10 yr old boy and being quite
underwhelmed.
Is their, perhaps, another game with the same title?
Dweeb
David desJardins wrote in message ...
>Jeff Fisher <jeffry...@home.com> writes:
>> Here's how simple it is: grab some play money (or chips) and any bunch
>> of cards valued 0-10. Each player in turn draws a random card without
>> showing the others, pretends as if its value is quite different from
>> what's on the card, and then opens the bidding on the card. Whoever
>> finishes the last auction with the greatest sum of cash and card values
>> is the winner.
>
>You're apparently confusing "Masterpiece" with a different game.
>Masterpiece doesn't have blind bidding (which would be rather pointless).
IIRC in masterpiece no player knows the value of the painting until AFTER it
is purchased. It IS pointless.
>
> David desJardins
bob matthews
"Michael T. Richter" <m...@ottawa.com> wrote:
> On the downside....
>
> Modern Art is the reason I won't buy a Mayfair game without looking at
its components first. The player screens are feeble and blow over in
the slight gusts from simple breathing. The money tokens require you to
stick the values on for yourself, the end result of which is a
remarkably cheesy look and feel...
I haven't seen the German, but Im very happy with my Mayfair copy. I
like the money tokens, especially for the 'in the fist' auctions. (It
was a pain putting th estickers on). The cards are holding up well.
This game is one of my very favorites - I consider it a must-have. I've
heard complaints about it being abstract, but I think it has more theme
than most, and we have a lot of fun role-playing shameless art dealers.
Bob
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Michael T. Richter
news:833m80$oid$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> On the downside....
>> Modern Art is the reason I won't buy a Mayfair game without
>> looking at its components first. The player screens are feeble and
>> blow over in the slight gusts from simple breathing. The money
>> tokens require you to stick the values on for yourself, the end
>> result of which is a remarkably cheesy look and feel...
> I haven't seen the German, but Im very happy with my Mayfair copy.
I made the mistake of buying Modern Art (Mayfair version) *after* having
bought all sorts of good quality German games from Rio Grande. After the
good components of Samurai and Medieval Merchant, the Modern Art game (for
which I paid about the same price as the Rio Grande games) was a bitter
disappointment in terms of component quality.
> I like the money tokens, especially for the 'in the fist' auctions.
> (It was a pain putting th estickers on).
The stickers are what make the money tokens look cheesy. And it was a real
pain putting the stickers on, yes -- especially since you had to first sort
the tokens by colour since there were differing numbers of each denomination
with no guide as to which colour was which value.
> The cards are holding up well.
I found them to feel a bit flimsy, but as I said I didn't have anything
specific I can point to: my cards are still in good shape after a few games.
> This game is one of my very favorites - I consider it a must-have.
I agree. It is a great game. In future I will be buying the German edition
if I have to replace my current one, however.
Dave Boyd
> The stickers are what make the money tokens look cheesy. And it was a
real
> pain putting the stickers on, yes -- especially since you had to first
sort
> the tokens by colour since there were differing numbers of each
denomination
> with no guide as to which colour was which value.
I have both versions. True, the stickers don't look great, but the plastic
chips will I believe hold up better than the cardboard discs in the German
version. However the cardboard discs are at least size-cued. Also the
payout-record chits are rectangular, so they don't get confused with money
either.
The screens are about the same weight and quality.
>
> > The cards are holding up well.
>
> I found them to feel a bit flimsy, but as I said I didn't have anything
> specific I can point to: my cards are still in good shape after a few
games.
The cards are the same. I mean that Mayfair bought them from Kosmos.
> > This game is one of my very favorites - I consider it a must-have.
>
> I agree. It is a great game. In future I will be buying the German
edition
> if I have to replace my current one, however.
The box is much nicer. And much larger. But that's about it.
--
Dave Boyd | Parents travel far | From a place that lacks
Systems | They view a new dimension | Bilateral symmetry
Analyst | Getting me only | This lousy F-shirt
Geenius at Wrok
> I have both versions. True, the stickers don't look great, but the plastic
> chips will I believe hold up better than the cardboard discs in the German
> version. However the cardboard discs are at least size-cued.
But the Mayfair chips are Monopoly-color-cued! :-)
PYBromley
Dave Boyd wrote
<< The cards are the same. I mean that Mayfair bought them from Kosmos.
>>
Of course you meant to say Hans Im Glueck, not Kosmos. However, Mayfair
purchased the cards from the same producer as Hans Im Glueck, not Hans Im
Glueck itself.
In response to Michael T. Richter comment below, I will just point out that the
Rio Grande games involved are issued several years later. The principal of Rio
Grande, Jay Tummelson, was working with Mayfair at the time of Modern Art's
publication, as well as, for that matter, as the initial publication of
Mayfair's Settlers. To be fair, Jay did not have final responsibility for any
Mayfair product, although he made great contributions. But he had greater
influence than the present management of Mayfair.
Peter Y. Bromley
Michael T. Richter wrote
Justin B. Green
> To be fair, Jay did not have final responsibility for any
> Mayfair product, although he made great contributions. But he had greater
> influence than the present management of Mayfair.
I don't understand this. How could present Mayfair management not have
influence over Mayfair product? Does it mean that Mayfair is now just
keeping the designs and components from the German (or whatever) companies
(as opposed to redesigning and finding other manufacturers), and ONLY
changing any text (like the rules)? This seems to be how Rio Grande
works, and I think it works pretty well!
Dave Boyd
news:19991214152214...@ng-cv1.aol.com...
> Greetings,
>
> Dave Boyd wrote
> << The cards are the same. I mean that Mayfair bought them from Kosmos.
> >>
>
> Of course you meant to say Hans Im Glueck, not Kosmos. However, Mayfair
> purchased the cards from the same producer as Hans Im Glueck, not Hans Im
> Glueck itself.
Whoops! Heh heh, yes, that is of course what I meant. Sorry!
PYBromley
As has been referred to in other r.g.b. postings, Mayfair's ownership changed
hands in June of 1997. To this date, Modern Art has not had a new printing.
Modern Art was initially published in 1996. Thus the new management has had no
input on Modern Art design. The only thing it could do would be to break the
shrink on existing games, remove the plastic pieces, put in a substitute (say
die cut counters like Hans Im Glueck) manufactured at a high cost due to low
production quantities, and reshrink. All this requires money which evidently
has been rather short.
As per your comments concerning the components, Rio Grande and Jay has been
fortunate regarding the exchange rates. It is much easier to import when the
dollar is worth DM1.60 (a year ago) to DM1.90 (today) compared to the
DM1.30-DM1.40 when Modern Art was initially published. Mayfair prior to the
Modern Art/Streetcar/Settlers of Catan/Manhattan/Detroit-Cleveland Grand Prix
release brought in several german games with just english translations. Die
Hanse, Dampfross, and 1835 are just a few examples. The imported games were not
as well received as the republished ones.
As per the intentions of the new management of Mayfair, I cannot speak for
them.
Merry Christmas to all!
Peter
Justin B Green
Paul King
"Justin B. Green" <gr...@inka.MSSM.EDU> wrote:
>On 14 Dec 1999, PYBromley wrote:
>
>> To be fair, Jay did not have final responsibility for any
>> Mayfair product, although he made great contributions. But he had greater
>> influence than the present management of Mayfair.
>
>I don't understand this. How could present Mayfair management not have
>influence over Mayfair product?
Perhaps becuase they *weren't* at the time the decisions were made. Don;t
forgt the big fuss over the sale of Mayfair.
Does it mean that Mayfair is now just
>keeping the designs and components from the German (or whatever) companies
>(as opposed to redesigning and finding other manufacturers), and ONLY
>changing any text (like the rules)? This seems to be how Rio Grande
>works, and I think it works pretty well!
It's the way Rio Grande usually works. I think you'll find that in the
past when they've produced their on components (e.g. the English language
cards for El Grande or their version of Medici) the results have not always
been satisfactory. (The cards in both cases are very small - in my view
too small - and the Medici cards stick together).
Hopefully the forthcoming El Grande expansions will be better (e.g. with
playing card szed cards which don't stick together).