Some of the Alea Big Box series are my favorite games (Chinatown and Ra), while others I think are merely good. But one thing is for sure, I haven’t played one that I dislike. So it was easy enough to ensure that Fifth Avenue (Alea and Rio Grande Games, 2004 - Wilko Manz) was on my “must-buy” list, as it was #9 in this illustrious series. The theme, that of building skyscrapers in Manhattan, also interested me; so I thought there was the possibility of this becoming one of my favorite of the series.
Sadly, not only is this game not going to achieve that lofty status, but it also has a high possibility of achieving the “never played” status. The odd thing is that the game actually works, with plenty of tactical options. It’s simple to understand; and while the strategies are elusive, they are present. The problem is that the game simply wasn’t fun for me; and everyone I played with, while not specifically stating their dislike with the game, sort of collectively shrugged their shoulders in a “ho-hum” sort of way.
The game board is formed of nine areas: City Hall, Central Park, an area underneath Central Park, and seven districts arranged in three columns (2,3,2). Each district is split into five building plots in five different colors (purple, brown, gray, yellow, and green). A bunch of business tiles (each showing a different ware) are shuffled, and one random tile is placed face up on one building plot in each district, with every color receiving at least one tile but none receiving more than two. Twenty businesses are then placed face up in a row above the districts, split into eight groups of three or two. Five stacks of colored cards, each corresponding to one of the five different colored plots, are shuffled and placed face-up, after one is dealt to each player. Another stack of black cards are shuffled and placed face down, after four are dealt to each player. Each player takes five skyscraper pieces of their color, placing one on a scoring track, three on the “supply space” on their summary card, and two on any empty building plot on the board - one at a time, in player order. The rest of the skyscrapers are placed in a general supply area. Two commissioner pawns and three markers for each are placed on the City Hall. One player is chosen to start, and the game begins.
On a player’s turn, they perform three different actions in a specified order. They have four different choices for their first action:
- Take three skyscrapers from the supply and place them on their summary card.
- Take a business from the supply row, placing it on any empty plot, or on one that has only one other business. The player may choose any business to place from the group (2 or 3) the business is in. If the business is the second last in that group, the last business in the group is immediately placed in the area under Central Park. After certain groups are finished, a scoring bonus may occur, according to what’s written on the board (for example, all players with at least one skyscraper in each of at least three different districts may gain four victory points.)
- Take the top card from the “black” deck, adding it to their hand, and move one of the commissioners. Each commissioner follows a set path, demonstrated on the summary cards, with an occasional choice between two districts but always moving in the direction from City Hall to Central Park. When a commissioner is moved out of a district, a marker from that commissioner is left in the district to indicate that the commissioner has been there. If the commissioner is in Central Park and is moved, it goes back to City Hall, and a bidding round occurs. Each district that the commissioner has visited has one auction apiece, starting with the first district the commissioner visited. Players then bid to add skyscrapers to a lot in the district. If they already have skyscrapers in a lot, they must add new skyscrapers to that lot. Otherwise, they may add them to any empty lot (no businesses or skyscrapers). The player who moved the commissioner starts each auction, bidding any number of cards from their hand. The cards must match the color of the plot the player is bidding for (black cards count as wild cards). Each subsequent bid (in clockwise order) must exceed the total of the previous bid, or else the player must pass, taking all cards played back into their hands. When all but one player has passed that player wins the auction, discarding their cards to the appropriate piles. The player may place 1,2, or 3 skyscrapers from their summary cards onto the plot they were bidding for, but may only place the amount on the highest numbered card they played. (For example, the “6” card only has one skyscraper on it; so if a player bids with it, they may only place one skyscraper.) If, prior to an auction, all the plots in district are full - either with skyscrapers or businesses - the winning bidder may declare a “building stop.” A building stop token is placed on the district, with the player who placed it gaining one point for every skyscraper in the district. All other players score half the victory points for the skyscrapers they have, and then all skyscrapers and businesses are discarded. Nothing can be built in this district again, and moving commissioners will skip it in the future. After each district has been auctioned, one more auction is held for the area below Central Park. The first player may bid with any color card, then all players must use the same color (or black cards). The winner places skyscraper(s) in the area under Central Park, where they will score at the end of the game.
- Score a district: A player can score a district in which a commissioner resides. Each skyscraper currently in the area scores points, depending on the different types of business in adjacent lots. If there are no adjacent businesses, the skyscrapers score one point each with accelerating points; so that if there are four different business types, the skyscrapers score 8 points each.
If the player chooses to score a district, their next action consists of drawing two black cards, adding them to their hand. If they choose any of the other three actions, however, they take two different colored cards of their choice. The player’s third action then consists of them moving one commissioner, which may trigger another set of auctions. When the last business from the supply row is placed or if two business stops occur, the game ends immediately. All districts are scored one more time, as well as Central Park. The business tiles in the park are shuffled, and three of them are chosen. Depending on how many of these three are different determines the victory point value of the skyscrapers in Central Park (2, 3, or 5). The player with the most victory points is then declared the winner.
Some comments on the game...
1.) Components: The game is packaged in the same box as all the rest of the “Big Box” Alea series with some excellent early twentieth-century style artwork. A plastic insert in the box holds everything fairly well, although plastic bags are probably needed for the business tiles and skyscrapers. The skyscrapers are little plastic buildings that are the exact same as those used in the game Shark - but they look nice on the board and are easy to handle. The cards are of good quality, although I think they should have differentiated between the colors more; the only difference is that the numbers in the corners of the cards are of different colors. The commissioners and commissioner makers are some bland pieces that are functional but a bit drab. The business tiles are small annoying little tiles with sometimes indistinguishable artwork on them. The double-sided board (one side is used in a variant), however, looks very nice with a simplified map and some illustrations of famous buildings giving the game a nice thematic touch. While some of the components (cards and tiles) are sub-par in my opinion, the overall package works fairly well, and most folk won’t complain.
2.) Rules: If you didn’t understand my description of the rules, I wouldn’t be surprised; because to learn the game, one should really look at the summary cards and illustrated diagrams in the rulebook. The rulebook is typical Alea fare, which most people really enjoy (I find them a bit confusing) - twelve pages of full colored, illustrated rules. The game is easier to teach than learn from the rulebook, and the summary cards make it extremely simplistic for new players.
3.) Strategy: The strategy to the game is not as intuitive, however. Obviously, players are trying to get a lot of skyscrapers next to a large variety of businesses. Since one can only do one action per turn, it’s hard to set up any lucrative scoring opportunities, and one well-placed “building stop” can absolutely mess up all one’s plans. To do well in the game, a player must be able to see outside the seemingly chaos that occurs between their turns, and figure out how to force other players to move the commissioner to the spots that most benefit them. The Central Park is a nice touch, but the scores from that area don’t really seem to affect the game too much. In fact, not much scoring is done during the game, in my experience, because the commissioner is almost never where you want it to be. I found the game slightly annoying in this regard; one can do so little on their turn that it’s hard to do any type of planning. Some have expounded online that there is a great deal of strategy to the game, that it’s hidden, and that it can be found on multiple playings. Frankly, I’d prefer it to be a little more obvious.
4.) Variants: The rules include a variant for two-players, which is nice and complicated. I’d rather just get out a two-player game, thank you. The other side of the board also has six building plots per district, which allows more room. I personally prefer this side of the board, especially with four players, it gives each player a little more room to breathe. Some folk might like the extremely small board space on the “normal” board, but I feel the extra plot gives more options = more strategy = more fun.
5.) Fun Factor: I really didn’t enjoy playing this game. I understood it, I saw the strategies (I think), but I just didn’t have a lot of fun playing it. It certainly pales besides it’s bigger brothers (Puerto Rico, Chinatown, etc.) It’s not my least favorite of the series (Mammoth Hunters takes that award), but it’s close; because I simply didn’t get much enjoyment out of my playings. Yes, it all made sense, and the game mechanics all worked together well; I just didn’t enjoy them much. I consistently felt like I was working my hardest to stop others from scoring, rather than score myself. The auctions were a bit bland, and often one’s turn was frankly - boring. Sometimes too many auctions occurred in a row, and it just seemed to drag the game down into drudgery. The game wasn’t horrible, but I would pass on playing it again.
For those of you intent on completing your Alea Big Box series, I suppose you’re going to pick the game up. Other than that, I can’t really recommend it. I love the theme, the time frame, and the idea. I just don’t love the game play; while functional, it just isn’t much fun. Fifth Avenue is a prime example of a game that works well, and flows fairly seamlessly, but without a soul. There were no, “Aha!” moments, not much laughter, not much of anything. There was nothing unique in the game to catch my interest; so I can’t imagine why I would waste my time on it, when there are so many fun games out there to play.
Tom Vasel
“Real men play board games.”
It is not uncommon for a reviewer to state his opinion about a game in the course of a review. It isn't unlike an expert witness in a trial stating his opinion based on his experience and learning. However, in order for a review to be of any use, the reviewer must qualify his opinions and observations as Tom did in this review.
Not all people will like all games the same way, and that goes for reviewers. Reviewers need to indicate why a certain game did or didn't appeal to them so that others can form their own opinions. I for one like Tom's reviews more than most because he gives his opinions and then states the reasons behind those opinions. I don't always agree with them, but I am equipped with the knowledge that I need to form my own opinion about a game.
For me, it's important to know if a game will be clear to most players in the first few games or not. If not, that doesn't make it a bad game, but it will determine the type of gamer to which it appeals. I happen to be interested in Fifth Avenue because it is simillar to a game that I have worked on off and on for a few years now. After reading Tom's review, I am not unlikely to try the game, but I am less likely to seek it out and/or buy it. There are so many others that I want to buy or try that this game will be a low priority (unless other reviews and opinions raise my opinion of it).
I understand Jeff's general concern that players may write off a game that is not as obvious, but it is their tastes in games that drive such decisions. There are plenty of gamers that do appreciate games that are more opaque (otherwise Fifth Avenue, Dune et al wouldn't have made it to the published state). These gamers would read this review in particular and think that, though Tom didn't have fun playing it, they might. Thus the need for qualification becomes more clear than ever.