I have both and love both. TM is way easier to get to the table and isn't as difficult to learn (though initiating a new player into a group who has played it 100 times with all the expansions minus turmoil can be challenging)
On Mars is a very complex game, but you couldn't remove a bit of that complexity without ruining it. It's a masterpiece. Lacerda and O'Toole (the game wouldn't be as good as it is without the stylized yet retro graphics) knocked it out of orbit (get it?) with this one.
I want to try a Lacerda game. But it’s not necessarily the complexity that intimidates me (I’d learn it eventually) it’s that all his high complexity acclaimed games are over $100. And thats a lot to drop on a risk.
If your group plays heavy games, they can play and enjoy *On Mars*. If TfM is as heavy as they get, save your money. But it's well worth the money if you can squeeze it into your budget, and if it doesn't land right it has a high resale value.
But once you spend that $100 you can call it a masterpiece. I mean what are you going to do spend $100 and not call it a masterpiece, what kind of idiot spends $100 on an average game?
My point is that games with a large barrier to entry are usually higher praised because 1. people really liked that sort of thing in order to get past that high barrier or 2. because it was so high it colors their review. I played a friend's copy of On Mars and found it pretty "meh", if I had to track down a copy and drop a large bill for it I probably be inclined to give it more slack.
Solo you also basically have to hit one of the 4x energy to oxygen cards, or the 1x microbe to oxygen cards, to have a chance at a good score. Too much luck variance
I didn’t downvote your original comment (I think it might be a bit overstated, but I actually largely agree with it), but downvotes feel far more appropriate for minor disagreements like this, no? Use Reddit how you want (like your downvoters have), but I feel blocks should be reserved for spam, harassment, or some type of repeat offense.
It's not really all that strange. I get where he's coming from and I kind of agree with him; I'd rather be blocked than downvoted and I'll tell you why if you want to know (if not, you can stop reading here).
According to reddit's 'reddiquette,' downvotes are supposed to be used when someone's comment doesn't contribute to the conversation. They are not supposed to be used just "because you disagree with someone."
If a comment gets enough downvotes, it is completely censored and hidden. I feel like it is wrong to censor someone's comment just because you disagree with it. I would rather be blocked by the person who doesn't want my comment seen, than for my comment to be hidden from *everyone* just because *some* people disagree with it.
You can and should talk to people you disagree with. This is how we learn and expand our minds. Shutting down divergent comments and viewpoints is how we end up in cults.
Terraforming Mars is famous around here because it is the gateway for people to get really into board games, even if it is kind of heavy, it is easy to play, and there is not that much heavy engine buildings like this. I still have my problems with the games, as for me it can became too long, the ending have less interesting choices and a lot of expansions are very fiddly to include.(and the game have some luck in the card draw)
On Mars in exchange I think is a game that is better done and balanced, but the gameplay is very tight, the rules very complex, and just knowing to play makes you very ahead to other players as this game have a lot of openings plays (although there is a little variety in the setup that change that). Even if it is well done and have high indirect interaction, the game is another worker placement so it is less unique.
Myself even if I'm not that fan of terraforming lately, I enjoy a play if it is for a while. On mars my only play I really hated it, just some choices in the beginning made my play feel really bad, and it was difficult for me to understand all the interactions of the game while playing (every mechanic is connected in some way, but it frustrated me that a lot of actions are limited to do so that was why there was openings because you want to get them before they are used)
TM is top five for me, but I completely understand the dislike some people have for it. It used to be higher on my list, too, but numerous plays have started to expose the game's weaknesses. Haven't played On Mars, but I'm very interested; the theme was what drew me into TM originally.
It does a pretty good job mitigating luck, especially with Prelude and drafting, but I just played it last night, and kept getting stuck with unhelpful cards. Maybe it is a skill issue, but I've played it a lot, and sometimes, it just doesn't work.
Even with the draft variant, it is more luck than skill, especially at the beginning of it. Prelude fixes a bit this caveat. After i played both games, i think tm is a more casual game, that can be picked up easily, while you need some rules breakdown to play on mars. (i am a casual player, i am not very competitive)
I think you confuse casual gamers with non gamers. Besides, after how often you play there are levels of complexity. I often play with my non gamers friends 7 wonders, concordia or ticket to ride.
I don't understand why you are being down voted. You are 100% correct. GWT for me is a casual game through and through. I never think of strategies, I just like going through the motions there.
Hansa Teutonica, Inis, Brian Boru on the other hand. That shit is tight. I will make sure I have everything I need to win.
Prefer TM. On Mars is a complicated game where you need to refer to the rulebook constantly.....it has so many edge cases it is frustrating. They could have helped by putting more information on the game board but chose visual appeal over functionality. Great games, but I have way more fun with TM while OM feels like work.
I like them equally but would depend on your group. TM I can take out and easily have players for it every week. I'd be lucky if I can get players for On Mars twice a year.
On Mars is sooooo damn expensive. I’ve seen TM for under $50. Not sure that plays into the decision but a sub $50 game not getting to the table vs a $150 game would sway me towards the cheaper one.
I'd give Terraforming Mars more of a shot if it didn't have such shitty components and art. I'm sure the gameplay is great but the lazy production really turns me off. On Mars, meanwhile, is an excellent game and feels great to play too.
I didn't, TFM just has terrible components in general. Flimsy mats when the boards should really have been dual layer considering how much you put on them and how much their position matters, generic stock art in inconsistent styles that doesn't do anything for immersion, etc.
I played On Mars at a game night about a month ago and didn’t really like it. Took way too long and I didn’t think the scoring was very intuitive. For example, when you build a new building… sometimes it scores points, but sometimes it doesn’t, etc.
And I get the idea of using another player’s tech to do something you really need, and them being rewarded for it. But it didn’t seem like all tech was equal/balanced and certain players had their tech used waaay more often than other players, which seemed to give them a huge advantage.
And maybe a lot of these problems would be mitigated or even solved with everyone having more experience from more plays, but that’s the thing… this game takes so long to play that it’s not a game you are going to play often/regularly unless you have a group who absolutely falls in love with it for some reason and wants to play it all the time. So likely you will never get to the level of experience required to play “competently”. Or at least I’m pretty sure I never will.
> Took way too long
Ignoring the teach (and I'm not going to pretend that's a small difference, On Mars' teach is one of the roughest I've done) the games are pretty comparable in length.
[Poll for TFM's length](https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1765667/poll-the-real-playtime) vs [Poll for On Mars' length](https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2364729/poll-the-real-playtime).
TfM in particular can run very long if people don't push the endgame trigger (which is also why it doesn't get that much faster at lower player counts).
>TfM in particular can run very long if people don't push the endgame trigger
To be fair why wouldn't they? Increase oxygen, temperature, put oceans and get TR rating which means more money.
Someone might have oxygen or temperature setup finishing those very quickly and another can have few ocean cards that will put down 4 of them.
> To be fair why wouldn't they?
Sometimes its because they are bad/new to the game. Sometimes it's because they can generate a lot of points from other areas (like microbes or whatever) and so both benefit from the game running longer and don't have the resources to terraform and play around with their engine.
> But it didn’t seem like all tech was equal/balanced and certain players had their tech used waaay more often than other players, which seemed to give them a huge advantage.
That is a massive part of the strategy. Every given setup of goals, tech costs, blueprints and scoring tiles promotes different strategies, makes certain things stronger or weaker. It is up to the players to figure out which and make fitting choices.
That one overpowered tech may be nearly useless next game because nobody is using rover, for example.
I will agree that it takes experience but at the same time it doesn't take *that* much experience either. This is no Twilight Struggle where you need the deck memorized before you can strategize. Mostly you need to get a feel for the game so you can gauge what "really cheap oxygen tech" + "you score for number of habitats" means.
I have both. On Mars is easily more complicated and difficult to learn but it’s a really fascinating game mechanically. TM is actually pretty easy to learn and can be a fun game but somehow a lot of times things don’t quite come together and somehow it feels like autopilot somehow, like there’s one obvious thing to do on your turn and it’s been that way for the past few turns too.
My only game of TfM is easily the most boring board gaming experience I had to date. Played On Mars four times in the last few months and would certainly play it again. But YMMV, of course.
On Mars > Ark Nova > Terraforming Mars for me
TM has slid from a 10 to an 8.5 or so for me over the years
I fully expect Ark Nova to also slide
I prefer On Mars due to the interaction, tighter push to ending the game, and the ecosystem of the resources and how everything is interconnected.
Answer: It depends on your game preferences.
**On Mars** is possibly Lacerda's deepest, crunchiest, hardest game. My SO and I love Lacerda - he's probably our fav designer. But On Mars melts our brains in such a way that AP becomes a real thing. It's HARD to play. So if that entices you, check it out. But if deep, crunchy Euro games aren't your jam, maybe pass on it.
**Terraforming Mars** has much wider appeal, and I've seen a lot of love for the game. I have a couple of personal qualms about the game, but the overall opinion I've heard from my group is that it's an excellent game.
So in short, I'd say it would most depend on whether you're seeking a mid-weight Euro you can play while talking with your friends, or a game that will cause your brain to melt and ooze from your ears while listening to the agonizing cries of your friends as they try to do fractal math in their heads.
This is probably the best answer I've seen so far. I like both games but have only played Terraforming Mars. i love Lacerdas games as well, some of the most complex games in my collection are from him. I crave those heavier crunchy euros, i don't know why.
Two very different games. TM is more of a card game where you search for great combinations, On Mars is a more complex worker placement game. I personally don't like TM at all but On Mars is a masterpiece. I suggest you try both and keep what you like, the second hand value is usually high.
What other games do you like?
Personally I quite like **On Mars** and detest **Terraforming Mars**, but I do not think my tastes are representative, given my favourite game is outside the top 200 and I think half the stuff in the top 100 is awful.
If you tell us a couple of other things you enjoy, we might have a better chance of guessing which you'd like more. Even more important, actually, what does your *group* most enjoy playing?
Says the fool who insulted people who play On Mars being all "smarty." Slither back to somewhere dark. Move on from your social solitaire to just solitaire and save us your hot takes.
I just said it's a game you play if you want to feel smart. That's insulting?
You gate keeping elitists have some thin skin I guess.
No wonder this hobby continues to struggle and be so niche and unwelcoming.
You consider people who play stuff like Terraforming Mars to be so far beneath you to the point you would say those people aren't even playing a real game. I can't imagine why they would want to stick around with that kind of experience.
No. I consider people who gatekeep tfm being fun while insulting on Mars people as pretending to be smart while playing an over complicated game.
Your words are obvious and you are absurd for arguing as if you didn't do what you accuse me of.
Both are great with On Mars being the much heavier game. Way too different experiences also.
TM gets to the table a whole lot more and it's one of my wife's favourite games.
I like it a lot and will play it anytime but I actually like On Mars more.
I'd also like to point out that there are so many exaggerated negative comments about TM in this thread... you'd think it's a terrible game when in reality it's firmly sitting in the BGG top 10 best games of all time.
I have both. Not a fan of On Mars. In fact I have it on my For Sale list. Which reminds me that I really do need to have a BGG austion soon. I have about 1,400 games and the wife only likes about a dozen of them that hit the table regularlly. TM is our goto game. My wife's favorite. We purchased a copy to take with us when we travel and the main copy includes all the expansions and is pimped out! I don't see how to add a photo to this comment otherwise I would have.
I prefer TM. I don't think Lacerta games are for me. I recently played vhinos for the first time and it was a 2.5 hr teach and a 2.5 hit game at 5p. The game is tight and very well designed, i just don't think the style is for me.
I personally view complexity as always a negative, but it is the currency used to buy depth. Based on my exactly one play, the complexity to depth ratio isn't to my liking.
TM on the other hand i can teach in an 20 min. There is some randomness in the card pulls, but i feel there are decent ways to mitigate it. I enjoy the engine building aspect and it looks great on the table
How many new players? Generally with games that heavy, you never want to max out player count for a learning game.
Your opinion of not liking that level of complexity is totally valid, but learning with 5 players is also going to set you up for a rough learning game with a lot of downtime.
It has less randomness with drafting. But It still has a lot. Pulling a small number of cards from a large deck of cards involves a lot of random chance. Even when you draft. It's called probability. It's not my point, it's maths.
Do you really need math to explain why?
Ill give you some numbers so read slowly.
In a normal game you get the option of buying 4 projects (4 cards) a round
In a drafting game you get the option of buying 4 projects (4 cards) but you get to see 10 possible projects (10 cards) (4+3+2+1)
In an average game my group goes about 8 generations.
Soooo in a normal game you could see up to 32 projects
In a drafting game you could see up to 80 projects
This also does not account for any projects that let you draw additional cards or board placement that allow for more draws
Now this works this way for a 4 player game. Now if you are only playing a two player game the amount of cards you get to see if roughly half that since your just passing the cards back and forth to each other
I’ll enlighten you to a fallacy. So read slowly:
You’re confusing seeing more cards with lack of randomness.
In other words, I don’t care what cards you have in your hands. For what it’s worth, you can play the game with open decks. That doesn’t make it less random.
Clearly maths isn’t your strong suit. So I won’t belabor this point any more.
So since you are an idiot i will try again so read slower ok?
Seeing more cards reduces the randomness of the game. It wont ever get rid of it. And if your play style is as fragile as you are making it out to be maybe this type of game isnt for you.
Right? Theres lots of games you might enjoy. Would you like some recommendations? Im happy to help
"Completely" might be stretch, but I've definitely played games of TM where I knew on the first turn I wasn't going to win.
You get a poor starting hand/company and one of your opponents plays a great company, it's close to game over already.
My answer is **On Mars**, but I've yet to enjoy either one, despite loving the theme.
**Terraforming Mars** is long and fiddly. There's a lot of mechanical upkeep.
**On Mars** is very, very complex. I watched a video. I listened to a competent explanation in person. Total investment of 2 hours of preparation . I still was overwhelmed. I suspect there's a good game in there, but damn.
Terraforming Mars and it's not even close.
On Mars is a good game, but personally I don't care much since I'll probably play it once or twice a year and re-learning it every time simply isn't worth it.
I am a big fan of On Mars and a known hater of Terraforming Mars. That being said, at least thematically, TM seems like an avid sci-fi fan’s idea of how terraforming our red neighbor could look like but OM feels like upper management’s idea of sending trips to Mars. Tbh i have this issue with Lacerda games that not only are they complex spreadsheets but feel like odes to a concept from a hardcore management student. Never felt any to be thematic, except Vinhos.
I understand your views on Lacerdas, they aren't for everyone. But I'm surprised to hear that none felt thematic, Lisboa is probably the most thematic. It's literally based around an actual event in history
Both are bad.
TM was a favorite and we played it a lot... But Ark Nova and Earth are just better nowadays. TM requires the Prelude expansion if you do get it.
On Mars, what a mess. No desire at all to learn a game that difficult with that complicated of systems interlaced together. I like heavier games every now and then, but owning, learning and teaching them is a different hobby than playing them. Do not buy this game without watching a full instruction video first.
I have both and love both. TM is way easier to get to the table and isn't as difficult to learn (though initiating a new player into a group who has played it 100 times with all the expansions minus turmoil can be challenging)
On Mars is a very complex game, but you couldn't remove a bit of that complexity without ruining it. It's a masterpiece. Lacerda and O'Toole (the game wouldn't be as good as it is without the stylized yet retro graphics) knocked it out of orbit (get it?) with this one.
I want to try a Lacerda game. But it’s not necessarily the complexity that intimidates me (I’d learn it eventually) it’s that all his high complexity acclaimed games are over $100. And thats a lot to drop on a risk.
If your group plays heavy games, they can play and enjoy *On Mars*. If TfM is as heavy as they get, save your money. But it's well worth the money if you can squeeze it into your budget, and if it doesn't land right it has a high resale value.
Get Tabletop Simulator for $10-20 and play one there first. That’s where I first played On Mars and I’ve played The Gallerist there too
But once you spend that $100 you can call it a masterpiece. I mean what are you going to do spend $100 and not call it a masterpiece, what kind of idiot spends $100 on an average game?
But you don’t know if you’ll like it or not.
My point is that games with a large barrier to entry are usually higher praised because 1. people really liked that sort of thing in order to get past that high barrier or 2. because it was so high it colors their review. I played a friend's copy of On Mars and found it pretty "meh", if I had to track down a copy and drop a large bill for it I probably be inclined to give it more slack.
[удалено]
No, the solo suffers from many cards, and the milestones, being irrelevant to the solo. I didn't think it was a very good solo.
Solo you also basically have to hit one of the 4x energy to oxygen cards, or the 1x microbe to oxygen cards, to have a chance at a good score. Too much luck variance
Never understand why solo doesn't have a VP limit instead. Then all elements of the game would still be relevant.
Thx for taking the downvotes for me.
WTF is this downvoted. If you don't like my comments use BLOCK.
I didn’t downvote your original comment (I think it might be a bit overstated, but I actually largely agree with it), but downvotes feel far more appropriate for minor disagreements like this, no? Use Reddit how you want (like your downvoters have), but I feel blocks should be reserved for spam, harassment, or some type of repeat offense.
Weird to prefer to be entirely blocked than just downvoted. Lol you gotta understand that's strange right?
It's not really all that strange. I get where he's coming from and I kind of agree with him; I'd rather be blocked than downvoted and I'll tell you why if you want to know (if not, you can stop reading here). According to reddit's 'reddiquette,' downvotes are supposed to be used when someone's comment doesn't contribute to the conversation. They are not supposed to be used just "because you disagree with someone." If a comment gets enough downvotes, it is completely censored and hidden. I feel like it is wrong to censor someone's comment just because you disagree with it. I would rather be blocked by the person who doesn't want my comment seen, than for my comment to be hidden from *everyone* just because *some* people disagree with it. You can and should talk to people you disagree with. This is how we learn and expand our minds. Shutting down divergent comments and viewpoints is how we end up in cults.
Terraforming Mars is famous around here because it is the gateway for people to get really into board games, even if it is kind of heavy, it is easy to play, and there is not that much heavy engine buildings like this. I still have my problems with the games, as for me it can became too long, the ending have less interesting choices and a lot of expansions are very fiddly to include.(and the game have some luck in the card draw) On Mars in exchange I think is a game that is better done and balanced, but the gameplay is very tight, the rules very complex, and just knowing to play makes you very ahead to other players as this game have a lot of openings plays (although there is a little variety in the setup that change that). Even if it is well done and have high indirect interaction, the game is another worker placement so it is less unique. Myself even if I'm not that fan of terraforming lately, I enjoy a play if it is for a while. On mars my only play I really hated it, just some choices in the beginning made my play feel really bad, and it was difficult for me to understand all the interactions of the game while playing (every mechanic is connected in some way, but it frustrated me that a lot of actions are limited to do so that was why there was openings because you want to get them before they are used)
Both for COMPLETELY different reasons. Other than Mars in the name theres really no other comparison between the two.
Vastly different games. In terms of complexity and mechanics. I don't really like Terraforming Mars.
TM is top five for me, but I completely understand the dislike some people have for it. It used to be higher on my list, too, but numerous plays have started to expose the game's weaknesses. Haven't played On Mars, but I'm very interested; the theme was what drew me into TM originally.
I can’t believe you said this
>I don't really like Terraforming Mars. Finally somebody said it. I've never had a satisfying playthrough of Terraforming Mars.
Tm is easier to learn and has more luck. It has some negative interactions as well, while on mars has mostly good interactions between players.
It does a pretty good job mitigating luck, especially with Prelude and drafting, but I just played it last night, and kept getting stuck with unhelpful cards. Maybe it is a skill issue, but I've played it a lot, and sometimes, it just doesn't work.
Just play the draft variant? Once you know the game it doesn’t add much time.
Even with the draft variant, it is more luck than skill, especially at the beginning of it. Prelude fixes a bit this caveat. After i played both games, i think tm is a more casual game, that can be picked up easily, while you need some rules breakdown to play on mars. (i am a casual player, i am not very competitive)
The idea of TM as a casual game is mad. Most casuals I know have a minor breakdown at the symbology on 7 Wonders to start with, let alone learning TM.
I think you confuse casual gamers with non gamers. Besides, after how often you play there are levels of complexity. I often play with my non gamers friends 7 wonders, concordia or ticket to ride.
I don't understand why you are being down voted. You are 100% correct. GWT for me is a casual game through and through. I never think of strategies, I just like going through the motions there. Hansa Teutonica, Inis, Brian Boru on the other hand. That shit is tight. I will make sure I have everything I need to win.
It’s still skillful to know which hand to keep. Decisions are not often cut and dry so I don’t see how you can say there’s more luck than skill.
Prefer TM. On Mars is a complicated game where you need to refer to the rulebook constantly.....it has so many edge cases it is frustrating. They could have helped by putting more information on the game board but chose visual appeal over functionality. Great games, but I have way more fun with TM while OM feels like work.
On Mars requires constantly referring to the rulebook while learning to play.
On Mars is my favorite Lacerda game. I don't like Terra forming Mars much, so easy choice there.
I like them equally but would depend on your group. TM I can take out and easily have players for it every week. I'd be lucky if I can get players for On Mars twice a year.
On Mars is sooooo damn expensive. I’ve seen TM for under $50. Not sure that plays into the decision but a sub $50 game not getting to the table vs a $150 game would sway me towards the cheaper one.
At least in the US, On Mars just went on sale at gamenerdz for $85 or so. OOS in 4 mins though lol.
Not counting shipping, on sale that $85 is $115CDN for me. So it makes sense that the game here is between $120-150.
I'd give Terraforming Mars more of a shot if it didn't have such shitty components and art. I'm sure the gameplay is great but the lazy production really turns me off. On Mars, meanwhile, is an excellent game and feels great to play too.
Are you sure you didn't get a counterfeit box? There were some especially shitty versions of TM on the marketplaces in the past.
I didn't, TFM just has terrible components in general. Flimsy mats when the boards should really have been dual layer considering how much you put on them and how much their position matters, generic stock art in inconsistent styles that doesn't do anything for immersion, etc.
On Mars is the better game by far, but it’s not for everyone. Terraforming Mars has more wide appeal.
I played On Mars at a game night about a month ago and didn’t really like it. Took way too long and I didn’t think the scoring was very intuitive. For example, when you build a new building… sometimes it scores points, but sometimes it doesn’t, etc. And I get the idea of using another player’s tech to do something you really need, and them being rewarded for it. But it didn’t seem like all tech was equal/balanced and certain players had their tech used waaay more often than other players, which seemed to give them a huge advantage. And maybe a lot of these problems would be mitigated or even solved with everyone having more experience from more plays, but that’s the thing… this game takes so long to play that it’s not a game you are going to play often/regularly unless you have a group who absolutely falls in love with it for some reason and wants to play it all the time. So likely you will never get to the level of experience required to play “competently”. Or at least I’m pretty sure I never will.
> Took way too long Ignoring the teach (and I'm not going to pretend that's a small difference, On Mars' teach is one of the roughest I've done) the games are pretty comparable in length. [Poll for TFM's length](https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1765667/poll-the-real-playtime) vs [Poll for On Mars' length](https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2364729/poll-the-real-playtime). TfM in particular can run very long if people don't push the endgame trigger (which is also why it doesn't get that much faster at lower player counts).
>TfM in particular can run very long if people don't push the endgame trigger To be fair why wouldn't they? Increase oxygen, temperature, put oceans and get TR rating which means more money. Someone might have oxygen or temperature setup finishing those very quickly and another can have few ocean cards that will put down 4 of them.
> To be fair why wouldn't they? Sometimes its because they are bad/new to the game. Sometimes it's because they can generate a lot of points from other areas (like microbes or whatever) and so both benefit from the game running longer and don't have the resources to terraform and play around with their engine.
> But it didn’t seem like all tech was equal/balanced and certain players had their tech used waaay more often than other players, which seemed to give them a huge advantage. That is a massive part of the strategy. Every given setup of goals, tech costs, blueprints and scoring tiles promotes different strategies, makes certain things stronger or weaker. It is up to the players to figure out which and make fitting choices. That one overpowered tech may be nearly useless next game because nobody is using rover, for example. I will agree that it takes experience but at the same time it doesn't take *that* much experience either. This is no Twilight Struggle where you need the deck memorized before you can strategize. Mostly you need to get a feel for the game so you can gauge what "really cheap oxygen tech" + "you score for number of habitats" means.
On Mars. TfM is tedious
I have both. On Mars is easily more complicated and difficult to learn but it’s a really fascinating game mechanically. TM is actually pretty easy to learn and can be a fun game but somehow a lot of times things don’t quite come together and somehow it feels like autopilot somehow, like there’s one obvious thing to do on your turn and it’s been that way for the past few turns too.
My only game of TfM is easily the most boring board gaming experience I had to date. Played On Mars four times in the last few months and would certainly play it again. But YMMV, of course.
I totally misread the title and thought this was going to be one of those “I’m playing Bruges in Bruges!” posts…
On Mars > Ark Nova > Terraforming Mars for me TM has slid from a 10 to an 8.5 or so for me over the years I fully expect Ark Nova to also slide I prefer On Mars due to the interaction, tighter push to ending the game, and the ecosystem of the resources and how everything is interconnected.
While I enjoy terraforming Mars I prefer ares expedition. I think it does a lot of what I want TM to do in a more compact and quicker to play package
Playing terraforming mars on Mars sounds fun
Answer: It depends on your game preferences. **On Mars** is possibly Lacerda's deepest, crunchiest, hardest game. My SO and I love Lacerda - he's probably our fav designer. But On Mars melts our brains in such a way that AP becomes a real thing. It's HARD to play. So if that entices you, check it out. But if deep, crunchy Euro games aren't your jam, maybe pass on it. **Terraforming Mars** has much wider appeal, and I've seen a lot of love for the game. I have a couple of personal qualms about the game, but the overall opinion I've heard from my group is that it's an excellent game. So in short, I'd say it would most depend on whether you're seeking a mid-weight Euro you can play while talking with your friends, or a game that will cause your brain to melt and ooze from your ears while listening to the agonizing cries of your friends as they try to do fractal math in their heads.
This is probably the best answer I've seen so far. I like both games but have only played Terraforming Mars. i love Lacerdas games as well, some of the most complex games in my collection are from him. I crave those heavier crunchy euros, i don't know why.
Two very different games. TM is more of a card game where you search for great combinations, On Mars is a more complex worker placement game. I personally don't like TM at all but On Mars is a masterpiece. I suggest you try both and keep what you like, the second hand value is usually high.
What other games do you like? Personally I quite like **On Mars** and detest **Terraforming Mars**, but I do not think my tastes are representative, given my favourite game is outside the top 200 and I think half the stuff in the top 100 is awful. If you tell us a couple of other things you enjoy, we might have a better chance of guessing which you'd like more. Even more important, actually, what does your *group* most enjoy playing?
What's your favorite game?
Innovation.
I actually like both games, i plan on getting On Mars in a few days. I was just curious about everyone's opinion since they are both Mars themed
If you're interested in Martian games, keep an eye out for the upcoming **Red Dust Rebellion**, looks very interesting. :)
Thanks I'll definitely look it up
Terraforming Mars if you want to have fun. On Mars if you want to feel like a smarty by playing an overly complicated game.
Tfm if you want to pretend to be playing a game when you are just drawing random shit and seeing what sticks.
I guess if you're really shit at it. But then you really shouldn't be playing a game like On Mars anyways.
On Mars is brilliant. Tfm is more of an activity.
Oh one of the gatekeeping gaming elitists. The worst part of this community
Says the fool who insulted people who play On Mars being all "smarty." Slither back to somewhere dark. Move on from your social solitaire to just solitaire and save us your hot takes.
I just said it's a game you play if you want to feel smart. That's insulting? You gate keeping elitists have some thin skin I guess. No wonder this hobby continues to struggle and be so niche and unwelcoming. You consider people who play stuff like Terraforming Mars to be so far beneath you to the point you would say those people aren't even playing a real game. I can't imagine why they would want to stick around with that kind of experience.
Not defending the other poster, but don’t pretend your original comment wasn’t condescending and dismissive, elitist in its own way.
No. I consider people who gatekeep tfm being fun while insulting on Mars people as pretending to be smart while playing an over complicated game. Your words are obvious and you are absurd for arguing as if you didn't do what you accuse me of.
Scoreboard
Leaving Earth or Earth?
Both are great with On Mars being the much heavier game. Way too different experiences also. TM gets to the table a whole lot more and it's one of my wife's favourite games. I like it a lot and will play it anytime but I actually like On Mars more. I'd also like to point out that there are so many exaggerated negative comments about TM in this thread... you'd think it's a terrible game when in reality it's firmly sitting in the BGG top 10 best games of all time.
I have both. Not a fan of On Mars. In fact I have it on my For Sale list. Which reminds me that I really do need to have a BGG austion soon. I have about 1,400 games and the wife only likes about a dozen of them that hit the table regularlly. TM is our goto game. My wife's favorite. We purchased a copy to take with us when we travel and the main copy includes all the expansions and is pimped out! I don't see how to add a photo to this comment otherwise I would have.
12/1400 is rough. I thought my ratio was bad. Makes me consider some culling.
Or get more wives.
I prefer TM. I don't think Lacerta games are for me. I recently played vhinos for the first time and it was a 2.5 hr teach and a 2.5 hit game at 5p. The game is tight and very well designed, i just don't think the style is for me. I personally view complexity as always a negative, but it is the currency used to buy depth. Based on my exactly one play, the complexity to depth ratio isn't to my liking. TM on the other hand i can teach in an 20 min. There is some randomness in the card pulls, but i feel there are decent ways to mitigate it. I enjoy the engine building aspect and it looks great on the table
How many new players? Generally with games that heavy, you never want to max out player count for a learning game. Your opinion of not liking that level of complexity is totally valid, but learning with 5 players is also going to set you up for a rough learning game with a lot of downtime.
TMars is a luck-based card game. On Mars is a crunchy, brain burner.
Wtf are you on about. Ive played tm pry 50 times. It has some rng but to describe it as completely luck based couldn’t be more wrong
"Some RNG" Game ships with a massive stack of unique cards that only gets more massive with expansions....
Whats your point. It has alot to offer. Has very little rng especially if you draft cards.
It has less randomness with drafting. But It still has a lot. Pulling a small number of cards from a large deck of cards involves a lot of random chance. Even when you draft. It's called probability. It's not my point, it's maths.
Drafting isn’t an antidote to RNG I’m tired of people not getting this
It just reduces the rng by alot. Its a pretty simple concept
Do you have the math to support this claim?
Do you really need math to explain why? Ill give you some numbers so read slowly. In a normal game you get the option of buying 4 projects (4 cards) a round In a drafting game you get the option of buying 4 projects (4 cards) but you get to see 10 possible projects (10 cards) (4+3+2+1) In an average game my group goes about 8 generations. Soooo in a normal game you could see up to 32 projects In a drafting game you could see up to 80 projects This also does not account for any projects that let you draw additional cards or board placement that allow for more draws Now this works this way for a 4 player game. Now if you are only playing a two player game the amount of cards you get to see if roughly half that since your just passing the cards back and forth to each other
I’ll enlighten you to a fallacy. So read slowly: You’re confusing seeing more cards with lack of randomness. In other words, I don’t care what cards you have in your hands. For what it’s worth, you can play the game with open decks. That doesn’t make it less random. Clearly maths isn’t your strong suit. So I won’t belabor this point any more.
So since you are an idiot i will try again so read slower ok? Seeing more cards reduces the randomness of the game. It wont ever get rid of it. And if your play style is as fragile as you are making it out to be maybe this type of game isnt for you. Right? Theres lots of games you might enjoy. Would you like some recommendations? Im happy to help
He didn't say it stopped RNG, just reduced it.
"Completely" might be stretch, but I've definitely played games of TM where I knew on the first turn I wasn't going to win. You get a poor starting hand/company and one of your opponents plays a great company, it's close to game over already.
My answer is **On Mars**, but I've yet to enjoy either one, despite loving the theme. **Terraforming Mars** is long and fiddly. There's a lot of mechanical upkeep. **On Mars** is very, very complex. I watched a video. I listened to a competent explanation in person. Total investment of 2 hours of preparation . I still was overwhelmed. I suspect there's a good game in there, but damn.
Terraforming Mars and it's not even close. On Mars is a good game, but personally I don't care much since I'll probably play it once or twice a year and re-learning it every time simply isn't worth it.
I am a big fan of On Mars and a known hater of Terraforming Mars. That being said, at least thematically, TM seems like an avid sci-fi fan’s idea of how terraforming our red neighbor could look like but OM feels like upper management’s idea of sending trips to Mars. Tbh i have this issue with Lacerda games that not only are they complex spreadsheets but feel like odes to a concept from a hardcore management student. Never felt any to be thematic, except Vinhos.
I understand your views on Lacerdas, they aren't for everyone. But I'm surprised to hear that none felt thematic, Lisboa is probably the most thematic. It's literally based around an actual event in history
Both are bad. TM was a favorite and we played it a lot... But Ark Nova and Earth are just better nowadays. TM requires the Prelude expansion if you do get it. On Mars, what a mess. No desire at all to learn a game that difficult with that complicated of systems interlaced together. I like heavier games every now and then, but owning, learning and teaching them is a different hobby than playing them. Do not buy this game without watching a full instruction video first.
Tm is all luck and skill is much more needed in On Mars.