My Personal Holy Grail... Found at Last? (Bios: Megafauna x2)

Professor Henry Jones: Elsa never really believed in the grail. She thought she'd found a prize.
Indiana Jones: And what did you find, Dad?
Professor Henry Jones: Me? Illumination. 

- Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

 

Reflections on Perfection

So, a few years back (edit: Holy Schnikes! It was EIGHT years ago. Time flies.) I wrote this blog entry on the idea of the perfect (Euro) game:

The Perfect Game

For those who can't be bothered to follow the link, in it I expounded on the elements that, to me, made up the perfect (Euro-style) game. Note: I love wargames as well, but the "perfect" wargame and the perfect Euro-style/designer game would be quite different, so in this entry, whenever I type "perfect game", substitute mentally "perfect Euro/designer game".

Eight years after writing that entry, thirteen years after rebooting my boardgaming hobby by buying Settlers of Catan and thirty-odd years after developing a keen interest in boardgaming in the first place, I've finally found a game that satisfies (to varying degrees) every criteria I set for choosing the perfect game.

Amazingly, the game is one I hadn't expected to be more than a passing interest - a curiosity or a niche game. It just goes to show that you often find things in the last place you look (a truism - but that's another discussion).

What's the game that matches all my "perfect game" criteria?

Bios: Megafauna

Is this the perfect game for everyone? No, not at all. In fact, were I to choose criteria that to me would define the best possible game for the largest possible audience, it would be a game much different than Bios: Megafauna.

But, by the criteria I first wrote down eight years ago and on reviewing them, largely still feel right today, I've found my "Holy Grail".

Before I go too far off the deep end, I do want to caution the reader that I am a self-confessed enthusiastic dilettante. I will often get really quite enthusiastic about something, engage with it with a laser-like focus for a few weeks or months, then gradually lose interest. I don't "drop" the interest, and I seldom lose fondness for it, it's just that I'll spend less time obsessing about it.

So, I've learned to try to temper my enthusiasm for something with the need for "sober second thought". I will need to play Bios: Megafauna at least a dozen more times to better test its limits and breaking points. I'm sure, in time, some wrinkles will appear in its radiant countenance. But for the moment, I'm pretty smitten. Thus, take what I've written with a grain of salt.

To the review and the criteria I've set for the perfect game.

Evolution and Me

Bios: Megafauna is a reworking of Phil Eklund's American Megafauna, a game which I've been interested in for some time but have never found an owner or anyone interested enough in playing to actively hunt down a copy on eBay to buy.

I've always been fascinated by the arms race of evolution - the survival of the fittest and the jaw-droppingly vast time periods, geographical changes and sheer biomass involved. Why were there once Sabretooth Tigers? Why did they die out? Are wooly mammoths the ancestors of elephants (A: no, not really - their genus is extinct). What on earth is a Terror Bird? How on earth would land animals ever manage to grow to over 30 tonnes? And how does something hunt something that weighs 30 tonnes?

These sorts of questions and their answers are fascinating to me. Since re-entering the boardgaming hobby again in 1999, I've cast about for a game which captures this fascination in a playable but scientifically respectful way. By "scientifically respectful" - I mean that the game doesn't have to be bang on with the science - a simulation -, but an effort to be accurate and a sort of "if you squint it still looks right" effect is desired.

The Proto-Evolutionaries

One of the first I came across was Evo, but while cute and entertaining, hard science it ain't. Later I found WildLife, which I still quite enjoy and think is a bit of a overlooked gem - the science isn't too bad, but for game balance reasons, you can only really play it best with four or six people, which is sometimes a hard number to hit in my gaming group. For my young son, I picked up Trias, but it was also somewhat light on the science, and didn't really satisfy on a "mutate the individual creature level". I also bought Dominant Species with high hopes and, while it also is a well designed game (it also has a few faults for me) I find that it largely abstracts the finer details of evolution, the physiology of individual species and genera, which is of interest to me, and it also has some scoring/randomness issues which I find somewhat problematic.

I put American Megafauna on my wishlist before Dominant Species was in development, and even after buying and playing Dominant Species, it remained on my list. I loved High Frontier, also from Phil Eklund, and it remains one of my top five games. When I heard that Bios: Megafauna was in the pipeline, I was interested, but I didn't order a copy because I didn't think anyone in my weekly playing group would be into it. When I already had WildLife and Dominant Species, neither of which generally hits the table unless I pick it, it was hard to justify buying another evolution-based game that was based on harder science than either.

To my surprise, a fellow gaming group member, Agent Easy, bought it a few weeks ago. I knew he was mildly interested in American Megafauna, but I didn't think he was keen enough to pick it up. "Well," I thought, "here's my chance to try it. It should be good to play once."

Entering the Presence of the Grail

Agent Easy pulled out the game box. To be honest, the cover, while glossy and relatively professional looking, is a little hokey. A velociraptor holding a bow, pulling an arrow out of a quiver with its other hand, reflected in the eye of some sort of reptilian? I know it's the Sierra Madre Games logo and all, but come on.

The board is sturdy, if a little gaudy - it looks very Illustrator-drawn (if you've used Illustrator or similar DTP programs, you know what I mean) - lots of hard edges and geometrical shapes. The colours are a little garish and there's a proliferation of different typefaces (at least seven or eight, by my count) which give it a bit of a uneven appearance, as if another "pass" would've smoothed it into a more coherent-looking whole.

In play, it's actually a little mis-sized - the roadrunner DNA tracks (more on that later) are a little too big and the actual play spaces are a little too small. The board feels small, but actually there is room for everything - as long as you don't mind tiny point sizes.

Overall, it's very functional, if a little unattractive. To paraphrase a movie about a Archaelogist/Fortune Hunter who is on a quest for his own grail, "Truly this is the gameboard of a scientist."

The cards are very nice, good cardstock and quite well designed in general; they are clear, with excellent icons and illustrations. The wooden "creature" pieces (creeples?) are excellently cut and coloured, with surprisingly sharp detail. As representation of the various genotypes, they're great.

Seeing the Light

I had read the rules earlier in the day. Having heard what a simulation American Megafauna was supposed to be, I was expecting a much heavier ruleset. Although the terminology is dense (Eklund coins his own term for genetic characteristics that help one catch prey or avoid being caught as prey - "Roadrunner DNA" - you know, like the Warner Brothers cartoon, with Wile E. Coyote always chasing the Roadrunner? Eh? Eh?) with terms like genotype, speciation, dentition, genome, biome and orogeny sprinkled throughout the rulebook, the actual mechanics, once you get past the fancy names, aren't that difficult at all. Others have describe the game turn in more detail, but simply put, you choose one of four (or six, if you're using the optional living rules additions) actions, carry out the consquences of that action, and then pass play to the next player.

The original actions are buy a card from a shared display of five (or ten, if you're using the living rules "two display" variant) which starts a new genotype or mutates one of your existing species - and then resolve an event on the card which replaces the one you bought; resize, which makes a species bigger or smaller, allowing it to develop (or lose) attributes and hunt or avoid being hunted by other creatures; acculturate a species, which gives a species advanced, primitive human-like abilities which enable it to survive more readily in wider types of environments (and also banks VPs) and expand, which allows you to add additional figures of a species to the board, or alternatively add a new species which inherits some of the genetic traits of the parent species.

The actions added in the living rules are Roadrunner action which permits a player to put two genes (the currency of the game) on one of the first cards in the display row and develop or improve a roadrunner DNA trait. This was apparently added largely as a fix for the possible start-game condition where a player might be surrounded by impassible marine biomes and consequently find it impossible to expand. The last added action is Genetic Drift a way for a player to steal genes from the player with the most genes... a sort of evolutionary rob from the rich to give to the poor scheme that I suspect Eklund added as a balancing feature to avoid a situation when someone might hoard genes and not release them back into circulation (genes are zero-sum).

I would be remiss to mention the little nuggets of scientific facts footnoted or sidenoted throughout the rules. These are catnip for me - I just can't get enough.

Struck by the Chixulub Bolide

Gameplay turned out to be fast, actually much faster than I had expected. We blew through a game, including a brief rules explanation, in just over 90 minutes. I immediately wanted to play again; everything was falling into place. We played again immediately. The second game was a little longer at 110 minutes,(people, knowing what to look for and what to avoid, took a more time to consider their moves) but just as enjoyable for me. Decisions are challenging but not paralyzing, you can directly affect other players in a competitive, predatory or somewhat parasitic way, and the theme permeates the entire game in a positive, constructive way, instead of interfering with or slowing down game play.

So, how does Bios Megafauna satisfy my Perfect Game criteria?

1. PLAYING TIME: Playable in 60-90 minutes – 120 minutes at absolute outside. The game can be finished in 90 minutes. Slightly shorter or longer games are also possible, depending on variants used (we used the two display variant) and gaming group play style. My gaming group seemed to "get it".


2. PLAYER LIMIT: Playable by 2-6 players, and scales well at all player numbers. To be fair, this game does not play with 5 or 6 players, so it doesn't quite meet this criteria completely. However it does have a solo option, and 2, 3 or 4 players seem quite playable. Call it a partial match?


3. DOWNTIME: Has low levels of downtime and low amounts of “move paralysis” – that is, the number of action options available to a player during any given turn or turn phase should be neither so numerous nor so complex as to be daunting. With some groups, the dreaded analysis paralysis (AP) might set in, but the chance of this happening compared to, say, Tikal, is much, much less. I never felt like I was "waiting" for my turn - I was always engaged in what was going on.


4. BUILDING: Involves “building” in some way – creating and improving on something, so that you end the game with something “better” than you started. For example – more money, better city, more powerful character. The game is about evolving - the most biological way of building possible. On top of building more "fit" creatures, over-specialized creatures can be wiped out by extinction events, letting you/forcing you to build another creature suited for the new reality.


5. CONFLICT: Involves “conflict” in some way – either actual fighting or economic/qualitative/quantitative competition. Survival of the fittest, baby! If your creatures can't compete, they won't thrive.
   


6. NOT TOO RANDOM: Minimizes randomness – players should never feel as though the luck of the die/draw is the only factor in success. Some have pointed to the events as causing too much randomness. I didn't experience this. Careful play and anticipation of catastrophe will reward a player who diversifies and doesn't put all of her genotypes in one basket.
   


7. SOCIAL INTERACTION: Involves enough player interaction that a social atmosphere is created, while avoiding interaction which otherwise slows down the game. There was much discussion and amusement over comparing and describing the creatures being created - long-necked elephantoid creatures with beaks and tusks, or super-speedy, horse sized raptor-creatures who could sing to each other and relied on adrenal glands for bursts of speed.


8. EASY TO TRACK: Minimizes calculation or the need for extensive record/bookkeeping – i.e. everything is at your fingertips or in front of you and does not have to be closely tracked by a complex process. Points are simple - tiles you've won from the tarpit, cards you've put in your fossil record, and creature meeples on the board.


9. SCREW YOUR NEIGHBOUR: Gives the opportunity for “screw your neighbour” tactics – a way to play to thwart the plans of others, but in a manner that is otherwise avoidable by careful play and not overly frustrating. All the time - snatching a juicy biome or buying a card at exactly the right moment was a constant feature of our games. You can even go so far as to purposefully out compete an opponent's species.


10. DOWN BUT NOT OUT: A mechanic for dealing with the possibility of being knocked out of the game – that is, if someone is in a losing position, there is a way to fight back if carefully played. There is a specific mechanic for a player whose species have all become extinct - Lazarus Player, which actually occurred. The player involved came back to win the game! The living rules also added the genetic drift rule, which seems to level the playing field. In addition, extinction catastrophes can easily take out a species which has become over-specialized, allowing other players to take over those biomes.


11. LEADER REWARDS: A mechanic to address the standard “kill the leader” situation that rewards being in the lead without making being the leader unstoppable. The leader gets a substantial share of the tar-pit. I can't immediately think of other aspects, but a method to specifically "kill the leader" seems like it would be trickier in this game.


12. VICTORY CONDITIONS: A victory condition track (victory points or score) which permits the fun of being able to see how roughly how close other players are to each other (fostering competition) while maintaining some element of surprise. Players can see how many tiles are received from the tar pit each round. Genotypes can be bought and buried in the fossil record, lending some element of surprise .


13. THEME/FEEL: Game has a strong and interesting theme that is colourful but also relates to the game mechanic without bogging down the game. Execution of the mechanics of the game and the theme should mesh well at all levels. It should “feel” right. Yes, yes, YES. In spades.
    


14. REPLAYABILITY: Game should have enough “depth” that it can be played more than once – conversely, it could be simple enough that complex strategies are possible (like chess or bridge) even given relatively simple rules. Not sure yet, but the random placement of starting biomes, the random assortment of cards, the random occurrence of events and the very variable consequences of player interaction while competing for specific biomes and configurations of biomes (which, as noted, are determined randomly) make this one look like it could have really long "legs".

Wow. Just wow. Depending on how you count, a game which hits 14 out of 14 points (13 if you dock it marks for being 1-4 players instead of 2-6). Amazing. Whereas some of the games which have come closest before had 10 or 12 points satisfied, this one has 13.

I'm really excited about playing this one again. I'm not sure if the novelty of the 108 mutation cards and 144 tiles will wear off, or if I'll tire of imagining sail-backed bipedal giraffes with disembowling claws or massive underground communities of tool-using insectivore lizards with wings.

I've played (euro) games which were more fun. I've played games which were more satisfying on an intellectual level. I've played games which felt more clever from a game-design point of view. But seldom have all of these factors come together for me so cohesively in a single game.

Taking it on Faith

There may not be any such thing as a "perfect game", but Phil Eklund has managed to make something which, for my money, is a close as anyone has gotten.

Once again, and I want to make this abundantly clear, it won't be perfect for everyone. Some people will be put off by the technical jargon. Others will find the mutation mechanic and the long strings of letters to be confusing. Still others might dislike the idea of a random event potentially smashing their carefully created empire of hyper-specialized critters into bone fragments and dust, or having their marine animals find their seas dry up around them.

Now that I've found Bios Megafauna, will I stop looking for the Perfect Game? Nope. Not by a long shot. But isn't that the beauty of unobtainable perfection?

For the moment, I'll be sitting back and enjoying this little gem. It deserves the attention.

Marcus Brody: The search for the Grail is the search for the divine in all of us. But if you want facts, Indy, I've none to give you. At my age, I'm prepared to take a few things on faith.

Man is the dumbest animal (Wildlife, Race for the Galaxy, Ra)

Only three tonight. Myself, Kozure and Bharmer.

Wildlife

Wildlife is one of Kozure's favorite games and since we hadn't played it in quite a while he picked it as the main course for the evening. It's odd that this game, designed by Wolfgang Kramer (El Grande, Princes of Florence, Tikal), seems to have flown completely under the radar on BGG.

Kozure was Man, I was the Eagles and Bharmer was the Bears.

In the beginning, the bears came across the forest and climbed up the mountains.
The eagles soared across all earthbound terrain.
Man dominated the plains.

It was then that Eagle learnt how to thrive in the water. There, it fought with Bear over the fluvial realm. Man could not be bothered with such trivialities as evolution, food or advanced intelligence. It spread out to the desert and the forest.

It was then that the Bear and Eagle were dethroned. Man cut the vast kingdom of the Eagle in half and learned much about aggression, defense and the importance of foodgathering. When all was said and done, man stood victorious.

It was a good game. It seems that Wildlife plays pretty well at three (though picking the wrong starting races could change that). We spent a good amount of actions simply exchanging the advancement cards, particularly the defense ones. If I had one complaint about the game is that those cards don't quite feel right in the game (too powerful?). Anyway, it's a small complaint. Wildlife is a good game.

Race for the Galaxy

This is a shoe-in for most played game this year. I once again tried a military strategy after being dealt New Sparta as my starting planet. I managed to place quite a few military planets down, but since my production was zero and I didn't manage to get the related "6" development out I came in a distant third.

Two funny stories:

1) I had a hand of 5 cards, and they were all planets. I was sure Kozure or Bharmer would pick development that round, so I chose Explore +5. Guess what, I drew 7 more planets.
2) In the final round, I skipped drawing cards in the explore phase since I knew I wanted to play a "6" development from my hand (capitalizing on the small amount of ALIEN technology I had). Just for fun, afterwards I looked at the cards I wold have drawn... the military "6" card I needed was the second one! Counting the difference it would have made in points, I would have tied for second instead of coming in 15 points behind second place! Bharmer won, but he made a mistake in his interpretation of one of his cards and made repeated "production" errors. I therefore declare his win null and void (Ha!).

Ra

Ahhhh, Ra. Nice to see you again.

Civilization tiles came hot and heavy in the first era (15 of 25 tiles, in fact). Bharmer ended the 1st with a huge stash of points (including 15 points for 5 civs). Despite the fact that Kozure and I had 2-3 suns left and 6-7 RA tiles left to draw before the era ended, we essentially wound up with nothing as RA after RA were drawn.

The 2nd era was kind to no one.

In the third, Bharmer sealed his victory with 30 points from buildings. Scores were closer than I expected, but he still won comfortably.

Lucrative Shizzle Coming Up!

This week LUCH! was the dictator; this week he also was on crack. Well, he definitely was the dictator -- the being on crack part is an assumption, albeit a well-founded one.

Our beloved dictator decreed that we would play RA, Wildlife, and Railroad Tycoon, in untried, previously undisclosed variant versions. Seeing as our typical game session is 4 hours, and the named games would not be playable in that period of time, we were all intrigued. Easy waggishly suggested that the Railroad Tycoon variant must be to not play it at all. I hypothesized that LUCH! was going to bring 20 giant eggtimers to the session, to better realize his mad variants! THEN, our dictator was late, further compressing things - how would this work?

Well, Agent Easy was correct. The Railroad Tycoon variant was, indeed, to not play it at all. Having said that, we still got a couple of rounds of Ra in, as well as a nice session of Wildlife.

The first round of Ra was 4 player, Bharmer/Easy/Tilli/Shemp, and did not vary from the standard rules of the game in any way. It was a fairly uneventful play; I had decided to call Ra everytime play came around to me and there were more than 3 tiles on the board before play started, and it payed off. In the first epoch I was the only one that was able to use all three of my sun tiles, and built up a fair lead. Tilli had a monster 3rd epoch, but it wasn't quite enough to catch up. I ended up winning w/ 59 points, which I only note for the purposes of comparison with the next game of Ra we played.

The next game of Ra we played was (drumroll ...) LUCH's variant. Players were Bharmer/Easy/Kozure/LUCH/Shemp. It was very confusing, and someone else will need to recap in comments. I didn't understand it. This is most assuredly because of my own lack of brainpower, but there it is. (Alternate explanation: LUCH IS ON CRACK.) The variant involved mummies and upkeep. Ra tiles were repeatedly drawn. In the whole first Epoch, I think a total of all players scores was less than ten. We were thinking that was OK - surely, a cruddy first age would result in even better subsequent ages, right? Of course! We were hyped for some LUCRATIVE SHIZZLE COMING UP!!. Only, it didn't. Not in the second epoch. Not in the third epoch. Somehow, nothing good was ever on the board when Ra was called. It seems impossible, but there it was. Wholly disappointing. Bharmer and I raced to the bottom, but disappointingly, neither of us finished at zero. Final scores were 12 for Bharmer and I, with LUCH! winning his own variant, with a score of something or other that was higher. Easy and Kozure had less than that, but more than 12. While we were packing up the game, the board attacked Bharmer. I think that may have tipped this over into the category of Most Farcical Session of Ra, EVAR. [ PLEASE NOTE: I don't think that necessarily condemns LUCH's variant. It was too weird to tell if it works out or not. Might need more crack. Or less. ]

On to a game of Wildlife, which we've played before. Second play of this for Human Easy and Eagle Bharmer; Third for Crocodile LUCH and Snake Shemp; Bear Kozure has played more frequently. I'm enjoying this game a lot - it feels very open ended, as if there are many possible strategies and tactics to pursue; as a group, we are clearly still crawling at this point. I don't think I'll get too much into the play by play, other than to note that the Snakes quickly evolved and were able to quickly create a large herd across four regions, opening up a large lead in the first scoring round. The other players remembered that there is no tunnel and took steps to prevent serpentine hegemony from winning out, while keeping a close eye on each other. End result? A three way tie for first until the final points for remaining food were scored, handing a narrow victory to the snakes, with eagles and humans close behind, and the crocodiles only a couple of additional points back. Very close!

I think the balancing mechanisms incorporated into the game are extremely clever, particularly the way that it becomes quite difficult for the player in the lead to hold on to advancements, which not only confer advantages in gameplay, but are also potentially worth points during scoring rounds. Some numbered points to ponder, hopefully to further our own evolution as players:

1. The Movement Ability: What would be an effective way to use this? What strategies need to be implemented?

2. How practical is it to co-ordinate actions between players to negate certain advantages? What level of "table talk" is acceptable? [ example: Player A holds a Defense ability. Player B steals the Defense ability. This is only useful if Player C, D, or E then attack A. ]

3. Roughly how many actions, total, occur before the game is completed? Does this vary to a greater or lesser degree? Would this information be useful in formulating a strategy?

4. To what extent would a strategy be useful in this game? Is it largely strategic or largely tactical?

5. Is this an area control game, or do the other methods of scoring turn this into something else? Rephrased, is there any real value in holding areas? Monopolies are worth only slightly more than leads, remember.

6. Should we change LUCH!'s name to Lucrative? I say yes.

7. What other factors in Wildlife could bear fruit if analyzed?

DISCUSS.

Have we met before? (Vegas showdown, Wildlife)

Kozure purchased two new games recently, so we gathered Wednesday night and gave them a spin... both were strikingly reminiscent of other games we've already played while also being good enough to stand on their own.

Vegas Showdown

The first game was Vegas Showdown, a recent Avalon Hill title which got some pretty good reviews at BGG. The board, bits and title suggest that gambling is involved, but in fact there is none. Players are actually building casinos piece by piece, trying to earn victory points along the way. In practice, the game is essentially a cross between Princes of Florence and Amun-Re (but with a few elements which introduce chaos which is more akin to an american game). From PoF, the game borrows a grided map which players must fill with various "rooms" in a puzzle like fashion and from Amun-Re Vegas Showdown borrows the peculiar auction mechanism (for purchasing the "rooms"). Luckily, where the game falls down on originality it makes up in delivery... the game works and there is enough new in the mechanics that it stands on it's own. The biggest change is a deck of cards which is drawn from every time a "Room" is purchased. Each card will force an event, such as a monetary bonus for each "slots" room in your hotel, etc. Once the effect is applied, a symbol on the card determines which type of "room" will fill the empty space on the auction block. Since the game ends when one of the three types of rooms is exhausted, the result is a variable endgame which added a nice level of tension in our session. Other minor, but well received changes include: a "renovate" action which allows a player to replan their casino at the cost of a turn; a mechanic which reduces the price of items which aren't purchased at their existing price; a progression tree which prevents a player from building a premium room before purchasing the basic version (like the technology tree in Civilization); lastly, the casino layout is divided into three portions (the hotel, middle and restaurant) and points are awarded for certain layouts of rooms.

In our game, Kozure had the winning casino. His lead was padded by an event card which gave him an enormous amount of points for restaurants, but even without it he had enough to win. Shemp was aggressive in trying to connect the hotel portion of his casino to the restaurant, and Luch was the king of slots. JayWowzer and I had very similar casinos, but I made a critical error midway through the game and purchased a "premium" room I couldn't place since I didn't have the require "basic" room. I spent too long trying to get that back on the board and missed out on the income I would have earned if I had been able to place it. Ooops.

Vegas Showdown walks a fine line. It's heavy enough to require a certain amount of forward planning, money management and tactics, but the random events can swing the result in fairly significant ways. Despite my poor showing (tied for last), I enjoyed the game and would look forward to playing it again soon. Oh yeah, I just wanted to mention that the player mats are made of the same flimsy paper Avalon Hill used for the RoboRally mats. It's really too bad, because it really cheapens the overall appearance of the game.

Wildlife

A new Kramer title, which I'd never even heard of, was the second game of the evening. The setting is a small island where a variety of creatures attempt to become the dominant species. Each player plays a specific creature, from crocodile to eagle to human. The island is divided into several types of terrain, and each creature has different levels of ability in each terrain (for example, humans can migrate and expand into plains, but get no actions in deserts). Over the course of the game, players will have several opportunities to improve the lot of their creature type: expand territory, increase their abilties, aquire special powers, etc.

When regions are completely filled with creatures they are scored according to majorities, but every 3rd such scoring a "general scoring" occurs where quite a few other factors are taken into account (such as largest continuous chain of creatures, most advanced creatures, creatures with the most food, etc). As you may have already surmised, this game has more than a passing resemblance to another of Kramer's games: El Grande. However, where El Grande has chaos, Wildlife has bite. In this game, it's perfectly common for another player to come eat your creatures, to steal your card, etc.There is a level of direct competition here which is quite uncommon in german games. The expansion of territory, the conflict and the advancements opportunities for creature skills lend a "civilization" type feel to the game.

I played the humans. I started out in two corners of the board, not really knowing how to play the game. I was quickly threatened by Kozure's mammoths in both my starting areas. This, combined with a hand of cards completely devoid of the types I needed, forced me to play a game of opportunism rather than strategy. I was in last place while Luch's bears, Shemp's crocodiles and, particularly, JayWowzer's eagles were taking commanding leads. Lucky for me, I stumbled into a way to bring me back into contention: I was focussing on securing presences in a variety of territories (a common and generally successful strategy in area control games) while aggressively growing continuous chains of control. When the first "general" scoring occurred, we came to realize that chains were enormous sources of points (the largest chain is worth 10 points, whereas a monopoly in a region is only worth 5). In my case, I had two chains which netted me 1st AND a tie for 2nd longest chain (15 points, I beleive). I was suddenly back in the ballgame. As the game progressed, Shemp and Luch were locked in continuous back and forth struggles in the water, forest and desert zones, hurting both their chances. JayWowzer looked untouchable with a large lead and no obvious weakness on the board. In the end, my continuing success with chains and 2nd or 3rd place points in a variety of regions vaulted me towards the lead! As the final points were tallied, JayWowzer and I ended in a tie...
and so it came to pass that humans and eagles became the dominant species on earth.

Wildlife, like Vegas Showdown before it, turned out to be quite a bit heavier than expected. There are SO MANY options to consider on your turn that analysis paralysis can easily occur. Luckily, downtime is minimized through a clever auction mechanic which forces every player to auction one of their actions every turn (giving each player the opportunity to get actions on other player's turns!). In the end, Wildlife is a meaty game which seems like a cross between Civilization and El Grande... not a bad thing at all. for whatever reason, it didn't stand out for me though. Like Knizia's Tower of Babel, which also blends a number of disparate mechanics into one game, Wildlife is missing the "hook" which somehow distinguishes it from the pack and makes the whole thing click as more than the sum of it's parts (though I think I liked Wildlife more than Tower of Babel, but then again ToB is a much shorter game).