![]() ![]() While the buildings in Lancashire progress in a linear fashion, they are all over the place for Birmingham going seemingly randomly up and down. Birmingham has an additional set of building that arch clumsily around the player board. Both look mostly similar - Lancashire has a tidy set of buildings in a nice track. The best example visual representation for this are player boards. Birmingham introduces additional clumsy rules. So why did I call it cluttered? Brass is fairly streamlined for its complexity. Now - setting the ratings aside, maybe Birmingham is still the better game based on mechanics. Who would say no to an improved version with beer? Why? Well there was a Kickstarter that said "Buy the remake of Brass called Lancashire or a new and improved version WITH BEER". Third, Birmingham sold more copies than Lancashire. Birmingham has 50% more ratings than Lancashire (meaning average ratings are thrown in) AND Lancashire contains legacy ratings from original Brass. This is a standard statistical technique and not weird. If a game has 60k user ratings then very few average ratings are chugged in. If a game has only 100 user ratings the geek rating is mostly made up ratings of average score thrown in. Next the way BGG works it throws a number of average ratings into all ratings below a certain point. Birmingham has no old ratings in the mix. Brass and brass Lancashire are merged, meaning the Lancashire edition has old and lower ratings mixed it. It is also older and games get ranked higher nowadays and the average ranking "back in the day" was lower. ![]() Brass (the original) had a poor rulebook, some clumsy rules, and ugly graphics. ![]() Birmingham isn't a bad version, but it is more cluttered despite some good improvements.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |