Billionaire Banshee

The front of the box for Billionaire Banshee says:

Trust me! This game is awesome!

I can endorse this perspective. (With some caveats and a few cards tossed in the bin.)

I got this gem of a game after a friend introduced me to it post-PAX last year. 1 So it seems appropriate as I gear up for PAX this weekend (come say hi or see my panels!) to showcase it. It’s sheer silliness and fun.

For those of you unfamiliar, Billionaire Banshee is a party game about finding your perfect partner. I’d put it in a similar category as Cards Against Humanity, but with less of a race-to-the-bottom to see who can be more horrible. It’s really a game of how well you know your friends and expressing outrage and incredulousness when they don’t live up to your expectations, but let’s keep pretending it’s about dating.

So in the standard rules (there are a few variants for added nonsense), everyone has two voting cards: DATE and DENY. There are two stacks of potential-partner cards: PERK and QUIRK. The reader reads one then the other, and together these form the profile of a potential partner for them. For example, the namesake cards:

They are a billionaire / They are a banshee
DATE or DENY?

The reader secretly selects whether they would DATE or DENY this person, placing the corresponding voting card in front of them–is it a big deal that they’re a banshee? If so, does them being a billionaire outweigh it? Everyone else attempts to guess what the reader will answer for this hypothetical future person and also secretly selects a voting card. Then everyone reveals their answers–if you match the reader, you win the round. Except like most party games and also real life, the points pretty much don’t matter at all and no one really pays attention to them.

The Perk card is ostensibly a positive trait about the potential-partner and the quirk is a weird, negative, or just unique-but-not-for-everyone trait. But you’ll quickly see that much like real dating, one person’s Perk is another person’s Quirk, and you’ll spend most of the game fighting it out.

Race

Race is not much of a factor in the game play, and blessedly there are no ‘they are of a different race than you!’ or ‘they are black!’ grossness cards that legitimise the idea that it’s okay to discriminate against people solely for their race when dating, particularly without taking in account any individual facts about the person. 2

Race is an interesting factor in the card art, though. There are a handful of cards with clear white characters on them, a handful of black characters, and a couple that seem to be coded as east Asian. But a majority of cards are some variety of Ambiguously Brown(™).

Before I start an article, I normally count of how many cards showed people of colour and people who were not men (more on that below), and… I couldn’t with this game. I’ve talked before about how it’s inherently problematic to try to racially identify characters when all you have is a single picture of them and no background (and I definitely hate trying to be the arbitrar of ‘is your skin brown enough to make you not-white’), but this game really was an extreme case of that (deliberately, I am pretty sure). But in a positive way, not a ‘everyone is white but one character who is a little tan, do we give you ‘credit’ for it?’ kind of way like we usually see in games.

I know there is debate about how much Ambiguously Brown(™) characters actually increase diversity and it’s an interesting discussion, one that is particularly relevant to TV & movies where someone’s experience as a person of colour in modern society can be explored or ignored. But in this context, of visual art of showing a variety of shades of brown skin as the ‘default’ character? I hands-down loved it.

As the (excellent) article I linked just  above says: “Maybe brownness is ambiguous in part because our hazy shared concepts of what people ‘should’ look like don’t necessarily reflect reality.”

I’m doing it:

3 stars

Gender

Several things that kick total ass:

  • The game is specifically and clearly designed to be gender-neutral and gender-inclusive–there are no assumptions about the gender of the players, the gender of the potential partners, or the gender preferences of any players.
  • There are three pieces of art on the back of the cards: a rainbow unicorn (fantasy Perks/Quirks), a purple bear wearing leather and holding a whip (sex-related Perks/Quirks, and a deliberately-coded androgynous or non-binary person (everyday life Perks/Quirks).
  • On the front of the cards, a vast, vast majority show a gender-ambiguous person (a small number are gender-coded in fairly distinct masculine or feminine ways, but not many).
  • All cards use gender-neutral language to refer to the potential partners.
  • The rules use gender-neutral language to refer to the players.

However, then we get to these two cards:

They have genitals of the opposite sex / They have a voice that sounds like the opposite sex
Sigh.

And of course both are quirk cards. 

I have debated how I feel about these cards and how to talk about them for quite some time now. I actually wrote many paragraphs about it but then a few weeks ago I was at a friend of a friend’s birthday party. It was a significantly younger crowd, a wonderful little enclave of queer/poly/gender diverse late teens/very early 20s folk that made me persistently think, “Yeah, the kids are all right.”

We were playing Billionaire Banshee and one of these cards came out, and they said something that cut through all the bullshit I was internally debating:

Kid 1: “They have genitals of the opposite sex.”
Kid 2: “What?”
Kid 3: “Opposite of what? What does that even mean?”
Kid 4: “Yeah. This card is for the hets. Moving on.”
Everyone simultaneously: “DATE!”

Overall, there are very few games that put so much effort into rejecting the gendered binary and respecting a wide range of gender diversity, so it’s extra weird to have these cards that just don’t even make sense within that paradigm. Opposite of what? What does that even mean?

These might be good cards to just quietly remove from your set, but they’re more confusing than anything. I am docking half a point and throwing some mild side-eye. These cards are for the hets. Moving on. 

2.5 stars

Sexuality

Similarly to gender, I don’t know any other published games 3 that put so much effort in rejecting heteronormative standards, in art, in language, and game-play mechanics. Whether you’re straight, gay, bi, pan, ace, 4 or robot, this game accommodates your preferences. As mentioned, there’s no assumed gender of players, of partners, or of preferences. Yay!

But there’s some somewhat weird handling of sexuality I thought worth mentioning, particularly given how inclusive the rest of the game is:

  • “They are a virgin” is a Perk. What? Everyone I’ve ever played with finds this super gross. The general consensus is that being a virgin is by no means a deal-breaker and it would be a good Quirk card, but outside of a small number of very specific scenarios (You’re also a virgin and would prefer someone with a similar experience level for your first time?), if you think finding a partner who is a virgin is a perk, you probably have some deeply problematic, sex-negative, and likely misogynistic shit you need to go unpack.
  • There is zero acknowledgement of alternative relationship models. None. In fact, a lot of cards explicitly enforce single-couple monogamy. How hard would it be to have like one card of “They only want to have non-monogamous relationships”? This would spark interesting discussions, surely.
  • Oh, but “They randomly cheat on you” is a card. Which I think is a fine card in general, it just frustrates me in the context of being pretty much the only reference to non-monogamy in this game. And you can’t even be like “meh, I don’t care if they fuck other people” which this card because it explicitly discusses them lying to you about it, which my crowd tends to find more bothersome.
  • “They are asexual” is a card. So we’re back to the voting-about-people’s-identity thing. And the card explicitly says they’re monogamous and want you to be monogamous, which again has been the bigger deal breaker in my crowds. The other day, I got “They are asexual” and “They are a world-class cuddler” together, and I would BE ALL OVER DATING THAT if they weren’t also going to force me to be monogamous.
  • I find this whole area frustrating, because my perfect long-term partner *wouldn’t* enforce monogamy, regardless of any of their other traits. But this game doesn’t allow that as an option.

Still, though, I’m going to stick to my original scale, which awarded bonus points for alternative relationship models but didn’t detract for their lack. Given how this meets and exceed the top standard for sexuality representation–“there are queer-identified characters and/or game play explicitly allows or encourages queer identities and behaviours”–I’m giving it:

3 stars

Body

Like the other categories, there are a lot of things Billionaire Banshee does well in the body department. If you’re just talking body size/shape/lack of adherence to impossible social body norms, it’s a stand-out. If you’re talking about avoiding ableism and representing people with disabilities…. Not so much.

The good stuff first. As mentioned, the only human character on the backs of the cards is a short, chubby adorable enby. On the front of the cards, the default body-shape is a squat, squarish person, with the occasional variation. Some of the variations are tall bodies, some short, some slim, etc. There is only one card that refers to body type at all and it’s “They are Hercules-level muscular”. And it is actually listed as a Quirk, not a Perk. Overall, no real complaints with this part.

But. Then it starts to get grim. There are a few cards that allude to people with disabilities — “they have no feet,” for example. But there are no depictions of people with visible disabilities just casually in the art, which I think is a damn shame. How hard is it to have a few people using mobility aids? Spolier: Not hard, you just have to try. Also, I think it would be cool to have some cards that highlighted people with disabilities in funny ways like the game does with able-bodied people–for example, “Their wheelchair can go car speeds.” Or “Their cane can turn into a hoop snake”. So the fact that they’re in a wheelchair or use a cane is incidental, and we’re voting on a ridiculous perk a la several existing cards.

And then there are these two cards:

Cards reading “They have tourettes” & “They are narcoleptic”
So much gross.

(If you can’t quite make them out, the cards read “They have tourettes.” & “They are narcoleptic.”)

And…. no. Just no. I actually had to get this shot from a friend, because I had thrown mine away the moment I saw them.

Every other card in the game refers to a person’s traits. These are the only two cards that refer to a medical diagnosis. 5  A medical diagnosis that in both cases has a wide, wide range of symptoms and the amount it actually impacts anyone’s life or partner’s life. But instead we’re told to draw on the most extreme pop culture stereotypes you have of these diseases and then vote on that person’s value as a human.

Talking about a symptom and asking you to evaluate a very specific trait outside the context of identity is very different to me than asking you to pass a referendum on a person based on your own or others’ stereotypes about that identity and legitimises discrimination against people in that category. If it was instead “They shout random curse words at strangers” then explained in the description that it’s a verbal tic, it wouldn’t be much of a problem. But “they have tourrette’s”? No. So much no. (Spoiler: many people with tourette’s don’t have this as a tic and those who do can sometimes control it or minimise it with good medical care.)

For this amount of problematic grossness, I’m docking a half-star and throwing even more side-eye.

1.5 stars

Overall

I guess a single game can’t be everything to everyone. But this one sure tried. Remove those two gross cards about people’s medical diagnoses and, soften up the MONOGAMY ONLY vibe, stop speculating on other people’s genitals, and increase representation of people with disabilities in the art, and you’d have me saying it succeeded. 

Race ★★★
Gender ★★★-.5
Sexuality ★★★
Body ★★☆-.5
Overall Average 2.5

 

Notes:

  1. Uh, okay, actually, his copy is actually now my copy after I borrowed it and someone spilled a glass of wine all over it at my table and thus my brand new clean copy is now his copy. If we’re being technical. #oops
  2. Well, I guess there are a couple cards that boil down to ‘they are a non-human race’. I am sure the centaurs are upset at legitimising their discrimination, but I think centaur rights are outside the scope of my discussion. But if any centaurs would like me reconsider my position on this, let me know.
  3. CRUCIBLE IS COMING, THOUGH.
  4. There are cards that explicitly refer to sex or the partner wanting sex or specific kinds of sex, BUT they’re clearly labelled on the back, with the intent that you can sort them out from the game entirely if you don’t want to play with sexual considerations or just skip drawing them yourself. Also, you can always draw them anyway and DENY them if they want something you’re not offering.
  5. Some cards refer to a specific symptom of a probable medical problem–”They have random mid-sleep diarrhea”, for example–but not the name of a medical problem. And that one has mostly been a deal-breaker for people because part of the card description says they refuse to wear any incontinence aids. And to me “they have this specific symptom” AND “they refuse to take any practical steps to minimize its impact on your shared life” is a completely different situation than “they have X medical condition, please draw your own stereotypes”.

The Red Dragon Inn

Like Villainy, this is another game that is just sheer fun. More random/luck-based and less strategy than Villainy, but equally fun in flavour. (This is another game JimmyTheGeek introduced me to; he’s all about the awesome flavour text. If you want more fun games (specifically unique RPGs), check out his and Bea Bravo ‘s new podcast, Have You Roleplayed.)

For those of you unfamiliar, this game is about the adventure after the adventure. You’re a band of DnD-style adventurers–you’ve got a wizard, a warrior, a rogue, and a cleric. The adventure is over for the day, presumably successfully, and now you’re at the pub unwinding by drinking to excess, gambling away your earning, and giving your teammates shit (real-world drinking and gambling not required; talking shit heavily encouraged). The aim of the game is simple: be the last person standing after all of your friends have been kicked out of the pub for being too drunk or out of gold. 

This is the first in a series of five variants; we’re only looking at the original today.

Also: POOKIE! Hands-down, my favourite part of this game is Pookie, my drunk rabbit. Well, okay, technically he belongs to the character I always play and not to me, personally, but a girl can dream.

Picture of the box of Red Dragon In, showing the five characters discussed below

I genuinely love this game. It’s not at all heavy or particularly strategic, but I always have a riot playing. I’ve left this game *feeling* drunk on nonsense and laughter, having not touched a drop of actual booze myself. It’s…. got a few problems, though. (Content note: references to date-rape drugs.)

Race/Nationality

But first, let’s look at its race-related problems. All of the playable characters are white, but the serving wench is a woman of colour. (She is the only non-playable character in the artwork; she has multiple cards that refer to her, playable by all of the other characters.)

So it meets the “people of colour exist!” test… but not in a way I feel very good about. I am glad she is in the game at all, but if a non-playable servant is the only non-white character in your entire game, ima side-eye you a little bit.

I’m giving it:

1 star

Gender

This is the category this game does reasonably well in. 2 of the 4 playable characters are women; 2 are men. Plus the only NPC, the serving wench, is a woman. No evidence of gender-diverse characters, however.

Fiona the Volatile is pretty badass. It’s nice to have the warrior character be female, and she takes zero shit.

The rulebook uses gender neutral pronouns throughout, except when giving examples of play. Then it uses the character’s gender, which is obviously fine.

Overall:

2 stars

Sexuality

There’s a wee bit of innuendo in cards that can be played against other characters/players of any gender;  I guess you could argue that this is a mechanism that allows choices that implicitly identify sexuality and nothing prevents a player from queering those choices?

But it ultimately doesn’t matter because I am giving this game an automatic fail and some Serious Side-Eye in the Sexuality category because of the following card, which is in Gerki The Sneak’s deck:

A Gerki The Sneak's card reading "Slip a Mickey"

I prefer my board games without jokes about dosing people with date-rape drugs, thanks. 1

0 stars

Body

All the women all have pretty identical body types–slender with a few curves and nice breasts; the dudes get a little more diversity with a scrawny, short, buck-toothed thief and a tall, old wizard. (Plus a cute chubby bunny!) So a little but not a lot.

Also, while the women aren’t particularly scantily clad in most of the cards, there is an absurd over-focus on all of their boobs and more than a little gratuitous boob art. Now I like boobs as much as the next person really into ladies, but this over-sexualisation of these characters was pretty unnecessary, felt pretty out of place with the rest of the game, and made me a bit uncomfortable.

Three cards showing the gratuitous boob art. Also my fingernails, which are painted blue with purple spots.
I didn’t fully crop my hand out of this picture because my silly nail art game was on point last week.

1 star

Overall

Overall, a fun game in the ‘somewhat problematic fav’ category. I want to check out some of the future games in the series and see if they capture the same vibe without some of the grossness. 

Race ★☆☆
Gender ★★☆
Sexuality ☆☆☆
Body ★☆☆
Overall Average 1

Notes:

  1. There is an argument to be made that historically, ‘slip a mickey’ meant to drug someone for the purpose of robbing them, not assaulting them, but that’s no longer the common usage and it’s pretty gross and unnecessary regardless.

Villainy

So I played this game Sunday night while visiting a friend out of town. The first moment of the game when I drew my random character and she was a fat queer-coded woman villain, I knew I was going to have to write a post on it stat. When we laid out the first random row of henches and not a single white male appeared, I knew I was going to be pretty happy about its score in said post. (One glaring exception, which we’ll get to at the end). Also I got to have a dinosaur. This is all I’ve ever wanted.

Villiany playor tableau, showing the Villain and three henches: a disreputable doctor, a dinosaur wit han eye-patch, and a golden alien.
My villain and her henches, about halfway through the game.

For those of you unfamiliar, Villainy is a…. let’s say worker management?… game where you’re a bit-rate wannabe super-villain trying to put together a team to enact your nefarious EVIIIIIIL PLAAAAAAANS (which are all completely ridiculous).  With a perfect mix of frivolity, luck, and strategic complexity, it also has flavour text that had my gaming partner and I choking on laughter the entire game. It is just sheer fun.

It also has the most diverse and well-represented cast of characters of any game I’ve played since I started this adventure of having too many opinions about representation in tabletop gaming. Let’s take a closer look.

Race/Nationality

There are eight playable characters (the wannabe villains). Zero of the eight playable characters are white men. (Although there are two white women.)

Rex Roofer (seriously this game is great) is a black man; Doctor Loom is brown-skinned but not entirely human. Ms Tikal is a woman of colour–seems to be coded Latina with her name and the artwork. The rest of the playable characters have non-natural skin colours (green, blue, purple, etc).

Many of the henches are not human or even humanoid. There are about 15 that are human-or-close-to-it; only 4 of them are white men. 6 have a non-human skin colour, and there are 4 women and 1 man who are people of colour.

The game also includes naming titles so you can add your own flavour and identity to your characters. We’ll talk about these more below, but there are Spanish words and titles included among these titles (Jefe, Señora, Fuego, and a few more).

Overall, a stand-out game on the representation front and indisputably:

3 stars

Gender

This game is also a stand-out on the gender front. The game uses gender neutral language throughout the rulebook, and only uses gendered language when referring to a specific character — which varies between he/she/them/it (the last for for animals and robots, not people) depending on the character. I also liked that it used the word ‘henches’ instead of ‘henchmen’–I actually had to repeatedly stop myself from saying ‘henchmen’ even when referring to non-male henches. Male-specific language is so entrenched.

Of the playable characters, 4 are male-coded and 4 are female-coded. BUT the dynamic of the naming titles allows you full flexibility to give a character any gender-signifying title or naming you like, regardless of their coding. The naming mechanism has no purpose other than game flavour and developing your character’s identify; this leads me to feel that the ability to queer your character’s gender is explicitly allowed or even encouraged. High-fives all around. Oh, and also:

3 stars

Sexuality

Okay. So we’ve talked in The Scale about how it’s inherently problematic to try to guess someone’s sexual identity from just a picture of them. But it’s a limitation of the medium, so we’re left we making guesses from their artistic ‘coding’.

There’s also the inherent problem of defining what queer-coding even is. What makes someone ‘look’ gay? Even some of the more obvious ones–queer haircuts, for example, often chosen by queer folk for the explicit purpose of communicating their queerness to others–run afoul when trying to decide if someone just has a cool, punk alternative style or if they are intentionally declaring themselves queer as hell. (Plus you can obviously be queer as hell with a totally mainstream haircut.)

And finally there’s also a long media criticism history calling attention to the problematic queer coding of villains (here’s looking at you, Disney) and you could make an argument that it’s not actually a good thing that there are so many queer-coded characters in a game called Villainy where everyone is an aspiring bad guy.

But but but…. I kind of don’t care. I LOVE that a majority of the women in this game look like women I’d flirt up in coffee shops or expect to see at LBGTQ rallies or have actually dated. 2 of the playable female characters are queer/alternative coded. 3 of the hench-ladies are definitely folks I’d hit on under the right circumstances. 1

It may not be a perfect proxy, but multiple characters who look like me and my queer women and gender-diverse friends? This is good enough for me.

Between this and the ability to queer your playable character’s gender choices, I’m leaning strongly towards:

3 stars

Body

Finally, I was pretty excited about how well this game does this in category as well. With the playable characters, one of the characters is gloriously fat and thoroughly kickass. The women are all appropriately clad, with slightly different bodies.

Unfortunately, the playable men all have pretty identical (muscular) bodies BUT there’s a huge array of bodies among the henches! Super muscular (not sexy lean muscly) women, chubby men, old women, scrawny people, huge stocky dudes, etc. A good cross-hatch of humanity.

All the playable characters are fully able-bodied appearing, but we have a few signs of physical impairments among the henches–one hench who is missing a leg, a character with an eye patch (okay, it’s the dinosaur), and a few such things hints at a higher level of ableness-diversity than we’ve seen in any other game I’ve looked at.

3 stars

Overall

So! Our first game with 3s across the board. But–unfortunately there’s a but. And it’s a big one. 2

Where this game failed is in the neuro-diversity/mental health area. As per The Scale, there’s not a particular category for this, but I was going to award bonus stars in the body category for games that did it well. Not entirely sure how to handle a game that does it poorly, except I don’t feel comfortable endorsing this game as a complete standout for representation with this bit it in.

Essentially, there’s an element of the game where you can give your characters ‘specialities’ in different categories: Weapons, Science, Loyalty, Deception, etc.

Take a look at the Deception tiles and see if you can spot the problem:

Eight 'Deception' titles reading Got Plans, Good Liar, Smooth, Crazy, Hypnotist, Seductress, Tricky, and Bipolar.
…seriously?

My guard was down because the rest of this game was so delightful and inclusive, so I was extra horrified to draw two Deception tiles and find them to read ‘Crazy’ (cringe) and ‘Bipolar’ (what the actual hell). You seriously couldn’t come up with one more silly descriptor that wasn’t the name of an actual (manageable) mental health issue that millions of people are living with? Was it really necessary to get a dig in against people struggling with mental illness for what, a cheap laugh at their expense? I seriously don’t understand this, but I am pretty disgusted by it. I thought about giving the Body category a fail for overt ableism, but it didn’t quite feel right since this category isn’t usually looking at mental health issues, so I am docking a half-star to the overall score and giving the most serious of serious side eye to the shitty decision to include those two tiles.

SERIOUS SIDE EYE.

Overall,

Race ★★★
Gender ★★★
Sexuality ★★★
Body ★★★
Overall Average
(with -.5 for grossness)
2.5

Notes:

  1. Full disclosure, *my* hair is queer as hell in large part so I get read as queer by ladies I’d like to flirt with. So definitely showing my bias here.
  2. Heh, heh, a big butt. #mature

Puerto Rico

Oh, Puerto Rico. Such a great game, so deeply problematic.

DIGITAL CAMERA

I know I’m picking off some low-hanging fruit here, but I thought it was a good follow up to Catan, as discussed more below.

It’s long been rated one of the top games on Board Game Geek. A pure strategy game with zero luck-based components, the gameplay is unique, challenging, and very well-designed–if you can get over the fact that you literally get little brown slaves off of boats and force them to work on your plantations for free. 1

Yeah.

That’s a thing.

I mean, it calls them ‘colonists’ not slaves, but not sure that euphemism makes it better or worse.

So yeah.

For those of you unfamiliar, Puerto Rico is a phase game where you play as a colonial governors settling Puerto Rico. Similar to Race for the Galaxy, only the phases selected by players at the beginning of the round happen that round. You grow plantations, build buildings, get slaves from the mayor to work on both of those (without the slightest acknowledgement from the game that this is or was problematic), and ship the goods you grow back to Europe for victory points.

It’s a game whose theme I don’t really know how to feel about, except kind of gross. Although since reading Greg Loring-Albright’s excellent First Nations of Catan alternative rule set I referenced in the last post, which modifies the Settlers of Catan game to acknowledge and accommodate the fact that First Nations people nearly certainly existed in Catan before white settlers got there, my feelings have evolved slightly. Or at least have gotten more confused.

Here’s the question I’ve been pondering for months: Is it better for a game with a historical or pseudo-historical theme that touches on problematic historical realities to just completely ignore the existence of that reality or to engage with that reality in a completely non-critical way? 2

I’ve been calling it the The Catan v Puerto Rico Problem. And fuck if I have any idea what the answer is. Please discuss.

Anyway. On to the ratings.

Race

This game is not set in Europe. So that’s worth some credit, usually.

But the entire game play is about colonising said non-European place for Europe. 3 So that’s less credit.

Plus the only human-depicting art of the game depicts a European man.

Native people appear to not exist at all in any capacity?

….and as discussed above, there is a slave trade. But it’s not engaged with in any sort of substantial way. Just casually there.

Yeah, I can’t quite bring myself to give this any stars for Race/Nationality. Any that I could pooooooossbily be convinced to give for the setting, I want to immediately take away for the implementation.

I’m giving it:

0 stars only because I can’t give negative stars.

Gender

Psssssssh. Don’t you know that women didn’t exist in the colonial era? Native women *definitely* didn’t exist. Nor do gender-diverse people, obvs.

Also, the first two pages of the rule book use gender-neutral language, but then inexplicably switch to exclusively using the generic he on page 3, which offends me both as a non-dudely gamer and as a former copy editor.

-1 star except I’m too lazy to figure out how to represent that pictorially so 0 stars.

Sexuality

Ha. Hahahahahahahaha. Oh, you’re funny. (Although I guess in a world where only men exist, some of them have to be banging each other, surely?)

0 stars.

Body

In Puerto Rico’s limited defense, there’s not much human art depicting any sort of bodies, only the one strapping young man we discussed earlier. But this was still a deliberate design choice, so:

0 stars.

Overall

Overall, things are grim for poor Puerto Rico.

Race ☆☆☆
Gender ☆☆☆
Sexuality ☆☆☆
Body ☆☆☆
Overall Average 0 (-0.5?)

 

Notes:

  1. THAT’S A REALLY BIG THING TO HAVE TO GET OVER.
  2. I mean, obviously, it would be better for the game to engage with the issue in a critical or informed way, but that’s apparently not the world we live in, so if you can only pick one, which would it be?
  3. “Hilarious” side anecdote. The first time I went into the grossest board game store I know in Sydney, it was to buy this game. I walked in and it was PACKED with nearly 100 dudes gaming (zero ladies or visibly gender-diverse people. RED FLAG ALERT.). Dude at the counter leered at me and asked if I was looking for something. “Puerto Rico,” I said. “Heh. Heh,” he said, still leering. “It’s in Europe.” I just stared and started shaking my head slowly while he continued laughing and looking at me like I was some dumb thing who didn’t get his SUPER CLEVER JOKE. “Get it? Get it? Because Puerto Rico? It’s in Europe…?” until I finally snapped, “It’s definitely not. Look at a goddamn map after you tell me whether or not you have the game and where it is.” and then he dutifully showed me the game on the shelf and rang up my purchase without making eye contact or saying another word.