druzil wrote: ↑07 October 2026, 00:58
I agree that more narration needs to be done on strategic decisions, this happens more frequently from the middle to the end of the game - I'm wondering if you watched that far or got put off before getting through. Early on there are many similarly weighted moves so its difficult to focus on one plan early on. Splendor is not as tactical as chess so it doesn't lend itself to exploring many different tactical lines beyond a depth of 1 or 2.
I glanced in myself, the analysis is definitely weak. Looking at that starting board and "black is prominent among the visible tier 3 cards"? A number existing in a few spots doesn't make it prominent. Prominent is that red is not only the most relevant noble color in what looks to be a slow board but is also the only color in the 3-point red that serves as the only quality point scorer on the board, with the 6/3/3 4 point black a distant second (with red notably being its lead color, and the rest being very behind the curve cards. All that, and the only other red on the table is the way off curve 3 pointer, which could come along if things stay in this weird direction but isn't exactly something players typically target. Instead, row 1 looks like a fight for the blues to transfer to the cheap white cards, or maybe even nabbing the awkward level 1 blue first to get there better. At this point one wonders if the top of the deck will end up driving the conversation instead. This major mismatch between the low number of scoring cards and the near nonexistent overlap it lack with lower-level cards to grab is itself a major fact, the one of the main ideas of reserving high-power cards to prepare super-efficient buys is in a remarkably terrible position here, which means the way many players would approach this board may be significantly different than how they'd conventionally tackle other openings.
The first player (the player who goes first, which thanks to the replay POV was called player 2 in the video) snatches the 3-point red, the best card on the table, at the expense of their token initiative, important for blue, but with their second reservation in a row they give their opponent 3-1 initiative for blue and black, and poor reservation decisions lead to a cramped situation with their clogged hand and token access. This seems like a major strategic matter that wasn't given the attention it deserved in the video.
druzil wrote: ↑07 October 2026, 00:58
In terms of improvements would it be useful to not mention moves at all, and just jump quickly through a number of moves until an 'interesting point' occurs. Perhaps not even show parts of the game at all and then just jump to particular positions which can then have more lengthy strategic commentary on? I want to keep the videos under 15 mins.
I would go with fast forward and avoid skipping. Everything in the game should be visible to avoid accidently leaving out a relevant detail to following the path of the game but choosing which parts to emphasize is a good idea. Still present so players can pause and consider something they thought was important/worth viewing but not taking up much time if you don't think it has anything you need to go over.
We don't need empty facts. There should be a point to the details given, saying you can buy a card no one is even looking at is not worth anything unless you're aiming to make a case that they should care and missed something important, etc.
