Cascadia just won the 2022 Spiel des Jahres. Based in Germany, the SdJ awards the Game of the Year to the family-friendly game that “seems best suited to promote the cultural asset of board games in society.”
By that criteria, I think that it absolutely deserves the award.
I also think that the game is…pleasant.
I know, not the most compelling review for a game.
Don’t get me wrong, I am thrilled for the designer Randy Flynn and the publisher Flatout Games. I enjoy the game. Cascadia is extremely easy to get to the table. I have, in fact, done so more than I have its “sister” game Calico, a game realized within the same year as Cascadia by the same publisher, Flatout Games. (Which leads to the inevitable comparisons between the two.)
But first, Cascadia itself.
The Name of the Game
Set in Northwest America, Cascadia is, in essence, two tile-laying puzzles in one.
The first puzzle is comprised of five geographical elements of Northwest America. Each hexagon has either one or two ecosystems and players lay a tile one by one, in an effort to build the largest of each of the six terrains.
The second puzzle involves five animals. Each tile contains one, two, or three animal symbols. When an animal token is chosen, it can only be placed on an empty tile showing that animal. At the beginning of the game, one scoring card from a stack of six possible for each animal is drawn, detailing how each animal will score at the end. Some animals like to be grouped, others fly solo, while others want to meander through.
The open market contains the crux of the game, where four habitat tiles and four animal token are paired.
Players choose a pair, place a token, and turn goes to the next player.
Rinse, lather, repeat.
Sum up the score when everyone has placed 20 tiles and tokens. That’s it.
And the fact that I say “That’s it” also explains why the game is good, but not compelling.
More of a Point Ecosystem
There is tension. You see a pair that you desperately want, you have a place for both, but you have to wait until your turn, hoping that someone doesn’t take that very pair. That waiting anticipation is always fun.
There is strategy. From the beginning, it’s usually pretty obvious which animals are high scoring ones and which are lowest (looking at you Fox). This leads to one of two situations. Either (a) Everyone will be gunning for the very same animal, creating a low supply/high demand for that particular animal. Or (b) that animal will refuse to show up when the market is replenished. Meaning you have a choice of either going for that really popular one, or continuously taking the foxes and gain points by sheer volume.
When the game is done and all that is left is the scoring, the issue becomes clear. There are multiple ways to gain points, and bonus points, and extra points. Before you score, you might beat yourself up for neglecting a certain feature or not completing an animal condition. After all is said and done, you see that it didn’t make that much of a difference. You have usually made up the difference in some other area and might even wind up winning the game.
Huh, Look At That
Over the numerous times I have played Cascadia, someone has won by only one point. Usually, that kind of game ending is very exciting. But with Cascadia and it’s many scoring options, it’s difficult to say which strategy lead to that victory. So instead of moments where the victor proclaims “Whoo, did it!”, it leads more to “Huh, look at that.”
In an odd way, Cascadia is too forgiving. Besides the score, there is no compelling reason to make a certain move. On one hand, there is the refreshing sense of freedom of doing whatever you want to do and then see how you did. On the other, there’s no reward either save for Keystone tiles. These are tiles with only one animal possibility which, when fulfilled, gives you a singular pine cone that either manipulates the market or is worth points at the end.
Sister, Sister
This brings back round Cascadia’s sister game, Calico. While the obvious comparison between the two is the ability to manipulate the market in Cascadia and wish it was available in Calico, there is a much more subtle difference to note.
When playing Calico, you receive rewards as you play. Complete three colors, get a button. Complete a pattern, get a cat. Then there is the other side of the coin, where you have the excruciating feeling that you are not going to be able to complete all objectives, and so you fill in the space with something else, closing off that scoring possibility.
Cascadia doesn’t have that coin.
I realize this is an odd criticism. It’s like going to Yosemite National Park and complaining there are no rollercoasters.
Cascadia made no promise to provide such an experience. Considering the setting, it would oddly feel out of place if it did.
There is nothing revolutionary here, but not every game needs to be. There’s something to be said about having a pleasant journey, rather than one that crushes your brain or your opponents.
Sometimes, when you go someplace new, you just want to be able sit back and enjoy the scenery.
It’s what Spiel des Jahres saw in Cascadia. And I see it too. They aren’t looking to necessarily reward innovation or boundary-pushing experiences. They are looking for games that propel games to families tables. Which it does very well.
(If you’ve enjoyed this review and Cardboard Reflection, would you consider helping the website by donating a cup of Ko-fi.)