This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
If this game is like others, there is usually one publisher that does the European market, another for the American Market, another for Japan, etc. This one just deals with the German and English publishers. I'm suggesting that Alea is taking care of all of Europe, where Rio Grande is the U.S. publisher. But I have no certain information about this. Would someone with more information check in to this? Val42 04:37, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Rio Grande publish the English language version, as sold in for example the UK and Ireland, as well as the US. I believe in effect they're essentially a "republisher", and Alea do all the manufacturing, so it wouldn't surprise me if my copy has crossed the Atlantic twice. (The "US" box and rules are A4 in size, for example, and the components are identical, apart from the language text.) Alai 05:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I made a bunch of changes:
Rdore 22:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Just want to say that you people did a great job with this article. It's concise and informative at the same time; I can't believe how well the strategy section is worded -- it must have been a huge challenge to break such a complicated game down to its essences as you've done here. I love this.
I'm not sure we need quite so much on the "howto" aspect. Anyone else have any feelings either way on this? BTW, they're "colonists" in the English language edition, and "workers" in the German, not "slaves". Only, source needed on some of the strategic assertions, such as a R-P-S/cyclic dominance claim. Alai 08:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
While calling the colonists or workers "slaves" is perhaps not an offical term (but the general term used by the PR gaming community regardless), I think this is a minor point, and one which I have no problem giving up.
However, I believe accurately describing the roles are important to the description of Puerto Rico. The game is dependent on them, and knowing how the work, and they are themselves one of the most facinating portions of the game. It would be like describing chess without the pieces or poker without the hands. To give an accurate impression of Puerto Rico, the roles must be discussed.
This is a good entry so far, but I have a couple of comments.
-- JoelCFC25 14:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I have perhaps been over-bold in my edits.
It seemed pretty clear that roles belonged with gameplay, if not included in that section. The internal "roles" link became unnecessary.
Misunderstanding of the rules are very common, a frequent topic on BGG, so I felt a comment on this was useful to the reader.
Not obvious from the edit log is that I reordered the roles into "production order": you settle a plantation, build the processing plant, populate those so they'll be operational, craft to produce, then trade or ship the goods. The lack of such an overview is a major omission in the rules, so in addition to giving the reader a better overview of the game, it may make up for that omission.
I added a tactical play paragraph in the strategy section. One of PR's remarkable features is the balance between tactical and strategic play. Perhaps more should be added on this unusual feature of PR.
[I recently edited Characteristics in German-Style Board Games. Yeah, I probably should create an account. :) ]
If there are no objections, I would like to completely remove the Controversy section. This section seems to reflect an opinion or interpretation which is not widely held. Also, the heading itself is misleading since "controversy" implies that there has been some form of public outrage or criticism in print or broadcast. If anyone can cite any such references, then we should clean up the Controversy section and list references. -- DoGooderJohnnyD 18:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Where can we find the two-player rules? A link would be nice. Wiploc 04:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I frankly don't think much of this section (the rest of the article is outstanding, as has been mentioned earlier). I haven't played San Juan, but I've heard it is in fact very similar to Puerto Rico (hell, my understanding is that it was designed to be). Caylus does have a few similar elements, since placing workers can be seen as very similar to choosing roles, but I'm not at all convinced that it's more similar to Puerto Rico than a lot of other Eurogames. Finally, I think including Settlers there is a huge stretch, as it has almost nothing in common with Puerto Rico (except acting, in my experience, as something of a "gateway game"). The identified similarities (resource collection, construction, and victory points) appear in so many games as to make the alleged similarity meaningless. My personal preference would be to delete the "Similar Games" section all together. Thoughts? Sarcasticidealist 23:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Having heard no defense for keeping the section, I've deleted it. San Juan is mentioned elsewhere in the article, as it should be, and the only other game included in "similar games" at the time of deletion was Caylus, so it was pretty sparse (to say nothing of unencyclopaedic) anyway. Sarcasticidealist 02:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this proposal. Puerto Rico and San Juan are two completely different games that happen to be thematically linked, like Monopoly and Free Parking, or Settlers of Catan and Starfarers of Catan (and twenty or so other variants), or Carcassonne and Carcassonne: Hunters and Gatherers (and a half dozen other variants). This is, in my view, analogous to merging Cheers and Frasier. I would like to remove the proposal; what are people's arguments against doing so? Sarcasticidealist 04:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you think it would be ok to list the buildings and plantations in table form much like we did with the roles, or would that cause this article to be too list-oriented. We mention quarry only once without even mentioning its mechanic and the difference between how corn and the other goods operate is not heavily expanded on. Thoughts? BaShildy ( talk) 02:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The new edition, which is completely rethemed to avoid colonialism, deserves a mention. Fastfoodfanatic ( talk) 15:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
If this game is like others, there is usually one publisher that does the European market, another for the American Market, another for Japan, etc. This one just deals with the German and English publishers. I'm suggesting that Alea is taking care of all of Europe, where Rio Grande is the U.S. publisher. But I have no certain information about this. Would someone with more information check in to this? Val42 04:37, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Rio Grande publish the English language version, as sold in for example the UK and Ireland, as well as the US. I believe in effect they're essentially a "republisher", and Alea do all the manufacturing, so it wouldn't surprise me if my copy has crossed the Atlantic twice. (The "US" box and rules are A4 in size, for example, and the components are identical, apart from the language text.) Alai 05:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I made a bunch of changes:
Rdore 22:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Just want to say that you people did a great job with this article. It's concise and informative at the same time; I can't believe how well the strategy section is worded -- it must have been a huge challenge to break such a complicated game down to its essences as you've done here. I love this.
I'm not sure we need quite so much on the "howto" aspect. Anyone else have any feelings either way on this? BTW, they're "colonists" in the English language edition, and "workers" in the German, not "slaves". Only, source needed on some of the strategic assertions, such as a R-P-S/cyclic dominance claim. Alai 08:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
While calling the colonists or workers "slaves" is perhaps not an offical term (but the general term used by the PR gaming community regardless), I think this is a minor point, and one which I have no problem giving up.
However, I believe accurately describing the roles are important to the description of Puerto Rico. The game is dependent on them, and knowing how the work, and they are themselves one of the most facinating portions of the game. It would be like describing chess without the pieces or poker without the hands. To give an accurate impression of Puerto Rico, the roles must be discussed.
This is a good entry so far, but I have a couple of comments.
-- JoelCFC25 14:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I have perhaps been over-bold in my edits.
It seemed pretty clear that roles belonged with gameplay, if not included in that section. The internal "roles" link became unnecessary.
Misunderstanding of the rules are very common, a frequent topic on BGG, so I felt a comment on this was useful to the reader.
Not obvious from the edit log is that I reordered the roles into "production order": you settle a plantation, build the processing plant, populate those so they'll be operational, craft to produce, then trade or ship the goods. The lack of such an overview is a major omission in the rules, so in addition to giving the reader a better overview of the game, it may make up for that omission.
I added a tactical play paragraph in the strategy section. One of PR's remarkable features is the balance between tactical and strategic play. Perhaps more should be added on this unusual feature of PR.
[I recently edited Characteristics in German-Style Board Games. Yeah, I probably should create an account. :) ]
If there are no objections, I would like to completely remove the Controversy section. This section seems to reflect an opinion or interpretation which is not widely held. Also, the heading itself is misleading since "controversy" implies that there has been some form of public outrage or criticism in print or broadcast. If anyone can cite any such references, then we should clean up the Controversy section and list references. -- DoGooderJohnnyD 18:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Where can we find the two-player rules? A link would be nice. Wiploc 04:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I frankly don't think much of this section (the rest of the article is outstanding, as has been mentioned earlier). I haven't played San Juan, but I've heard it is in fact very similar to Puerto Rico (hell, my understanding is that it was designed to be). Caylus does have a few similar elements, since placing workers can be seen as very similar to choosing roles, but I'm not at all convinced that it's more similar to Puerto Rico than a lot of other Eurogames. Finally, I think including Settlers there is a huge stretch, as it has almost nothing in common with Puerto Rico (except acting, in my experience, as something of a "gateway game"). The identified similarities (resource collection, construction, and victory points) appear in so many games as to make the alleged similarity meaningless. My personal preference would be to delete the "Similar Games" section all together. Thoughts? Sarcasticidealist 23:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Having heard no defense for keeping the section, I've deleted it. San Juan is mentioned elsewhere in the article, as it should be, and the only other game included in "similar games" at the time of deletion was Caylus, so it was pretty sparse (to say nothing of unencyclopaedic) anyway. Sarcasticidealist 02:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this proposal. Puerto Rico and San Juan are two completely different games that happen to be thematically linked, like Monopoly and Free Parking, or Settlers of Catan and Starfarers of Catan (and twenty or so other variants), or Carcassonne and Carcassonne: Hunters and Gatherers (and a half dozen other variants). This is, in my view, analogous to merging Cheers and Frasier. I would like to remove the proposal; what are people's arguments against doing so? Sarcasticidealist 04:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you think it would be ok to list the buildings and plantations in table form much like we did with the roles, or would that cause this article to be too list-oriented. We mention quarry only once without even mentioning its mechanic and the difference between how corn and the other goods operate is not heavily expanded on. Thoughts? BaShildy ( talk) 02:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The new edition, which is completely rethemed to avoid colonialism, deserves a mention. Fastfoodfanatic ( talk) 15:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)