Parks Second Opinion

Parks is a wonderful game - but what is it trying to tell me about nature tourism?

Parks is a very beautiful game about very beautiful places. Generously large cards depict every one of America’s national parks with colourful lightly abstract sketches. These artworks emphasise the building blocks that national parks have been distilled into - sun, water, mountains, and forests, the game’s resources - and come with matching ‘visiting’ costs. Visiting more and bigger parks (which mechanically is like buying them, but the rulebook sternly insists is not in fact like buying) is the players’ central goal, achieved over several rounds (or ‘seasons’) of travel. As well as visiting parks, players take photos of vistas - represented by adorable little wooden photo frames - collect wildlife tokens - little wooden silhouettes of keystone species which can count for any resource type - and deliver on personal objectives representing their hiking styles.

One season is kind of like a hiking trip, with hikers moving through a randomised sequence of terrains called the trail. Players’ two hikers must complete the trail, moving as many spaces as they want but only picking up resources from terrains stopped in along the way. You generally must move forward every turn, but light a fire once per season to stick around in a favoured spot. The resources (experience? National park knowhow? Passion for nature? It isn’t quite clear what these represent) required to visit other parks can’t be gained by rushing through the trail, head down and hood up - nature must be appreciated, slowly. Race through and you will have first pick of the parks to visit - but will inevitably lack the means to get there, forcing players to reserve parks for later rounds. Make it a leisurely stroll, and you might not get to your first choice park, but at season’s end you could visit several parks and purchase gear that gives bonuses for later seasons.

This tension between rushing and strolling is the core mechanic of Parks, one which gives it its gameplay depth. Complicating things further, no two hikers can occupy the same space, so you won’t always be able to visit the part of the trail you want. This adds complications in various ways - it could be your own hikers that blocks the path for the other, requiring planning ahead on the squares you need most, or it could be an opponent forcing you to rush ahead to another piece of paradise, albeit one that’s not quite what you need. Particularly in higher player count games, occupying space others want for as long as possible and engineering space for yourself is the sun the game revolves around, and the mostly no-secrets open play makes it a great game for tactical play. Strictly the game has no direct interaction, and players operate independently - but the indirect ways players can shape the board for others allows for some fantastic moments of tactical deduction, trading off the implications of actions for yourself and opponents.