Miscellaneous > Other Games

Some Miscellaneous Game Reviews

(1/6) > >>

scott_pilgrim:
Some reviews for some games I've played/been playing recently.  The first three are video games (on steam), the last three are board games.  I think I'm going to try to post new reviews to more games as I play them.  Other people can post reviews here too.

Concrete Jungle

This is a deck-building puzzle game.  People will call it a city-building game, but that's the theme, not the genre, and the theme is very loose, so it's comparable to calling Dominion a kingdom-building game: not necessarily inaccurate, but a bit misleading.

Each card in your deck lets you place a building (well, forces you to place a building; sometimes you might not want to).  Each building usually either makes some set of adjacent tiles (or occasionally, entire rows or columns of tiles) worth 1 more point (or -1 point, or some other number of points); or else collects the points on the tile it's placed on.  This is why I call it a puzzle game, because you have to find ways to fit the buildings together to score as many points as possible.  Whenever you reach a certain number of points (usually 3 as a baseline) in the frontmost column, it clears, and a new column is added to the back of the board.  Your goal is to clear a certain number of columns, while avoiding filling up the frontmost column with buildings without clearing it.  Each card also when played gives you some number of yellow points (good) and some number of red points (bad) (I forget what they're actually called).  Once you've accumulated a certain amount of yellow points, you can add a new card to your deck.  You just pick one of four randomly selected available cards.  (Personally I think it would be more interesting if each card cost a certain amount of yellow points, and you just buy them whenever you have enough to spend on the card you want; as it is, you're often just buying the most powerful card without considering how it fits into your deck.)  Once you've accumulated a certain amount of red points, the number of points you need to score in a column to clear it increases by 1.  I think this is quite a clever mechanic.  You'll get weak or "bad" buildings that are balanced by giving you lots of yellow points (for example, a Factory just adds -1 point to each adjacent tile, but gives you lots of yellow points); or powerful buildings that are balanced by giving you lots of red points.

Those are the core mechanics of the game, and I wish it stopped there.  I had quite a lot of fun playing the introductory levels.  The core mechanics are very solid and make for very interesting gameplay.  Unfortunately (and I think a lot of video game designers fall into this trap), it seems like they thought they should just include every single mechanic they thought of, which just ends up adding so much unnecessary complexity to the game that it becomes a lot less fun.  I was also frustrated by the pace at which they introduced these new mechanics; it seemed like every time, just as I started to get the hang of something and was starting to figure out how to incorporate it into my strategy, they threw a whole not set of things at me so that I didn't know what I was doing anymore.

One of the biggest examples of the unnecessary complexity is with tech trees.  When you accumulate enough yellow points, instead of buying a card, you can get a tech skill instead.  There are several characters to play as, and each one has their own tech tree.  The tech skills are usually just "gain card X" or "replace card X with Y" or something to that effect, so they're really just alternative card buys.  The only thing I can really think that this adds to the game is that it means you have some foreknowledge of what's going to be available to add to your deck throughout the game (you don't have to rely on the right things showing up in the rotating supply), so that you can actually plan out to some extent what kind of deck you want to build.  But if that's what they wanted, it seems like giving each character the same set of skills in every game is going to just mean you build one particular deck every time you play that character.  So instead of fixing the rotating supply problem by adding tech trees, they should have just made the supply be fixed (but varying from game to game), and that would have been simpler and let you plan things out.

Another example of totally unnecessary complexity is with office towers (and similar buildings).  There are a few buildings which you can stack on top of each other.  (I don't think I've seen any such buildings that actually make adjacent tiles worth points.)  There's nothing really wrong with this, except I just don't think it adds anything to the game.  It basically just means that if you get lucky and do things just right, maybe you'll get to place one building without taking up a tile.  That's just such a small benefit I don't think it's worth introducing a whole new mechanic for.

So anyway, all of that is stuff that makes the game a bit less enjoyable, but doesn't totally ruin it.  However, the versus mode does totally ruin it.  For some reason there is a versus mode, and a lot of the levels have to be played in this mode.  I stopped playing once I reached a point where I was going to have to do three (I think, maybe it was only two) more versus levels to continue.  The idea is, each player places three buildings at a time, and each player has a "zone" of the board that only they can place buildings in (as well as a neutral zone where anyone can placed buildings, and the frontmost column is always entirely neutral).  However, buildings you place can still affect things in the neutral zone.  So this really screws up the balance of a lot of cards, which seem to all be balanced specifically for single-player.  For example, the Factory I mentioned earlier gives you yellow points (good), but in exchange for hitting adjacent tiles with -1 each (bad).  However, in versus mode, you can place the Factory near your opponent's area, so that you get yellow points (good) and also hit some of their buildings for -1 point (also good).  Additionally, red points don't matter nearly as much anymore, because it doesn't matter so much whether you actually hit the number of points needed to clear; the column will clear when it's filled up and whether you score points for it is independent of whether you reach the threshold.

But this is what makes versus mode completely infuriating and practically unplayable for me: When you clear a column, whoever has more points in that column scores however many points total they and their opponent had in that column.  In other words, you steal your opponent's points whenever you have more points in a column than them.  I cannot even begin to fathom why the designers would have thought this was a good idea.  It makes the game incredibly swingy, as you can be competing for a particular column and then whoever ends up winning it gets credit for their opponent's work.  (You might have 5 points in a column on your turn, your opponent overtakes you with 7 points, you get it up to 8, and then they manage to clear it with 9; now they get 17 points (a huge amount) because you worked so hard at getting it up to 8.)  It also means that if you think you're going to lose a particular column, your best play is to try to score negative points in that column to bring your opponent's score down.  For example, if they're going to score 3 points in a column, but I have -4 points in that column, they'll actually end up losing points when that column clears.  I think this completely destroys the balance of the game, makes it incredibly swingy, and is also an example of the game adding extra complexity when it was fine without it.  As I mentioned before, you have to win some versus levels to access more single-player levels, so there's no getting around it.

The aesthetics of the game are pretty nice, I think.  The visuals look pretty and the music is really good.  The game uses an isometric camera, for whatever that's worth.  It's also fairly cheap (I think it was $13 on steam when I got it).  So if the core mechanics of the game interest you enough that you think you would be willing to push through some of the versus levels, it's worth picking up.

Mark of the Ninja

I think this game was pretty popular when it came out five years ago, so it's likely you've heard of it.  It is often regarded as the best stealth game ever.  I believe it is the first stealth game I've ever played, so it's hard for me to compare it to anything else.

According to Extra Credits, the key to making a good stealth game is to make waiting fun.  It seems like a very difficult thing to do, so the fact that I thoroughly enjoyed most of my time playing Mark of the Ninja should speak to an impressive accomplishment on the developers' behalves.  I think the main source of fun in this game comes from feeling like a boss from all the cool stuff you do.  However, as the game went on, those things began to feel increasingly routine.  I did not finish the game, but I think I was close to the end, which, if true, makes the game fairly short, which I think is good, because it was beginning to feel a little repetitive after a while.

What this game really does a phenomenal job of is relaying information to the player in ways that are easy to understand and somehow don't clutter the screen.  Generally speaking, you can only sense what your character would be able to sense.  So if you're in a duct and there's a room above you with a guard walking by, you can't see him because your character wouldn't be able to see him from the duct, but if he's close enough that your character would be able to hear his footsteps, you'll see little circles emanating around where his feet would be, to show you the sound his feet are making.

There was also one segment of the game that I thought was fantastic, and it doesn't spoil anything plot-wise, but in case you want everything in the game to be a surprise to you, I'll put it in spoilers.  There's a scene where you have to pull a lever to open up a hatch, and it takes 90 seconds for the hatch to open, but as soon as you pull the lever, all the guards know something's wrong and storm the room and you have to survive for 90 seconds in a relatively confined area.  This was probably one of the most intense and exciting periods of 90 seconds I've ever experienced in a video game.  Unfortunately, it auto-saved me 45 seconds in right between two guards who both had just noticed me, which was nearly impossible to get out of (though I did manage it eventually).

One thing to note is that the game is clearly intended for people who have a mouse (like the computer kind, not the rodent), which I don't.  The game is still playable without one though, because there are few (if any) places where you actually need to do something quickly with the mouse, so it's sufficient to just leave both hands on the keyboard and jump over to the trackpad when you need to.

Mark of the Ninja was $15 on steam when I got it, and I think it's worth it for what you pay.

Planet Coaster

I just downloaded this game on Friday, and have been playing it quite a bit since then.  As you might have guessed from the title, it is a roller coaster simulation game.  I've played a ton of Roller Coaster Tycoon 2 and very little of any other roller coaster sim games, so I'll mostly be comparing to that.

First thing to note is that it is $45 on steam, so it's a bit on the pricier side.  Another things to watch out for is to make sure your computer can handle it (I guess you should do this before downloading any computer game, but I never think about it).  It's a little slow on my computer, and I think the specs requirements are fairly demanding.  Even though I've already played it for hours, I feel like I'm just scratching the surface of what the game has to offer, so it's possible that some of the things I say here will not apply with more play.

So the big difference between Planet Coaster and RCT2 is that RCT2 is grid-based and Planet Coaster is not.  Really everything sort of follows from that difference.  Planet Coast is much more realistic, which is the main appeal of it I think.  You can look at your park and it really feels much more satisfying because it feels much more like a realistic theme park.  Obviously the technology going into the game is also much more modern (being probably about 15 years newer), so the simulations are much more detailed and realistic than in RCT2.  For example, if there's a crowded walkway in RCT2, people will just sort of walk through each other, whereas in Planet Coaster, they will sort of naturally divide into lanes, and hey, that's what actually happens on crowded walkways in the real world.

Being not grid-based gives you much more flexibility with what kinds of roller coasters you can build, which might sounds like a good thing, but it is a double-edged sword.  On any given track piece you have so many options for what to do with it, that it can be tedious to actually build a roller coaster, because you have to manually set the turn angle, banking angle, steepness angle, and length of the piece every time (they'll usually default to whatever you did on the previous piece, or whatever is closest to that and still possible to place, so you don't actually have to change all of these things every time).  One of the consequences of not being grid-based is that it is very difficult to get the pieces of track to connect when you're trying to finish the coaster.  Fortunately, there is an auto-complete feature which tries to close the circuit in the most natural way possible (and you can start building from the beginning and end if you like and then use auto-complete to meet in the middle).  (Actually, that just gave me an idea: the issues I'm about to bring up might be resolved if you begin building from the end and then use auto-complete to fill in the beginning, though that's a little awkward.)  The problem with this is that what the auto-complete fills in is not always "comfortable".  For example, I would usually want to finish a roller coaster with some brakes before turning back in to the station, to make sure it doesn't go around the final bend too fast.  Sometimes you can get away with placing the brakes and then using auto-complete, but other times there's just no simple way to do it.  However, the game does include a "smooth banking" feature for the auto-completed section of track, so presumably that helps out.  I have not figured out how to use it though.  I see that there is a button that says "smooth banking" and then if I click it more buttons show up, and then I'm lost.

Unfortunately, not all ride types have the auto-complete feature.  I have yet to be able to build a log flume because every time I try, I can't get the ending to quite match up, and I end up having to delete about two thirds of the ride just to be able to get to a point where it looks like maybe it will match up and then it still doesn't and then I just give up.  Maybe if you were disciplined enough to act like you're building on a grid even though you're not it would be easier.

One thing that bothered me in RCT2 was that if you built a footpath and then deleted it, you net lost money.  (It costs $12 to place but you only get $10 when you delete it.)  The problem with this is that it punishes you for making simple miscalculations (like oops that didn't line up how I thought it did).  At first I thought Planet Coaster had this problem too, and even had it when building rides, and that it would be much more of an issue because it's easier to make miscalculations without a grid.  But when I played last night, I noticed that I was in fact getting the same amount of money back at least when deleting track pieces, so the jury's still out on that one.

I've been playing through the career mode, but am still on the beginner levels (the Pirate ones).  They are all extremely easy (like you could just do what they tell you to and then let your computer sit for a bit and then you would win), but I assume that's because they are just intended to introduce you to the game, the mechanics, controls, etc.

There is also a sandbox mode.  What I have not seen so far is a roller coaster sandbox mode (by which I mean, a big empty field where you can just build roller coasters and not an entire park), like RCT2 has.  Of course you could just do this in the sandbox mode and ignore your guests, but I don't know, just knowing that there are guests wandering around on a tiny chunk of walkway watching me mess around with silly ride designs and ignoring them bothers me.

Overall this is a really great game.  I've mentioned a lot of problems that I have with it, but they're all vastly outweighed by the fun of building your own amusement park in a realistic simulation.  I expect it to be something that I end up sinking a ton of time into.

The following three games are board games I played for the first time this weekend.

Lords of Xidit

This is an action-programming game, and I believe it's the first I've ever played (though I've been familiar with the mechanic for a while).  Despite the theme, it plays like a Euro.  Each round, you set your actions for what you want to do for the next six turns.  Your options are to either move in one of three directions, to take an action in the city where you currently are (either recruit someone or fight a monster, depending on which of those things is possible in the city where you currently are), or pass the turn.  Each city has up to five different kinds of people to recruit, and you are generally required to recruit the worse ones before the better ones, and you can only recruit one person from a given city per round.  So if you and another player are standing on the same city and your turn comes before theirs, you might want to pass the turn to trick them into taking the worse guy first, and then you take on your next turn so you get the better guy.  In the game I played this particular situation only actually happened once or twice, but there was still a lot of mis-predicting what other players would do in other ways which resulted in varying degrees of hilarity in the outcomes.

To fight a monster, you spend some fixed combination of people as listed on the monster, so really this is a set collection game.  When you kill the monster, you pick two of the three rewards listed on it to take.

The scoring mechanics in this game are pretty cool.  Before the game, you randomly choose an ordering of {Gold, Castles, Culture}.  In our game, we got Castles first, then Gold, then Culture, so I'll use that as an example.  At the end of the game, whoever has the fewest Castles is eliminated first; then whoever has the fewest Gold of the remaining players gets eliminated; and then of the remaining players, whoever has the most Culture wins.  This forces you to have a balance of all these things, but focus more heavily on each one depending on the ordering chosen for that game.

The game was quite fun and it was pretty easy to understand.  Even from the very first round I felt like I had a pretty good sense of what I was trying to do, and I was already trying to out-guess my opponents.

The outcome of the particular game was extremely close.  I think I could have won if I had played the last turn more carefully.  I was safe on the castles, but the gold end up being a tie between me and another player (we were all very close, with 16-15-15 gold), and I had the most culture out of everyone, so if I hadn't lost the tiebreaker on gold I would have won the game.

The only thing that's a real strike against this game for me is that there's a lot of things that are in theory perfect information, but require you to memorize them to keep track of them.  I generally consider this to be slightly bad design, but not terrible.  I think if no one attempts to track information (there's so much of it that it's very difficult to do I think even if you have a pretty good memory), then this makes the game more fun because you can't calculate exactly what to do, but it always bothers me when I have to feel like I'm playing suboptimally by not memorizing everything that goes into and out of players' possession.

Tyrants of the Underdark

If you're posting on f.ds you will probably not like this game because you'll think Dominion is a million times better.  This is a deck-building area control game.  Like many other deck-builders, it has a rotating supply, which makes it very difficult to come up with any sort of plan for what you want to do with your deck.  Instead I found myself generally just buying the best card that was out there at any given time.  For some reason you get extra points for the cards you trashed at the end of the game, because I guess trashing is not already good enough.  This made it so that basically any time a trasher was available it got taken immediately by whoever was taking their turn.  The game was also political, which I consider to be bad design (unless the entire point of the game is to be political).  We played a three-player game and this didn't happen to us, but it seemed like there was a lot of potential for the game to turn into 2 vs. 1.

I don't really see the appeal in games like this.  It seemed like it would have been more fun as an area control game without the deck-building, or as a deck-building game without the area control.  As it was I sort of felt like I was playing to independent games, that really didn't go together at all, but just happened to be tied together by the fact that some of the cards told me what to do on the board.  I get the impression that a lot of deck-builders are like this, which I think is sort of the designers' way of justifying the existence of their game, because Dominion already does pure deck-building very well.

Council of Blackthorn

This is possibly the worst game I've ever played.  Well, it's probably not as bad as Monopoly, but at least they have the excuse of it being 1930 when they made their game.  I probably should have dropped out after the rules explanation because it really seemed like it was going to be very bad.  The design felt like there was no thought put into it at all, like the designer just came up with a bunch of card ideas, some random mechanics, and threw them all together without thinking about it.

Probably the worst thing about the game is the treason mechanic.  Over the course of the game, various things give you treason cards (which are worth 0-3 treason points each), and at the end of the game, the player with the most treason points automatically loses.  This is totally fine in a vacuum.  The problem is that there are tons of effects in the game that let you give a treason card to another player.  As soon as this was explained, I said "so shouldn't we all just give our treason cards to the same player every time?".  They sort of laughed and said yeah, I guess so, but that is exactly what happened, and that made what was already a really bad game unplayable.  Whenever you have a choice of whom to give a treason card to, there's no reason to ever choose someone other than the player with the most treason cards, because that minimizes your chances of auto-losing.  So basically within the first few rounds you know who is auto-losing and that player (who happened to be me) has no reason to play the rest of the game.

The cards in this game are horribly unbalanced, and the mechanics are very dull.  (You draw up to five each turn and then play a card, which have various effects, many involving moving you or other players along one of four tracks which score points over the course of the game or at the end of the game.)  The game is extremely political.  There are a lot of cards that just target one other player, that you choose.  There's no strategy to the game at all, because you don't know what kinds of cards you'll get or what they'll do, what your opponents can do to you, etc.  You make decisions but they're meaningless because you can't possibly predict what effect they'll have on the game.  It baffles me that the other players seemed to like this game.

pacovf:
@Mark of the Ninja: one of my favourite games of all time. So much fun. I finished it twice (second time in hard mode). If you've never played another stealth game, it's hard to describe how much better they've done things. Clear information, short waiting times (because of how acrobatic you are), and a cute terror mechanic would be the high marks, IMHO. I know people that thought it was only meh, but well stealth is not for everyone.

About the specific segment you mention: I tried to beat it in hard mode without killing any guards. That was by far the biggest challenge the game can throw at you.

Kuildeous:

--- Quote from: scott_pilgrim on March 14, 2017, 12:48:19 pm ---The scoring mechanics in this game are pretty cool.  Before the game, you randomly choose an ordering of {Gold, Castles, Culture}.  In our game, we got Castles first, then Gold, then Culture, so I'll use that as an example.  At the end of the game, whoever has the fewest Castles is eliminated first; then whoever has the fewest Gold of the remaining players gets eliminated; and then of the remaining players, whoever has the most Culture wins.  This forces you to have a balance of all these things, but focus more heavily on each one depending on the ordering chosen for that game.
 
--- End quote ---

This is sexy as hell. I've never played this game, but the scoring mechanism sounds really cool. Could be neat to see it implemented in other games.

AndrewisFTTW:

--- Quote from: pacovf on March 14, 2017, 01:34:47 pm ---@Mark of the Ninja: one of my favourite games of all time. So much fun. I finished it twice (second time in hard mode). If you've never played another stealth game, it's hard to describe how much better they've done things. Clear information, short waiting times (because of how acrobatic you are), and a cute terror mechanic would be the high marks, IMHO. I know people that thought it was only meh, but well stealth is not for everyone.

About the specific segment you mention: I tried to beat it in hard mode without killing any guards. That was by far the biggest challenge the game can throw at you.

--- End quote ---

I think I'm just not a fan of stealth games because I tried Mark of the Ninja and just didn't enjoy it.

scott_pilgrim:
I just got back from playing four games.

Flash Point

I think this game got a fair amount of attention when it first came out.  It's a co-op game in which you play as firefighters trying to rescue people from a burning building.  One guy in the group absolutely despised it and wouldn't play.  He said it was pretty much entirely random chance.  I don't think it's quite as bad as he was saying, but it's hard to judge that from one game, and I can see how the "roll dice to determine which space on the board catches fire" mechanic (especially since it's done every turn) can lead to a lot of variance.

Anyway, I'm not a huge fan of co-op games in general, and nothing really grabbed me about this one.  I will say that I thought the mechanics did a pretty nice job of reflecting the theme, which was cool.  But that's not really enough to get me excited about a game.  This is the sort of game I would play if there was nothing else better going on.

For Sale

I really like this one.  This is a very short (10 minutes or so), simple bidding game.  The game is divided into two phases.  First, you English bid money on land cards; then, you silent bid those land cards on money.  Whoever has the most money at the end of the game wins.  In both phases, each player wins something no matter what, so top bidder gets the best prize, then next highest bidder gets the next best prize, etc.  The thing that makes each round different is the distribution of prizes you're bidding on; your play changes a lot based on whether there's something like 1 good card and 4 bad cards, vs. 4 good cards and 1 bad card.  I think the game is pretty fun and interesting for how short and simple it is.

Hanabi

If you somehow, like me, have gone this long without playing Hanabi, you should really try to remedy that.  I've always expected that I would like this game, but after playing it, it's way better than I ever could have imagined.  I only got to play one game of it, unfortunately, but I can tell there's a ton of strategy and clever thinking involved.  If you're not familiar with it, Hanabi is a co-op game in which you can see everyone's hand but your own, and you try to give clues to other players about what cards are in their hand, so that together everyone can play the cards in the correct order, for each of five different colors.  There are lots of really clever ways you can hint to your partners what to do, but you also want to make sure that you're not doing too much thinking for them (i.e., assuming that they will conclude the same thing from your hint that you think they should).  I feel like I need to play it a lot more to confirm that it really is as wonderful as I think it is, but I think this game will end up on my list of all-time favorite games.

Deception

This is a social deduction game.  I have social anxiety disorder, and am also bad at reading people, so I don't know why I let myself get involved in this one.  I already have a hard time talking to groups of people, and especially when I'm trying to "fit in", and this was all amplified a thousand times by my finding the girl sitting next to me extremely attractive.  In the first game, I was the murderer, and the aforementioned cute girl was my accomplice.  Neither of us really knew what we were doing, and I think I screwed things up badly enough that we were practically guaranteed to get caught, but I was very confident that I knew who the witness was.  Of course it turned out, I was wrong about that too.  I was also upset that I got caught for the wrong reasons.  Everyone thought it was suspicious that the first round I was accusing one guy and then the second round I did a 180 and started going after someone else, but I am convinced that that is exactly what I would have done as town in that situation, because the forensic scientist was clearly signaling to everyone that that guy was innocent.

Anyway, that's more of a game report than a review.  I don't think I really like this game, though as I mentioned before, I'm not a fan of social deduction games in general; but I like it even less than others, because it takes the "logical" reasoning out of it and replaces it with "storytelling" reasoning, which I don't like.  (I think the "logical" reasoning is the only part of social deduction games that I really enjoy.)  But given that that's what it is, I think it does a reasonably good job.  Basically, each player gets four weapon cards and four object (?) cards (I can't remember what they're called), all publicly visible to everyone, and the murderer picks one of each.  The forensic scientist knows everything, but is on the "good" team, and has to hint to the other players what weapon and object the murderer chose (it follows from that who the murderer is), by picking the most accurate description from a pre-set list, for several different categories.  (For example, if the object is surgical mask, you might pick Hospital (from a pre-set list) as the location.)  (The forensic scientist can't communicate with the other players outside of this clue-giving.)  Each player has one shot to guess the combination of weapon and object.  If a player guesses correctly, the murderer and accomplice lose, UNLESS they can correctly guess the witness, who plays the whole game knowing who the murderer and accomplice are (but not which one is which and not which weapon/object were used).  If all of town's guesses are wasted, they lose also.

I was the murderer in my first game and the accomplice in my second game, and then town ("investigator") in the third game.  I found town to be fairly boring (though maybe it was just late and I had played enough already by that point), and murderer (and to a lesser extent, accomplice) to be terrifying, so I didn't really have a lot of fun in any of the roles I played.  It's odd to me that the accomplice doesn't really need to stay hidden in this game.  The only real consequence of the accomplice getting caught is that they can no longer really deflect attention from their partner.  When I was the accomplice, I tried to act nervous so people would think I was the murderer (I don't think I acted dramatically enough for anyone to notice), because you want to draw attention away from your partner, and there's no real consequence of people knowing you're on the bad team if you're the accomplice.  I do think it's sort of clever that the "mod" (the all-knowing person, who is sort of necessary by the mechanics of the game) is actually a player, on a team, in a way that doesn't break the game.

In the last game, we ran into this weird situation where the murderer had three weapons that all fit the clues perfectly (liquid drug, powdered drug, and mercury), and there was just no way the clue-giver could have distinguished between them.  So we all knew who the murderer was (by the last round he basically just outed himself), but none of us managed to guess the right weapon-object combination.  It seems like we should have gotten some kind of reward for all being so confident (and correct) about who the murderer was.  (He was very nice about it though and accepted that he got really lucky with his draw of weapons.)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page