COMPARE
VS
★ AZUL WINS
AZUL VS CONNECT FOUR
2–4
PLAYERS
2
30–45 min
PLAY TIME
5–15 min
8+
AGE
6+
1.8 / 5
COMPLEXITY
1.0 / 5
Michael Kiesling
DESIGNER
Howard Wexler
2017
YEAR
1974
9.0 / 10
COMMUNITY SCORE
6.7 / 10
AZUL VERDICT
A near-perfect gateway purchase. Plays well across counts, finishes inside an hour, and looks beautiful on the table.
CONNECT FOUR VERDICT
Solved by computer in 1988 — first player always wins with perfect play. Still a wonderful first strategy game for kids, terrible for adults who know the centre-column rule.
AZUL
✓ PROS
- Ten minutes to teach, hours of depth
- Negative scoring track creates real interaction
- Gorgeous components — table presence rivals coffee-table games
- Strong at both 2 and 4 players, in different ways
✗ CONS
- Strategy can feel solved after 20+ plays
- Color-blind players struggle with the standard tiles
- Tile drafting feels mostly tactical, light on narrative
CONNECT FOUR
✓ PROS
- Teaches 2D pattern recognition under a 60-second teach
- Travel-friendly versions exist (peg-board, magnetic)
- Genuine 'aha' moment for kids when they spot a fork
- Quick enough to play 5 games in 30 minutes
✗ CONS
- First-player advantage is overwhelming if both players know the centre rule
- Game is mathematically solved — no remaining strategic depth for adults
- Stalemates happen when both players know optimal defence
★ WHICH ONE FOR YOU?
- AZULHigher overall score (9.0/10 vs 6.7/10)
- CONNECT FOURShorter session (5–15 min vs 30–45 min)
- CONNECT FOUREasier to teach — complexity 1.0 vs 1.8 (AZUL is heavier)
- AZULMore strategic depth — complexity 1.8 vs 1.0
- AZULScales to more players (2–4 vs 2)
- AZULMore modern design (2017 vs 1974)
