Jump to content



Photo

Standalone Co-op Game . . . thoughts?


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#1 Budgernaut

Budgernaut

    The Uncanny One

  • Members
  • 1,491 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 05:54 AM

 So the prospect for a co-op LCG seems to be dwindling. We've all seen the bits of evidence pointing toward a PvP game (though some of us are in denial). For those hoping for a co-op game, what are your thoughts on them turning the Gen-con game into a stand-alone deck-building game? Now, by standalone, I don't mean that's the only product. Many of FFG's products have a few expansions. Instead I was thinking they might take that game and focus it on A New Hope, followed up with an Empire Strikes Back and a Return of the Jedi expansions. So it wouldn't have the long-term support of an LCG with monthly expansions, but would have some new cards beyond the starter set. I'm envisioning these being like the Khazad-dum expansion or something similar. This probably won't happen because I doubt it would make enough money to be justified. But assuming it did, my fellow co-op players, would you be interested in it? Could it have enough deck building potential to keep it interesting on just 3 sets?


"There is a fine line between neutral and amoral. In fact, there may be no line there at all."

--Count Dooku


#2 spalanzani

spalanzani

    Member

  • Members
  • 806 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 06:09 AM

It would be smashing to see this happen, yeah! There is a precedent with Rune Age and Arcana to have stand-alone deckbuilding games, so it's not entirely beyond the realms of possibility for them. It's even possible that they would use the same art, seeing as how all three of the Song of Ice and Fire games FFG produce share art to one extent or another. I suppose if the LCG, whether it ends up with a strong co-op/solo variant or not, uses the same card mechanics but in a PvP setting, we're unlikely to see the exact Gen-Con game reproduced in this way.

But saying for a moment that the LCG is PvP only, after I've got over my soul-crushing disappointment, I'd be hoping that the "other" games they said they would be producing back in the very first "we've got the licence!" announcement would turn out to be something along the lines of a co-op game, and for that I would like to see a progression as you've said, with the base game being focused on ANH, then perhaps with a Battle of Hoth scenario-type expansion, then maybe a Battle of Endor expansion, and perhaps to fill in the blanks we could get Cloud City and Jabba's Palace as well. Given the wealth of material from the EU for this period alone, it would be nice to see a few bits and pieces slipped in here and there, such as Dash Rendar into the Battle of Hoth one or whatever, but ultimately, it could be a nice little addition to have a sort of Heroes and Rogues expansion that gives us Karrde, Kyle Katarn, et al. So what, a base game and then five expansions? Well, that's just what Runebound offers us, which I know is a board game, but is meant to be stand-alone, after all...

I don't know whether I'm sticking my head above the parapet on this one, or if there are also other people who might actually support it as well, but I wouldn't be in any way miffed if they basically re-made the LotR game but with Star Wars art and flavour to facilitate this theoretical standalone co-op game. It'd cut down on an awful lot of development cost and such, and if they were to make use of the LCG art, even better!


www.spalanz.com - everything you never wanted to know about me, in one place.


#3 spirit

spirit

    Member

  • Members
  • 417 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 07:41 AM

I don't see why they couldn't do a stand alone card game. Or even a game like Elder Scroll and use dice for Force powers. So long as they could up the difficulty level a bit :) 



#4 booored

booored

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,997 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 08:44 PM

i see no evidence that it is going pvp... were are you guys all getting that?


"People should be less concerned about whether they are being insulted and more concerned if it is the truth"

#5 spirit

spirit

    Member

  • Members
  • 417 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 11:11 PM

There is nothing concrete that it IS going pvp it just seems very likely given what we DO know. The press release saying that it was going back into development was very careful not to say anything which is telling as surely if it was going to remain co-op they'd have said so. Also the latest images of the box seem to state that it's a 2 player game, no more no less. Now while this doesn't necessarily mean it's pvp, it does seem the most likely. Add to that the game description now reads 'a game of galactic conflict'.

            There is nothing concrete to suggest that it is going to PVP but it does seem likely. There's nothing to say it's not going to be co-op still either but the lack of any reference to it being a co-op game in the press release does seem telling. 



#6 spalanzani

spalanzani

    Member

  • Members
  • 806 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 06:54 AM

spirit said:

There is nothing concrete that it IS going pvp it just seems very likely given what we DO know. The press release saying that it was going back into development was very careful not to say anything which is telling as surely if it was going to remain co-op they'd have said so. Also the latest images of the box seem to state that it's a 2 player game, no more no less. Now while this doesn't necessarily mean it's pvp, it does seem the most likely. Add to that the game description now reads 'a game of galactic conflict'.

            There is nothing concrete to suggest that it is going to PVP but it does seem likely. There's nothing to say it's not going to be co-op still either but the lack of any reference to it being a co-op game in the press release does seem telling. 

There's also this on the products page, which talks about directing your favourite heroes and villains. Seems pretty conclusive, though I grant that they have not actually said the words "this game is now PvP".


www.spalanz.com - everything you never wanted to know about me, in one place.


#7 booored

booored

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,997 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 08:00 PM

There is no evidence at all it is going pvp. The fact that we may be able to play both factions isn't an indicator either. In fact when it was originally announced as a co-op I just assumed you would be able to play both factions AND be co-op.

This entire thing is such a beat yup.. you have people examining the same text on a word for word and basis, inferring meaning from all sorts of crap. What bull. Your just making stuff up. ... there is NO evidence that it is going pvp, in fact the one true fact we have EVER known is that it is co-op.. why the sudden assumption that it has changed.. especially when there is nothing that even hints at it changing. It is ridiculous.

It is FFGs fault, they really need to make a announcement to the community, as this just reaching epic proportions of stupid. With people just imaging all sorts of rubbish and claiming it as truth... the rumourmonger may kill this game b4 it even starts.


"People should be less concerned about whether they are being insulted and more concerned if it is the truth"

#8 spirit

spirit

    Member

  • Members
  • 417 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 09:46 PM

Hence one of my other thread titles. I don't think anyone is claiming it as truth but what else do we have at this point other than speculation? 



#9 Budgernaut

Budgernaut

    The Uncanny One

  • Members
  • 1,491 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 04:47 AM

 Okay, booored, I think I'm finally on board with what you saying. At first I wrote a long reply detailing all the evidence for co-op being taken out and I finished that message with this question: Why go through and remove all the references to a cooperative game if it was going to remain as a cooperative game? When I asked that question, I realized that there are two answers. The first is the one I've been assuming: since there is no longer a cooperative component to the game, all references to a co-op game had to be removed. But the second is the one I think you and some others have been interpreting: if the game adds a pvp element, it is no longer strictly cooperative, so they would want to de-emphasize that aspect and focus instead on the whole game. If this is true, we may yet see a game that ties in both. So in short, it took me a long time to understand where you were coming from, but I finally get it. We may not have seen the last of a Star Wars cooperative LCG.


"There is a fine line between neutral and amoral. In fact, there may be no line there at all."

--Count Dooku


#10 Grudunza

Grudunza

    Member

  • Members
  • 517 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 06:11 AM

Nothing that even hints at it changing?? That's ridiculous. We don't know for sure, of course, but I see several strong indications and evidence that supports that idea.

For one thing, just the announcement itself about the game being redesigned opens up that possibility. There was no indication that anything from the previous design was going to be maintained, and they indicated a free berth with their creative process.

Also, the box image used to show "1-4 players" and now shows "2 players," which would match all of the other FFG PvP LCGs. Does it mean anything for sure? No. But is it evidence to support the idea of a possible change to PvP? Absolutely. Same with the new description about playing as heroes and villains. It could mean you can play co-op as either side, but it also (and perhaps better) supports the idea of PvP.

 



#11 spalanzani

spalanzani

    Member

  • Members
  • 806 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 07:59 PM

booored said:

There is no evidence at all it is going pvp. The fact that we may be able to play both factions isn't an indicator either. In fact when it was originally announced as a co-op I just assumed you would be able to play both factions AND be co-op.

This entire thing is such a beat yup.. you have people examining the same text on a word for word and basis, inferring meaning from all sorts of crap. What bull. Your just making stuff up. ... there is NO evidence that it is going pvp, in fact the one true fact we have EVER known is that it is co-op.. why the sudden assumption that it has changed.. especially when there is nothing that even hints at it changing. It is ridiculous.

It is FFGs fault, they really need to make a announcement to the community, as this just reaching epic proportions of stupid. With people just imaging all sorts of rubbish and claiming it as truth... the rumourmonger may kill this game b4 it even starts.

It's an educated guess, actually. I'm still open to the possibility of it being all things to all men, but the fact that the wording on the box has changed from the same as for their other co-op LCG to the same as all of their PvP LCGs seems pretty telling, to me. That it has been put back into development leads me to believe that whatever we knew about this game is useless, because that game isn't going to happen. So really, all we have to go on are the Feb 6th announcement, the product description page, and the box cover from the NY Toy Fair that may or may not even turn out to be correct.

I'm not trying to rumourmonger, I'm just expressing an opinion that, I think, is drawn logically from what I've seen. It may well turn out to be a co-operative game that can only be played by 2 players, no more and no less.

So anyway, booored, do you actually have any ideas on this topic thread? All I seem to read from you is negativity, directed one way or another - it'd be nice to see what else there is to you.


www.spalanz.com - everything you never wanted to know about me, in one place.


#12 booored

booored

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,997 posts

Posted 10 March 2012 - 12:57 AM

Grudunza said:

Also, the box image used to show "1-4 players" and now shows "2 players," which would match all of the other FFG PvP LCGs. Does it mean anything for sure?

 

what image are you talking about?


"People should be less concerned about whether they are being insulted and more concerned if it is the truth"

#13 Grudunza

Grudunza

    Member

  • Members
  • 517 posts

Posted 10 March 2012 - 04:02 AM

booored said:

 

Grudunza said:

Also, the box image used to show "1-4 players" and now shows "2 players," which would match all of the other FFG PvP LCGs. Does it mean anything for sure?

 

 

what image are you talking about?

 

 

Exhibit A, from the NY Toy Fair in January (after the announcement of the game being changed)...



#14 RGun

RGun

    Member

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 10 March 2012 - 05:31 AM

I've not played any of the FF PvP LCGs, but I have played a lot of the LoftR cooperative LCG and it seems to be that the effort to design and play test a cooperative LCG would be a lot more than for a PvP.  In a cooperative LCG a lot of design effort and creativity needs to go into designing the encounter cards as well as the player cards.  Intuitively to me designing fun and balanced AI run scenarios is quite challenging.  Also, play testing a cooperative game for 1-4 players would be a lot more effort than play testing a PvP for strictly 2 players.  You need to test with 1, 2,3 and 4 players to make sure it is balanced for all numbers.

So this is a complete guess, but I wonder if they started working on the first expansion cycle for Star Wars co-op game and realized it was going to take too much effort to come up with a regular release of expansion packs.  They also have 2 expansion cycles under their belt for the LoftR LCG and may have realized the effort to design these is more than originally thought.  I expect the market size for cooperative LCGs is smaller than for competitive LCGs and while there is a strong following for cooperative LCGs they are worried that launching a star wars one will impact their sales of LoftR LCG.  They may have decided to keep their cooperative LCG focus on LoftR rather than dilute their efforts as well as the player base across two cooperative LCGs.  At the end of the day FF wants to make a quality product that also makes a nice profit.



#15 booored

booored

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,997 posts

Posted 10 March 2012 - 03:20 PM

that is a interesting photo to be sure... .. . .


"People should be less concerned about whether they are being insulted and more concerned if it is the truth"

#16 X7XsnowmanX7X

X7XsnowmanX7X

    Member

  • Members
  • 33 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 05:31 PM

Anyone else notice the box in that picture.  

With most board game boxes (actually all board games i've encountered, there may be some made this way, but i'm not sure), the box top fits around the bottom portion of the box, in this picture however, the box top is fitting into the bottom part of the box.  

Just something weird that I noticed.  



#17 Budgernaut

Budgernaut

    The Uncanny One

  • Members
  • 1,491 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 06:19 PM

X7XsnowmanX7X said:

Anyone else notice the box in that picture.  

With most board game boxes (actually all board games i've encountered, there may be some made this way, but i'm not sure), the box top fits around the bottom portion of the box, in this picture however, the box top is fitting into the bottom part of the box.  

Just something weird that I noticed.  

Good eye. I hadn't noticed that before. It's weird, though. The bottom of the box doesn't appear to have that border. It's almost like the lid doesn't actually come off but folds open like a doughnut box instead.


"There is a fine line between neutral and amoral. In fact, there may be no line there at all."

--Count Dooku


#18 jhaelen

jhaelen

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,044 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 08:47 PM

X7XsnowmanX7X said:

in this picture however, the box top is fitting into the bottom part of the box.  
Not really. The picture shows the bottom of the box.



#19 Budgernaut

Budgernaut

    The Uncanny One

  • Members
  • 1,491 posts

Posted 20 March 2012 - 06:45 AM

jhaelen said:

X7XsnowmanX7X said:

in this picture however, the box top is fitting into the bottom part of the box.  

Not really. The picture shows the bottom of the box.

 

What you say is certainly the most parsimonious explanation. Most boxes have a product description with game pictures on the bottom of the box, but seeing as this game doesn't have a game description yet, it makes sense that they would just print the front art on the bottom of the box. It sure beats having a blank box bottom. Still, I think it would be cool for them to do a doughnut box style game box . . .


"There is a fine line between neutral and amoral. In fact, there may be no line there at all."

--Count Dooku


#20 Guest_Mar1nePlr_*

Guest_Mar1nePlr_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 April 2012 - 01:12 PM

Well, the description says 1-4 plrs, so I believe it will be that. I wouldn´t want it any other way anyway, since I´m mostly playing on my own. I fancy Star Wars a bit, so I will buy it the day it comes out, (and if it´s not possible to play alone I won´t get it) . And I´m sure it will come with a lot of cool expansions afterwards too.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS