Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jhaelen

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Recent Profile Visitors

1,093 profile views
  1. Ah! You've beaten me to it. That's exactly the point I was going to make: A board game with a very high degree of customization will typically result in a very high effort to set up the game. It's the #1 complaint about an otherwise extremely well received board game like 'Gloomhaven': You get a ton of components, but setting up a mission takes a lot of time. I've recently acquired a copy of 'Magic Realm' and when setting it up for the first time it took me well over an hour. Imho, this golden oldie (first released in 1979) is the ultimate board game sandbox, but there's a high price to pay: the rules are incredibly complex and setup is quite convoluted. You also have to learn how to play each of the very different characters with some success. All of this requires a lot of effort and dedication from the players. With 'Discover' you could achieve something similar with a minimum of effort. Theoretically, FGG could even set up the decks, etc. so all you have to do would be to get everything out of the box and start playing. Of course you're paying a different price here: For a different play experience you need to buy a new copy of the game... Otherwise, I agree, it's a lot like FFG released a new edition of 'Arkham Horror' with all expansions included right from the start, except every player just gets a random subset. Personally, I don't mind a long setup time and if it's a game I expect to play a lot, I also don't mind buying expansions, since the total cost is spread out over a long period of time. But I can definitely see a market for games like 'Discover'. I do wonder about the amount of playtesting that went into 'Discover': One advantage of the expansion approach is that you can react to design flaws in the base game and attempt to fix them over time. For 'Discover' this isn't possible, yet the amount of material that has been created and has to be playtested is just as large (if not larger). I consider that a bigger challenge than producing a 'unique' game.
  2. This reminds me of the game '504'. For those who don't know it: It's named '504' because the game consists of nine rule modules that can be combined in different ways to create a new game. So, a game of '987' is slightly different from a game of '789' or '986', while a game of '123' would be very different. It presented an interesting problem for reviewers, because how do rate such a game? You can rate a specific combination of modules you played, but the game as a whole? You would have to play a lot of different combinations to get a good idea of how a certain combination of modules might play without actually trying it. For 'Discover' I'd actually think, it's not as difficult to compare gameplay. At least everyone's playing with the same ruleset! And if the designers have done a good job, I think the chance to get a 'dud' that isn't fun to play should be really low. Conversely, it should be extremely rare to get a copy that for some reason is significantly more fun than the 'average'. Personal preferences would very likely have a larger impact on a reviewers rating, as the discussion over 'desert' vs. 'arctic' in a different thread already illustrated.
  3. Yup, that's what I was thinking, as well. Currently, in our board game group typically only one player owns a particular game and everyone's relying on that player to bring the game when we want to play it. With 'Discover' this might be different. I'm still unsure how different an experience playing with a different copy of 'Discover' is going to be, though. I can't imagine one player buying two copies of it, though. More likely I could see increased trading of copies between players.
  4. Well, for me, the main incentive to keep playing Diablo III was initially to play all the different characters. I first played the campaign with every available class and then pretty much stopped except for the occasional multi-player session with friends. Then I discovered season play (in adventure mode, i.e. play random quests) and again played one season with each of the classes. Now, I'm pretty much done with the game, but given that I spent hundreds of hours playing, it was still an excellent investment. In solo/co-op (adventure) board games it's actually similar: I really enjoy trying out all of the different combinations of characters. This approach even works for games like 'Race for the Galaxy': Here I set myself the goal to play with each of the starting worlds against each other starting world (controlled by the robot). So, for 'Discover' replayability would largely depend on how different the characters are and what the impact of their abilities on the game is.
  5. jhaelen


    Well, plenty of more casually oriented players have been asking for this kind of thing. Sounds like fun.
  6. Not necessarily. If there's no Netrunner, the Ex-Netrunner players may decide to play MtG instead. It's definitely what WotC would prefer, imho.
  7. I agree. Why would they? There'd have to come a zombie apocalypse or judgement day before they'd consider to stop releasing M:tG. And from a business standpoint there's absolutely no reason to release a second CCG since that would just cut into their M:tG sales.
  8. Hmm. The German version ("Herrschaft und Traum") is still listed in several online game shops. The German Asmodee website still says 'Release Date 06/2018'. I'm pretty sure it's already been translated and printed. It would be really strange not to release it at this point.
  9. Actually, I'm quite sure the no.1 reason is floundering sales. It's a well known fact that sales of board game expansions are always declining. I.e. the first expansion will sell less than the base game, the second expansion will sell less than the first expansion, etc. At some point sales are so low that the product line needs to get rebooted. Then the whole process starts anew. And this isn't limited to board games. It's true for every product line, no matter the branch. If you want to be 'safe' from a new and improved product superseding an older version of a product you already bought, you have to make sure to never, ever buy any product.
  10. Yup, that's very likely what's happening.
  11. I had no problem getting them in Germany. But I got the German version and actually ordered them before the end of Netrunner had been announced...
  12. It is a stretch. Trust me on this. They haven't even officially used the M:tG setting for D&D in all those decades. (Although they released a few 'Plane Shift' articles unofficially, which are a pretty cool starting point.) In fact, there is no Netrunner setting. The original CCG used 'Cyberpunk 2020' from Talsorian games as a setting and FFG used their 'Android' setting.
  13. Indeed. Damon works as a Freelancer now. And Lukas, who _did_ join WotC works on other projects.
  • Create New...