Jump to content

jhaelen

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    2,191

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by jhaelen

  2. Posted

    On 8/15/2018 at 9:46 AM, Ooipooi said:

    Sure, I have have complete collections of Eldritch Horror, Arkham Horror (2nd Edition) and Mansions Of Madness (1st Edition), and all games I played have been "unique", but it comes at a cost: setup time and component organisation. The more expansions there are, the harder it gets to keep everything sorted.

    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.

    Ooipooi and Raahk reacted to this

  3. Posted

    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.

    Ignithas and StupidPanic reacted to this

  5. Posted

    On 8/15/2018 at 11:04 PM, Duciris said:

    I like the idea of this game being unique rather than a traditionally scripted legacy game because it allows me to play my copy, and then play a different copy with friends and have a completely different experience.  That is not the case with Pandemic Legacy.

    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.

  6. Posted

    On 8/13/2018 at 7:13 PM, Duciris said:

    After a few playthroughs of Diablo III, the randomization of the dungeons didn't do it for me anymore.  I found games that randomized their boards a little too inconsistent to be appealing.  I passed on No Man's Sky because of this lack of appeal (I know, what a shame).

    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.

  8. Posted

    16 hours ago, mulletcheese said:

    Licensing netrunner to FFG would have hurt magic sales, continuing the game would get some of that money back

    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.

  9. Posted

    17 hours ago, Hordeoverseer said:

    I think it's very unlikely WoTC will make another CCG. 

    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.

  11. Posted

    On 6/11/2018 at 6:15 PM, Grimwalker said:

    If FFG releases something new, it’s because they think they can either make improvements and/or get the attention of new users.

    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.

  12. Posted

    10 hours ago, Mep said:

    Netrunner is sold out almost everywhere right now. It would seem as soon as everyone heard this was the last chance to buy stuff, everyone bought the store out. It's a great game and people want to make sure they have it for themselves as this is the last chance. R&R is going to be hard to get a hold of.

    Yup, that's very likely what's happening.

  14. Posted

    On 6/13/2018 at 12:59 AM, asgardianphil said:

    I heard wizards of the coast are to release some new settings for D&D 5th edition. For example Spell ammer... it's not too much of a stretch to think they might want to release a netrunner campaign setting.?

    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.

    twincast reacted to this

  16. Posted

    On 6/10/2018 at 9:11 PM, mulletcheese said:

    Don't give up hope.

    WotC hired the lead designer of netrunner (lukas) before they took back the netrunner licence. They own the CCG era cards and the game mechanics.

    I would not be surprised if netrunner, minus the android, continued with WotC.

    Would you continue to play it WotC released new corps/runners that were compatible with android netrunner?

    I would be surprised. If WotC released an updated version of Netrunner, they'd never license FFG's Android setting. And more importantly: They'd turn it (back) into a CCG.

    But they won't since it might potentially reduce sales for M:tG.

  18. Posted

    On 6/8/2018 at 11:20 PM, Randito said:

    My Darth Maul underwear, BB-8 electric toothbrush and Boba Fett trashcan disagree.  I don't think Star Wars would "revoke" a license from anything.  

    I don't think any of these are FFG products.

    Also, who said something about revoking? I've been talking about the end of the current licensing contract. When that time comes, Disney may adjust their licensing terms resulting in FFG no longer being able to support their product lines.

    Then, either another board game company will bite and agree with the new, harsher terms, hoping they'll still be able to make a profit, or there'll be a period without any new 'Star Wars' board games. It's also possible (or even likely) that some board game company that has been acquired by Disney will take over.

  19. Posted

    On 6/9/2018 at 11:40 AM, Mixxathon said:

    How is this even an issue? NR has always been my favorite game since it was released bu WoTC. A:NR had a fantastic run and we have gotten cards that will last for a lifetime. The game is not dead, we still have our collections. I will continue to play this and so will my friends. Why do some people act like this game is dead just because they are no longer able to pay more money for it? Is that the main reason for playing?

    Now I can treat this as - finally -  a completed game. I will build 20 decks that are ready to go and that will be it - just grab a couple and play.

    Well, Netrunner was called a 'Living' Card Game for a reason. If no new products will ever be released, it's certainly no longer 'living'. I'd call it 'undead', but 'dead' seems more appropriate since FFG won't even be allowed to reprint any of the existing releases, if I'm not mistaken.

    Also, I've seen this argument about a million times, and the same thing happens every time: People move on. There may be a small hardcore fan base that continues to play the game and thanks to the internet they'll even be able to organize and continue to meet if only virtually. But without new releases, the meta is completely static, and eventually there's nothing left to discuss or explore about the game. It's hard to stay invested in such a game.

    As sad as it may be, there will always be other games.

     

  20. Posted

    1 hour ago, Marinealver said:

    I blame this game

    maxresdefault.jpg

    Looks like this is the end of the LCG :( Goodbye GoT, AH, LotR, L5R and everyone else.

    Nonsense!

    I strongly doubt there's anyone to blame but WotC. And it's a shame, too, because I consider it extremely unlikely they'll ever do anything again with the Netrunner license.

    P.S.: I was a bit surprised that the situation with Legend of the Five Rings isn't the same. I hadn't noticed that FFG didn't just license the setting from AEG but actually bought the IP.

    Star Wars, though... That license can't be cheap. Disney could well decide to pull the plug as soon as the current contract with FFG runs out.

  23. Posted

    Thanks for the clarification.

    Of course I know that the number of cards available for a faction don't necessarily indicate an advantage since it's the quality of the cards, that counts. I suppose it's a mild case of OCD; it already slightly irritates me that there isn't an equal number of identities of each faction.

    I think, I need to get a couple of plays with the cards I already have under my belt before I decide if I really want or need the cards in TD (but the Corp cards really look tasty!).

  24. Posted

    I wasn't all that interested in getting it, since most reviewers agreed the campaign didn't really play well.

    I also kind of dislike that it only has cards for four of the seven factions.

    However, it just dawned on me that it appears to have been granted the same status as the deluxe sets, i.e. the cards will always be (tournament) legal.
    Is that correct?

    That would change things a bit...

  25. Posted

    On 2/2/2018 at 4:28 PM, Hordeoverseer said:

    Most buying guides online will suggest you buy from the Genesis and Spin cycle. Clearly, those need to be updated. There's a good current one on boardgamegeek but will need an account to even view it.

    I think you are referring to the Buying Guide from 'Shipment from Chilo', right?

    It (currently) recommends the following products as 'First Purchases':

    • Terminal Directive Campaign Expansion
    • Escalation (from 'Flashpoint', the 6th Cycle)
    • Old Hollywood (from 'SanSan', the 4th Cycle) or 23 Seconds (from 'Flashpoint', the 6th Cycle)
    • Earth’s Scion (from 'Red Sands', the 7th Cycle) or The Valley (from 'SanSan', the 4th Cycle)

    (in addition to a [Revised] Core Set)

×
×
  • Create New...