deadeyedick wrote:
Overall I appreciate the review - however, I would like to argue/counter some of the points you made.
1) You made it sound as if the monster system was "uber complex." My group just did not feel that way in the slightest. The symbols are very intuitive (brains equal sanity, hearts = stamina) and the movememt and combat system is very elegant. In fact, for movement, you don't have to know anything. You just look at the mythos card, if the symbol there and on the monster matches, you move them white or black. The abilities require a bit more But I don't think it requires that EVERYONE master that aspect but rather learn it as they need to. I was the only one who had read the rules (twice) before play, and we didn't have to look up info on monsters & their movement more than twice (colors = what sort of movement). More to the point, we all had the concept down after 4 or 5 turns (and not a number of games like you suggest). Of course, mileage will always vary on people's uptake of rules - but here I think it is beneficial to have one person who is very familiar with the rules who can direct the monsters and explain their abilities pre-combat, but even with that, I can't consider it "uber complex." My guess is you guys were being overloaded with rules and concepts which added to the feeling - this doesn't have to be so, though.
2) Co-op. Here I find just as much if not more a feeling of "All-together-know" than I do in SoC (haven't played HoH). We've had many games where another player will cover the arse of another whose trying to get to the asylum or hospital (by taking out a monster along the path that the injured player couldn't handle without dying). And it's important for those who can focus on closing gates to do it (and the appropriate ones at that), while the others stock up on clue tokens/items/healing or off fighting monsters to prevent the Terror Track from running off the table. The game has a lot of choice in it (sometimes SoC seems like many of the choices are very evident and hence not much of a choice), and it is important for the investigators to work together to achieve certain results.
Again, these were just my two contentious points from my own experience. As always, mileage varies!
Well it's ok to have varying opinions. I do see your points but I stand by my review.
1. The monster system is complex compared to just about every other monster game on my shelf. Much more so than zombies, house on the hill, talisman, return of the heroes, dragonstrike, runebound, and the 50 other games I can't think of at the moment. I believe the system can be both elegant and complex. It is very elegant and adds to theme. I'm just saying attempting to teach someone how combat works in a game of house on the hill is much much more easier than Arkham. Also for what it tries to accomplish I'm not sure all that is needed. For instance it took us awhile to figure out the blue sanity markers because the blue circles do NOT look like the tokens used to mark sanity (beyond the color) also why couldn't they have just marked the kind of movement the monster makes on the card rather than color code and cross reference? The game really does need a 1 page reference sheet at least for the new players. I've got 6 games under my belt and understand the aspects pretty well but my review is for those that may be thinking of buying the game and while I don't want to tell anyone not to buy it (I gave it an 8) there are some that would say (and already have said in their reviews) that the game is needlessly complex. That issue for the beer and pretzel gamer I think needed to be addressed.
2. Your second point I think is linked to the number of players that play the game. My review was based on 4 players. In an 8 player game the threat level of the game does not increase so I'm guessing there is lots more choices. I've played 3 games now with 3 or less players and I can tell you there isn't much choice at all. We ALL must seal portals. We did decided to fight the GOO in the last game and spent 3 rounds doing what we wanted just to fight it. Sure the game has tons of options but you never get a break, at least in games where there are few players. My review says that there are MORE choices than both betrayal and shadows BUT less time to do what you want. Let's look at it. In any game of Arkham 2 portals are opened by the one of round 1 with 2 monsters. This means in a 8 player game at least 2 of the players are shutting portals and maybe 1 or 2 players are attacking monsters. This leaves 4-5 investigators doing what they want. In a game of 3 or less investigators as soon as you seal a portal another opens. This dictates your actions greatly. So much in fact we use a "house rule" where we don't open a gate to start the game in a 3 or less player game. This gives us at least 1-2 rounds of freedom before we have to start closing gates. Also you mention "all together know" in Arkham and I think here you are refering to strategy. There is a huge amount of dice rolling in this game. There is a high failure rate. In fact 66.6% of the time when you throw the dice you are going to fail. This is why I gave the strategic edge to Camelot in my review. Camelot simply doesn't have the luck factor of Arkham. If I'm going on the black knight quest and fearful that a black knight card may pop up other characters can choose to progress evil in different ways. The luck factor is WAY WAY lower in Camelot than Arkham. Just the simple fact that the same goo in a two player game may have 20 hit points and in an 8 player games would have 80. It creates a game really hugely centered on luck. It's why clue tokens were invented because the game can bone you badly and destroy a good strategy simply because of luck.
That said these are my only two points with the game. If you accept the luck factor and are patient enough to learn all the rules it's a very very wonderful game.
Posted Sun Jul 3, 2005 8:44 pm
