Matthew M
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
flag msg tools
admin
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
badge
513ers Assemble!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
WhiteKong wrote:

I disagree that all co-op games are necessarily scripted. I thought Pandemic would be something along the lines of "Shadows over Camelot" except with diseases. Even without a traitor, Shadows is a way better game. Pandemic left me bored to tears.
It's possible that you just don't like co-op games. Shadows only poses as a co-op, but there are rules to prevent full co-operation, both in the form of limitations on communication and in the traitor.

-MMM
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Los Gatos
CA
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
Octavian wrote:
It's possible that you just don't like co-op games.
For the sake of record, I'm mostly convinced that I don't like co-op games. I don't know. It is possible that there are good co-op games out there but I haven't seen much sign of them.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Cheng
United States
Catonsville
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
WhiteKong wrote:
Several people have mentioned that the pawns/cubes/blocks are too big for the cities. That may be the case, but it seems more likely that the board is completely wrong. Why just a tiny little circle to stick as many as three cubes...
Clearly there should be a dexterity variant added to Pandemic: everytime a city receives a disease cube, it should be stacked on top of the previous one. Whenever a stack collapses, it is to be treated as an outbreak. I bet that will make the game much more exciting
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
E J
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jody wrote:
It's always good to hear from both sides of the fence.
Even when they are wrong and in the minority.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob D
United States
Largo
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
Microbadge: Phish fanMicrobadge: I'm a Cat Guy!Microbadge: Carpe Diem fanMicrobadge: Wingspan fanMicrobadge: Memoir '44 fan
Well, the good news is this should be an easy one to trade away.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Long
United States
State College
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Fly Eagles Fly!
badge
The Cthulhu player, not the Football player.
Avatar
Microbadge: Cthulhu For President!Microbadge: Tichu fanMicrobadge: Speed Circuit fanMicrobadge: Are the cones a metaphor? Well, yes and no.Microbadge: Coin collector
clearclaw wrote:
It is possible that there are good co-op games out there but I haven't seen much sign of them.
Arkham Horror is my clear favorite. Its the very definition of Ameritrash: tons of bits, dice festival, and dripping with theme. But besides all that I think its a great co-op game. I would definitely try that one out before giving up on the genre.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Larry Welborn
United States
Anderson
South Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Clemson Tigers National Champions 2018, 2016, 1981
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Brad,

Thanks for the review. Although I disagree with much of it, opinions differ, and I think you stated your position well.

The only quibble I have is that you played 5 or 6 times but don't feel you got your money's worth. Usually, if I get that many plays out of a game, I consider it a good value, even if I ultimately sell or trade it.


edit: fixed a typo.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Pokrzywa
United States
Circle Pines
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sarge77 wrote:
jody wrote:
It's always good to hear from both sides of the fence.
Even when they are wrong and in the minority.
Opinions are neither right or wrong but I am certainly glad to see someone that posts their real opinion of this game. I agree entirely that the game felt very scripted and mostly played itself. It is not that I dislike co-ops because I like Betrayal, LNoE and SoC. The epidemic mechanic is predictable just like the OP stated. As far as being in the minority, I think it is simply a matter of time before that changes. The more people play they will realize how pre-calculated the turns of this game really are.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim K.
United States
Spokane
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
Thanks for your alternate viewpoint. While I appreciate your opinion I think most of your arguments are...less than strong.

I apologize in advance if this comes off as an attack by a fanboy. Granted, I own and enjoy the game, but what caused me to add my $0.02 to this discussion was not that I felt that you attacked a game that I like. It is because I don't think you have made a cogent argument for why the game is not good.

WhiteKong wrote:
The theme is unique, but not particularly well executed. I like a little bit of theme in my games. The diseases in this game don't have names. Oh no! The scourge of the "yellow" disease. I hope that "blue" doesn't have another outbreak!. Nothing like making everything a generic colored cube to suck the life right out of the game. It becomes a mechanical excercise of removing and replacing various cube colors. It feels more like a board game version of the Bust-A-Move video game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bust-A-Move).
IMO the theme is executed brilliantly.

You claim that "it becomes a mechanical exercise of removing and replacing various cube colors". That is not the game, that is something that is done to enable you to play the game. Yes, it's mechanical to put down a cube and to pick up a cube, but the game mechanics that drive that action are very well done theme-wise.

The virii (aka colored cubes) spread in a way that is realistic and that presents a tense set of options for the players trying to keep them from spreading. On each player's turn more infections occur and, due to the brilliant mechanic of intensification that happens as a result of epidemics, often in cities where you would least likely want that to occur. Players constantly have to be vigilant about keeping things calm in certain areas. Add to that the fact that the epidemic causes a new outbreak somewhere else on the board and you've got a fine pandemic theme of trying to treat disease in one part of the world while things start popping up elsewhere when you have scant resources to deal with all of them.

If I were to compare the actual gameplay to a trivial game it would be Whack-A-Mole, not Bust a Move.

Quote:
The epidemic cards just mechanically list what you're supposed to do. There is no little story to go with them. It's just that when an Epidemic comes up, instead of adding a couple of cubes, you add a lot more cubes and shuffle some cards. There could have been so much more done with the theme, but it really isn't there. I can give high marks for the uniqueness of the theme, but low marks for poor execution. "C-"
Again, these actions are not the game but a description of what is necessary to be done to pieces on the board in order to play the game.

The epidemic cards cause semi-regular chaos by intensifying existing areas of trouble and by adding a new area of trouble to the board.

Just as in a real life pandemic, diseases will explode in certain regions and the healers will be forced to deal with difficult choices when multiple areas across the globe and suffering from outbreaks.

I appreciate your opinion but I think your grade for execution of theme is off base.

Quote:
This game is a series of obvious choices punctuated by bits of uncontrolled chaos, followed by more obvious choices. Unfortunately in this game, everything is known at the start. There is one infection card per city on the board. The color of the city on the board is the same color that the infection will be. There is one card in the player deck for each city. That means 12 cards per disease. You need five cards of one color (disease) to be able to cure it. So, you realize early on that using a ton of the same color card to move around lowers your chances of finding that cure - so don't do that.
Right. Don't do that. Except that you are compelled to do just that in order to prevent outbreaks from occurring!!! This is what creates delicious tension in the game. "Gee, I'd love to sit on this pile of cards for the cure for Asia but the s*** is hitting the fan all over there and the game will be over quickly if I don't do something about it!"

Quote:
Also, the way the epidemics work is easy, too. You shuffle all of the cities that have already been infected back to the top of the infection deck. So guess what - you know where all the infections are going to happen. Just park your guys in those areas and cure away. There isn't any point to going into a location where the diseases haven't popped up yet, since the epidemic will ensure that the same areas get infected over and over. It does make the game more difficult, but it makes it extremely predictable.
I believe this has been pointed out already but the first item of business on the epidemic cards is to cause a new, random outbreak of a disease somewhere on the board. It could be anywhere on the board and not just in the area you happen to be parked. It is in no way predictable. One game you could get lucky as things are relatively contained to one or two areas of the board, another game could go nuts with outbreaks occurring in multiple places a good distance apart.

Quote:
Ultimately, I have a feeling (and so did those that I played with) that the choices we made during the game had very little to do with the outcome. If the deck is stacked in a certain way, it's going to be tough to win - i.e. all the red infection cards are toward the top, and all the red cure cards are toward the bottom. If the deck is stacked in a more even way, it will be quite easy. But there is always a "best course of action", meaning the game kind of plays itself.
Right, not like Puerto Rico which you rate a 10
As for the cards coming up differently each game, that is what makes each game a little different and what provides replay value. Some games you can get lucky, others you don't. And if you feel like you've somehow solved the game go ahead and add more epidemic cards to the game and then see how well your program works.

I agree that you can derive an optimal set of play actions with which to play each game and that the only variety will be the stacking of the deck. My problem with this argument against this game is that this is a feature of practically every game out there. I'm sure Race for the Galaxy has an optimal program you can run to play the game but what keeps people coming back is the combination of things/cards that occur each game and make each game different (granted, the breadth of possibilities is way larger in that game than in Pandemic).

Quote:
Sure, the players need to interact with one another, but everyone always says the same thing... "Hmmm. Looks like there are a lot of black cubes out there. Guess I should take care of that," or how about, "Hey, I have four red cards. Does anyone have a fifth that they could get to me before next turn?"
Don't most games boil down to the same set of actions over and over again? You make the gameplay sound like it is filled with obvious choices and while some games or turns can happen that way it is more often filled with difficult choices to be made given a shortage of resources to do everything you would like to do. That is where the entertainment lies in this game (like most co-op games) and it is something you've completely failed to mention in your review.

Quote:
The various roles that people take make it even more obvious what each player's choices should be. If you're the medic, you probably shouldn't be building research stations. If your the dispatcher, you probably shouldn't be out curing diseases. If you're the researcher, you should probably stick pretty close to the scientist. And if you're the scientist, you probably shouldn't spend a bunch of cards.
Again, ideally each player has a role with a specialty that they would love to sit and concentrate on for the entire game but each player is all but required to go do things they would rather not in order to prevent losing the game.

Quote:
The decisions really come down to this - Should I cure the disease in Karachi, or in Tehran? Should I keep collecting Blue cards, or Red cards?
And in Medici (which you rate an 8) the choice on every turn is bid or don't bid. Or maybe it's the theme that grabs you in that game(?)

Quote:
And you know what? Whatever decision you make early doesn't matter, because you have no idea what infections or good cards are coming up next. After you get your first epidemic, your decisions are obvious because you know EXACTLY which infections are coming up next. Only the order of infection changes.
This paragraph contradicts itself. Either we have no idea or we know exactly, it can't be both!!
(Edit: I misunderstood the original intention and this is not necessarily a contradiction, however, I still don't understand the complaint about not knowing what cards are coming and my next statement is still true).

Knowing where infections are going to recur does not make this game one bit easier.

Quote:
With four players, the game almost plays itself. Everyone has a role, and it's obvious from turn one what they should be doing. With only two players, the choices are slightly more varied, but the cures are easier to get since the cards aren't divided up among four people - only two.

I can't say the word "mechanical" enough times in this review. The gameplay feels like a series of mechanics, rather than a game. The gameplay gets a big ole "F".
While I do agree that actual gameplay can be a bit mechanical the entire point of the game is trying to do the best you can given a tense situation (and if it's not tense enough for you the game can be ratcheted up by adding more epidemic cards to the deck). Most co-op games have a kind of program that needs to be executed in order to play/win the game but they all use the same mechanism to produce the entertainment which is that you always have difficult choices to make and you can't do everything you would like to. Replay value comes from some randomizer (like a deck of cards) that produces a different game each time.

Parting Shot:
I'd love to hear why you think Balloon Cup warrants a rating of 8!!

[Edit] Epilogue
WhiteKong wrote:
I don't need a ton of theme in all the games I play. If there is an outstanding mechanic, it could be an abstract. If the mechanics are lacking, it really needs some theme. Take Last Night on Earth. Lackluster mechanics. You pretty much stand aruond and draw cards hoping that the right ones will come up. Sound familiar Pandemic fans? The difference is that it is dripping with theme. It makes me overlook what's under the hood. Complaining about Last Night On Earth having poor mechanics is like complaining that your Ferrari gets poor gas mileage..... It's a Ferrari - and you care about gas mileage?
Fair enough. I'm still going to razz you about Balloon Cup
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Artur
Germany
49074 Osnabrück
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
EvilTimmy wrote:

Quote:
And you know what? Whatever decision you make early doesn't matter, because you have no idea what infections or good cards are coming up next. After you get your first epidemic, your decisions are obvious because you know EXACTLY which infections are coming up next. Only the order of infection changes.
This paragraph contradicts itself. Either we have no idea or we know exactly, it can't be both!!

Well, if you had read the sentence carefully you would have known that there is no contradiction:

Both statements are based on different points of time.


I also think that argueing with a users rating is neither really fair nor meaningful in this case.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neil Molyneaux
United States
Cleveland Heights
Ohio
flag msg tools
The comic character Nexus, by Mike Baron and Steve Rude
badge
The comic character Nexus, by Mike Baron and Steve Rude
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
generalpf wrote:
Larry Welborn wrote:
The only quibble I have is that you played 5 or 6 times but don't feel you got your money's worth. Usually, if I get that many plays out of a game, I consider it a good value, even if I ultimately sell or trade it.
Ultimately that depends on whether or not you enjoyed those plays.
True...but if I really dislike a game...I won't play it 5 or 6 times. Usually it's pretty apparent what my feelings on a game are after 1-3 plays. Case in point: Intrigue. I've played it once. And it's not for me. It would require someone paying me money to play it again.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Carter
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
Microbadge: BGG is a communityMicrobadge: Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! - Russia 1941-1942 fan
Wow Tim...very nice. I myself am estatic it will be on my table right when I get home; so excited to play cool
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
♫ Eric Herman ♫
United States
West Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
I like elephants. I like how they swing through trees.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
EvilTimmy wrote:
Parting Shot:
I'd love to hear why you think Balloon Cup warrants a rating of 8!!
Hey now... I think Balloon Cup is a lot more interesting in almost every respect than Lost Cities, which would probably be its closest cousin... so I would question why he rated Lost Cities so highly. But that's another argument for another forum (or two).

(Yes, I know that some games of Balloon Cup can be broken... It loses points from me for that.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim K.
United States
Spokane
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
Johnny_Bravo wrote:
EvilTimmy wrote:

Quote:
And you know what? Whatever decision you make early doesn't matter, because you have no idea what infections or good cards are coming up next. After you get your first epidemic, your decisions are obvious because you know EXACTLY which infections are coming up next. Only the order of infection changes.
This paragraph contradicts itself. Either we have no idea or we know exactly, it can't be both!!
Well, if you had read the sentence carefully you would have known that there is no contradiction:

Both statements are based on different points of time.
Thanks. I did miss the timing nuance.

I guess my issue with it is that there is a complaint about not knowing anything and then once [presumably] things are revealed there is a complaint that you know everything. Sooooo....would it be better for them if they knew just the right amount of information somewhere between the two? Which bowl of porridge is the correct temperature?

Quote:
I also think that argueing with a users rating is neither really fair nor meaningful in this case.
I think it's entirely fair because it can indicate that a reviewer's reaction to games can be entirely inconsistent and quite subjective. So rather than state absolutely that a game is deficient in some way they should just state that it didn't work for them.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim K.
United States
Spokane
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
generalpf wrote:
EvilTimmy wrote:
I think it's entirely fair because it can indicate that a reviewer's reaction to games can be entirely inconsistent and quite subjective. So rather than state absolutely that a game is deficient in some way they should just state that it didn't work for them.
That's implied when you read a REVIEW.
You're absolutely right. Maybe I *did* take it personally blush
Oh well, I hope my counterpoint is useful in some regard.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Larry Welborn
United States
Anderson
South Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Clemson Tigers National Champions 2018, 2016, 1981
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
WhiteKong wrote:

I know that you can lose by running out of cards. I know there is a hand limit. The only time you should ever spend a card for any reason is when you are at your hand limit. You should never run out of cards. I can't understand how you can run out of cards in this game unless you're just trying to see how many you can spend before you lose. If you're running out of cards, you are either not trying to win, or you don't know how. This game is a bit like playing "Phase 10". You min/max your odds at getting a set until you're forced to play something. I played two two-player, two three-player, and one four-player game. Might have been plus or minus a game in there somewhere. I lost one of the three-player games. The reason we lost was that 9 of the first 13 infection cards were blue. We had an outbreak, then a chain reaction outbreak, and it was over. The loss took under 10 minutes. The five wins took about 15 minutes each. You should know that I didn't set out to dislike this game. I bought it purely based on goood reviews, and was excited to get into it. For my group, it really didn't work.

With all that said, it might still be an enjoyable game experience for your group. I think that enjoying the experience is a matter of taste, and there are a lot of people whose tastes differ.
I don't see how you are getting into position to limit the three cube cities without playing cards. From Atlanta, several places require at least two turns to reach if you aren't flying. And that assumes you don't stop along the way to treat a disease. By that time, in a 4 player game there is a minimum of 8 infection cards out for the first player and 14 out when the last player starts his second turn. Plus there is at least one epidemic out. At most, a player can treat two cities a turn, if the cities are not adjacent, only 1. And, in a two player game, it is even tougher to cover everywhere.

I guess we don't know how to win, our record is much worse than yours and we've lost by running out of cards. I would appreciate any tips.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy Cox
United States
Clemson
South Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
1024x768 works just fine - Don't Wide the Site!
badge
Missing old BGG
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
clearclaw wrote:
It is clearly to the players direct incentive (ie assists their victory opportunity) to fully reveal their hands at all times
Isn't that explicitly against the rules?

It's like saying that it's clearly to one player's advantage to steal money from the bank in Acquire, so always do it (to hell with the rules)?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Los Gatos
CA
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
ZMeston wrote:
Did you have the opportunity to directly share your thoughts with the designer during these playtest sessions? If so, did he take any of your comments and criticisms into account as he tweaked his design?
Matt and I talked yes. His goals for the game are and were wildly different to my interests in games. I'm fairly certain that if he had taken my advice that Pandemic would be a less popular title. Then again, I don't think popularity is important. I care about the game design.

Pandemic is a successful title. It appears to be delivering bountifully on all of Matt's hopes for the game. I'm very pleased with his success and hope it goes even further. People are clearly enjoying the game and that's great. However Pandemic does not deliver what I want from the games I play. Others clearly have different priorities.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Los Gatos
CA
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
generalpf wrote:
Ultimately that depends on whether or not you enjoyed those plays.
I look for more from a game than just enjoyment.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Los Gatos
CA
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
Randy Cox wrote:
clearclaw wrote:
It is clearly to the players direct incentive (ie assists their victory opportunity) to fully reveal their hands at all times
Isn't that explicitly against the rules?
Yes. So instead of being quite so blatant I work out a 99.999999% equivalent. The more accurate and effective my communication is the better the group's coordination will be, the higher our opportunity of winning and the less meaning anything I do in the game will have. Ultimately there's no effective difference between just laying my hand face up on the table, reciting the cards in my hand at every opportunity, or some other approximating subterfuge.

Quote:
It's like saying that it's clearly to one player's advantage to steal money from the bank in Acquire, so always do it (to hell with the rules)?
No, it isn't.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy Cox
United States
Clemson
South Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
1024x768 works just fine - Don't Wide the Site!
badge
Missing old BGG
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Good review. I made the mistake of stomping all over a sacred cow once with a negative review. I hope you weather the storm.

For what it's worth, the game looks good to me. I don't need silly headlines on the Epidemic cards or names to the viruses (though I can call them Flu, SARS, AIDS, and bird flu if I like). That's way too AmeriTrash for me. I am fine with a theme but no chrome, which is what this game seems to offer. I can also handle games that "play themselves." After all, that's what my beloved sports simulations do. So it sounds good to me.

I also really enjoy corporate meetings.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
♫ Eric Herman ♫
United States
West Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
I like elephants. I like how they swing through trees.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
clearclaw wrote:
Matt and I talked yes. His goals for the game are and were wildly different to my interests in games. I'm fairly certain that if he had taken my advice that Pandemic would be a less popular title. Then again, I don't think popularity is important. I care about the game design.
This is a good example of what somebody told me a few years ago when I was soliciting feedback for a play I'd written... that you should almost always completely disregard individual criticisms. One person might really dislike some particular aspect(s) of your play/game/song/painting. They might be very adamant about that, and you might want to give a lot of weight to that, especially if they are a well-regarded person in that field. But if you change your work to please that one person, then guess what... you might be disappointing the vast majority of other people who might have loved it just as it was. One person's opinion should never supercede the artist's.

Heck, even if there's a negative consensus among several people you might still not want to change certain things... sometimes the artist just knows best about what they are creating and some things are meant to have a certain value for the person creating them and for a niche of people who will appreciate the work.

So, not to discount your feelings about the game at all... you're certainly entitled to that... but yeah, I'm really glad that Matt didn't listen to you.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian M
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
Microbadge: GeekChatterMicrobadge: Rush fanMicrobadge: Plays Games with LoverMicrobadge: Spirit Island fanMicrobadge: Rainbow
Quote:
...to fully reveal their hands at all times, in which case the game immediately becomes calculable.
Calculable except that everything will change with the new cards each turn? Its a game of risk management; you have an idea about how things are going to go, but you don't know for sure, so you have to decide which gambles you want to take.

I'm totally fine with everyone having different tastes, but more and more I keep wondering if the OP misplayed the game. Some of the comments just seem so off base.

You can't just keep an area under control by having one pawn sit in it. If an Epidemic, or just a few draws, suddenly places a bunch of cubes there, you could easily have 3 turns to go before that player gets a turn again - a ripe opportunity for disaster to strike.

If another player comes to help, they aren't sitting on their area and keeping it under control. The board is far too big to cover every spot.

Even having no cities with 3 cubes doesn't mean you are safe. An epidemic will fill a new city with 3 cubes, and then get itself shuffled into the deck and potentially drawn right away. If you've ever had an outbreak before, you probably have single cubes in new cities that will trigger an outbreak if an epidemic is drawn for that city. These sort of breaks can chain together and get nasty very fast.

The comment about "you should never run out of cards" doesn't even make sense. Each player draws 2 cards per turn, no matter what. When the deck runs out, you lose, whether those cards are sitting in your hand, have been discarded, or been played. You not only SHOULD, but WILL run out of cards, unless you win - or lose a different way - first. With 12 cards of each color, with more than 2 players there's a sizeable chance you'll never draw a full set of 5 naturally. You need to trade! Trade early, and you probably don't have lots of cards to know for sure you're helping the right person. Trade late, and the receiver will probably have 7 cards already and need to discard to accept the new cards.

And while you might want to only play a card when you near your hand limit, will you happen to have any useful cards to play right when you get there? Can you keep having a useful card to play each turn? Should you direct flight to Baghdad, since there's lots of trouble, or risk using another card to fly nearby and use the Baghdad card to set up a research station, making it easier for everyone else?

Sorry for doubting, but it just doesn't even sound like the Pandemic I've been playing.

Quote:
It is not that I dislike co-ops because I like Betrayal, LNoE and SoC.
Odd set to provide, since Betrayal is usually a team game once the haunt begins (which is where the real game takes place), LNoE is always a team game, and most of the praise of Shadows Over Camelot is based on the non-cooperative element (the traitor). So you've picked two games that are mostly not cooperative games, and one that isn't at all.

Edit (to respond to posts that appeared since I started typing):
I'm only guessing at the design motives, but I don't think the intent of not being able to reveal your hand is to make it hard to share information.

Cooperative games can easily fall into a problem where everyone just ponders the best 'solution' seperately, or where one aggressive or experienced player dominates the game. If cards are sitting face up, its much easier for this to happen.

If I need to ask you what cards you have, I have to get you involved in the game. I have to interact. I am at your mercy as to what information you choose to reveal. You can more easily shut down an aggressive player simply by being more picky about what you reveal.

Most of the time, there is no real advantage to knowing the exact contents of someone's hand. You want to keep counts of who has what kind of set, and you'll want to plan places to trade. Sometimes you'll want to know who can get to a spot, but the hidden cards encourages exactly that sort of exchange. It encourages an attitude "Can you get to Hong Kong before it blows?" (which puts the ball (er, cube?) in the current player's court, instead of "Hey, you have one spare red, you fly over and get to Hong Kong while I figured out what the next player should do."
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Los Gatos
CA
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
Grudunza wrote:
clearclaw wrote:
Matt and I talked yes. His goals for the game are and were wildly different to my interests in games. I'm fairly certain that if he had taken my advice that Pandemic would be a less popular title. Then again, I don't think popularity is important. I care about the game design.
...

So, not to discount your feelings about the game at all... you're certainly entitled to that... but yeah, I'm really glad that Matt didn't listen to you. :D
Likewise, I've no regrets. It was clear from the start that Matt was creating a game for Not-Me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Los Gatos
CA
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
StormKnight wrote:
If I need to ask you what cards you have, I have to get you involved in the game. I have to interact. I am at your mercy as to what information you choose to reveal. You can more easily shut down an aggressive player simply by being more picky about what you reveal.
Translation: I can sacrifice my own opportunity of winning the game by playing a social one-ups-manship metagame instead.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   |