Dain Ironfoot said:

Money of course is the king of how things work, but comments from "a few malcontents on a message board" is not something that FFG ignore either.

www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp

Concerning the design versus marketing: There is a fine line there. A lot of design work went into the packaging for these models as well as the models themselves. They had already done an enormous amount of design work on the models themselves, so they had to find a way to bring a profitable product instead of scrapping the whole deal.

So while it is not a game mechanic redesign, there was likely quite a bit of effort in how the miniatures and packaging would be produced/marketed/etc that could prove just as costly, if not more so.

Then there is the LCGs themselves as another example of malcontents on ammessage board having an effect on FFG products. Once upon a time they were packaged in an odd way that forced people who wanted to buy full playsets to buy 3 packs at $30 and now they have rectified this, again due to customer feedback, to have them as 3x in one pack for $15.

From all of us who complained and bought these early packs, to all of you who glean the benefit of our complaining: "You're welcome."

Pericles said:

Yes they release mostly monthly (barring delays) a 20 unique card expansion pack each month and then every 6 months they release a 55 unique card large expansion box.

Hellfury said:

Thanks for the extra info; but I still don't think they will scrap whatever design they have for the game based on these comments.

I would think comments at GenCon (another poster said this game is being demo'd there this week) will carry more weight.

Also, I may be operating under the assumption that a SW game will sell well, no matter what (at least, initially), unlike the game you cite (which I bet a lot of folks have never even heard of, so it's "more important" to please that products fan base, if that makes sense).

Either way, I wasn't trying to argue feedback has no purpose or isn't helpful; my larger point was, and still is, it is too early to have any truly constructive feedback leveled at this game until we know more (your example: you knew the price, the packaging, the ease of acquiring the sets, etc and therefore, had more information from which to make a valid criticism. I don't believe we have enough info to truly say one way or the other for this game).

Dain Ironfoot said:

Sadly, this is the crux of the matter. LOTS of people will buy this just for the license alone. FFG know that, Lucasfilms knows that, even the consumer knows that.

It is ofcourse too early to say if the game is good or bad, and for many any drawbacks will not matter as long as they get to stare at a pic of a wookie on a piece of paper, but I still hold to the notion that a Co-op is likely a mistake to choose as a mechanic for the game in the long run, excellent license or not. This is the part where we all agree with the cliche that "Time will tell".

Pericles said:

That really depends on what one considers relevant to each. AGoT went for six years on four books' worth of material before having to rehash anything. For Star Wars, the Expanded Universe offers a tremendous wealth of material for the Rebellion era: comics, games, novels, etc. Just because Garm Bel Iblis and Bail Organa don't show up in the OT doesn't mean they don't make their presence known off-screen. And can any Imperial sympathizer truly say what happened on Ghorman wasn't horrific? What happens in the movies, while important, is only a fraction of what constitutes the Galactic Civil War.

Pericles said:

The won't run out of characters or anything else that soon. If LOTR is anything to go by, a good portion of every release is taken up by "opposing deck", that is the cards that you will go up against. That limits the amount of new cards that you will get in new packs. And like they are doing with LOTR, they can always create new cards, even if the subjects of those cards have never been seen before in any related material. 

Hellfury said:

I've never played a co-op before.  I've been a gamer my whole life and I had never even heard of this concept.  I'm obviously not as hardcore as you or some of the other people here, but I've played my fair share of CCGs and miniatures.  The co-op concept is a breath of fresh air to me...as I imagine it is to many other people playing this game.

Thanks, all, for the feedback on the Adventure Packs.  I was basing my opinion on the LotR video, where they stated that each Adventure Pack was 60-cards.  At 20 cards per pack, that will extend the life significantly.  And I agree with the poster concerning EU material; there currently is a deep pool to pull from.  The problem gaming companies typically have when working with Lucasfilm is the fact that anything considered "new" to the universe has to go through so much red tape and approvals.  By the time the idea makes it to production, it's usefulness and/or purpose has expired.  It will be interesting to see how the relationship between FFG and Lucas is managed.

I'm new to cooperative card games, but I gotta say that I'm looking forward to it.  I started playing Decipher's game at release, and I've been through the Joung Jedi, Jedi Knights, TCG phases.  PvP games are cool, but I like the idea of working with someone instead of beating them down all the time.  And if it is anything like the LotR LCG, I don't think it will lack a strategic component.

I question whether we will ever get a Darkside version of this game.  Lucas is funny about that sort of thing; he has always been a strong proponent that good must overcome evil, and that everybody should be supporting the guy wearing the white hat.  To put the player in the shoes of the "bad guys" and reward him/her for doing "evil" goes against a lot of his rhetoric.  It is possible that, in the end, the money will persuade him to turn a blind eye and allow production of a darkside version, but I wouldn't count on it.

Pericles said:

That's a good point, and one that hasn't (to my knowledge) been brought up yet. It's like, whenever a game has a Dark Side Ending, that ending will invariably be non-canon. I'm even looking forward to seeing how they pull this off in The Old Republic, since theoretically, everyone is sharing the same story and therefore, each ending ought to have an equal level of canonicity. But MMOs are funny like that.

For some reason this reminded me of Harry Potter (don't ask me how). J.K. Rowling has a similar outlook to George Lucas', though I would say hers is even more rigid than his. She can't fathom why any of her readers are fond of Voldemort or Draco Malfoy, whereas Lucas at least recognizes that Darth Vader is among his most compelling characters, and well, Jabba's just a boss.

*sigh* It'd be shame to never get to play Jabba.

MarthWMaster said:

I think that is because Vader has a lot more dimension than most of the other protagonists in starwars. He is more machine than man, Why? He has a chip on his shoulder yet saves his son in the end. Why? etc.

Vader is not the most 3 diminesional character around, but as you noted, he is rather compelling.

Contrast this with the whiney, snot nosed and incestuous brat that is Luke Sky walker, and you can easily see why the dark side likely has a larger following. People like Han Solo who shares much of the same mysteries as Vader, not Skywalker.

At least Rowling attempted to make her protagonist Potter more compelling, but ultimately he is just as emo as Skywalker.

Frankly, with as much 'good' as Lucas has done for the franchise with his last three films, he may as well just stop being so draconian and let others run within the set background without constraining creativity to exclude a possible antagonist victory.

Being bad was one of the reasons why KotOR II was so good.

I agree, that Luke in the PT is a rather .. "flat" character. But the latest releases of novels (not regarding their general quality) picture him as a rather developed character with wits and humor at about 60 years. It seems like the EU developed Luke, not Lucas.

I woud've been a fan of both, this coop game or any pvp card game. I play rebells anyway ;)

Pericles said:

Hellfury said:

3 cheers for that!  

jhaelen said:

Very true.  Personally, I would welcome a DS version of the LCG, if, for not other reason, to play with some of the great characters from that side (such as Vader).

However, look at the Tie Fighter video game.  It puts you in the cockpit of an Imperial ship, but are you strafing Rebels or blowing-up hidden bases?  No.  I took the following from Wikipedia (as I have never played the game myself):

"Instead of constantly fighting against the Rebels, many missions deal with the elimination of pirates and other criminals, as well as civil wars, traitorous Imperials, and otherwise maintaining order in the galaxy." -cited above

So, even when you are in a prime position to wreak havoc across the galaxy, Lucas shackles you with a moral imperative.  I'm not saying it's good or bad; I'm just pointing out that it makes the creation of a game where your goal is to subjugate and destroy somewhat "problematic".

My caveat here is the following: Lucas has never left a dollar unclaimed.  If this LCG is successful, and there is sufficient demand for a DS version, there is every possibility that he will deliver.  I'm getting ahead of myself, though.  Let's just see how this game does before we start planning future core sets.

Toqtamish said:

Same here. I didn't pick my name because I liked Luke 'farmboy' or Spice Smuggling Han...