| Register Now | |
| My Points | |
| My Games | |
Stand together against an ancient evil
| Page 2 of 3 (40 messages) | « First page... 1 2 3 ...Last page » |
+1 to everything that Hellfury and Steve-O said. There's plenty of co-ops with solo play capability in the market at the moment and more coming all the time (Gears of War, D&D Adventure Games, LOTR CCG, Space Hulk: Death Angel,Arkham Horror and Ghost Stories just to name a few). Personally winning over a game (even with friends) is nowhere near as satisfying as winning over friend(s). Co-ops need a different kind of system mechanics to work and implementing those to the basic Descent 2 box would definitely create some kind of compromise in the rules. I DON'T want this to happen.
Descent 2 should be designed from top to bottom to deliver the best possible one against many gaming experience. Nothing more, nothing less. Co-op/solo play stuff can be created by fans.
Without Signature
Steve-O said:
It's akin to somebody going to the Pandemic game page on BGG and asking how a person can play the diseases against everyone else trying to thwart him. A booming sound of hands slapping their own foreheads can be heard as it clearly is not the sort of game where it is one against everyone else.
I admit I haven't had a chance to use it yet, but isn't that exactly what the bio-terrorist variant in the expansion does? Maybe chalk that up to a bad example. =P
I wasnt aware that this was possible in the expansion. I'll have to find someone who has it and see how good it is. So yeah, I guess chalk that up to a bad example. 
Hellfury said:
Chu Wolf said:
Actually, it is a design decision. Its an adversarial game that requires human intellect as an antagonist.
Plenty of dungeon crawl games out there now that are co-op without having to make every last game on the planet a co-op. FFG just recently released one called Gears of War. Not that co-ops are bad, but there seems to be a resounding tenor amongst some consumers that every game needs to be able to be played solo/co-op.
Find a game that fits the bill and play it. Expecting a clearly adversarial game to be played co-op is a fairly major design difference. Like night and day. A completely new design.
Just as you wont likely buy it if it lacks co-op capability, I will likely not buy it if it does.
The above isn't aimed directly at Chu Wolf (he is just quoted incidentally), but at the crowd in general that gathers at every single new game mewling for co-op rules for clearly non-cooperative games.
It's akin to somebody going to the Pandemic game page on BGG and asking how a person can play the diseases against everyone else trying to thwart him. A booming sound of hands slapping their own foreheads can be heard as it clearly is not the sort of game where it is one against everyone else.
Also, why would someone want to play the game if the co-op design was just an afterthought? Doesnt sound like a very fulfilling experience. I would rather play a co-op that was meant to be a co-op right from the beginning of the design process. Much as I would rather play an adversarial game that was meant to be such from the beginning. Designs from an afterthought generally stink.
Kind of like movies made with 3d tech in mind and movies made into 3d during post production. One is clearly superior in what it does compared to the other. Why settle for the half measure?
So including co-op rules for an adversarial game actually would hurt the game by inlcuding both. Because neither is getting the full attention that either design deserves and the game would suffer for it. It really is an "either or" situation here.
I'm sorry, I just don't see it that way.
It shouldn't be a matter of redesigning every single aspect of the game from scratch. Most, if not all, of the components should be reusuable in a co-op version. It should just need some new rules and maybe new cards.
In other words, instead of it being like a "pure" 3D movie versus a "pseudo" 3D movie, I see it more like the 1931 film version of Dracula where the Spanish-language version was filmed using the same sets but with different different actors and director.
Also, I hardly see what's wrong about consumers voicing their opinion about what they want game companies to produce. If you want every game to be adversarial, feel free to go to every forum and say so. It won't bother me in the slightest.
It is also incomprehensible to me why you would not purchase the game if it has co-op *as well as* adversarial modes. If it has the method of play you enjoy, why care if it comes with an additional method?
Without Signature
Ebonsword said:
I'm sorry, I just don't see it that way.
It shouldn't be a matter of redesigning every single aspect of the game from scratch. Most, if not all, of the components should be reusuable in a co-op version. It should just need some new rules and maybe new cards.
In other words, instead of it being like a "pure" 3D movie versus a "pseudo" 3D movie, I see it more like the 1931 film version of Dracula where the Spanish-language version was filmed using the same sets but with different different actors and director.
Also, I hardly see what's wrong about consumers voicing their opinion about what they want game companies to produce. If you want every game to be adversarial, feel free to go to every forum and say so. It won't bother me in the slightest.
It is also incomprehensible to me why you would not purchase the game if it has co-op *as well as* adversarial modes. If it has the method of play you enjoy, why care if it comes with an additional method?
The problem is that co-op games need certain kind of mechanics to work. So when implementing those mechanics the designers would have to choose to compromise between the "best possible adversarial system" and "best possible co-op system". I guess what most of the Descent players wish for is the best possible adversarial system, because that's what the game is/was all about in the first place. I doubt that Descent 2 will be the best adversarial dungeon crawl / adventure game if this kind of compromise is made.
Using your example it would be like the Spanish version director calling the original version set builders and requesting some changes on the original set and props because "then the film would appeal more to the latino audiences". Maybe some sombreros on the statues of the castle Dracula? :)
Without Signature
My problem with D1 its the "VS" part... for me, the GM are there to make the game fun, not to destroy the group. I want my player have a adventure not a race to the end. I think they start a new edition to make the game more flexible to different type of play.
Mistersam said:
My problem with D1 its the "VS" part... for me, the GM are there to make the game fun, not to destroy the group. I want my player have a adventure not a race to the end. I think they start a new edition to make the game more flexible to different type of play.
Yikes! I certainly hope that you are mistaken on this part. The entire point of Descent to me is the Overlord vs. the Heroes. The Overlord is a merciless villain out to crush the heroes in any way possible, and should be actively trying to win the game for himself, not having to worry about whether or not the heroes are having a good time. I think that's why they call him "the Overlord" and not the Game Master.
Without Signature
Not to sound too harsh, but if you have a problem with the VS part, than Descent simply isn't the game for you. Buy Gears of War!
I bought it because it has a VS system, I like the fact that the OL has a chance to win (which was also the reason why I also love Doom). If they would neglect this part of the game in second edition because they want to also cram in a Co-op mode, I would be gravely dissapointed!
Without Signature
Scy800 said:
Not to sound too harsh, but if you have a problem with the VS part, than Descent simply isn't the game for you. Buy Gears of War!
Last time I checked, Gears of War wasn't a fantasy dungeon crawl.
Without Signature
If it is the theme that is important, and the demand for a true co-op game with this theme is great enough, than I would prefer a seperate game for this. Like Gears of War, but with the dungeon crawl theme.
This way the design teams can fully focus on making both games great instead of one product with mediocre rules and failed attempts to make all pieces fit for a co-op and an adversarial system. But I guess that would be wishful thinking 
Without Signature
It shouldn't be a matter of redesigning every single aspect of the game from scratch. Most, if not all, of the components should be reusuable in a co-op version. It should just need some new rules and maybe new cards.
Thats the point. It's not a matter of "just some new rules". Redesigning just isnt as simple as that. It's a matter of "entriely new rules and entirely new cards.". The components that have nothing to do with rules are of course reusable. It would be an entirely new game that uses the same bits and shares the same background, that's it. End of story.
A tweak here and there to make it a co-op would just stink. To repeat myself, it would be a disservice to either design esthetic for reasons already stated.
You dont have to agree with it, but you make it sound so simple to basically make an entirely new game so easy, when that expectation simply and factually is not.
Also, I hardly see what's wrong about consumers voicing their opinion about what they want game companies to produce. If you want every game to be adversarial, feel free to go to every forum and say so. It won't bother me in the slightest.
Nothing wrong at all with people mewling for co-ops everytime a new game is made. I never attempted to say that they shouldnt. I am just pointing out the flaws in the logic in their pleas.
It is also incomprehensible to me why you would not purchase the game if it has co-op *as well as* adversarial modes. If it has the method of play you enjoy, why care if it comes with an additional method?
Its okay if you dont comprehend it. The reasons for why I have already stated. No need for more redundancy when simple reading comprehension will suffice.
Ebonsword said:
Ok, replace that suggestion with Ravenloft/Ashardalon/Drizzt then. Or Warhammer quest, etc. Plenty of options already out there.
I really need to go visit chess sites and whine about why chess is not a co-op. I demand that my needs must be catered to.
Descent has been my 2 group's game of choice BECAUSE it is about people vs other people. Competition. It is what makes Descent the great game it is. The very substance of the game is the struggle of wits between the players and the OL. Without this struggle, Descent becomes somthing else. It is not without co-op though. The four players do a LOT of cooperative planning and adventuring, at least in my groups. But what makes that cooperation so rewarding in Descent, is that if the players won, they did so in the face of a worthy (if I may call myself so) adversary. I would hope for a focused effort on continuing this vein in the Descent portion of Terrinoth.
Without signature
Hellfury said:
It shouldn't be a matter of redesigning every single aspect of the game from scratch. Most, if not all, of the components should be reusuable in a co-op version. It should just need some new rules and maybe new cards.
Thats the point. It's not a matter of "just some new rules". Redesigning just isnt as simple as that. It's a matter of "entriely new rules and entirely new cards.". The components that have nothing to do with rules are of course reusable. It would be an entirely new game that uses the same bits and shares the same background, that's it. End of story.
A tweak here and there to make it a co-op would just stink. To repeat myself, it would be a disservice to either design esthetic for reasons already stated.
You dont have to agree with it, but you make it sound so simple to basically make an entirely new game so easy, when that expectation simply and factually is not.
Hmm, I don't recall saying it would be simple. I *do* recall saying that most of the components (which contain most of the variable cost, as far as I am aware) wouldn't have to be redesigned. Which means that creating a co-op option shouldn't be financially prohibitive.
I also don't recall saying to make a "tweak here and there". Of course, maybe that is all it would take. I don't know (and neither do you, for that matter) since neither of us has seen the revised rules.
Finally, it's not like there isn't a precedent for FFG to release different versions of rules to appeal to different audiences (see Dust Tactics vs Dust Warfare).
Hellfury said:
Also, I hardly see what's wrong about consumers voicing their opinion about what they want game companies to produce. If you want every game to be adversarial, feel free to go to every forum and say so. It won't bother me in the slightest.
Nothing wrong at all with people mewling for co-ops everytime a new game is made. I never attempted to say that they shouldnt. I am just pointing out the flaws in the logic in their pleas.
Man, we sure need a "sarcastic eye roll smiley" on this forum...
Just pretend that we *do* have one and I used it here.
Hellfury said:
It is also incomprehensible to me why you would not purchase the game if it has co-op *as well as* adversarial modes. If it has the method of play you enjoy, why care if it comes with an additional method?
Its okay if you dont comprehend it. The reasons for why I have already stated. No need for more redundancy when simple reading comprehension will suffice.
Why the hostility, dude? You would think that I had asked FFG to throw out the game's current setting and move it to the world of My Little Pony.
And, I'm sorry, I just don't think you've made a very convincing case. I don't see where having co-op *and* adversarial rules automatically makes a game not worth playing.
Without Signature
Kartigan said:
Mistersam said:
My problem with D1 its the "VS" part... for me, the GM are there to make the game fun, not to destroy the group. I want my player have a adventure not a race to the end. I think they start a new edition to make the game more flexible to different type of play.
Yikes! I certainly hope that you are mistaken on this part. The entire point of Descent to me is the Overlord vs. the Heroes. The Overlord is a merciless villain out to crush the heroes in any way possible, and should be actively trying to win the game for himself, not having to worry about whether or not the heroes are having a good time. I think that's why they call him "the Overlord" and not the Game Master.
It is that very thing that sets this game apart! Other coop games are players vs. the game mechanics. (And yes - the mechanics are a baseline for the OL) BUT - Descent adds that human element you cannot get from other coop games. Having an actual person - a human brain - actively working and thinking of ways to destroy the heroes make a hero win so much more satisfying in my opinion.
Sure - its not for everyone. But hey - if they lose any of that flavor in 2e... it will be a big loss for the game.
Ebonsword I think the point of what most of the "anti-Descent-coop" group on here is saying (though that is a broad generalization and not an accurate term) is that having the design team put effort into making Descent co-op would take that effort away from making it what it is. If they did a co-op expansion, then that means that they didn't do a regular one. If they were to change the base game, then every card that they add or change to make it playable solo or co-op is one less card for the rest of the game (skills, treasures, Overlord cards, etc.).
When it comes to the design teams time, effort, energy, and component budget it is a zero sum game, anything going in the co-op direction directly subtracts from the adversarial direction. I am not opposed to co-op fantasy crawls, but I do hope if FFG does one, even if they put it in the Terrinoth setting they do so as a separate game built from the ground up in that direction. Descent wasn't ever meant to be that kind of game, and though that sort of game is fun; mixing it with Descent would make the adversarial version of the game less of a game, no matter how you did it.
Without Signature
| Page 2 of 3 (40 messages) | « First page... 1 2 3 ...Last page » |
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS