Why are there more players in Netrunner Android than Lotr-LCG? I dont understand. Can anyone list the reasons? I think there are more reasons for playing lotr than netrunner...
Edited by MndelaNetrunner vs. Lotr
Having played both, though I only collect Lotr, here are some reasons that come to my mind:
- competitive games are stoll more popular than coop (which is also why we have 5 or so competitive lcgs to one coop)
- Games tend to sell better the newer they are
- Netrunner is popular for a reason, with its unique assymetric gameplay and a cool (relatively) original setting
What I'd be most curious about is how Netrunner does relative to star wars...
Having played both, though I only collect Lotr, here are some reasons that come to my mind:
- competitive games are stoll more popular than coop (which is also why we have 5 or so competitive lcgs to one coop)
- Games tend to sell better the newer they are
- Netrunner is popular for a reason, with its unique assymetric gameplay and a cool (relatively) original setting
What I'd be most curious about is how Netrunner does relative to star wars...
- The Netrunner world and theme are more attractive to players/consumers than Middle-earth which has been already done twice, excellently by Iron Crown and Decipher though.
There is a cultural element as well.
Modern science fiction and fantasy are consistently dystopian: aGoT, warhammer (40k), Firefly, BSG, Hunger Games, zombie apocalypse, etc.
This is in contrast to writing and television from decades ago. Star Trek and LotR are two prime examples. While there may be trials and tribulations along the way, the inherent "goodness" of the world triumphs.
For whatever reason, bleak and depressing futures are popular right now. It does not surprise me that card games featuring similar themes are equally popular.
Here is a short article for those that are interested:
This is a silly question imo, so much so that I'm wondering if this is a troll post.. The games are so different that personal preference holds the biggest influence.
You're question would hold more relevance in the LCG vs CCG debate.. because CCGs are obviously garbage ;-)
Having played both, though I only collect Lotr, here are some reasons that come to my mind:
- competitive games are stoll more popular than coop (which is also why we have 5 or so competitive lcgs to one coop)
Honestly, I think this is the #1 reason. If LOTR was competitive, it would probably be one of the top games, assuming it had good mechanics of course. Netrunner is the top of competitive heap because it does have interesting mechanics and design. Tolkien's works are among the most read works in existence, so I highly doubt it has anything to do with the source material, and has more to do with cooperative model.
Tolkien's works are among the most read works in existence, so I highly doubt it has anything to do with the source material, and has more to do with cooperative model.
Tolkiens books have also been around for quite a longer time than "dystopian future" stories.
Also, and I might be wrong in this, I believe that people who are fans of the grim-future genre tend to get their inspiration and reading done from many different kinds of sources. While that may also be true for fantasy to a certain degree, I think that fans of fantasy will reach a point where Lord of the Rings will be a must-read book; on that simple premise of it´s status as grandfather of all fantasy.
Which will lead to more people having read LotR than any one specific "dark future" book.
EDIT to answer OP (sort of): feel like the comparison between LotR and Netrunner LCGs are like trying to compare the taste of pork to that of chicken and deciding which is the better option.
Edited by NerdmeisterThere's a measure of success of competitive games: tournament number and size. But there's no way to measure the success of LotR LCG. We don't know how many LotR LCG players are.
If FFG would publish sales of their games, we'd have a something real to compare the success of these games.
I suspect there are more Netrunner players than LotR players, mostly because competitive games are easier to "meet". There are people playing in stores, you can see tournament announcements on the stores and reports on the web. Also, there's always a lot more discussion around the cards and strategies than in cooperative games.
Anyway, I think LotR's health is good, because they continue printing a lot of stuff, including Print on Demand.
lotr lcg is really unique game. is take own place on market. but im really doubt there will be another coop lcg from ffg. but lotr fir sure will live long time as a game.
lotr lcg is really unique game. is take own place on market. but im really doubt there will be another coop lcg from ffg. but lotr fir sure will live long time as a game.
Though Star Wars lcg already has a coop/multiplayer version so I doubt your doubts
Put me in the 'competitive is more popular' camp. LOTR (and thusly all of us geniuses) is either behind the times or ahead of the times. Co-op board games like Pandemic and, really, anything else Matt Leacock makes, have really only started to pick up speed in the last few years. A complex cooperative game with deckbuilding and lots of game state elements is probably not quite ready for primetime. Reason being, many people who enjoy cooperative play are a little more casual (or a lot more) than competitive types, even in the realm of standalone board games.
When my flgs buddies and I play LOTR it's usually on a Tuesday night, which is also when the same shop does a standard Magic tournament. Without fail, each night, at least one Magic player comes by our table and stares. The rest goes like this:
'So, is this like two versus two?'
'Nope, it's us against the deck.'
'Huh...'
And then he walks away.
My point is that 'serious' gamers like to play to win and 'casual' gamers aren't interested in a complex deckbuilding game. LOTR is in some kind of beautiful, anomalous middle ground. Netrunner is a uniquely fun competitive game, so it's near the top. I like it that way.
Though Star Wars lcg already has a coop/multiplayer version so I doubt your doubtslotr lcg is really unique game. is take own place on market. but im really doubt there will be another coop lcg from ffg. but lotr fir sure will live long time as a game.
if you dont know.... originally Star wars plan as a pure coop same like lotr but..... ffg change they plans and make it versus. why? I think there is a reason. they undestood probably for now on market one coop game is enough. so lotr still unique.
Put me in the 'competitive is more popular' camp. LOTR (and thusly all of us geniuses) is either behind the times or ahead of the times. Co-op board games like Pandemic and, really, anything else Matt Leacock makes, have really only started to pick up speed in the last few years. A complex cooperative game with deckbuilding and lots of game state elements is probably not quite ready for primetime. Reason being, many people who enjoy cooperative play are a little more casual (or a lot more) than competitive types, even in the realm of standalone board games.
When my flgs buddies and I play LOTR it's usually on a Tuesday night, which is also when the same shop does a standard Magic tournament. Without fail, each night, at least one Magic player comes by our table and stares. The rest goes like this:
'So, is this like two versus two?'
'Nope, it's us against the deck.'
'Huh...'
And then he walks away.
My point is that 'serious' gamers like to play to win and 'casual' gamers aren't interested in a complex deckbuilding game. LOTR is in some kind of beautiful, anomalous middle ground. Netrunner is a uniquely fun competitive game, so it's near the top. I like it that way.
Lotr can be competitive (tournaments, pairs versus pairs, etc. -like team sports-, finally: teams try to reach the best score to win other teams), however, Netrunner can't be cooperative.
Edited by Mndelaif you dont know.... originally Star wars plan as a pure coop same like lotr but..... ffg change they plans and make it versus. why? I think there is a reason. they undestood probably for now on market one coop game is enough. so lotr still unique.
Well... I do know SW was planned as a coop and then scrapped. Since there still is a coop mode (true not the original way to play the finished product but still valid) for the game, which is the issue I was trying to address, I fail to see if you have a point.
You can easily make the conclusion that every card game is unique, in it´s own way, so no need to feel special just because you like lotr.
The problem with LotR's competitive play is the lack of interaction. You can somehow press your opponents to take more risks, but you can't hinder their game. Is like comparing high jump or bobsleigh to soccer. Is not a "you against me" game, is a "who does better" competition. And in that competitive mode luck weight is much higher than on regular games.
if you dont know.... originally Star wars plan as a pure coop same like lotr but..... ffg change they plans and make it versus. why? I think there is a reason. they undestood probably for now on market one coop game is enough. so lotr still unique.
Well... I do know SW was planned as a coop and then scrapped. Since there still is a coop mode (true not the original way to play the finished product but still valid) for the game, which is the issue I was trying to address, I fail to see if you have a point.
You can easily make the conclusion that every card game is unique, in it´s own way, so no need to feel special just because you like lotr.
Understood you point but Lotr is really unique since is only 1 coop game lcg format deck serious deck building game which allow also very good solo experience play. Sounds really unique no?
All other lcg or collectible card game is versus versus right? So those game a not such unique as lotr that what i mean.
And FFG probably understood if they will make 2 or 3 games this kind of format they will not get more players just spread them among 2 or 3 games. so that why they still keep lotr only one game in this format. Which is fine since the Lotr have his segment of market and since is so unique it will last longer. Ok no?
I don't really think that LOTR is low in publicity. Every year at gen-con FFG talks about their plans and they focus on their "biggest" titles. At this year's in-flight report one of those games was LOTR ( the only LCG too ) i believe that this says something right ?
I live pretty close to my FLGS and when they call me up to say a new expansion is in I have to be pretty close to the first one there. My store has a LOT of people reserving their copies of this game every month, and it seems like the reserve pile keeps getting bigger. So I think the game is pretty healthy and will last a few more years. After we get the last saga box I'll start to worry.
For my part the theme of Netrunner doesn't interest me at all and Star Wars only slightly more. Thrones and Cthulhu (which does interest me) have been out a while and have huge card pools already which is a bit scary. Of course this is a drawback to a non-rotating format.
Finally, since when has LOTR not been required reading for the fantasy fan?
Understood you point but Lotr is really unique since is only 1 coop game lcg format deck serious deck building game which allow also very good solo experience play. Sounds really unique no?
All other lcg or collectible card game is versus versus right? So those game a not such unique as lotr that what i mean.
Race for the Galaxy can be played solo and with it´s in-built draw/resource mechanic, you have a good deal of control over which kinds of cards will hit the table. Sounds really unique no?
Finally, since when has LOTR not been required reading for the fantasy fan?
Never required. Just curiously preferred.
Understood you point but Lotr is really unique since is only 1 coop game lcg format deck serious deck building game which allow also very good solo experience play. Sounds really unique no?
All other lcg or collectible card game is versus versus right? So those game a not such unique as lotr that what i mean.
Race for the Galaxy can be played solo and with it´s in-built draw/resource mechanic, you have a good deal of control over which kinds of cards will hit the table. Sounds really unique no?
Yes race to Galaxy is also very unique game…….. I see it once in youtube…..really interesting one