Its not very clear in everything I've read whether its co-op, semi co-op or competitive - or does it depend on the scenario?

The deal breaker for me is if its semi co-op as that never works for me.

I'm sure I have read somewhere that in the boxe there will be an option for a competitive play, I'm not sure if that will be one of the scennarios of just kind of generic game mode, but I think this option will be the most replayable way to enjoy the game.

It's a survival game. You can work together... or you can be the guy who's faster than the rest at running from the wolves.

Well, the latest preview answers my original question.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2018/10/17/the-essence-of-survival/

Looks like its semi coop, which is not what I wanted to hear. It also has player elimination. For me, these two points kill the game.

However, I am thinking that its simple enough to house rule to make it fully coop, and just add a loss condition that if one player dies, everybody loses.

41 minutes ago, Ghost Dancer said:

Well, the latest preview answers my original question.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2018/10/17/the-essence-of-survival/

Looks like its semi coop, which is not what I wanted to hear. It also has player elimination. For me, these two points kill the game.

However, I am thinking that its simple enough to house rule to make it fully coop, and just add a loss condition that if one player dies, everybody loses.

Your house rule makes a lot of sense. I plan on playing it with my kids using that rule. Over time we may relax it: maybe they (and me!) may learn some things about cooperation vs competition!

From my reading, I don't think a house rule is needed. Their design is so that different groups can play it how they want. If you have a hyper-competitive group, you don't have to force them to play together. They just make it harder on each individual, if you have a group that really likes to work together it's designed so you can.

Just because the game doesnt say "If one dies, you all lose" doesn't mean you can't play it like a full coop in the first place. It's more of a player choice than a game design thing.

7 hours ago, niarBaD said:

From my reading, I don't think a house rule is needed. Their design is so that different groups can play it how they want. If you have a hyper-competitive group, you don't have to force them to play together. They just make it harder on each individual, if you have a group that really likes to work together it's designed so you can.

Just because the game doesnt say "If one dies, you all lose" doesn't mean you can't play it like a full coop in the first place. It's more of a player choice than a game design thing.

16 hours ago, Ghost Dancer said:

However, I am thinking that its simple enough to house rule to make it fully coop, and just add a loss condition that if one player dies, everybody loses.

Yeah, specifically this bit:

"While testing the game with these victory conditions, I made an interesting observation: the game felt very different with different groups of people.

Players that were used to playing co-op games (especially families) would treat the game very much like a full co-op. They would help each other survive, even if it did not benefit themselves, and sometimes make heroic sacrifices to save others. These games were full of shared gasps, smiles, and high fives. I’d like to think that many people in a real-world survival situation would act this way."

Makes it sound like there's no need to make any adjustment at all - that if your group comes into the game wanting to cooperate, the system will work with you, not against you.

Also, based on:

"To avoid the main downside of player elimination, it's important that eliminated players don’t sit out of the game for too long. This can either be solved by having a short game length (15-20 minutes), or by making sure players aren't eliminated until the game is close to its conclusion. We chose the latter. As long as a player is collecting food and water, they should survive for the majority of every game of Discover."

It sounds like player elimination will be of the "one person didn't make it, but they are still invested in seeing the final 10 minutes play out for the group" variety, not the "well I'm out, I'm gonna go watch TV while you guys play the final hour of monopoly" variety.

There is no real competitive elements it seems, except for the special competitive scenario.

Other than that, it is up to the group to figure out how cooperative you are.

If you need a rule to make people cooperate, then maybe your group just won't work as cooperating.

On ‎10‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 1:53 AM, Radix2309 said:

There is no real competitive elements it seems, except for the special competitive scenario.

Other than that, it is up to the group to figure out how cooperative you are.

If you need a rule to make people cooperate, then maybe your group just won't work as cooperating.

Could be interesting tough. Like those final episodes of "Survivor" you still have to work as a team to survive but when it comes down to challenges it's everyone for themselves.

I like to call it an uncooperative cooperative game.

I have found so far in the 4 games the wife and I have played, that if you don't cooperate, you die. you seriously need to coordinate your actions and ever dwindling health in order to acheive the objectives.

That being said we haven't played the 5th, competitive scenerio yet. that may change.