I. J. Thompson said:

I wouldn't get overly concerned about this definition because it says especially a competitive one, not exclusively a competitive one. A real cooperative game may be an outier when considering the majority of games, but that doesn't mean it isn't a game.

I agree. I played old ccg alot bakc in the day and, after playing LOtR LCG I can't help wishing that Decipher had thought of something along these lines back in the day. they flirted with the idea, but they couldn't get it to work in a PvP format.

I watched The Empire Strikes Back yesterday, and I have to say, to everyone who has been going on about how this game should be PvP, or I think one person has said it has "no business" being co-op - for any game to capture the feel of the original trilogy, I can think of no stronger argument than the Battle of Hoth. Just watch even the small segment at "the first transport is away" and tell me you aren't meant to be exclusively on the side of the Rebels!! I mean, ****!

There are, of course, plenty of other instances throughout the trilogy that can support the argument, though curiously none that support the opposing view. Whether going up against the might of the faceless Imperial machine, or the gutter trash of Jabba the Hutt's court, the sentiment is the same.

But this argument has been done to death I think, now, so I'll shut up

spalanzani said:

This is well-reasoned, and I agree. Each movie in the Star Wars saga has camaraderie as its main focus. It's about a familiar group of unlikely heroes versus a faceless army of villains. Even in Revenge of the Sith, before Anakin turns his back on the Jedi Order to become Dark Lord of the Sith, the friendship between him and Obi-Wan is stressed, and afterwards, it's Obi-Wan's bitter farewell to Anakin that forms the emotional crux of the film. So yes, the pattern of PVP in all previous gaming incarnations of the saga is somewhat of an enigma, considering.

Despite my preference for PVP, I will admit that that preference is based solely on the premise that I don't think the CCG philosophy lends itself well to cooperative play. Even when there is little stratification between players of different income levels, as is the case with LCGs, there exists the motivation to build the "perfect" deck, a motivation that is very much lessened when a group of players is facing a known, fixed opponent that is run by AI text rather than a person.

That being said, I think the only way this game can live up to expectations is if FFG makes it possible to play cooperatively as well as competitively. That way everyone can have the Star Wars gaming experience they want, whether or not it fits the next person's definition of what is and isn't Star Wars.

You make a very, very valid point there, MarthWMaster. I would like to use the Lord of the Rings LCG as a rebuttal, but I'm not entirely sure just how strong it would be! I mean, for everyone who loves it there seems to be someone else who bought the game, hates it, and wants to unload it somewhere on the internet. I think FFG call it one of their strongest lines, but boardgamegeek seems to be full of disheartened folks who have a lot of negative things to say about it. For myself, I really like it, and think it fits the theme etc astoundingly well. I also think a basic copy of that game would fit the SW universe equally well, and was really hopeful and excited for such.

But it's whether the idea of a co-op game as a collectible game works that just doesn't seem right, somehow, as you say. I don't know if I've dreamed it up or I've actually read it somewhere here, but I think someone had mentioned the possibility of them producing the game-that-was as a card game, and releasing big expansions, comparable with deluxe expansions or bigger, once or twice a year to keep it going, rather than Force packs and such. That would probably keep me happy, but for me at least it would mean I wouldn't invest in the LCG. (Well, I probably would, and keep it on a shelf or in a box, because I have more money than sense where SW is concerned!) Maybe, if they do decide to do this, it won't see the light of day for a good year or more. And only then, I can only imagine they would if it were sufficiently different from however the LCG turns out.

I'm still drawn to the words of their Feb 6th announcement, of wanting to make a "truly groundbreaking LCG play experience". The fact that there is no ground left to be broken for a PvP card game set in the SW universe, and they pulled their co-op game, it really makes me think they are actually wrestling with the idea of how it could be made as both. I've read that players have successfully made a solo version of AGoT, which is PvP to its very core, so given that I would imagine a professional game designer should be able to produce something that can fit both styles successfully - much less, a team of such designers.

MarthWMaster said:

It would be nice if that were probable, but considering FFG's design stance of "It is done when the boss says its done" (you know that is true, Marth. You attended the same design seminar at Arkham Nights 2010 that I did), their design parameters are a lot tighter than spending numerous years developing a game that pleases both crowds. Having in house game designers, you get one of two results: Forced genius, or just a another gaming product.

I do not envy the designers at FFG that stress, because as much as I like them, their products are just that, products. They are not inspired designs that have been simmering for years through refinement like most of the truly great games have.

There may be games that have integrated PVP/Co-op well in the past, but I cannot think of them. I know of no recent games that have done this successfully without resorting to the "traitor" mechanic to find a winner among the players. Dungeon Run for example. It works for Battlestar Galactica because it fits tightly with the theme. Not so much in Stawars.

I am not trying to say that such a game design is impossible, but the design difficulty level is high. If it were so easy it would have been done already and numerous times. It would also take more time to do than FFG give their designers.

For Starwars, people expect excellence. FFG expects it too as I am sure that license was not cheap. If the game sucks it is a huge loss for everyone involved. (Though it is arguable in Lucas' case, as he has done the most damage to the IP's image)

Ultimately, trying to please both sides is a fool's errand. I cannot stress that enough. Go one way or the other, but certainly stick with it, whichever way you decide.

In a product that is treated as just a product, people putting faith in FFG or any game company to pull that enormous task off is setting themselves and FFG up for failure due to expectations that cannot be easily met within the design parameters that FFG currently seem to employ.

Personally, the group I play with loves LoTR:LCG.

Do keep in mind, however, that LoTR:LCG was a "first" as far as co-op card games for FFG goes. Most games [using essentially the same mechanics] get better as they get refined from the original, as the rules get improved and tweaked to fix things that didn't work as well as they should. So, I would expect a SW:LCG that used similar mechanics to LoTR mechanics to be an improved experience, that would fix many of the complaints that people have with LoTR.

Now, I can certainly see a PvP Star Wars card game (ala CoC, Warhammer Invasion, etc) working and enjoyable to many people. Of course, I could also see a successful PvP LoTR card game too. All sorts of faction decks are possible (Dunedain, Hobbits, Gondor, Haradrim, Mordor, Isengard, etc).

I see Star Wars, however, being similar to LoTR. The story and feel is really from the rebel perspective. A few heroes vs the massive and faceless Empire. That is the experience we hope FFG wants to recreate.

I know that my group of 4 are still desperately hoping for 4-player co-op.

I have found that the cooperative LOTR LCG could only capture my interest for so long before I returned to competitive cards games.

In those cooperative card games, you just fight against luck, not skill. No random deck mechanic can ever replace a thinking opponent. And how much fun is it really to defeat a bunch of cards ? Not much emotion involved, there.

Also, for how many times is it really still interesting to re-run the same adventures over and over again ? In competitive card games, my opponents come up with fresh deck ideas almost every time we play. Not a "Return to Mirkwood" for the 25th time.

And I do not at all understand that people believe that Star Wars is all about playing the "Heroes". Did you ever realise how much fun the Lucas crew had in creating those really outstanding villains ? Why are so many Darth Vader, Boba Fett and Stromtrooper costumes sold ? Sometimes it is just fun to play the villains, just as much fun as it is to watch them in the movies. Many of us would like to have at least the option to play Darth Vader`s side. Just accept this as a fact.

In those cooperative card games, you just fight against luck, not skill. No random deck mechanic can ever replace a thinking opponent. And how much fun is it really to defeat a bunch of cards ? Not much emotion involved, there.

But there is skill involved to minimize bad and maximize good. Skill to react/handle the curve balls that the deck throws at you. I agree that a random deck mechanic does not replace a thinking opponent. However, we have a lot of fun playing co-op. One of the upsides of co-op is that it ISNT competitive. No one feels bad because they lost, or gloats because they win. There is no animosity. So, as a group (or with just me and my wife) there is no sense of confrontation between us. We are on the same side collaborating together to beat the game, which is a much more satisfying experience for us than trying to beat the other person/people.

In my experience, there is also a lot more player interaction and discussion of card play between players with co-op than there ever is with PvP. It makes it a more enjoyable "get-together" social game than a PvP game.

Also, for how many times is it really still interesting to re-run the same adventures over and over again ? In competitive card games, my opponents come up with fresh deck ideas almost every time we play. Not a "Return to Mirkwood" for the 25th time.

Err… Co-op games are random. It's just as fun to run the same quest each time as it is to play the same opponent each time using the same decks. In both cases, you never know what cards your opponent (or the deck) are going to throw at you when.

And I do not at all understand that people believe that Star Wars is all about playing the "Heroes".

The Star Wars STORY is about the "Heroes". Sure, memorable bad guys are fun and can be fun to play. Even with LoTR, there are some great and memorable bad guys. Hence, there are some PvP LoTR games too. I have already agreed that a PvP SW could be a fun game. For example, I am eagerly awaiting the relase of the X-Wing miniatures game this summer.

However, I think that FFG has enough PvP LCGs in its stable already (compared to co-op). I think that a Co-op SW LCG fills a better niche. It fits the STORY better (just like a co-op LoTR LCG did) and adds a second Co-op LCG to FFG's list of games.

dvang said:

I like this argument very much. I play Warhammer Invasion, which is of course PvP, and has led to some of the worst, and some of the most boring game nights I have ever had. The guy I play with always plays the same High Elf deck, and cannot be swayed to even try another faction. Same guy I play AGoT with, he always plays as Stark. It's got to the point that I know his entire deck and can build myriad decks around his one deck of each game. So all these arguments of PvP games being so much different to co-op games against the game's AI really sound so false to me. I'm sure I'm not the only person who knows this kinda guy.

And that's also a very valid point about the table talk, too. Sometimes I just get sick of all the animosity and need something different. If I want to be killed in a thousand splendid ways, there are probably a thousand splendid games to choose from. There is only really one co-op game, and we need more.

I like co-op in general in things like video games but in a card game I get really no satisfaction or sense of accomplishment for beating random cards. The best part of a card game in my opinion is outplaying and being outplayed by your opponent and deckbuilding. In co-op the first part is lost entirely and the 2nd part suffers greatly. Sure in co-op you don't have a loser and in a sense everyone kind of wins, but I say save that for toddlers playing soccer .

KhalBrogo said:

Why do you suppose that is?

KhalBrogo said:

It sounds to me like you believe that the people wanting a coöp game are the ones who are sad to be losers. I don't think that's the case at all. Whenever I play SWMinis with friends and family, I usually win, and that makes me feel really bad. I have an extreme case of winners' guilt. I hate being the one to "ruin everyone's fun." When I finally got LotR and played it with my cousins, we had so much fun. It was gratifying to talk about the game afterwards and have a dialogue about how it was so cool when we pulled that one combo instead of hearing them say, "If I'd only rolled a natural 20 on that one attack, I could have beaten you!" or "Man, that was so close, I can't believe I lost again!"

I agree with Budgernaut.
At least for my small group (two couples), i is less about winning and losing (although that is a part of it) that puts us into enjoying the co-op games more. It is about the social atmosphere. With a co-op game before, during, and after the game there is a lot of talk. There are no hidden agendas, no secrecy of cards or deck builds. We chat amongst ourselves, laughing and bemoaning the events of the game together. Everyone wins and everyone loses. There are no betrayals, no secrecy, no backstabbing, no favoritism in attacking one person over another, etc. It is a fun social time with four people. That sort of fun atmosphere does not happen, typically, with a competitive game.

I still go play competitive games every now and then, but I generally do that with a different group of people, and generally at a game store. It isn't a social event with two couples getting together at someone's home to talk, have some food and drink, and play a fun game.

And I will point out that co-op games do have strategy and tactics. Players do have to react to the unexpected that gets thrown at them. They do have to plan moves/actions that will work. They can still play/use card combos to win the game. Etc.

My group gets a lot of enjoyment out of losing and then playing again and winning. If/when we find ourselves winning a lot, we ramp up the difficulty (most co-op games have a way to do this). No two games, even using the same decks, are ever the same.

spalanzani said:

So you feel that players in PvP playing the same deck over and over again "has led to some of the worst, and some of the most boring game nights I have ever had." and agree with the argument that repetitive decks are no different than playing the same scenario each time, yet you glorify Co-op and want more?

See where that logic bubble you made pops?

Otherwise, I agree with everything that AegonTargaryen wrote a few posts above.

I still doubt this will be a PvP game, as FFG like to ride coattails pretty hard and LotR is quite successful for them. I can hope it is not going to be Co-op, but I have to keep my expectations realistic and just go with the worst case scenario.

Hellfury said:

The point I was trying to make could have been explained better, of course, but I was trying to illustrate a point that PvP games aren't by default better than co-op games against an AI. I'll try again

People play PvP games with the same strategy time and again, so that when you see them play a card, you just know what they're building up to do, because they've done the same thing before. Using LotR as the archetypal co-op game, while it is true that the encounter deck has one strategy by the virtue of having cards within it that tend to synergise with each other, it doesn't always work as some cards come out before others. Some of the cards compensate for this but in general it's more random, almost because it lacks an intelligence, and that can lead for more spontaneity than a lot of people are giving it credit for. In fact, I strongly suspect a lot of the more die-hard PvP comments that I've been seeing here come from people who have never tried a co-op game like this, so in essence are uninformed responses. There, I said it.

Staying with the LotR model, you get a different game every month. With PvP games like Warhammer, you get three or four cards (in triplicate) that you can add to an existing deck and go at it with someone, if you can drum that someone up to play in the first place. While it's true that, in LotR, you yourself only get a small number of cards to play in your own deck, your opponent goes from having just a couple of new cards (if he chooses to use any of the new cards that month, or just sticks with his tried-and-true deck), to having a completely new deck. It's a lot more alive than some of the other games around, in that respect.

Some people do play LotR to death, of course - I'm always quite alarmed when I read people have already played half a dozen games the first night they have the new adventure pack. This will no doubt lead people to think it's boring because they throw all their time to beating the new game within hours, and then have nothing else to do for the rest of the month. This no doubt leads to a lot of comments about it being a boring game or stagnant or whatever, which no doubt then get picked up on by people who perhaps haven't tried it but repeat the opinions of such Old Masters. The view of a co-op game as being stagnant grows, and here we are.

I just find the LotR model a lot more exciting than any of the other PvP models out there. You get a whole new game to play every month, release schedules allowing. That is why I "glorify co-op and want more"

Well said, man! I've never played a lot of PvP, so can't make a comparison like that, but I do think the random element of the encounter deck, combined with the sheer number of scenarios, gives it tremendous replay value.

That's actually a good point, regarding the randomness from the encounter deck leading to more varied games, and therefore more interesting games. However, I still want a PvP experience from Star Wars for one reason: Tournaments. I enjoy both PvP and Co-op games with my friends, but the tension I get playing an unknown person and deck in a tournament, and the rush I get when I can pull off a win, is far better of an experience than I get from playing PvP or Co-op just with friends.

Because I have LotR for the Co-op experience, I want Star Wars to be PvP to satisfy that tournament itch I have. Now, I know FFG has other LCGs that could satisfy a PvP need for me, but the simple fact is I love Star Wars a lot more than the other universes.

Scoob said:

Problem is that if you have no events near you and a small (sometimes one or none) opponents a pvp game is unplayable.. while it is super easy to have a dinner party and a gaming night and run some co-ops with your mates or play with your wife and not have to sleep on the couch for a week.

I'm still holding out for co-op.. I mean they have announced netrunner and that is 100% a pvp scifi game… makes sense for this to be a co-op scifi game.. and they still haven't changed the forums titles .

I'm really unconvinced about the arguments that this game is no pvp.

booored said:

Very good point. I do hope you turn out to be right about this . . .

You know, it really seems like the Star Wars franchise could easy support both a PVP game as well as a Co-op game. They could come at the game from two different angles, with the cards creating two very different feels for the player.

If FFG wants another Co-op game, I think it's a wonderful idea, but I think they'd be missing out not investigating both styles.

Yeah, I've been looking at Rune Age a lot recently and they successfully incorporate solo, co-op, and PvP. Well, I guess the success of the implementation is up to player opinion, but the point is that it can be done. Once you take that route, however, different player types will be stuck with cards they can't [read: won't] use. But at least it will let FFG sell more product, and I think I'd use all three of those types of play.

[Edit: And when you consider that Corey is involved with both Rune Age and Star Wars: The Card Game, it seems like it could be a real possibility.]

Ive been thinking of getting that game… glad to hear it is good.. i didn't think it had a solo mode though

There are two of four scenarios that can be played solo. One scenario has the end goal of defeating the final dragon. In multiplayer, the first to kill it wins, but there's supposedly a solo variant for that one. The other scenario is a cooperative one where all the players have to survive the "encounter deck" in order to win. I actually haven't played it yet. Spalanzani knows much more about it and he's the one who really got me interested in checking it out.

In the end, though, I don't think I'll be getting that game. I decided to spend my limited birthday funds on the X-wing game and the Star Wars: The Card Game core set. It would have been nice to get Rune Age, but I'll just have to wait on that.

Oh yes, I'd recommend Rune Age to anyone!

There are four scenarios, a dragon-killing one, a PvP one, a race one, and the survive the encounter deck one (basically speaking). I've managed to play all except the PvP one solo, though things like the race one do feel very much like you're just going through the motions. The goal of that one is to build a monument, so you have to try to acquire enough gold to do so, so the encounter deck tries to thwart you in that.

It's a really good game, anyway, and the upcoming expansion promises to expand things a lot. Well worth getting, lads!