FFG + Star Wars license?

Hell yes.

But why cooperative? Why?!

I was surprised, even a little shocked at the cooperative element. And it will feel sad to no longer be able to play the Empire. But I've had that experience already, and am willing to try something new for a change.

I think a better way to look at this game is as a reflection of the movies. Sure, Vader is cool, Boba Fett is cool, but in the end, you want to see the Rebels win, knowing that they will in the end. In this game, you don't know if they will, but you're still hoping that they do since you're playing them.

All the same, I wouldn't be at all dismayed if they introduced a version of the game that would allow players to take up the mantle of darkness and serve the Emperor, forging a horrible pact with each other to stamp out the Rebel fanatics. This would effectively double the already infinite lifespan of the game, since you'd need missions and cards to support both sides of the Force. I think the best way to implement such a thing, though, would be to make it so that if players prefer, they can divide into teams and play their own decks directly against the other side's decks.

Personally, the cooperative dynamic is so refreshing!

Everyone is willing to play a game much more often!

The Dark Side is seductive, sure, but when you're watching the movies, everyone cheers for the good guys.

Rumb13stiltzkin said:

What movies are you watching ? I cheer for the Empire.

The Empire is so much cooler... but it's not as if there aren't enough competitive Star Wars card games out there. People still play and make expansions for Decipher's Star Wars.

And FFG still has more competitive LCGs than co-op. I'm sure they'll get over it soon. This game sounds like it could be more strategic than Lord of the Rings. I often feel like there is only one logical play on my turn, but the addition of various zones and a split emphasis between space combat and ground forces means I'll have a lot of flexibility for deck making and in-game decision making.

(Of course, it could be that I just completely don't understand Lord of the Rings.)

This was the most requested franchise I saw on the general LCG board, so I'm sure many will be happy, whether they wanted a co-op or not.

Co-op = Epic fail.

Sorry, it had to be said.

Rumb13stiltzkin said:

Why is it refreshing? It has been done (and is being done) to death and the current Co-op trend is an utter bore. A well designed A.I. for games is rare. A well designed Co-op is even rarer.

Hellfury said:

It does run counter to basic human nature to work towards a common goal...but that's what makes it fun IMO. I've always loved being a "rebel."

MarthWMaster said:

Allow me to elaborate. The current trend in co-op is fail.

Since Pandemic made the style so fashionable, many games try to ape the co-op style and still manage to have the major downfll that Pandemic has. The Egotistic gamer subtype that takes charge over the game.

It seems that this is a failure of the design more than the failure of the players. I have played quite a few co-ops which lack this. But yet so many nowadays allow this to emerge. hell even adversarial games such as Mansions of Madness have this. My first game played at Arkham Nights was evidence of this crap.

I want to play the heroic savior against a brilliant evil A.I. But so far FFG and many other companies have failed to create such an A.I. for their co-ops. So on the whole, co-ops are fail.

This egotistical player is not so relevant if you play closed-hands as any of these games will tell you to. No one can take charge of what I do if they don't know what I CAN do. Sounds like more a problem with your own play group, no offense. My group works together very well... well, "well" as in we all give equal input and decide things together for overall strategy while taking our own turns. Not "well" as in winning... ever. Sigh. Lord of the Rings and Pandemic are too hard for me.

This problem is also irrelevant if you play solo, which Star Wars allows.

As for the AI, I kind of agree. Lord of the Rings is all over the place. One card may do nothing while another may damage every single character. It's ridiculous. I hope Star Wars is better balanced.

I suppose it's also human nature to dislike anything that's change (co-op vs all the other PvP SWCCGs).

And perhaps it's human nature to complain about things before we have anything other than gloss-over details.

I'm having a blast with LOTR and I could care less if I'm playing an encounter deck or another human; the game is still fun.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess; but I'll never understand the need to run to any message boards and complain about anything (let alone something we know virtually nothing about).

You don't like the idea? Won't be buying/trying the game? That's your decision. I just don't see the need to broadcast that to the world.

Don't like co-op? Don't play. Or open up your own game company and design something better.

Dain Ironfoot said:

I suppose it is also human nature to mindlessly fawn over a game like the second coming of christ before we have anything other than gloss-over details?

Its a public fora to discuss topics regarding the game, dont like the comments because you disagree? Dont read them.

Sounds like a dickish thing to say right? Same goes for telling people how to communicate.

The purpose of these fora are for FFG to gain feedback, both good and bad. Its how they evolve and develop products into games that they are able to sell.

People screamed that they would not be buying collectible Arkham Horror miniatures because of the bad feedback and they reconsidered how they would market them.

They then made a product for arkham horror miniatures that was both cheaper and easier for consumers to buy.

Why?

Because people bitched.

FFG gain more from negative feedback than they do from a long line of "Yes men" lining up to give them congratulatory pats on the back at every turn. You do not grow when people agree with you all the time. You have to allow dissenting opinions to gain the best possible product..

People complain because they care and want to see the company succeed, not because they are A-holes.

Hellfury said:

Talk about an over reaction. No where in my comments am I "fawning" over the game. I have a "wait and see" approach. Not a "rush to judgement" approach.

And since this game, according to FFG, is "already at the printer", I don't see the point in any of these comments.

IMO, since this game is already being printed, constructive comments can *only* come once rules are posted and and cards revealed and once folks have actually tried out the game.

You really think FFG is going to say: "Oh look, a bunch of folks want PvP; guess we'll cancel all the design work we've done and call the printer and tell them to stop printing and destroy whatever work they've done."

Of course not.

On Edit: You are, of course, right that constructive criticism is beneficial to any company. However, with the consumer knowing virtually nothing about this game, I can't help but wonder how much stock FFG will put into these comments? It's money that talks, not a few malcontents on a message board. And I think you even furthered my point: you said FFG changed the way they marketed the game: not the core game design/concept.

Dain Ironfoot said:

That's odd, because that's exactly what they did with the arkham horror miniatures.

Hellfury said:

I edited my original post to comment on that: I know nothing about that particular game; but all you said was they made it cheaper and easier to get. That doesn't sound to me (again, forgive my ignorance about that product) to be a design/concept change which is what many are complaining about.

I'm so excited,

and I just can't hide it!

I'm about to lose control

and I think I like it! (eww wee)

Thank you, FFG, for bringing the SW license back to life. I'm looking forward to getting this game and seeing what it has to offer.

To the vets on this board: Do they really come out with Adventure Packs for LCGs every MONTH?!? At that rate, they'll burn through the OT, the prequels, and the EU in about two years!!! Still, it'll be a heck of a ride...

BTW, first post. Hi, y'all!!!

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.