I admit that I am being tongue-in-cheek here and I don't want to start a flame thread, but seriously, co-op gaming is boring. Co-op nation building, feeding the poor, etc is fine, but games?

Even is life, co-op sports (man vs nature, such as mountain climbing) are nowhere near as popular as man vs. man. I understand that some people like co-op games but, meh.

If a theme/setting depicts a unified struggle against a common problem/enemy/situation, then a cooperative framework makes a perfect vehicle for a game. How would it make sense for people to compete against each other in a battle against diseases spreading around the world? Sure, you could find a way to make it about someone getting the most glory or whatever, but that would miss out on the bigger story, that people/hobbits/superheroes worked together to face the challenge. Cooperative games are among the most exciting I've ever played: Pandemic, Ghost Stories, Lord of the Rings, Arkham Horror, Defenders of the Realm, Lord of the Rings: LCG, Battlestar Galactica, Shadows Over Camelot, Sentinels of the Multiverse, Space Alert, Mousquetaires du Roy, Middle Earth Quest, Castle Panic, Fury of Dracula, Saboteur, Forbidden Island, Last Night on Earth, Descent, Space Hulk: Death Angel, Elder Sign, Flash Point: Fire Rescue, etc. So many amazing games with incredible theme and narrative, that provide a great shared experience.

And let's look at how popular role-playing games are. I'm sure there are some game masters out there that love to make the game a sort of hell for their players and is constantly trying to short-change them, but I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the good GMs that try to make a really fun, immersive, challenging, but rewarding, role-playing experience for their players. The players, on the other hand, are cooperating to achieve a common goal as set out by the game master. The game master controls the enemy characters, but his/her goal is not to "win" by defeating the players. His goal is to provide a challenge for the players to overcome together. You can't tell me that this extremely popular table-top gaming format is flawed because of its cooperative nature. Well, you could, but I wouldn't believe you.

LotR:LCG is the same in that there is a challenge deck, the goal of which is not to dominate and "win" against the players, but to provide a challenge and a means for them to work together to accomplish something. That is the sort of atmosphere I was hoping to experience in this Star Wars card game.

I don't think many of those that were hoping for a co-op game (as was originally announced but is now less certain with the announcement) have a problem with competative gaming. Most gamers like a mix of style of games. As I have said in other threads , I personally feel co-op fits the setting better, as Star Wars is about the heroes overcoming the villains (while a major element of the Song of Fire and Ice series is about the various powers struggling against each other, so makes a competative game much more fitting for the setting. Warhammer is entirely a setting designed for battles of various factions against each other, so a co-operative game would make little sense). It shares much with LotR, which is about heroes going on quests and overcoming adversity in an attempt to defeat evil.

I personally find co-op games easier to just break out with a group of mates, some of whom really are not gamers. Competative games are much more advesarial (understandably) and I need to be in a certain mood, while a game where we are working together fits more naturally with having people round for a friendly evening. They are more approachable, as new players, particularly non-gamers, are not in a position where they are essentially being taken advantage of (I really don't like winning in my first game against a new player... I feel it can be a bit of a crushing experience, but then if I feel I am going easy on them I feel if I am just patronising them).

Now this doesn't mean I don't like competative games. I play them a lot, and one of my favourite boardgames is Combat Commander, a wargame which is entirely about using what advantage you have to crush the opposition. I just find them less suitable for a relaxed evening with mates. With a friend who has come round specially, yeah. At the board game club I go to every week, yeah, but generally not on a friendly night with mates (with mixed gaming experience and ability).

At the same time, you mention sports. Yes, most popular sports are competative. Partly to do with what makes exciting watching. Mountain climbing (for example) is slow. Not exactly dramatic tv. If I was going to play a game based on a sport I would expect it to be competative. However, most great stories are about either overcoming adversity or co-operation, even within sports. Most sports films, etc, are not about the sport themselves, and the opposition usually matters little. It is usually about some underdog overcoming the odds, usually by co-operating and so becoming something greater than the whole. To make a game which accurately reflected the feel of a sports film (as seperate from the sport itself) you probably would create a co-operative game.

Bravo to the great replies in this thread!

Yes, I understand the "challenge" of defeating a common foe is the big draw for co-op games. That's why I mentioned mountain climbing as an example of a man vs "challenge" sport.

However, the dismay of co-op fans at the move to PvP is surprising since everyone acknowledges that man vs man sports are much more popular. If you stick the same ratio in LCGs, have one co-op game per 5 or 6 PvP games would be about correct, if not still in favor of co-op. At the end of the day, only games that will sell see the light of day.

So, not so tongue-in-cheek then. Maybe you should have included "people who don't agree with me, please don't reply" in your first post?

I. J. Thompson said:

No, but I clearly should have put "people with thin skins need not reply."

Touché.

I. J. Thompson said:

All in jest, my friend.

Baseball and basketball are both cooperative games. Any game that involves a team requires cooperation and often the team which cooperates "the best" or "wins at cooperating" is the winner of the game.

Cletus said:

You've got a point. I remember that sweet game between the Denver Nuggets and the inanimate deck of cards from the '11-'12 season. It was pretty heated. The Nuggets lost.

Grudunza said:

The expansion for Pandemic includes an option for a player to be a bio-terrorist playing against the other players. Battlestar Galactica has 1-2 cylons working against the crew. Shadows Over Camelot has the option for a traitor to work against the other players. Middle Earth Quest (probably one of the best games for 3 players) has one of the players taking the role of Sauron and working against the others. Fury of Dracula has one player playing Dracula. Last Night on Earth has the option of a player being the zombies. So, Yes, there is a co-operative element to these games, but the thing I love most about these games is the competitive aspect that pits one player aginst the others. Head-to-head. Mano-y-mano. As it should be here in the great U.S. of effing A. BOOM!

Hurdoc said:

yeah it is especially as it HASN'T moved form co-op to pvp... no idea were your getting that from.

For me though co-op gaming is bar far the best type of leisure gaming activity, I pretty much only play co-op.

I just wish they'd give us some concrete info to be going on.

booored said:

True they haven't explicitly *said* it, but all signs point to it. You can now play as the Empire according to the new description, the game box @ the NY Toy Fair said for 2 players instead of 1-4 players, etc, etc.

I'm pretty disappointed by the move, was really looking forward to it being co-op (and most of all solo).

telengard said:

What description? I looked at it again and it still says it's a cooperative game.

I think this one :
http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite_sec.asp?eidm=175&esem=2

Star Wars: The Card Game is an LCG that places players in control of their favorite Star Wars characters. Players will launch fleets of starships and direct some of the most famous heroes and villains in the Star Wars galaxy. With a wealth of characters, starships, missions, and enemies, Star Wars: The Card Game immerses players in galactic conflict.

Aha, very sneaky! Two words can make all the difference.

Hurdoc said:

People enjoy WATCHING man vs man sports. My guess is far more people PARTICIPATE in hiking/ climbing/ camping/ canoeing and other non-competative activities and enjoy doing these with others (co-op) and alone (solo).

bigeeh said:

When I go hiking or canoeing, it is a competitive activity!

telengard said:

This. I've done the PvP card game already, a couple of times. And now the players are gone, my money is gone, and the cards are virtually as worthless as the cardstock they're printed on. Sure, we're all excited about the new adversarial card game when it comes out, but when we all can't find enough players, or FFG loses the license, or we just move on the next "exciting" new game (or even go back to the old one...I hear Magic is still around), I end up with a game I may have loved that I now resent for making me love it. FFG's Lord of the Rings will NEVER do that to me, and neither I nor it will ever need to care if anyone else loves it or not. I am saddened that, once again, I will need to rely on the whims of (Sartre's) "other people" for a Star Wars game, which will likely prevent me from getting invested in it.

I just want to pipe up and say how annoyed I am at the title of this thread. I know it's a small thing, but when I check this thread a couple times a day, the fact that this thread is always up top starts to grate on my nerves. The issue I have is that it's not at all a respectful way to discuss the issue of co-op vs. pvp. The title is sarcastic and specifically pointed at evoking defensive emotions in those who prefer pvp by insinuating that their desires are ridiculous because, by comparison, popular sports would not be interesting if they were not competitive. And it works at doing just that! I want to shout every time I read this title! I just wish there was more activity here so this thread could get drowned out to a later page (and yes, I know that my posting bumps it and does nothing to aid in this thread's sliding into nothingness).

But while I'm on a tirade, let me just reiterate something that I hope applies to most of those who are pro-cooperative. When I say cooperative, what I'm really saying is that I prefer the system they used at GenCon 2011 which imitated the system that The Lord of the Rings uses. I am in no way saying that competition is a bad thing. I love competing in the fan-based LotR tournaments that utilize the scoring system to compare results among players. I think it really does add an exciting element to the game. So yes, competition is rewarding. BUT, the issue I have with standard pvp games is that you need two people to play. From what I've seen so far on these forums, most of us are not high school kids who are going to spend hours with our friends in the evenings after our homework is done. Many of us have other responsibilities that not only make it more difficult to find time for our hobbies, but nigh impossible to coordinate play time with other like-minded individuals. The result, as has been repeated ad nauseum here, is a stack of useless cards that did a good job of supporting a game company, but are little use to the customer after about a year or so. The cooperative format, as we have come to call it, is much more flexible in that it allows engaging solo play. Additionally, when you do find time to get together with friends, it is refreshing to work together against a common foe and walk away from the table at the end of the session without the common tensions between winner and loser. Earlier posts were very excited about the ability to bring other non-gamers, such as spouses and others, into this game through its co-op nature because the new player doesn't have to deal with a more experienced player completely destroying them as they learn to play. Now, add these bonuses to a solid scoring system for comparisons and competitions and I think we have a winning product. I will be sad to see cooperative play replaced by the less accessible player vs. player system.

Ultimately FFG will probably make a decision based on sales projections, which reflect the opinions of large groups of people - not just those of us who frequent the forums.

I don't know what national sales are like, but at my local game store they sell multiple copies of each Call of Cthulhu expansion, but can't sell a single pack of the Lord of the Rings expansions. LotR sold well enough when it came out, but the local players in my area got bored of the game very quickly because of no head-to-head aspect.

Of course that is purely anecdotal, and national sales reports will tell FFG the real story. I guess whichever model is generating more sales will correlate with the decision to go cooperative or not.

TheProfessor said:

Funny it is the exact opposite at my local store. LoTR is by far the best seller in relation to all other LCG products. Also the a city store i know of is still running weakly lotr events that get a lot of people while coc (teh only other lcg to have one) is on a monthly basis