After having played a few games now I ve noticed a few things, some of which have already been mentioned here. I get what they were trying to do with the research and mystery cards, basically tailoring each game to a specific Old One but that actually doesn't come through all that much in actual gameplay because it is diluted by the regular encounter cards as well as the gate cards and the randomness of the monsters. And the problem is that they have tried to do this at the cost of variety in the game. to be honest, I m not sure if having more mystery and research cards for each old ones would really do that big a difference in this. And I m not particularely fond with the gate mechanic. Failing to close a gate means that when you try again and draw a new card, its usually not to the same place and to me that sort of breaks the consistency of the game experience. I much prefer the way they dealt with gates in AH. I m also puzzled by the decision to make monster encounter mandatory when you are on the same area. If there's ghoul wandering the streets of London, it doesn't mean you absolutely have to run into it...I could understand if it was say an expedition or a clue token that was being blocked by the monster but when its a city you wish to encounter it doesn't make sense. In AH you could actually go around monsters and even sneak by them.

I've only played half a dozen games but I definitely feel a difference in games between AOs. Although I wouldn't be opposed to it being more pronounced I disagree that it "doesn't come through all that much in actual gameplay". And I'm afraid you'd have to explain how it has been "at the cost of variety in the game" as I feel like swapping up AOs increases the variety of the game.

I agree that ending up in a different place every encounter even if it is the same gate does feel odd. But I do understand why they couldn't do it the AH way. The AH mechanic doesn't mesh with EH well at all. They's have to, I dunno, draw two tokens. One for the gate location and one for the other world and then separate the OW deck into multiple gates... And that gets a bit cumbersome. Easily home modifiable though. You'd just have to make those OW tokens.

'Fraid I disagree on monsters completely. If it helps imagine that the monsters are hunting you and if you dally long enough to discover an encounter then the monsters have time to find you before you do. And although you can't sneak in EH you can, well, just move past them to a different location entirely.

"I've only played half a dozen games but I definitely feel a difference in games between AOs. Although I wouldn't be opposed to it being more pronounced I disagree that it "doesn't come through all that much in actual gameplay". And I'm afraid you'd have to explain how it has been "at the cost of variety in the game" as I feel like swapping up AOs increases the variety of the game."

well personally I d rather have had 40 more generic clue research cards than just 8 specific to each old ones although in this sense the game would be perfect if they had at least 20 of each. And the mystery cards do add a lot of specificity to the AO being used in a particular game but 4 cards when you have to resolve 3 is nowhere near enough...8 or 12 would be much better for replayability.

"I agree that ending up in a different place every encounter even if it is the same gate does feel odd. But I do understand why they couldn't do it the AH way. The AH mechanic doesn't mesh with EH well at all. They's have to, I dunno, draw two tokens. One for the gate location and one for the other world and then separate the OW deck into multiple gates... And that gets a bit cumbersome. Easily home modifiable though. You'd just have to make those OW tokens."

I understand that it can be fixed but I still think it was a mistake to go that way.

"'Fraid I disagree on monsters completely. If it helps imagine that the monsters are hunting you and if you dally long enough to discover an encounter then the monsters have time to find you before you do. And although you can't sneak in EH you can, well, just move past them to a different location entirely."

but my point is that a city or even a wilderness area is far too large a place to explain away the fact that you absolutely have to encounter the monster instead of encountering the city...like I said, if you are researching clues or trying to solve an expedition token or even closing a gate then it would make thematic sense to encounter the monster first who can be said to be guarding the token. But even if the monster are hunting you, the same can be said about the monsters in arkham...yet you don't have to encounter them to encounter the city itself.

but my point is that a city or even a wilderness area is far too large a place to explain away the fact that you absolutely have to encounter the monster instead of encountering the city...like I said, if you are researching clues or trying to solve an expedition token or even closing a gate then it would make thematic sense to encounter the monster first who can be said to be guarding the token. But even if the monster are hunting you, the same can be said about the monsters in arkham...yet you don't have to encounter them to encounter the city itself.

I would imagine that anyone making enquiries into occult goings-on in the city will repeatedly run into the rumours about the monster parading about the city, and wouldn't be able to make any other progress whilst it was dominating the headlines, so to speak. For example:

Investigator: Hey, pal. I'm a journalist of the Fortean. I wondered if you'd seen anything odd or out-of-place recently?

Citizen: Well, there's big slime beast trying to eat the Golden Gate Bridge.

Investigator: No, I was looking something else.

Citizen: What's wrong with my slime monster? It's not like you run into one of those every day.

Investigator: I was hoping for something... a little safer.

Citizen: So let me get this straight. You claim to be a paranormal investigator, but the moment I alert you to the most significantly visible occult entity in the vicinity, you get scared and take umbrage.

Investigator: Hey don't be like that. I didn't mean anything.

Citizen: Oh sure you didn't! You'd rather be pottering around musty old museums and libraries "researching", or gallivanting around Shanghai like a millionaire playboy, whilst my taxpayer dollars go towards the police benevolent fund for insane cops.

Investigator: (Throws hand up in the air) All right! All right! I'll go and take on your ruddy slime beast. Happy now?!?

Your thematic complaints seem misguided, and in that regard comparing the game to Arkham isn't a fair comparison because the theme of each game is different, despite being very similar. You have to realize that the scale is different. In Arkham, you have a bunch of locations that are very close to one another. When it comes to Eldritch Horror, each time you're encountering something in a city, you're only getting a glimpse of the things going on in that city.

Each time you encounter a gate in a city, you're not encountering the same gate. The gate token is just a sign that gates are opening in that city and a clue token is a sign that things are going on you should investigate. The act of passing a gate encounter stops new gates from opening in that city temporarily. The same is true for clue tokens. You know a clue is in a city of the game, so each time you "encounter" that clue in the research deck, you're following tips until you find the clue you're looking for. When you acquire the clue, you've finally found the specific clue you needed in that city. Each individual encounter in the city is a unique instance, rather than in Arkham where each location is encountering that same exact location and/or gate.

I think the point is that this game may not be for you at this juncture. I'm actually pretty impressed with the game. I've played against all four old ones, and each game has been distinctly different.

That said, I get where you're coming from. It is, however, reductive to compare Eldritch Horror to Arkham Horror. Fair enough, the themes are the same and the Stamina/Sanity mechanic is still in place, as is the testing mechanic, but Eldritch Horror definitely captures the epic feel of AO's as a global threat, where AH doesn't so much.

The real issue, I think, lies in the fact that perhaps you prefer the ridiculously random and unsuitable events of Arkham Horror over the much more specific events of Eldritch Horror. All of the generic events feel truly generic in this game, and I don't feel like I'm being tackled with Cthulhu or Hastur-centric ideas while I'm facing off against Azathoth in this game; at least not without it feeling fluid due to the global setting.

All of this said, the first expansion should certainly remedy some of your more valid concerns; at least I hope so. This game is awesome.

Personally, I love AH. It is one of my favorite games.

As far as I am concerned, EH doesn't have much in common really with AH other than thematic elements, and maybe a few similar mechanics (like Health/Sanity). It is obvious to me that they are distinctly different games.

For example, the investigators in AH have a goal of closing gates to win (essentially).

In EH, gates are, for the most part, just obstacles.

In AH, monsters get you bonuses.

In EH, monsters are just obstacles and/or annoyances.

To win EH, the investigators have a set of missions to complete.

Things that are important in AH, are not really important in EH.

AH is much more "intimate" and RPG-like. There is more depth in characters and character growth. That is partially why AH generally takes longer unless you are very familiar with it.

EH is a boardgame first, with a set turn limit and faster paced play. It is also more "macro", being at a world level.

I'm having fun with both games. They share similar themes, but they are not the same game and play very different. AH is still a great option when you have time to play it, and want the richness and depth of play. EH is great to play in a shorter period of time or when you just want something lighter.

And the mystery cards do add a lot of specificity to the AO being used in a particular game but 4 cards when you have to resolve 3 is nowhere near enough...8 or 12 would be much better for replayability.

I've seen this said in several places, but it doesn't actually make much sense to me.

First, the game requires the consistency of strateg that comes from being able to mostly predict the mysteries you're going to get.

Second, just the variation of 3 out of 4 is significantly more than any other co-op game I've played. And EH comes with multiple AOs. So I'm completely baffled by where the "replayability" assessment is coming from.