Cheese Burglar
Japan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Noticed a problem with the scenario after multiple playthroughs. Based on the intro paragraph we are told we need to find information on the Marsh family, yet to finish you need to do four more things, only three of which are divulged before the very end. Often the final escape portion necessitates you going back and clearing the whole map of any un-resolved information points just in case, by which time you are of course insane, or severely gimped and pursued by multiple spawns. This could be fixed with a little more info in the opening paragraph, and clearer info on the objectives as you reveal them. In one case you are given the last objective once you've made a mad, last desperate dash to the docks and are likely surrounded and blocked in. To then tell us we need to go to the other side of the map at that point is just cruel.

Losing a scenario doesn't automatically make it un-fun, but without clearly defining the objectives early enough for us to complete the scenario is unfair. And unfair is un-fun. Unless you're quite lucky or go through the map uncovering *every* piece of available information (dangerously wasting a lot of time), there's little chance players could complete this scenario first time out. It'll happen, but as a rarity unless they know the things and sequence to do them in. Is losing multiple times part of the design aesthetic?

Maybe this is their new key to "replayability". A digression, but I've seen the concept in some of these games that because it's Lovecraft and an unforgiving universe, that games aren't meant to be won anymore unless you lose them a few times first or get lucky. Maybe this was the idea?? I'm curious what would be the point of designing or playing a game you would rarely win? It should be fun despite the genre. You can provide horror and allow winning. You could even allow the characters to lose and the game to be won. Not winning does not equal Lovecraftian nihilism... it equals people not pulling the game off the shelf. (End of digression, lol).

The map didn't change in my playthroughs at all, though some spawns varied in place though never in type. I haven't played the other scenarios yet so I'm reserving judgement on the game in total for now, but if this is the way they provide replayability this time out -giving limited information on the objectives until the very end, forcing us to lose a few games-if this is the idea, it's a very bad design choice.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryce K. Nielsen
United States
Elk Ridge
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We just completely this scenario, and while we lost, we highly enjoyed how the information was dolled out. This scenario though had the problem that the first scenario had, no information on remaining time. We had no clue if we should be rushing through the mobs to find the clues, or cautiously advancing and not drawing attention to ourselves. We chose the latter (not peering down observation points to keep spawns at bay, alluding to us "sneaking" around) and ended up losing. Had we known all the things we had to do, and known there'd be a time limit, we would have been less cautious.

I'm starting to think every mission will be like this: don't go slow!

-shnar
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stefan Tymoshyshyn
England
Liskeard
Cornwall
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Might help to put spoiler alerts on comments like these. Others have done so.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Schwab
Germany
Donauwörth
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mb
Today I lost my fourth try to escape from Innsmouth and I am a bit annoyed because there's always the same tile layout and you must do the things in exactly the right order to have a little chance to successfully master this mission. You must learn where to go first, which item you get in which room or from which person etc. because the game will give you NO time to move a second time around the map. And any little step away from the correct way (or bad luck with the dice) will usually lead to defeat.
In the end it's not horror anymore but a special kind of speed running in a board game.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin Colm
msg tools
mbmb
I think you'd have to be incredibly lucky to get a win (certainly a 'perfect' one, as each scenario tends to have at least one 'soft' win and one 'full' win (you got all the necessary evidence, kept everyone alive etc as well as completed the main objective) on the 1st playthrough of a scenario, except for maybe 'Cycle of Eternity'. I have no problem with that. It's just the nature of the game. There does have to be some replayability.

But yes, the game becomes more mechanical and less immersive on subsequent plays of a given scenario. That's why I've been an advocate of variable scenario objectives.

By my reckoning, not withstanding uncontrollable factors like the luck of the dice, each scenario is pretty perfectable with about 3 plays. That's what we've found to be the case: by a third run we're very business-like and know exactly where to go and what to do to 'perfectly' complete the investigation (best victory condition) with a minimum amount of mercy from the dice.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryce K. Nielsen
United States
Elk Ridge
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
High Flying Bird wrote:
I think you'd have to be incredibly lucky to get a win (certainly a 'perfect' one, as each scenario tends to have at least one 'soft' win and one 'full' win (you got all the necessary evidence, kept everyone alive etc as well as completed the main objective) on the 1st playthrough of a scenario, except for maybe 'Cycle of Eternity'.

We won our first play through of Rising Tide. We haven't tried it a second time yet, but we have high hopes it will be quite replayable (i.e. suspects change each play through).

-shnar
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.