Chris Poor
United States
Dexter
Kentucky
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
I understand that the programming for the app would be more complex, but after playing the first scenario 4 times, it has essentially been the same story with a slightly altered map. There are differences in details, but no alteration in the story's spine.

I was hoping for something like first edition, which increased replayability because you did not know which of the objectives the keeper had selected. This made strategy more nuanced, as you had to be flexible, since the location and/or the threat to be faced was not clear, even after several plays. I assumed that this would be a part of the app programming, so that, your opponent in a typical mansion scenario may be the owner of the house, someone/something that has taken or controls the owner of the house, or something that has occupied the house. Similarly, the end of the game might have you destroying the house, fighting a boss monster, or trying to escape.

From what I can tell, this is not the case in second edition. Trying to avoid any spoilers here, but has anyone had a replay of a scenario where the story was significantly different (aside from map variation or monsters randomized)?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Vermont
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ah I had no clue the scenarios were so much alike. This isn't the best news to hear.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J P
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Your objectives can change depending on how long it's taking you to move through the scenario.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Poor
United States
Dexter
Kentucky
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Desferous wrote:
Ah I had no clue the scenarios were so much alike. This isn't the best news to hear.


Just to be clear; each scenario tells a good story, and they are different from each other - we now have 6 separate scenarios that are unique stories.

My point is that in the first edition, the SAME scenario (Like "Fall of House Lynch") would have 3-4 different stories behind it, with the same initial set-up, so that the players did not know which story they were in until some clues had been discovered. Also, the location of the key clues was variable.

Second edition so far has felt like the first playthrough of a scenario is made more difficult by not knowing what the story is (and this feels right and good for this game), but later playthroughs of the same scenario feel more like moving to the finale by the most direct route possible. Still have to find the clues, but (so far) they are in the same place every time.

Again, I could be wrong (I wish I were!). No spoilers intended.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin Colm
msg tools
mbmb
crispy66 wrote:
Desferous wrote:
Ah I had no clue the scenarios were so much alike. This isn't the best news to hear.


Just to be clear; each scenario tells a good story, and they are different from each other - we now have 6 separate scenarios that are unique stories.


Well, kind of... Dearly Departed is pretty much the same story as 'Cycle of Eternity', with a different setting.

AS for the stories being good: they're atmospheric and they work; they're perfectly adequate, they're fun to play, but I don't think anyone should expect anything mind-blowing from them: they are as generic Lovecraft tropes as you can imagine really.

I think that multiple objectives would take this game to another level. I was hoping to see some progression in the sophistication of the scenarios with the two new ones but they're pretty much the same as the others. So far the ambition has been quite low but perhaps that's understandable as the implementation of the App in itself is surely a pretty major innovation and I can understand if they want a small bedrock of solid, if unremarkable scenarios laid down before they crank it up a notch. I just worry that they have no higher ambition with this game: what we see is what we get. That's pessimistic maybe but with Fantasy Flight these days I too often get the impression they're satisfied to do the easiest thing, sell it, and move onto the next easiest thing.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Yep I've been disappointed with the replayability. It's a much discussed topic, I think at this point we're just waiting to see if/when we're getting more free scenarios and what the expansion format will be like.

Gave a play of the newest 5 star scenario and found it was a bit disappointing as well. Not gonna spoil it, but not much new happens in it. Plays out fairly predictably. I hope they have more unique scenarios in the future (maybe they'll need a proper expansion before they start doing new stuff).

Also saying we have 6 scenarios is misleading. The base set comes with 4, and 2 more available if you at some point spent more money (either 1st ed or recently on the new tile/figure packs).
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
gary gee
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
one way to offset this problem with the game.is,to add some free scenarios to the app...at least it would make us all feel like we were getting a good deal out of it,,its probably the most expensive boardgame on the market at the moment..or one of the most expensive!.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ivan Cox
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Fatesadvent wrote:
Also saying we have 6 scenarios is misleading. The base set comes with 4, and 2 more available if you at some point spent more money (either 1st ed or recently on the new tile/figure packs).


How is it misleading to say 'we now have 6 separate scenarios'? Nowhere did he say or suggest he was talking about only the base game - in fact the 'now' suggests there weren't 6 at launch. But there are now 6 scenarios, so what he said wasn't misleading, it was accurate.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grünherz

Frankfurt am Main
Hessen
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
I am kind of disappointed with replayability too now. I was very skeptical at first about this game and initially decided against buying it but after a few very favorable reviews that seemed to address my concerns about replayability, I took the plunge and bought the game thinking that each scenario would be replayable a few times and would be different each time.

After re-playing the first scenario once because we failed the first time, it seems like my original concerns have ultimately proved to not be unfounded after all because the scenario was essentially the same with a few minor differences. Now to think that I paid $100 (+$50 for one of the collection packs), I can't help but feel like I've been a bit ripped off tbh. Sure, if I got by pure hours played and how much I'd have spent per hour by the end of it all, it's surely worth it because this game at least makes it to the table frequently (which I can't say for other expensive games I own), but it does leave a bad taste in my mouth to think I've spent so much money on only 4 or 5 scenarios. I sure hope they do crank it up a notch too and hopefully release free scenarios because I don't really feel like paying more in the ballpark of $50 for expansions that maybe add only one or two new mediocre scenarios.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Australia
Adelaide
SA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In my experience with 1st edition (which I still really like) I found the variability of scenario objectives didn't help the other players want to replay a scenario anyway. They'd always much rather play something new.

The Call of the Wild scenarios have no variations on their objectives but most who played them would agree that they are the best and most replayable ones. To me, 2nd edition feel like a direct follow on from some of the ideas in that expansion.

I've played 2nd edition 12 times so far spread over 3 scenarios. The vast majority of those have been solo but I've thoroughly enjoyed all of them. For me, while the first play of a scenario obviously has the most discovery, I've found the fun on subsequent plays comes from the story of the different investigators and changing situations that occur through mythos events or trying other things out.

I'll be the first to admit though that one of the reasons most of my plays have been solo is that I suspect the people I play it with are unlikely to be too keen to replay scenarios.

So I think the replayablity is there, it just depends what exactly you want most out of the game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ivan Cox
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Gruenherz wrote:
I sure hope they do crank it up a notch too and hopefully release free scenarios because I don't really feel like paying more in the ballpark of $50 for expansions that maybe add only one or two new mediocre scenarios.


I think it's unlikely that future $50 expansions will include only one scenario. Remember that the two just released are figure and tile collections, like the collections for Descent second edition, so we don't know what expansions proper will look like. But at the $50 level I'd expect 2-3 scenarios. At this point I'm not sure whether to also expect free scenarios, or paid scenarios not related to an expansion, but I'd think any such wouldn't cost more than $10.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
High Flying Bird wrote:
crispy66 wrote:
Desferous wrote:
Ah I had no clue the scenarios were so much alike. This isn't the best news to hear.


Just to be clear; each scenario tells a good story, and they are different from each other - we now have 6 separate scenarios that are unique stories.


That's pessimistic maybe but with Fantasy Flight these days I too often get the impression they're satisfied to do the easiest thing, sell it, and move onto the next easiest thing.


I was lucky enough to meet Nicki, Corey, other Arkham designers/art coordinators/etc at Arkham Nights last year. I can guarantee that these are people who take great passion in what they do and would never be satisfied with just "doing the easiest thing."

Keep in mind, like all game developers, they are under time and budget constraints, while many of them also work on other games/projects in the interim. The game design process from the ground up is not easy and there are a lot of moving parts behind the scenes. Having met these designers, even talking to them for a few minutes will show you how dedicated they are to the games they love.

Just because you didn't enjoy the end-result, doesn't mean that hundreds of hours of hard work weren't poured into these games. Not liking the scenarios is valid; wanting more for future scenarios is also valid. Accusing the designers of being lazy is just flippant.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin Colm
msg tools
mbmb
Gruenherz wrote:
I am kind of disappointed with replayability too now. I was very skeptical at first about this game and initially decided against buying it but after a few very favorable reviews that seemed to address my concerns about replayability, I took the plunge and bought the game thinking that each scenario would be replayable a few times and would be different each time.


And this is the exact reason it frustrates me to see people post on the subject of replayability when they have only played the game a couple of times and don't really know what they're talking about: it misleads people like yourself who do not yet have the game. I'm tired of commentary from people whose 'review' or opinion is only really a first impression and is largely filled with supposition of how variable the game appears to be or might be and how much replayability they imagine it might have.

Yes, we all saw that potential before we played it or after 1 or 2 games. But those who have played it a lot quickly re-evaluate their thoughts.

The best advice I can give is take the opinions of people who haven't played much with a grain of salt. If you're considering buying and replayability is an issue for you look for the opinions of knowledgable players who have played all the scenarios multiple times. They will give you accurate information. The others are just responding to the hype around the game and going off first impressions.

BreadRising wrote:
High Flying Bird wrote:
crispy66 wrote:
Desferous wrote:
Ah I had no clue the scenarios were so much alike. This isn't the best news to hear.


Just to be clear; each scenario tells a good story, and they are different from each other - we now have 6 separate scenarios that are unique stories.


That's pessimistic maybe but with Fantasy Flight these days I too often get the impression they're satisfied to do the easiest thing, sell it, and move onto the next easiest thing.


I was lucky enough to meet Nicki, Corey, other Arkham designers/art coordinators/etc at Arkham Nights last year. I can guarantee that these are people who take great passion in what they do and would never be satisfied with just "doing the easiest thing."

Keep in mind, like all game developers, they are under time and budget constraints, while many of them also work on other games/projects in the interim. The game design process from the ground up is not easy and there are a lot of moving parts behind the scenes. Having met these designers, even talking to them for a few minutes will show you how dedicated they are to the games they love.

Just because you didn't enjoy the end-result, doesn't mean that hundreds of hours of hard work weren't poured into these games. Not liking the scenarios is valid; wanting more for future scenarios is also valid. Accusing the designers of being lazy is just flippant.


Fair comment.

I do appreciate the constraints they have, and I didn't really mean to criticize the individual designers, although I appreciate it's my bad if I appeared to be.

My skeptical thoughts are more aimed at the 'corporate' side of FFG. I understand one person can only do so much and it is a time consuming process if one is after quality... but why should there only be one person working on this game? What's to stop 3 designers working on content (scenarios) simultaneously? The point I was trying to make is that I tend to get the feeling that FFG would rather employ 3 designers to work on 3 different games, to get more product out of the door, than have them working on one game to really support it strongly and give it the care and attention it deserves. The amount of content they produce for this game (or any other game) and the speed at which they can produce is is dependent entirely on what resources they choose to dedicate to it.

They produce a LOT of product for a lot of different games. They could produce the same amount of product, spread over fewer games. But that obviously isn't their strategy. That's not 'wrong' in itself.. but for me personally it makes me feel less inclined to buy into a game if I don't think they're going to support it to the extent I think it needs to be supported, which in the case of this game is heavily.

That's what I was attempting to get across: commentary of the companies general approach, not of the commitment of the individual designers.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
I own a few different FFG products and paying attention to their business plan I can see them releasing a new scenario on the app the same time they release the second print of this game. Gives us all time to play through what we have then also builds up hype/buzz/discussion around the game right before it comes back into stock. I would be shocked if all they have is the 6 we know of, I am sure they have a few waiting in the wings that they will release as it follows their model.

The beauty of the app is that they can release content to their players at any time without a physical purchase. Descent has seen this and is seeing more shortly with The Delve.
 
 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.