Since this is the ONLY review so far, I will try to give an overview as well as my opinion.
F'sC is essentially a small wargame. The game comes with a number of scenarios to choose from, and in each, each of two players commands either the force of Shelly's monsters, Frankenstein's monsters or the Villagers.
You lay out character/action cards in a timeline, which then determines which chr goes first. Each chr gets 6 action points (AP) to use in their turn. Then, at the end of every move, any chr who was attacked or saw your chr move, has the option of spending that player's "reaction points" in order to take further actions. Stats/Contests are all by dice roll modified by +2, +3. The chrs each have a tactical strength.
I was quite disappointed. There is very little "frankensteinian" about the game.. It could as easily be a fight of elves or cyborgs. You do not construct monsters, there is not even a lab. I've never been fond of stats by one-dice being rolled PLUS a number on the card, and that is how this game works. The chrs have portraits on one side, and stats on the other, which makes it hard to know from your angle which chr of yours is where. The timeline/reaction system works very very VERY hard to create non-linear play but one wonders why they bothered. The chrs and monsters are uninteresting. A little more effort in chr design, without changing the classes, would have improved this game enormously.
On the whole, it has some amusing wrinkles and some nice ideas, but from the moment you can't find a "number of players" or "estimated playing time" on the box you should know something is wrong. This, as my fellow players informed me, is a video game company and one notorious for poor chr design and poor level design and it really shows. The most impressive thing about the game is the plastic (not cardboard) cards that you can clip into and out of their bases without any danger or wear and tear.
I should have liked to see far more interesting characters, a vast mansion and a lab, and a number of creatures and creations each with a name, and some notion of you actually havin to build and construct these creatures to use against your opponent, after all, when you put "Frankenstein" in the title, isn't that the image you conjure to mind? A vast improvement could be VERY easily earned by creating more interesting play-tiles even if their structure is identical and more interesting monsters and chrs even if they are essentially the same classes.
I also prefer games where you roll more dice and have to do less of the "I rolled 4 and it's +2 but it's -1 and also +3 so that's.. that's.." every turn action. Also, tho there is a wheel to help you keep track of how many reaction points you spend, if you spend 2 AP in your regular move and then the other player reacts, you do wind up in the "I spent.. 2 and then 1 and I .. how many AP do I have left?"
Another obvious flaw that leapt out at me is that every action in the game takes 1AP except ranged attacks, so why did they actually NEED an action point system?
It strikes me that they should perhaps have studied some existing board-games to see what works and is simple and fun, and just used a similar idea for what comes out as a very, very, VERY straightforward tactical game. A simple Move-and-attack would have been plenty for maps and chrs as basic as this, in my opinion.
How would you compare this game to its Dracula counterpart?