This sounds like a game that I completely want to play but would hesitate to buy. More of an event than a repeat play game. Something you should experience but I would hesitate to own. Nice job!
I want to buy it because Pandemic got played several hundred times at our house. We played it for an entire half-spring-all-summer-half-fall one year; played nearly daily until we won, then onto Red November with the same condition. I guess the thing I want to know is if this is puzzly like Pandemic, where you can lose a few times and then win, but the next game will be completely different so you can play it infinitely if you don't mind the repetition of the CORE CONCEPT, although each individual game is different?
Yeah, I think there's enough variation in the event decks, conspirator decks, and initial item placement that if you enjoy the core gameplay (which I think is quite solid), you'll be able to play this one a lot. Also, I didn't mention this in the review, but there are variable difficulties, which could help extend its lifespan. On the whole, it's less puzzly and more swingy and random than something like Pandemic, but in a way that to me is generally pretty exciting and thematic, though it does occasionally lead to situations where an exceptionally good die roll can end the game early. "Oh. We killed Hitler, I guess." As always, failure is more interesting than success...
It almost sounds as if the characteristics that set it apart from other co-ops make it more appealing but possibly also less replayable, or at least less compelling once you line everything up and get your lucky break. It’s a weird phenomenon, this feeling that the narrative is “spent” and all that’s left is a reshuffling if its pacing or events. I’ve experienced it before with simpler co-ops. It’s particularly odd in this case, though, since it sounds like there is a good amount of random events... but maybe those don’t add enough to the experience to incentivize more plays?
Frohike wrote: It almost sounds as if the characteristics that set it apart from other co-ops make it more appealing but possibly also less replayable, or at least less compelling once you line everything up and get your lucky break.
That's a really excellent way of putting it. The game does seem to lack that quality that some games have of "I want to play this again right now let's go," but I don't want to place too much weight on its replayablity as an issue. I don't know if it'll get to the table every week, but it will stay in my collection for a long time--it creates a truly unique experience, something a lot of games that I might play more often fail to do.
See, here's my rub: I don't want to play a game once. If I bought 10 fifty dollar games that only get played once, I'd have been better off buying a $500 TV, guitar, piano, rifle....something that would be used more than once. I don't care about the "experience" when a game is expensive. I can watch Tom Cruise fail to kill Hitler on Netflix. I can forgive 14$ Escape/Exit games for being one-and-dones because they're 14$. I can't forgive a 50$ game. Time Stories is an exception because they produce lots of expansions for 20$ and the base game is used. But with something where I'd play it once and then never really want to play it again (the opposite of Pandemic) I just can't see spending a Grant for the "experience", if you get what I mean.
SuperflyTNT wrote: See, here's my rub: I don't want to play a game once.
Yeah, that's entirely reasonable. This replayability issue is, in my mind, what separates a great game (which Black Orchestra is) from an outstanding game (which Black Orchestra is pretty close to being). I don't think there's anything wrong with the game so much as it's just inherent in the design. But if your main concern is the amount of play you get for your investment, I think you'll wanna try this one a couple times before you pull the trigger.
The following user(s) said Thank You: SuperflyPete