dvang said:

What they ought to have done, IMO, is made it so that you are playing both sides: Empire and Rebellion. But it's tricky to do games that way, and FFG appears to strongly prefer multiplayer card gaming anyway. Both LotR and SW are settings that can only support multiplayer if more than one player is sharing the same "side." Though why couldn't they make it a team-based game, where one team is the Rebels, and the other team is the Empire, with support for 1v1 games also existing? 1v1 deckbuilding would be its own animal, because whereas in a multiplayer game you can count on another player's deck to compensate for your own deck's deficiencies, in 1v1 your deck must be entirely self-sufficient.

What would be decent is if FFG provided support for a format in which the Imperial deck is controlled by a human player, who faces the combined forces of his Rebel opponents.

It is a shame that you won't be able to play as the Empire, but I suppose when it comes down to it, I prefer to play as heroes struggling for freedom! It would've been interesting, I suppose, to see how this game might have worked if they had done it along the lines of Warhammer, or A Game of Thrones, but to be fair, the Imperial deck would be replete with untold billions of stormtroopers and massive fleets of newly-made starships, whereas the rebel deck would be stuck with decades-old ships that are falling apart (except one or two notables) and a small bunch of freedom fighters. Unless the main focus of the rebel deck is Ewoks...

spalanzani said:

I think that this concept could be reflected while keeping the game fair. Keep in mind that the Empire is slow and ponderous, while the Rebellion is quick and resourceful, and avoids facing the Empire directly except in extreme cases, preferring instead to perform hit-and-run tactics, sabotaging shipyards and the like. Not to mention it has the support of most non-Human races in the Galaxy. The Empire may have a strong material advantage, but what the Rebellion lacks in brute force and numbers, it more than makes up for in its tenacity.

And well, they're the good guys and stormtroopers and TIE pilots can't shoot worth a darn. :P

With recent new to re-design game I expect a game PVP with factions, maybe 6 or 8 (half of light and half of dark), with diferent strategies for every one and a lot of game options like:

-1vs1 or multiplayer with factions.
-1vs1 or multiplayer with light or dark factions.
-2vs2 mode.

I'm really excited about the possibilities that a game does not co-op offers, especially being SW.

Kaworu said:

That would be cool. Wizards did that with Star Wars Miniatures, and it worked fairly well. What would be an improvement upon that, is a game that assigns two features to a card: its Affiliation (Rebellion, Empire, etc., or Neutral), and Alignment (Light, Dark, or Neutral), and then allowed you to build an appropriate deck depending on the format. I would kill (or at least maim) to play something that gave me the tools to build an ace deck spanning all ages of Star Wars lore (since ultimately, the Old Republic is my favorite Star Wars era), while also providing for the part of me that likes to play within a specific theme, or at least scope of time.

What I would like to see FFG do, should they go this route, is to have the game's Core Set, and its first six-month cycle, both focus strictly on the Classic Era. Once there are enough cards around to support various Rebel and Imperial decks, then they could begin adding factions. Otherwise, players who only enjoy the Original Trilogy would be forced to mix-and-match in their decks for a time, and that wouldn't be a positive experience for them.

I have to say I'm delighted this is a co-op game, and I hope it stays that way.  I can appreciate the feelings of those who'd like to play the Empire, but the whole drama of Star Wars is based on the camaraderie of a small group of out-gunned heroes pulling off the Hail Mary throw of the universe.  The excitement for me is based on facing huge odds and succeeding.  There are other games out there were people can play overwhelming evil empires (and games where they can create their own!); Star Wars is a cooperative story and a co-op game like LotR best fits the bill, in this one person's opinion.

Also, as someone who finds it hard to find people to play the games I like--especially themed card games like this--I rejoice that it's a solitaire/co-op game like LotR.

And, of course, I'll enjoy it however it turns out.

 Early on there were murmurings about how FFG should just make two games, one co-op and one PvP, but such ideas were shut down because it would "split the fan base." Given the radical polarization of the potential player base for this game as it stands now, is that not a viable option?

 Please ffg drop the co op. make it a real game!!!!

Budgernaut said:

It is. But if it's possible to make one game that will satisfy both cooperative and competitive fans while being perfect for both modes of play, why not do that?

MarthWMaster said:

Why not, indeed! I would be very interested to see how they could go about doing it, my only fear being that trying to produce both would inevitably leave one aspect watered-down, but still, it's an exciting prospect!

msommi said:

Please define "real game."

Grudunza said:

game/gam/

 

MarthWMaster said:

Co-op games are competitive. You are competing against an opposing system. And they are certainly a form of play or sport.

MarthWMaster said:

Aw, crap. All those quarters I spent playing Pac-Man in 1982, and it wasn't actually even a game...

I. J. Thompson said:

I wouldn't get overly concerned about this definition because it says especially a competitive one, not exclusively a competitive one. A real cooperative game may be an outier when considering the majority of games, but that doesn't mean it isn't a game.