Reply: Sentinels of the Multiverse:: General:: Re: Should I buy this game?

by gkizilis

arenson9 wrote:

Let's stop beating up on the guy who posted a negative opinion. Yeah, it's tempting to try to argue with him or her because we really like the game and/or we think that he or she said things that don't jibe w/ our experiences, but enough is enough.

That's OK. I can take on an argument. I am not affected by people's opinions here. I already have mine others have theirs.

arenson9 wrote:

The game isn't for everyone. If me and the person who didn't like it were hanging out, I'd happily offer to play with him or her to see if there's anything I could do/offer to help make the experience better, but that's no guarantee.

I would play any game at least once. I played this game 1.25 times (gave up on the first game cause it was just pointless) but played the second to end. It was so bad that I thought we played it wrong and missed some rules. Seriously! I went to the rules to see if we missed something. Turns out we didnt. There isnt much of a game on this. This is reflected on the amount it would take you to play your turn vs the downtime (other players + VLN + ENV).

arenson9 wrote:

He or she didn't see card combos that were interesting and felt the game was unbalanced. I can see that from a certain perspective. Think of all the different types of combinations that are available in other games (I'm thinking of MtG, though I admit to only know it a little bit). SotM certainly has hero interaction and has space for lots of player discussion, but I don't think it actually has tons of hero card interaction.

I did see the card combos. I also "saw" the other two decks combos as my friends were trying to play them. Not hard to find with a deck this small. Furthermore, SotM has minimum hero interaction for a superhero, coop, team game.

arenson9 wrote:

There are games out there where every time you play it there's a similar chance of winning -- much less variability/swinginess based on card order and/or the roll of the dice. I'm thinking of Shadows Over Camelot, for instance. I find that game boring because it seems to be the same thing every time and I love Sentinels, because it feels like there's so much replayability from all the different combinations of cards and decks, but I could see how someone would prefer the constant level of challenge from Shadows Over Camelot.

SoC's main selling point and strength is not the game mechanics but the player interaction, trying to figure out who's the traitor who is not etc. Same with Battlestar Galactica. Both games have real simple mechanics and not much in the way of complexity. What makes them interesting are the player interactions and suspicions. Neither of them are hard. I wouldnt play these games on anything less than 4-5 players, not because they are unwinnable, but because the games shine the more players you have playing, due to their highly social aspect. This game on the other hand, has neither. Minimum player interaction and simplistic game mechanics/player options.