| Register Now | |
| My Points | |
| My Games | |
Choose your path to glory!
| Page 3 of 3 (31 messages) | « First page... 2 3 |
qwertyuiop said:
Dayereth said:
Being an FFG game, i'm sure we can count on lengthy setup still being an issue. I don't mind this as long as the setup time mitigates play time wasted with complexities and still allows richness and variety. Enthusiasm is something every game benefits from, but some games are better at inspiring this than others. Our group has had great success with FFG's game line keeping us coming back for more. FFG is claiming 2-4 hours, which does mitigate my concern about EG's version. Finally the 2-4 player window. Better than Catan's 3-4, not as good as Arkham's 1-8. I just hope it plays as well for 2 players as it does for 4.
- Different customizable board for every game
- Different playable factions
- Several routes to victory (like Android but easier to explain and vizualize)
- Many pieces to allow for wonderous complexity that's easy to manage
Yep, wallet is already creaking open...
I don't really see how Civ and Arkham can be compared in this way. Also, Arkham is a one player game.
just referring to the overall playability of a board game. I was referring to how some games can handle a wide range of numbers of players. Arkham is a game that can be played solo, with 3 players or with 8 players, so it can accomodate almost any group's style of "game night." Catan out of the box needs at least 3 players (you can play 2, but need house rules of your own or found online.) For me personally, a game that can played with 2 players will see more play than one that requires 3 or more. On the other hand, we also have some nights where we need a game that can handle 5 or 6 players. Civ (out of the box) will not work for us on those nights...
Without Signature
| Page 3 of 3 (31 messages) | « First page... 2 3 |
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS