First | Prev || Next | Last
¿Question #4836?
Gialmere: True Life Gaming: Do you think that cooperative games like LotR and SoC are merely dressed up versions of solitaire - a few minor choices but you're mainly at the mercy of the draw?

ocdspectrum: No. They are much prettier.
Woelf: No.
knightfall316: yes
libonati: no
MisterCranky: They've taken the hobbits to Isengarde! What did you say? Blarg. 42. Wil Wheaton has 3.14 times the patience of most of the Malaysians that ever played this crappy game. All your base are belong to yahoo boots.
Spirit of 70: No.
bryanwooden: sometimes
slate43: Maybe so, but dang they are fun.
jessitron: SoC is complicated enough that you can screw it up pretty easily.
scrub: Perhaps the key to cooperative games is the cooperation and not the game.
Smurfy 0151: Depends on the situation. It's always good to have guys on your side, but sometimes it just can't be helped.
Numskull: Not at all. Players who constantly make foolish decisions will often ruin you more quickly than Lady Luck will.
Zarion of Arabel: mostly
Polgara: no
pastej: No, it does really matter if the player cooperate or not.
bigbadsteve: havent played either of those
POvidiusNaso: To some extent.
Hector Vortac: No, I believe they are social games dressed up as board games. They test how well you cooperate and/or how well you influence others to cooperate.
snewobelac: me no no
DHEK: Hmmm... I think they're much more than that. They might have origins from something solitaire-like, but they have been expanded so much so that they don't really resemble their source anymore and are legitimate games in their own right.
ZiggyZambo: never player
Beowulf: No, I don't think so. However, I haven't played either title enough to become as jaded as you seem to be.
aleo09: no,
Chris Page: Some versions of solitaire (FreeCell) give you many more choices than others (Klondike).
lyrad: Hate it.
leslauber: No. The level of collaboration can dramatically effect the quality of the game outcome.
MaksimSmelchak: No.
scriptorum: No, because they're social games.
Igloo cool: One could argue...
dmomo: Maybe a little. I haven't play SoC, but isn't there a traitor among the players?
interhawk: yes
hoffcorp: Yes. They really lack dynamic of game playing like that of poker where your opponents are key.
XenoMaster: No
Avatar_69: No. You still have the unpredictibility of the other players. Computer players are much more predictible
FrozenHoHos: Not entirely.
Gizensha: Not at all. LotR, at least, may have a certain element of luck to it ("What do you mean we just drew five event tiles in a row!", but it's more team strategy than luck, I'd say.
Dhunam: Yes, I don't like those games
rawdawg: yes
djlg: Yes
haraggan: No, I've played some great cooperative games
skrutsch: No.
Tompy: No. Like all games, some are good, some are bad.
Cavedog_pdx: You really ought to try Republic of Rome, silly Gialmere!
vetinari7878: No, I don't think so.
Favre4MVP: no
Loquutus: nope
puffinge: something like that, yea
e.c.r.: yes
brainrob: Yes
Dorque: Yup.
javelin98: There has to be some element of luck involved in any game.
chaddyboy_2000: Yeah, pretty much.
xlorp: There's little I dislike more than the feeling that the game is playing me.
CortexBomb: More or less
jttm: No
Lord_Prussian: Yup
skelebone: I guess so, but I haven't played either.
CDRodeffer: No
Spielfreak: Some have also made the same argument about Princes of Florence and Goa. But I say: No, they are *not* dressed up versions of solitaire.