by DavidT
kbrigan wrote:
DavidT wrote:
...But when it comes to the way *you* want to play the game, all other methods are so artificial and sub-optimal that the designers weren't even thinking when they created the game.
My point is (and, since Z-man et al. are pretending these conversations don't exist, we can't know what their thinking is or has been for certain) that there's never been any explanation for why they went with a single-use version, other than that they're invoking the Risk: Legacy "tradition" associated with Daviau. Why Daviau went with a single-use version for Risk: Legacy probably has to do with the rip-up-the-card buzz some people experience when playing a single-use game. There's been no discussion about that aspect of Pandemic: Legacy from Z-man or Matt Leacock. They've emphasized the campaign aspects and branching results throughout the series of games, but said very little about the destruction of the components or why that's happening. I've been trying to not assume the worse (i.e. they did it to try to sell more games), but that may be the case. Or, they may be in the ~half of board gamers who "get" the ripped-up-card-buzz. I don't know. It does seem from out here that the regular players of Pandemic, i.e. who are familiar with the expansions, are "replayers," who want more than 24 plays of this format. But, I don't have the cash or time to launch a marketing study, so who can say for sure. I do hope someone does a panel discussion or interview with the designers/producers where these questions are asked.
Hmm. I think if you read interviews and commentary from Daviau, he makes it very clear why he designed "Legacy" the way that he did. He had a very specific type of game experience in mind, and we've all spent the last 17 pages trying to discuss the relative merit of that experience.
As for Z-Man and Leacock, I think I've also read something online in the past (or heard from interviews) giving insight into how/why Leacock and Daviau came together to make Pandemic Legacy. Whatever the specifics are, the idea from the beginning was create a Legacy version of Pandemic. And that includes all of the design features that a Legacy game entails. It's not a conspiracy to sell more games by making people buy multiple copies--it's a transparent attempt to sell more games by melding two very popular franchises together.
If the goal were to create a resettable Pandemic campaign, the Legacy format would not have been chosen in the first place. You think it's a mystery why Pandemic Legacy is designed to play like a Legacy game (and all that entails), but it seems self-evident to me. The name is right there on the box.
As for whether only half of all gamers "get" the Legacy concept, that's an assertion without any real data to back it up. I realize there have been polls on BGG where approximately half the people who played one campaign said they would play it again, but that is not the same thing as half of them saying they don't "get" the concept. A better reference point would be how adding Legacy to existing games seems to take the world by storm and creates a feeding frenzy.
Pandemic has been around for ages, and campaign games have been around for ages. Yet Pandemic Legacy is rocketing toward the Top 10 at an unprecedented pace and consistently sells out at retail. It's average rating trounces Pandemic and most campaign games. That seems like proof-positive that the majority of gamers "get" Legacy and are very excited by it.