Pandemic!

[Tayaya]

Anyone else give this one a try?

I picked it up as part of my last really big box o' games order from ThoughtHammer (I tend to buy my games annually, in $300-500 batches. Free shipping and lots of bang for my buck). It felt appropriate when I ordered this one because the H1N1 news had people running scared. It only seemed appropriate to get a game about global disease outbreaks. What it turns out I bought though, was an absolute blast of a game for the casual board gamers in just about anyone's gaming group.

It turns out to be a good players vs the board game, where all players work together to find and distribute cures for 4 different diseases that begin to populate the board and grow in size and intensity as time goes on. If left untreated, a disease in one city can grow into an outbreak, and spread to every adjacent city on the board, possibly triggering that city to go into outbreak as well. It's up to the players to corral these diseases into managable groups, and ultimately cure or even eradicate them. Because of the way they spread, though, some serious strategy is needed once all 4 are in play.

Players also draw "role" cards at the onset of the game, which grants each of them special powers that can really help the game swing in favor of the players, like the Medic, who an treat all the disease in a city instead of just one unit for each action point he spends, or the scientist, who only needs 4 cards of a disease to cure it as opposed to 5, or the lowly Dispatcher, who can use his turn to move other players around, which actually proves very, very useful in coordinating cure efforts.

The game is easy to learn, with just a couple of pages of rules, and even has adjustable difficulty in the form of controlling how many "epidemic" cards you shuffle into the deck. These cards, when drawn, make all kind of bad things happen - extra disease gets pumped into the board, and the discard pile gets re-shuffled and put back on top of the deck, so the same cities that already got hit by disease will be the first to get hit again. The outbreaks that this can cause can be devastating, which helps build tension and adequately punishes players that felt like the growing disease levels in South America didn't need to be worried about until the problems in Asia and the Middle east were totally cured. Epidemics also raise the overall infection rate over time, so towards the end the diseases spread pretty fast.

I've played 4 games of this so far, and we've won twice against the diseases. Our losses were caused by sloppiness once and the second time by the fact that at its highest difficulty the game really requires a sound germ-fighting strategy and healthy dose of luck. Because of the way the game plays, it works with 2 players but the lack of special role powers makes for a more difficult game.

Highly recommend this one if you have a couple of gamers in your group that want a break from the competitive nature of more traditional games, or for those that want something a little different than your average Milton Bradley title for game night. There's an expansion out also, called Pandemic: On the Brink, that supposedly adds a little extra goodness to the game, as well as alternate scenarios and smaller player pawns (the base games pawns are massive when crowded around a common city). I still need to pick that up.

[Nameless]

Yes! This game is awesome. Destro and I played a game last night with a couple of friends, and we got killed by getting two Epidemics almost in a row. We were too slow with our curing (it's so hard when you don't have a Scientist!). All considered there, I'm batting around .500 in this game on normal difficulty. I don't plan to try a Heroic game until we're winning more often than not, though.

[AliasRomanian]

This game is fun unless you have one bossy player who likes to tell others how to use their roles.

[Tayaya]

This game is fun unless you have one bossy player who likes to tell others how to use their roles.

LOL. This is true, unless that guy's the Dispatcher. I think the Dispatcher should take on more of a leadership role, since he has that ability to move players together and make shit happen.

All players should contribute to the overall strategy, though.... the two player game I played did devolve into the other player blindly following my orders, and not giving much input, and they didn't have too much fun at first. I eventually backed off and told them I had no input, just to force them to think and get into it a bit, and let them try their own strategies out a bit more. They enjoyed the game a lot more at that point.

The Medic is my favorite role to see a new player cast into, though. Even if they aren't following the overall strategy too well, the fact they are the best at treating diseases (do it for the least cost in AP) and can cure cities just by walking through them once you know the cure for a disease (the Jesus effect, we call it) makes the medics Role an easy one to figure out. A new guy at the table seems to love the "I just go where the most disease is and take care of it" aspect of the Medic, and while doing so usually learns the rest of the game as the players around him tend to the work of getting all the right cards over to someone that can cure the next big plague.

Back-to-Back Epidemic card draws are just mean, mean things though... even a good team can have a hard time bouncing back from that.

[Destro]

Yes! This game is awesome. Destro and I played a game last night with a couple of friends, and we got killed by getting two Epidemics almost in a row. We were too slow with our curing (it's so hard when you don't have a Scientist!). All considered there, I'm batting around .500 in this game on normal difficulty. I don't plan to try a Heroic game until we're winning more often than not, though.

Damn straight we're not!!!

[Karak]

Yep been playing it for half a year or so. Amazing coop game. In fact one, if not the best.
I love the teamwork and discussion and true player versus game environment.

I also love the balance and difficulty. It kicked our ass, 4 players, the first 3 times until we really started talking and discussing amongst ourselves.

[Hauser1981]

Just got this game myself. Bought the Expansion also really changes the game with all the new roles.

[Ravenlock]

I always have fun when I'm playing Pandemic, but when we're done, especially if we lose (which is MOST of the time), I sometimes feel like it was a waste of time.

So often in that game, a point comes where you realize that victory has actually become more or less impossible, and you're just playing out the endgame waiting for failure. Occasionally, it even seems that success was completely impossible from the very beginning - an unlucky shuffle of the cards can be enough to basically spell out a loss before you even start the game.

I think I'm not a big fan of that for the same reason I don't particularly like things like Survival mode in L4D. "Let's do the best we can against certain failure" just doesn't appeal to me that much. (Yes, I realize the failure is not certain in Pandemic - at least not usually - but it feels like it is a whole lot of the time.) I guess it's a testament to how well Pandemic is designed - and it is, really, really well - that I have fun every time I play it despite all that.

[Hawkzombie]

This game is fucking hard, especially if you don't have certain classes in play. Lots of fun though.

[LongStepMantis]

Pandemic is a blast. I've been on the lookout for more Players vs Game type games. I'm not familiar with many besides Pandemic and Arkham Horror. I just heard about a co-op game called Ghost Stories which is supposedly very challenging to beat. Apparently even seasoned players will lose more games than they win, even on the easiest difficulty.

r-OICiHfkA0

Is anyone familiar with this game? I'm tempted to buy it.

[Destro]

I like a game that is challenging. Too many people i know don't like things if they are not good at them or if they can't win all the time, claiming it isn't fun if they don't win.

I, being a rabid loser of games, as i have been taught from a young age that i WILL lose more often than not, find solace in the fun of the game.

Which is why this Ghost Stories business sounds neat.

Arkham horror is also a pretty good game.


On that note, i miss the games like Nightmare and Atmosfear. That was some good VHS times.

[Karak]

Arkham Horror and all its expansions can literally break a table under their weight. But if you have a full Saturday and want to BBQ, have your pals over, turn on some music and do a gather type thing, it is the fucking game.

Also Runebound is a good game like this. Not co-op but excellent.
Twilight Imperium is also all around incredible.

[Arphahat]

On that note, i miss the games like Nightmare and Atmosfear. That was some good VHS times.

My friends and I were absolutely in love with Atmofear. So much so, we scripted and performed several of our own tapes. They are a riot to watch now. I recently went through the effort to rip the original tape as well as our custom tapes and burned them to DVD and played through several of them again. Good times.

[Food Nipple]

Occasionally, it even seems that success was completely impossible from the very beginning - an unlucky shuffle of the cards can be enough to basically spell out a loss before you even start the game.

This is why I don't really like Pandemic. It just feels too reliant on luck. You can play the game perfectly and still lose if the cards go the wrong way.

[Ravenlock]

Well, the game has enough complexity that "playing it perfectly" is a pretty subjective thing. It's always hard to know for sure whether a different decision early on might have led you to a better result.

But when success is rare enough to make you feel more lucky than skilled even on the Easy mode of the game, that does give me some pause. I'm not overly fond of game design that requires getting lucky breaks in order to win, and certainly at anything higher than the Easy difficulty (I've never won it above Easy), Pandemic seems to me to be a little too skewed against the player in that respect.

[Karak]

I can't say I have felt that luck plays anymore part in Pandemic than other games. I have found that it DOES require a completely selfless attitude and a eye towards taking a couple turns that you don't feel like the hero to win the game. If I do that we win often. Epidemics are like little mini bosses to me.

[Tayaya]

This is why I don't really like Pandemic. It just feels too reliant on luck. You can play the game perfectly and still lose if the cards go the wrong way.

Luck definitely plays a very active role in Pandemic, but I don't think the game's ever really impossible to win. Played a few more rounds and won all of them, though the last one was incredibly close to a disaster.

We've been lucky in that we've had the Medic drawn in every game that we've played.... sometimes I don't know how the game could be won without him.

That said, you just need to keep tabs on which cities have been infected, so you're ready to pounce on the ones that have yet to be. The Special Event cards help a ton too, especially following Epidemics.

[LongStepMantis]

I don't speak for everyone obviously, but for myself and those I play with, the fact it is so easy to lose is what makes it fun. Sure, a lot of every game like this is about luck. Arkham Horror, Pandemic, and that Ghost Stories game I'm gonna buy, look about alike in that respect. If things go your way, you win somewhat easily and think "that wasn't so bad."

If they don't, you get curb-stomped by the game and you lose. I love a good challenge, even if it is just random chance providing it. Keeps things exciting, imo.

[Karak]

I don't speak for everyone obviously, but for myself and those I play with, the fact it is so easy to lose is what makes it fun. Sure, a lot of every game like this is about luck. Arkham Horror, Pandemic, and that Ghost Stories game I'm gonna buy, look about alike in that respect. If things go your way, you win somewhat easily and think "that wasn't so bad."

If they don't, you get curb-stomped by the game and you lose. I love a good challenge, even if it is just random chance providing it. Keeps things exciting, imo.

Agreed 100%. I was blown away but how it kicked our ass at first and it actually became known as the unwinnable game until we you know...started working together:)

[ShivaX]

Well, the game has enough complexity that "playing it perfectly" is a pretty subjective thing. It's always hard to know for sure whether a different decision early on might have led you to a better result.

But when success is rare enough to make you feel more lucky than skilled even on the Easy mode of the game, that does give me some pause. I'm not overly fond of game design that requires getting lucky breaks in order to win, and certainly at anything higher than the Easy difficulty (I've never won it above Easy), Pandemic seems to me to be a little too skewed against the player in that respect.

Thing is if you remove all the luck then the game becomes pointless after a single win. Once you have a winning strategy you'll always win without some sort of luck to screw you over in some way.

[Blue]

Thanks to this thread I actually ordered Pancemic and have now played two (solo) games. I've one once and lost once and so far really enjoy the simplicity of the game yet there is a good deal of strategy underneath.

For the first game, I was the Scientist as one role and then the dude who can build Research Centers anywhere (forget the title) and I won the game wicked fast getting two cures almost right out of the gate through dumb luck. From there things just fell into place.

For the second I kept the Scientist and picked up the Medic as I figured this would be the "easiest" combo being able to cure things more quickly all around and was quickly overwhelmed in my hubris. I got a yellow cure and even eradicated it and things were looking good. There was only one red block in the game so I went around picking out the black ones to get a good foothold on those and then the Epidemic hit. Within maybe five turns all of Japan and the surrounding islands were completely lost and I was at stage 5 of the outbreak meter. It's like they went and did some Godzilla type experiments and just screwed the entire world on their way out. Once that happened, the rest of Asia crumbled and the game was gone.

So far, I love it. Really looking forward to playing with a team to see how that changes things up. Much thanks for the thread and pointing me in this direction.

[NotJeff]

I hate this game with a passion, as I dislike most co-op games. First off, it's not really co-op. It's a single player game, but other players can play too. The rules try to make that not be true -- players aren't allowed to play with hands face up, but they may just read all their cards, and players are allowed to hide info from each other even though it is NEVER in their best interest to do so -- but that all feels quite artificial. Even as a single player game (or multiple players sharing info freely), the decisions aren't actually difficult -- it's usually clear what the best thing to do is, and then the deck shuffle will either screw you or not.

[Food Nipple]

I hate this game with a passion, as I dislike most co-op games. First off, it's not really co-op. It's a single player game, but other players can play too. The rules try to make that not be true -- players aren't allowed to play with hands face up, but they may just read all their cards, and players are allowed to hide info from each other even though it is NEVER in their best interest to do so -- but that all feels quite artificial. Even as a single player game (or multiple players sharing info freely), the decisions aren't actually difficult -- it's usually clear what the best thing to do is, and then the deck shuffle will either screw you or not.

High Five!

[NotJeff]

High Five!

I feel the same about most of the other co-ops I've played, too. Lord of the Rings and Arkham Horror are pure co-op (aka solitaire with your friends). Shadows Over Camelot adds the twist of a potential traitor, which means it becomes reasonable to start hiding info from each other, but I still don't find it terribly enjoyable. Battlestar Galactica takes the same tack, and I've heard good things, but I haven't played it.

[Food Nipple]

I feel the same about most of the other co-ops I've played, too. Lord of the Rings and Arkham Horror are pure co-op (aka solitaire with your friends). Shadows Over Camelot adds the twist of a potential traitor, which means it becomes reasonable to start hiding info from each other, but I still don't find it terribly enjoyable. Battlestar Galactica takes the same tack, and I've heard good things, but I haven't played it.

I've played Shadows Over Camelot, and I definitely prefer it to Pandemic. The mechanics are still a bit simplistic, but the added human element that the traitor adds makes it pretty enjoyable, and it's definitely fun to be the traitor. The other nice thing is that it supports a larger player count.

The "solitaire with your friends" thing is a pretty eloquent way of describing the issue I have with co-op board games.

[NotJeff]

The "solitaire with your friends" thing is a pretty eloquent way of describing the issue I have with co-op board games.

There's a class of multiplayer competetive game that are essentially each of you playing your own game of solitaire with minimal interactions. This can be fun or not, depending on implementation and the interactions. All playing the SAME game of solitaire, I just can't bring myself to enjoy.

[NotJeff]

Heh. Funny coincidence. Penny Arcade. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/3/5/)

[Tayaya]

I hate this game with a passion, as I dislike most co-op games. First off, it's not really co-op. It's a single player game, but other players can play too. The rules try to make that not be true -- players aren't allowed to play with hands face up, but they may just read all their cards, and players are allowed to hide info from each other even though it is NEVER in their best interest to do so -- but that all feels quite artificial. Even as a single player game (or multiple players sharing info freely), the decisions aren't actually difficult -- it's usually clear what the best thing to do is, and then the deck shuffle will either screw you or not.

You do bring up a good point about it being a single player game in some light... if one guy takes charge and directs everyone else what to do, and they are reduced to nothing more than pawn movers, the game becomes decidedly less fun.

That said, my group has had a lot of fun every time we've played the game, and some good arguments have broken out about what to do next, depending on the flow of the game.

As for whether or not the shuffle screws you or not - if you are good you can overcome the problems caused by dual epidemics hitting nearly back to back, even if this happens late in the game. Yes, there's some luck involved, but I've never once felt like the only reason we lost was because the deck fucked us. We always look back at what went wrong, and sometimes see things that we made conscious decisions to ignore early on that later evolved into the foundation of nasty chain reaction outbreaks. We have used that knowledge to formulate better strategies in later games, and to better estimate how much time we have before something that looks harmless can potentially go apeshit on us.

[Scull]

So BSG is quite good at how they handle the traitor(s) aspect of the game, and it really does behoove everyone to work together, although there is still an aspect of every man for himself. My favorite board v. player game is Betrayal at House on the Hill. Until the traitor is revealed, no one works together, then afterwards, failure to work together is almost a guaranteed loss in most scenarios.

[Tayaya]

So BSG is quite good at how they handle the traitor(s) aspect of the game, and it really does behoove everyone to work together, although there is still an aspect of every man for himself. My favorite board v. player game is Betrayal at House on the Hill. Until the traitor is revealed, no one works together, then afterwards, failure to work together is almost a guaranteed loss in most scenarios.

I have BSG but have never had the luxury of playing it. My friends love it, but I always miss BSG night.