As there is
only one way for players to win while there is three ways to lose players feel
a sense of urgency and importance when trying to avoid the three situations
that would cause a loss. Unfortunately all four outcomes are extremely
anti-climatic. When I first played I didn’t even notice that we had won. It
just sort of happened once we had turned over four tiles that indicated we had
discovered cures for all the diseases. The seven outbreaks is perhaps the most
intense and interesting outcome out of the four. Yet, I felt very little when
seven outbreaks did occur. I shrugged my shoulders and thought “Oh well, guess
there where too many cubes.” and packed up the game. This is where I think the
Internet version Pandemic 2 succeeds in a way Pandemic can’t, simply because of
its medium. The Internet version has visuals in its favor. A screen indicates
how many people are infected by diseases and how many have died. The colors of
the countries change depending on how many people are dying and as soon as you
see that several countries are turning from dark green to a crimson red, you
know that the diseases are taking over. This is what Pandemic tries to do with
its cubes. But it doesn’t compare.
While I
would probably rather play the online Pandemic 2 than play the board game does
not mean it doesn’t succeed. My personal preference aside, Matt Leacock
definitely manages to set up game mechanics that are focused on his two main
design values – cooperative play and strategy. For me it was also the first
time playing a board game that was cooperative against the game itself and that
is innovative by Leacock. He could most likely have created a game where two
teams would fight each other, one as the people trying to cure the world while
the other teams were the disease trying to infect it.
Some of the
reviews that I have read also write about some of the points that I’ve made.
For example that using cubes to represent diseases doesn’t really cut it and
seems to be artistically poorly designed. Most of the reviews point out
something that I haven’t had to the chance to try but that trying to win the
game on medium is very difficult and rarely happens, especially due to the
randomness factor of the game. Very few of these reviewers seem to be
disappointed by this fact. Many praise Pandemic for being so unpredictable and
hard to win.
One reviewer
mentioned the fact that the game can often be controlled by a single player who
announces themselves as team captain and tells everybody what to do. I can
attest to this and it may be my lack of love for teamwork that I personally
didn’t enjoy this game much.
Matt Leacock
tells in an interview for meepletown.com that he believes that because of the
lack of aesthetics and “chrome”, as he puts it, it allows players to create
their own stories together. This would appeal to the storyteller player type.
He also addresses one of the issues that I mentioned which is that he believes
he underdeveloped the resolution that follows the climax after discovering all
four cures. Leacock tells to bygonebureau.com that he believes that the reason
for the success of Pandemic is because of its cooperative play. Rather than
pitching your family against each other it brings people together and help each
other make the right decisions.
From the
reviews I have read and heard it seems as if Pandemic is a huge success and a
crowd pleaser. I haven’t been able to find many flaws with the game, and most
of the ones I have described are nitpicking.
No comments:
Post a Comment