Yes, the Gears license is definitely the weak link. I like the video games a lot, but on the table the setting is very dull and I think it's going to limit the game's longevity. The setting, to be frank, is the only reason why I wouldn't seay that Gears is better than Ravenloft or Ashardalon (and presumably Drizzt). That said, if the Descent 2nd edition uses the Gears system...hoo boy. That could be really good.
MJ's complaints about the AI are kind of silly. There's only so "smart" a card flip can be. It does sense game state to some degree and it does "know" to do things like shoot the dumbass standing out in the open. Really, what it does rather than to create AI, it creates random tactical situations. And that's OK, really.
As for the length, that is an occasional weakness. It can get bogged down if players don't seal up the entry holes and the Locust keep spawning. It's kind of like Arkham Horror in that regard- if players know what they're doing and get down to business, it isn't too long. Dilly-dally around, and it is.
Two players (each with two COGs) does seem to be the best way to play.
I played it solo a lot when I got it and I've also tried it with some of my regular gaming buddies who liked it. It's extremely easy to teach and when it comes to the gameplay I can't really fault it for anything.
But I'm not sure the missions will hold up - even if you switch some of the Locusts to make them feel different. I especially lack short missions since there's rarely a lot of change when running around. Also I'm worried that the game is simply too easy - especially if you play it the gamey way where you leave some of the bad guys alive to avoid new spawns. Personally I always kill them off because it just feels wrong not to.
Still, it's a good game that will give you some tense situations and several almost cinematic moments. And the fact that it's easy to teach make it a game I'll probably play more.
Was just in a FLGS and saw this on the shelf and was reminded I was contemplating buying it a while ago.
And thus the initial question is still valid. How is this holding up? There hasn't been much talk in the "What Games are you PLAYING?" thread. Has it died once the scenarios became played out?
Also how much can the players disagree with each other and still play effectively? I know in Arkham Horror if someone wants you to jump in a gate and you don't want to, you can piss off to heal, etc, and it may be an equally valid choice. But if you are moving as a group (a la Warhammer Quest which many in my group hated because of this) the role of the individual can be muted, making it more solo than co-op.
I'm burnt out on it though - last scenario syndrome. Now that I'm down to the last one, I suppose I'm a little bummed about the replay factor. Yet, after playing each mission two to three times each, I'm guessing about 15 plays. Can't complain much. Some games get a pathetic 3-4 plays before you decide they are shit and let them toad.
Yeah, it's too bad that it's a licensed game since it limits where you could take the system. I guess I don't find GoW to be a very rich "world". I think there's a really good foundation for an even better (ever so slightly deeper) game with a more interesting setting. Whatever, I would be down for an expansion to make it more robust.
@Mumu- It's pretty straightforward so there won't be too much disagreement. Advance, kill, cover, etc. There's not a lot of crazy actions available like AH and it's all combat-centric. Decisions are mostly hand-related but it doesn't feel solo at all. Good game.
I still play it a bit. probably my favorite solo-game. but I don't have anyone to play it with. 1 friend is all about euros, 1 only shows up with other people (so we'll play a game like Cosmic of Runewars) and another is my war-game buddy, so with 2 we play CC:E or Twilight Struggle.