Lipstick and a Pig - Pandemic Review

Aside for being guilty of being Pandemic i have a few criticisms a few games in. Im not sure how much narrative agency and variety there really is. Most of the main events seem to just trigger after start of month X. I don't know what I expected but it feels a bit less unique than perhaps i thought it would be. Equally, whilst it is hard to stop snowballing i wonder if this could have been dealt with more effectively. I expect you could get into a win or death spiral if you do really well or badly in the early games. Whilst there are mechanics to mitigate this i'm not sure they go far enough or are nuanced enough. They could fairly easily have graded in assistance for excessive winning or losing a bit more granularity imo.

I think the legacy format could be applied to pretty much any coop, and hope we do see it applied to a few other games. I wonder how many Seasons of Pandemic Legacy we will get. My guess is 3 or 4 but I hope we see some other coop get given a legacy treatment rather than just endless pandemic iterations.

Most co-ops I've played felt more like doing a puzzle as a group. For the most part when I have other players I like to play games with them not complete puzzles together. I can do puzzles by myself. This may also spill over into my dislike of certain types of Euros. Has nothing to do with needing to win. In fact I probably lose a lot more than I win. I'd give up gaming altogether if that bothered me.

Mad Dog wrote: Most co-ops I've played felt more like doing a puzzle as a group. For the most part when I have other players I like to play games with them not complete puzzles together. I can do puzzles by myself. This may also spill over into my dislike of certain types of Euros. Has nothing to do with needing to win. In fact I probably lose a lot more than I win. I'd give up gaming altogether if that bothered me.

That's a good point and a solid argument against Pandemic (not Legacy). It's just as many parts puzzle as it is game.

Legacy wraps that puzzle up in a proper setting. There's a background story that unfolds as you play. It is linear, in that you're going to plow through the twelve months whether you're ready for it or not, but each step along the way something changes and maybe you learn something new. A lot of complexity is added by the end of the game but Legacy brings you along gradually and the complexity is all tied to the narrative. Puzzle aspect aside, classic Pandemic never had any kind of real narrative or lasting effects that would make you play the game any differently from any other optimization exercise. A few games into Legacy you realize sometimes it may be better to lose a game for the greater good; MuMu gets it right in that the scope is now bigger than a single game. Each Legacy game is really just a round in a much bigger game that unfolds as you play.

If you didn't like Pandemic then Legacy won't convert you. But if you enjoy Pandemic you'd be doing yourself a disservice by not getting some friends together and digging into Legacy. I've played a lot of Pandemic over the years, and we only keep it around anymore because my wife and many of our friends still like it. I never suggest it anymore. But we played through Legacy in three sessions because we were having a hell of a lot of fun. Seventeen games, some meals and at least 20 hours of gameplay. I'm looking forward to Season 2 already.

I do not like Pandemic; I find it boring. Pandemic: Legacy, however, was one of the best games I've played all year. It's excellent.

I've also played Above & Below. The problem I had with it was that the fun parts (adventuring) didn't feel like they were the best way to win. Overall, I thought the fun parts were fun enough that I didn't care if I was furthering my chance at victory, which is both good and bad.

This was never meant to be a review of Pandemic Legacy and I didn’t submit it as such. Rest assured, I have played the game and I do have an idea for a full fledged review. This article was meant to be a discussion about the game and people’s reaction to it. I purposely wrote the piece as vague as to not potentially get into any spoilers or anything like that. Anywho, the main point is that I find the underlying chassis of the design (Pandemic) to be an incredibly average game.

So in my opinion, we have this middling gaming experience and they’ve gone and added the Legacy formula to it and then voila…greatest game of all time? I question that with every fiber of my being. When people/sites start tossing around “Greatest of All Time” I think that warrants discussion. Granted, I understand my opinion is not going to be very popular (even on this website), but I don’t care. Any game that is using Pandemic as the basis of it design should never be in the discussion of greatest games of all time. It’s as simple as that.

My other big point is that I believe Pandemic Legacy disappoints in the narrative department. The lack of player agency with regards to its storytelling is particularly bothersome. When I mine the recesses of my warped mind for my favorite boardgaming moments….every single one of them, has come from the PLAYER doing something unforgettable. I have never once flipped over a card (in any game) read it aloud and then had my mind blown…or the table gasp…or people cheer. We’ve laughed or gone, “oh, that’s cool”. It usually doesn’t go much further than that. Reading flavor text or story paragraphs is like watching a cut-scene in a videogame. It’s not nearly as exciting as playing the game. Do you remember the awesome boss fight and how you barely survived or the lame ass cut-scene afterwards? Pandemic Legacy essentially uses a script to add new things throughout the Months (each game session). It’s a novel concept for sure, but I think as a storytelling device it fails. It’s not dynamic. There is a reason it’s called “Season 1” and that’s because you’re essentially following along the game’s pre-destined path. I just don’t find that very compelling.

If you love Pandemic Legacy, this isn’t meant to say you shouldn’t play the game or anything like that. Play it and enjoy it. Have fun. The game is clearly enjoying crazy success and nothing I say is going to change that.

Pandemic is deemed "amazing" by more casual gamers, the people on the Settlers of Catan category. I see it played a lot at the local nerd events. So while I agree with your overall assertion, I think there's a fairly significant group of people that praise it highly. For that group it's hitting on all eight cylinders.

As for its rating on BGG, well, once everyone finishes their run with it it will ease its way back down the ratings again.

S.

I agree with Egg's main (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) assertion that these narrative elements are tacked on to otherwise mundane eurosnoot games*. Still, everyone seems to be genuinely enjoying playing Pandemic: Legacy, and who are we to tell them that they're wrong. I don't see the ratings slipping that much, because I don't think that most people are going to go back in a year's time and down-rate the game even if they never play it again.

*Legacy, crossroads, that CYOA stuff in Above/Below. What will be next year's "must have" soul-injection for the new cube pusher?

Egg, it sounds a little like you are saying the fundamental concept of Pandemic is inherently irredeemable. If that's what you're saying, I just don't see it. There are some solid mechanical flourishes even in the original design, such as how diseases multiply and spread. If it's guilty of anything, it's that it's just too unadorned to hold up in the long run. Legacy takes care of that by adding a lot of touches that give the game more and more detail. And as a result it also forces the player to behave more appropriately in that situation, making outbreaks have more consequence. In other words, I guess what I'm asking is if there's any form of Pandemic you would actually enjoy?

I have heard the player agency complaint a few times, and it's one I've voiced myself, but I think I need to clarify it. A lot of the reveals are driven by the game itself, but these are almost all things that thematically SHOULD be out of the players hands. Things such as are all things that the players should not be able to make happen on their own. Player decisions within the game as well make a big difference in future months. I think the real issue is that there aren't enough consequences for failure or success, aside from making the next month somewhat harder or easier. On one hand I see why it was done that way, because you want people to experience the whole game if they paid $70 for it and will only get one crack at it. As Legomancer said, the game does a really good job at keeping fairly balanced. But on the other hand it does disconnect the player from the narrative, since no matter what you'll see what happens next.

One other beef I have with the game is that it introduces new rules at least every other game, and as a result it can be VERY easy to miss something or mess it up. That would be less of a problem in other games, but in this one it feels more damaging, because it can sometimes have consequences for future sessions.

I can buy people's argument that it's the game of the year, though any statement that it's one of the best games of all time strikes me as lacking perspective. Any game that makes a push at the top spot on BGG inevitably has a cooldown, and this title in particular will be hit hard by it. The response has indeed felt very hyperbolic, but equally hyperbolic has been the hand-wringing over WHAT IT ALL MEANS.

I havent seen it brought up as much this time around (compared to Risk), but does there seem to be a feeling that there will be a decent game at the end of the reveals? Will you still be able to play a version of Pandemic on a uniquely altered board with some unique rules/powers same as Risk?

Also, if measure of conversation following an article is any indication of the quality of the article (which it is to me), this is one of the best in a long time on the Fort. Thanks!

Egg Shen wrote: I have never once flipped over a card (in any game) read it aloud and then had my mind blown…or the table gasp…or people cheer. We’ve laughed or gone, “oh, that’s cool”. It usually doesn’t go much further than that.

I've had exactly the opposite experience, both in Pandemic: Legacy and in Risk: Legacy. I think the big reveals in Risk were higher than the big reveals in Pandemic so far (we're still early in the year in Season One) but there have been definite gasps and cheers throughout. But...that's this particular group of 3 other people and a big part of why I love playing with them.

I disagree with part of the article's premise that gussying up Eurogames with story is bad. I find it a lot more compelling than things like Lords of Waterdeep that are gushed over but nothing more than a paint of coat on top of a standard Eurogame. If Lords of Waterdeep Legacy or Story-version existed I can see myself enjoying that.

Good post Nate. No, I don't think vanilla Pandemic is some piece of crap "1 star" game. The mechanics are solid. The way the cities where diseases show up and get reshuffled back into the deck to ratchet up the danger is a clean/clever system. It's a decent design. It's accessible, easy to figure out, makes you feel clever etc... I understand why people like it. If I'm being 100% objective it's like a 3 out of 5 star design.

If I'm giving my personal opinion of the game, it's very, very, dry. The most exciting part of the game is when you flip over cards and pray some region doesn't explode with Nurglings. That excitement wanes after a few plays though. The actual gameplay is too deterministic for me to really get invested. It's boring. I can forgive alot of things when it comes to boardgames. Boring isn't one of them. I had a tiny glimmer of hope that the Legacy stuff would ratchet up the level of excitement. Pandemic Legacy IS more palatable than its Papa. But man, you can add all the extra fixings and flavors...some of em even taste alright. When you get that chewy, dry, bite of Plain Pandemic you get snapped back to reality and realize, ugh this is kinda shitty. Too many bites of gameplay taste like that.

I agree with Nate on the key plot points thing. This might just be the way of media hype but theres been alot of chat at both SUSD and dice tower on uniqueness of each play through, and whilst this will be true to board specifics, which cities are infested wastelands for instance, the key plot points all seem to be triggered when you start month X regardless of what has happened in your game. Equally the nature of pandemic is such that many things are called by the event deck anyway. If i combine these with a few bad strategic decisions made by our team in our use of some early bonus abilities very few things that will be in play in our next game will be determined directly by our choices. I did not play Risk Legacy, but I expect the look of the board was to a much greater extent determined by the specific will of the players. If a city got nuked, a player chose to do that. Pandemic and Risk are not the same so i don't expect the same level of player control but it does sort of feel like we are along for the ride rather than driving our own story.

Is Pandemic: Legacy a set of standalone scenarios to be played in specific order to simulate a campaign? Or is it really more comparable to Risk: Legacy, where the board is permanently changed by each game?

the game is divided in to twelve months. In each game bad things that happen on the map will change the map and bad things might happen to the player characters in game that permanently alter them, but key events, new abilities, or bits of 'plot' are triggered when you are told to open a box or door on the pandemic 'advent' calendar at the end of a given month. So for example perhaps Godzilla will enter the game at the start of September. You will open the box with Godzilla in it and put a sticker with the rules for Godzilla in the rule book. What you do in the game won't change the fact that Godzilla is behind the september door. There are a few doors and things triggered by winning or losing at specific points i think (i don't do the rules in our group), but so far they have seemed fairly minor.

What an articulate, epic review. Really well written, brother.

However, I think you're wrong because Pandemic was bad ass at the time. Everyone's played it to DEATH now so it's easy to forget how great it was. I keep saying that so many Euros are "group dependent" (really, that's true of everything). Pandemic is still one of my all-time favorite games, and it has a lot to do with the enthusiasm of my wife toward the game.

I do, however, think that you're right with regard to Legacy. I have ~zero~ interest in playing it. If Pandemic JUST CAME OUT and it was Legacy, it would be something I'd be ultra-keen on, but slapping lipstick on this pig isn't going to fly for me because I've gotten at least 50-100 plays of Pandemic in and at this point, nothing they can do to update it would make it fresh enough to make me want to play it again.