Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
It was a really odd design choice as it would be obvious that removing all player freedom from the game would make less people interested in playing it. Home rules are a staple of any board game or TTRPG.
Yep, they're even missing the what I'd call superior way to play, the full co-op mode that isn't even a home rule it's just an optional way to play.
Funny enough, you'd think games would be more challenging when PVP is involved, but with the Full Co-Op mode you can't repick your objectives and have to complete all of them to win. In the PVP mode for example you can easily win by doing nothing pretty much if your objective is for someone to die. So the co-op mode is actually more challenging.
Fairly certain most people who play the Board game don't do the draft stuff as they just want to pick who they want to play so it's also a silly design choice to not have it optional.
I hear ya, it's why video games are nice but so often inferior due to the limitations. I won't get the game so long as there is no ability to choose characters or have some control over the game.
1-Player choice
2-Player choice from a random few
3-Random character