by chaosjenkins
StormKnight wrote:
It's a cooperative game that you can choose to play competitively — and I've certainly heard it argued that it's more enjoyable as a game to play it competitively (though I disagree).
Whoa. No, it is totally a competitive game. The player with the most points wins.
There's also an AI player that can win. Whether you prefer to let an actual player at the table win or the AI win when in a position where you'll lose either way...that's a judgement call.
You can choose to play it as a pure co-op if you want...but based on my one experience playing that way, it's unbelievably lousy as such.
From the How to Win paragraph on page 1 of the Legendary rule book."Players must work together to successfully attack the evil Mastermind four times. If they do, then the Mastermind is beaten once and for all, and all the players win the game for the forces of good." It then goes on to explain how the player with the most victory points is the most legendary hero of all. Right there in black and white, it reveals it's primarily a cooperative experience with the players facing off against the game. Sure, you can be as competitive for that individual award as you and your group want. You can do the same thing with Defenders of the Realm and Castle Panic. It doesn't change the fact that those games are co-ops first.
I understand there are players who, for whatever reason I cannot fathom, do not find the game interesting as a co-op, but I can only assume they would make the same criticisms about other games, such as those mentioned above, that are co-ops with a "champion" mechanism.
I have played Legendary dozens of times, as a co-op, and it's possibly my favorite game of 2012. Obviously, your mileage may vary.