These reviews were left by users who have played the game. If you'd like to leave a review, you can start by going to the game page.
The semi-co-op is lightning-in-a-bottle good. You actually have to work together really to balance the needs of the world with your own agenda. Just trundling off to do your own thing without coordinating with your opponents at the table will almost certainly end in disaster. The design is typical of Lacerda's incredible integration of his mechanisms. And the theme-- though maybe more abstract than in Lisboa or The Gallerist-- still drives the action more than your average Euro. CO2 is Lacerda's game with the lowest rules overhead, which is grading on a bit of steep curve, but it's an order of magnitude simpler than Lisboa or The Gallerist. I'd compare it to something like Great Western Trail. The new co-op version is the same "solo-by-committee" experience that nearly every co-op game is. Quarterbacking is supposed to be mitigated by the inability to discussion hand cards, but it's a trivial barrier for someone who has played the game at least once. If someone is placing a scientist on a summit, there's really no functional difference in a between saying: "I really wish you wouldn't do that." and "I need to complete a summit on my own for us to win." The solo/co-op game is more deterministic than your average "bad things happen, fix bad things" game. The fossil fuel plants are the only random factor, and the number of VPs you need to spend to drop emissions is more predictable than in most games of its type. For an optimization puzzle, it's reasonably satisfying and an okay solo experience, but the co-op/solo game is just a bonus content for the competitive game, which is the real dynamite gaming experience, here, and not worth buying the game if you're into it for the co-op/solo.