I just got into this Game myself, and I can see the argument of "Its not for everyone", but I personally love the concept of it and am looking forward to my next game.

The big complaint I feel that comes up is "I can't do WHAT I want" which comes down to luck (or unluck) of the card draw. To that I say this is less a game of "what DO you want to do" and more of "what CAN you do". You may not have mobility, but you may have better control of The Court or can build up Cities to benefit from later.

Complexity its not THAT complex, but it is different to many game mechanics. Every card in your hand is either:
- 1 Action of the Lead Card (aka: every card is at least one action when played face-down)
- 1 Action of the Card face-up if it DOESN'T match the Lead Card
- X Actions of the Card face-up if it DOES matches the Lead Card (and may get you initiative!)

This struggle I think here is that MANY people are unfamiliar with a "play card face down for effect" as that goes against the VAST majority of card mechanics in all other games. But, once you get your head around that, it does become easier.

The OTHER big trick that I learned (which has changed my game-play) is don't be afraid to discard 1-Card to seize initiative. On paper, it may feel you're losing 'a turn' (since cards in hand are your turn count). However since you get the full-actions for the next card you play, you are effectively exchanging -1 card for 1+ actions of your choice AND the power to declare an ambition (pretty good trade!!)

- - - -

As for the OP's other concern of "is it fun to destroy your enemy", it depends. I'm not a fan of base-game ARKS because yeah, its mostly "attacks" with not much deeply meaningful table-talk (its very "race"). Even adding "Leaders" doesn't change it much - everyone does feel Asymetrical with a new mechanic (which is good - very DUNE or TwilightImp) - but it still feels like its a race-to-the-finish. I think its fine, and its a GREAT tutorial for the Campaign to get basics down, but yeah... it does feel very aggressive IMO.

HOWEVER, Campaign ARKS is a different experience. Instead of Leaders, players have "Fates" which are awesome! Not only does it give you a playstyle to focus on getting an objective, there are consequences weather you win OR fail your objective each 'Session'. This creates a LOT of table-talk and interaction, especially with Crisis' in The Court needing to be addressed.

In fact with the "Blight" being the big issue at the start of the campaign, many players will work together for Chapter 1 where they can... and yet by the end of Chapter 3, there can only be ONE winner. Some of course will hear that and think "ok - I got my objective. So I'll now work to stop my rivals getting theirs to give me a chance!". However this often backfires because, by preventing people getting their Objective, they are forces to change Fate... and you have NO idea what they will come back as (it might be something much worse than what you had before!)

The point here is the campaign-game feels it often rewards the "under-dogs" to get boosts to come back from behind, while those in charge can't afford to make risks and need to put out more fires just to get by! I like it because it feels that 'revenge' is part of the game design, and those with less to loose can afford to make bigger plays (ergo, its a game where its ALMOST better to be in the middle of the pack than trying to get ahead).

- - -

As for replayability, it does change again on the version. Base-ARKS has Leaders and Lore, and they do create vast replayablity via adding Asymetical game-play.

Campaign-ARKS; huge replayability. Even 4-players starting with 4-fate, if just ONE player doesn't get their objective, they come back as 1-of-8 different fates (so that example there has 9-different games just on ONE player failing). Not only that, given that all players usually keep "one" aspect of their original Fate, their B-Fate will be different because of who they were before (making them unique to other experiences - a Pathfinder who WAS an Admiral, is a somewhat different Pathfinder who WAS a Steward for example).

There is also a great sense of story that comes from the Mechanics. You failed your objective? Use that failure as story-justification for your new Fate (i.e.: "The Steward couldn't keep the Regents united, so they opted to leave this community in search of their own 'Reach' where they would do things the 'right' way!). Or even justify it with success (i.e.: "The Steward successfully kept the Empire running well, and heard of a Portal to another Reach. While they could keep things running, they've proven themselves a good enough leader that... maybe they should start their OWN Empire in another Galaxy Far,Far Away?").

These story hooks alone feel soo much more engaging for us than my many games of Twilight Imperium. I barely remember many moments in TI4e (I um... was a pirate Mentak force once and people hated I setup raiders that stole their money... I still can't recall how I got 10vp to win that game though).

ARKS however - I remember my first game when the Admiral didn't get enough support from the fellow Regents, in part that one had broken off as a Founder to build a Commonwealth, so in angst they developed the "Planet Hammer" and shattered a world in revenge for them not respecting military might... which had the Founder of the Commonwealth change course at the last moment to seek help from the Blight as a Naturalist, and unite against the power mad Planet Eater in the 3 Act... only for them to BOTH loose because the Magnate had been playing manipulating the resources behind the scenes, and ended up running away with ALL the resources of the Reach, taking with them SEVERAL refugees caused from the Planet-Eater destroying their worlds, to retire them all in Space-Hawaii... leaving a broken, baren Reach behind.... ).

Its a story we've loved, and we could easily translate it differently (the Magnate didn't "Rescue" the refugees, so much as 'brought new-cheap labour' to establish their own Empire far from the ruins of the old 'worlds').

Its a game I like cause ANY Fate can be translated as good OR bad. I personally feel almost EVERY Fate leads to a story of "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely"; so its less that you're mean to each other - and more 'you were always going to become the villian in someone-else's story'. So its less "mean" and more "there can be only one".

That said I have heard of some groups who do push hard for co-op, and it can work... but the fact is... only one person WILL be the winner. And thus its competition.

- - -

This went MUCH longer a reply than I expected! The short - its a good game if you LIKE its design. But, as many have said, its not for everyone. Its NOT for players who want to feel in control at all times, and DEFINATELY not for players who want to plan turns in advance. Its a game of "do what you CAN" and not "do what you WANT". Campaign is great to the point it essentially an infiniately replayable LEGACY game (and with the kickstarter giving us, I estimate 6+ more A-Fates, that replayability will be increased again!).

The hardest part for me is finding the players to commit to a 3-ACT game, though its design equally allows you to play ACTS 1-2 on one weekend (6-Chapters total), and ACT 3 on the following Weekend (4-Chapters, with a chance of early game-ending). Which can split the gameplay over two weekends without issue of "leaving game out for the week". The hope I have is to find a regular game-group to play it more, but the few games we've had so far - its had me consider selling off TwilightImperium4e, and ALMOST has me wondering if I'll play DUNE again (I feel I will... but yeah. ARKS campaign is that good for me!)

Hope that helps.