Marvel Rivals dev on why Rivals succeeded and Concord failed - "it didn't bring any unique value"
Marvel Rivals dev on why Rivals succeeded and Concord failed - "it didn't bring any unique value"
Marvel Rivals game director Thaddeus Sasser explains why PlayStation exclusive Concord failed upon release.
You're viewing part of a thread.
See, I'm just not a deckbuilder. The last time I tried was on an IP I had otherwise spent hundreds, if not thousands of hours on... and hated every minute of the card system.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantasy_Star_Online_Episode_III:_C.A.R.D._Revolution
If Midnight Suns had been in the style of the old Diablo-ish Marvel games, I would have been there day 1.
Not much to say about the wider conversation here, but I just want to chime in to support your position. I read that article you posted, and I was kinda chuckling to myself at the author, who seems to be at least a casual fan of deckbuilder type games, arguing that the devs are wrong, and that the cards were not a barrier to entry. Meanwhile, I'm sitting over here, looking at the copy I have in my steam library which has never been touched, specifically because I heard it was a deckbuilder and immediately lost all interest. This despite the otherwise fairly positive reception the game got, and the hundreds of hours I've spent in Firaxis style tactical strategy games.
Sometimes I wish I knew why I have such a mental block about deckbuilding. I think the layers of strategy become too abstract for me to visualize what I'm trying to pull off, and it feels artificial in a way that rubs me the wrong way. Even if a 3 turn cool down on an ability is no less artificial, it doesn't irk me in the same way.
And for the record, I didn't buy the game just to never play it, its a family library copy! I'm not that wasteful.
I saw the trailer and was interested and when I found out it was card based went "Nope!"
I just see all card games like this:
Eh, it's not really a "deck builder" like people think.
Like, it sounds weird because there's literally cards and you select a deck for each player...
But just move past the cards/deck and think of it as a loadout and selecting what abilities you want each character to have. And the upgrade system really lets you fine tune what abilities you can use.
It's a small piece of the gameplay, but the randomness it forces rather than just always using OP moves gives it a lot of replayability.
So, I don't think the card mechanic was a problem other than turning people off before they tried it. I think it went free on PSN a while ago, and I was really hoping it would make it take off.
It's a small piece of the gameplay, but the randomness it forces rather than just always using OP moves gives it a lot of replayability.
This was basically the reason for me to never play it again (with the dreadfully poorly made "socializing" part a close second). I absolutely hate when my strategy has to be based on randomness and I need to hope for a good card to do the thing I want.
It's absolutely a deckbuilding game, just not a roguelite deckbuilder.
A lot of good games can be based on randomness. Being in control of the deck building means that your choices shape the odds. I used to have a similar viewpoint as you, but learned to really embrace randomness and the design challenges it presents.
I say this as a Magic player, where even the greatest players in the world can get screwed or flooded on mana. The possibility of screw/flood increases the importance of card draw/card selection, makes the playability of low-mana cards more important, and makes heavy color pip investment, multiple colors, and higher mana costs a very serious concern.
I agree that's it's a valid game mechanic. It's just one I don't like.