this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2024
49 points (90.2% liked)

Games

16956 readers
256 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
49
Marvel Rivals dev on why Rivals succeeded and Concord failed - "it didn't bring any unique value" (www.videogamer.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works to c/games@sh.itjust.works
29 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] meant2live218@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago

I agree that's it's a valid game mechanic. It's just one I don't like.