I’m pretty sure my 12 years of playing M:TG give me a fuckload more experience about the good and bad things about it than his constant bad mouthing of it.
I’d suspect that ‘It is my job to design games and I have in fact designed a very well received card game’ trumps ‘I played magic for 12 years’.
This is the same thing it always comes down to; fandom vs. understanding.
I don’t think that anyone with at least half of a functional brain, and no vested monetary interest in it, believes that the booster pack model ought belong within a country mile of fighting games.
The issue people are taking is with Sirlin using an apple for his vegetable analogy i.e. MTG as an analogous example for fighting games.
It is pretty much a case of both sides arguing around each other’s arguments about points outside of each other’s arguments.
Sirlin is right in as far as his main points - his analogy sucks, is all the other side is rather correcting asserting.
It’s actually not like that at all.
And analogies are all about comparing apples to oranges, like qualities and whatnot.
It doesn’t. It does, however, enable you to make arguments based on those 12 years of playing the game, as Sirlin’s design experience enables him to make arguments based on said experience. In the end, what matters are the validity of the arguments.
Sirlin makes a valid point about business-oriented, money-sucking game design vs. something more sound and with the intention of making a better game. Hey, there are arguments to make in favor of a more MTG-esque CCG model, of this I’ve no doubt, but “some people like it” isn’t one of them, nor is “he’s not a high level player so his opinion doesn’t count” (aka the 3S apologist defense).
Anywho, I’m kinda regretting making this thread now. I expected… more out of it.
Maybe you could point the conversation in a direction Specs? I dunno, I don’t really know what to say, I disagree with him that the CCG format is anything close to reprehensible or any like minded term.
Don’t feel bad. It’s not your fault. It was downhill the instant MTG was mentioned and it instantly became a thread about it.
Disregard regrets. Acquire currency.
Pertho, the exact same cards could be sold to you in a less deceptive way and you’d have had exactly the same great experience you did have. The fun you’ve had has to do with the game design, like how the cards interact with each other and that’s not at issue here. We aren’t talking about the gameplay or the fun.
Not sure why you are so in favor of the inability to buy things directly. I’m on your side here, wanting you to have the same fun you had but where you just buy what you want. I guess you prefer your opponents to have more barriers to get the cards they want? That’s really opposed to the spirit of competition though. I want my opponents to have immediate access to whatever gameplay-affecting thing in a game they want, assuming they were willing to buy whatever it is. You are against that, right? Better to only randomly get cards you want, or buy them at high price on the secondary market. (Maybe that’s how gems will be in SFxT 2)
If it’s such a great idea to artificially raise prices with psychological tricks, I guess it would be great if I started selling my games that way? I mean, there’s nothing wrong with it apparently? People are always disagreeing my posts on this, so it seems like it would be a great way for me to deliver no more value and raise prices while appearing to lower them. Hmm.
I see Ilthuain sees what I mean about the Game Developer’s Conference. The tide is so far against the kind of thing we’re used to in fighting games, that our days are numbered I think. I thought we’d be ok because I assume there’d be huge backlash to even a whiff of the possibility of forced grinding or collectability in fighting games (customization is fine though.) But even this thread shows our trouble. If even fighting game players are ok with forced grinds for basic functionality and collectable barriers for gameplay-relavent items then it’s basically over. I still hold out hope that players will be so against that it will stay out of fighting games, but I don’ t know. In the end, it’s up to you guys and how you vote with your dollars.
For the record, I am ok with most DLC content, where it’s clear what you get. Like if a company works hard to release some new character later, ok sure I would pay for it.
It sounds like fighting game players have no issue with collectability in a game when thats half the point of the game and an upfront part of the game in the first place.
You keep putting words in Pertho’s mouth, that he thinks ALL games should be random collect-a-thons in order to start competing and he hasn’t once said that. A big chunk of MTG is collecting, searching, and finding in order to build a deck that you like, that works for you, yada yada. None of your games are collectible games so this model wouldn’t work for you anyway. Buying Yomi cards and getting a random set would of course be aweful, you can’t mix and match Yomi cards to create a custom character, they only work in sets. If you built a game where all the cards where mix and match-able in order to create a unique “fighter” then a collectable aspect to that game would not only not be an issue, but it would probably be a good idea from a marketing, as well as gameplay standpoint. It would also create longevity for you game because there would be new moves to buy and get when new “Style” packs come out as an example. Not that I think games that lack collectability don’t have longevity or anything, as i said earlier I don’t really like those kinds of games anymore, I like more closed ones.
Half the fun of Magic when I played it for the little bit of time I did in HS was the search, getting new cards, find cards I’d been looking for for a while, or discovering new ones I didn’t even know about and combining all of that into a play style that I created for me. Not to mention in MGT you can play really well with the common cards, it’s not like you need to uber rare, super expensive ones in order to compete, in fact most of those cards arn’t very good anyway.
Now if someone made a fighting game and then released DLC that was random without having said the game would be that kind of game, then yea I would be mad because this sudden barrier is an unexpected surprise and not what I thought I was getting into. If they told me up front that was how they where going to structure the game tho I’d be pretty hard pressed to be mad about it since i knew what i was getting into in the first place.
I just don’t think you’ve created a compelling argument for why this model is inherently bad for players, and your argument seems to stem from the idea that the players didn;t know what they where getting into when they started playing.
Edit: Also games like MTG are also about trading with people. A big part of the community is interacting through trading. Give everyone all the cards and you lose a big portion of that community aspect of the game.
Interesting
I actually can see a rather economic and design positive towards randomness (even though I personally don’t like it). Now if everyone could pick exactly what they want, that could lead to more “homogenized” playstyle because there would be less random sets people would have to play with. People would just play with what they have at the moment and deal with it, until they can trade or buy for more cards. This also effects the market, because the manufacturer actually controls the supply and demand of a card by how rare it can be, by doing something like putting it in 1/10 packs, compared to say a common card you see in 1/3. This effects the black market trading and the trading between players because they trade according to the cards value based on strength and rarity (the rarity of a card could actually supplement it’s strength since less people may expect it or experience the matchup to think up of a counter).
An example of randomness effecting the economy, is back to the DFO example when avatars were random. When it first hit, the player trading boomed and many players were making trades with each other. The players were able to play the market (I know quite a bit who loved to do this and probably still do) and would sell their wares in accordance to the patches, knowing when the next patch brought new things, they adjusted accordingly. People love to play games for the economy and trading and I know this first hand. They try to sell what they got to acquire more. YOU GOTTA SPEND MAWNEY TO MAKE MAWNEY.
Since avatars were only for stats and design, I can’t really give you a perfect gameplay comparison besides the rich people had the best shit, but the designs and styles were less homogenized because people threw on shit they had on hand. I personally thought it was more interesting when people did this because they created their own style instead of everyone putting on the same “COOL” suit post avatar shop. If the randomization was part of the player’s power (in MTG’s case the cards) then you would probably see less homogenized styles of play because most players would play with what they have, instead of reaching the top echelon of what they want.
Sixmachine: The problem with what you’re saying is that people get the cards, or gems, or whatever eventually, they HAVE to to be competitive.
The problem is they just have to spend a lot more money than they would under a more reasonable system, due to having to overcome the randomness.
At the top level of play card (or gem or whatever) availability won’t effect variety much at all, because you’ll do what you have to to get the good cards
You can have customization and deckbuilding without the terrible business model.
You could easily make yomi, ps, and flash duel collectable, it wouldn’t be very hard at all.
Also, flash duel has a mode that you want, called custom clockwork.
Sirlin - I work in a comic and gaming shop. I see the community built around MTG. Daily. Around booster drafts. Around casual formats (Commander, for one). Around trading. Around collecting. It works for Magic because Magic is Magic. A collectible card game. One part game, one part collecting. It’s those two things. Together. And has been built from the ground up as those two things together. And succeeded as those two things together. I don’t know how else to say this. Not every game is this, not every game can succeed like this, and not every game should try to be this.
No one has made a “collectible fighting game”. Like others have said: if they do, and they’re upfront about it, we’ll know what we’re getting in to or know what to avoid. I, for one, avoid Warhammer because it’s a hobby first and a game last. I also avoid World of Warcraft because it’s a community first and a game last (maybe a chore before a game, but hey). I also know that a fighter is a competitive 1v1 game first and a casual single-player game last, when it comes down to it. These are things I know before I go in, as an educated consumer. I didn’t buy my first MTG packs thinking that it wasn’t a collectible card game. I don’t understand why you keep thinking people do.
I thought for a brief moment that you were reasonable at the beginning of this thread, but you still want to continue the “Magic is the devil” speech you’ve been yelling for the last how many years, regardless of if it’s even related to the conversation. You want to continue saying that you’re better than everyone else.
Instead of having this constant sales pitch of “My game isn’t MTG so you should buy it”, maybe you should focus on more of your game’s positives? And by “positives” I don’t mean “ways your game isn’t MTG”. You advertise like Romney during election year in a country where no one likes negative ad campaigns.
Just a thought.
I perfectly understand what you are saying and I know the top players would always go for the best of the best, but the thing is that for every top player you probably have tens of regular joes that cumulatively add more money to the developers pocket. They are very important too, and so are the top players, but I was trying to justify and economic view that effects the gameplay over a general level. Even within tournaments (I never played a MTG tourney but I assume it shares many things in common with tournaments) is that not all the people who go to them are the best or expect themselves to be the best but play for the spirit of competition and for camaraderie (as cheesy as I make it sound, its a fact a lot of people go to locals to hang out with people sharing the same interests).
I don’t personally like the randomness but when it comes to collecting and trading there a people who literally thrive on doing it. If you play any MMO and make friends with a rich player, you would see they play the market more than the game.
Stolen from a friend, but worth repeating:
Hardcore serious play is what gives open gaming systems problems. They’re harder to balance/control, and they’re more prone to predatory marketing practices then (see: MTG)
Under casual play the magic system is actually really cool and interesting.
Well as I said earlier in the thread, if it can be done then explain it to me.
oh goodness.
nothing brings me more joy than knowing that other people don’t want to hear mr.sirlin ramble endlessly about the things he personally doesn’t like. which he disguises as logic and game theory.
The actual game of MTG is pretty good, their business model is for making maximum money.
When Sirlin refers to the business model, he does not refer to the game.
Just a thought
Well put. Actual competitive play is why I stopped playing MTG.
Puzzle strike is a game of customization and deckbuilding.
Flash duel has a random draft mode, which is customization and deckbuilding. These are just two examples of many