He's 100% happy to make a card that does something insane and then says, "Oh well it'll be mega mythic ultra rare and cost the player $300, and that inherent cost will limit its power to the point where I'm sure it won't be a gameplay issue." And then he's SHOCKED when players abuse the mechanic in some way (even if that's pay-to-win in a CCG like Magic) and laughs his way to the bank as he saunters off to design his next shitty game.Ģ. IMHO, Garfield has never been able to shake his fundamental belief that there need to be ultra-bomb cards that are availability locked through rarity. I played his 1996 Battletech game (garbage), as well as Artifact and his Star Wars CCG. He's had a few notable successes (Magic and Netrunner) but after that, just endless failures. Garfield is not that great of a game designer. It looks like they're really banking on the Richard Garfield name, which is concerning for 2 reasons:ġ. I'm interested in Roguebook, but also pretty skeptical. Looked interesting - I threw it on the wishlist, may pick it up when it's on sale. Granted, isn't almost every deckbuilder "inspired" in some part by StS right now? Rock Paper Shotgun did a write up - they seemed to like it, described it as 'influenced by StS'. In some ways, what I want is like the Shandalar game of Magic, if anybody remembers what I'm talking about. What about tuning a deck to a particular boss, etc? Yeah, that's why I'd prefer to have a game that just says, "Look 40 cards is what it is" instead of having escalating costs to destroy cards, and I have to play with everything I own. The only countering aspect is if you have to worry about decking yourself or if the deck must have X cards. The fewer different cards in a deck and the smaller the deck the more likely you are to draw what you are comboing and the more likely you are to be successful. That is a general feature of CCGs of all kind.
I'd rather have a set deck size and let me actually build a deck so I can focus more on making the deck consistent in ways other than just thinning. Thinning the deck is so powerful that you kind of have to base a lot of decisions and strategy around thinning the deck, so much so that it really dominates the game too much IMHO. Yeah, this is something that kind of annoys me in StS.
#Griftlands gog upgrade#
(Though, you can backdoor thin your deck out by upgrading basic cards to the powerful version with the "Destroy" attribute, but to do that you have to both level up a card and let go the other upgrade option to permanently join your deck) I like the option to limit the amount of a card on the character skills, so you can make the deck flow better I always thought in the cost in Griftlands to remove a card from your deck was too high. Yeah, the deck being a function of your equipment, as well as your character level makes for some freedom in deckbuilding.
So far, it's pretty good! Having multiple people on the team and equipment instead of just cards makes it feel different enough from StS that I don't feel like I'm playing a re-skin. This is the grand-daddy of deckbuilders as far as I'm aware and StS shares a lot of the same Growth vs Action deck balancing ideas (or at least feels that way to me).
#Griftlands gog Pc#
It's really better as a card game with friends, but it's mechanically just fine in PC format if that works better for you. If you haven't already played Dominion, the computer version of it is ok. If you want something more different from StS, then maybe check out Hand of Fate 2 or Dicey Dungeons? Monster Train felt even more similar to StS to me - but that's what a lot of people are actively searching for right now. but building streamlined new user experiences is a dark art and your mileage will vary greatly.
#Griftlands gog full#
I doubt it's very different between the demo and the full game? It's a little weird to both say it feels too similar to StS and also that you had trouble learning it. I didn't feel the need for the tutorial since it sticks so close to the deckbuilding game standards. Does the full game have a better tutorial?
0 kommentar(er)
