Do you like poker? I love it, though I suck at it :P The thing that intrigues me in poker, is the fact that you're playing the player, not just your own cards.
I have also played a goooood chunk of Fantasy Flight Games' Conquest LCG (rip) and it shares a similiar mechanic to Artifact in that it has 5 planets you must choose and divide your forces to. Pick the right battles in other words. It has been my favorite of game all time, and knowing that Artifact will have three lanes to fight in makes me so damn happy! I referenced poker in the beginning because (based on Conquest) I have actual in-game knowledge about how it feels to bluff, coy and pick the exact moments when to start pushing the preffered battles and also when to abandon a lost cause. It feels ah-mazing! With Hearthstone's base mechanics i.e. the skeleteon of the game, it won't ever be about outplaying your opponent as much as it is to strictly follow your starategy (= basically your deck and what it is designed to do) and hope for a decent draw.
For the reason above, I believe Artifact will also be a really interesting game to follow on twitch and youtube, and learning from better players. Hearthstone's "silly moments" compilations can be fun to watch at times, but what is actually really exciting to watch is when a good player does something clever and lures the opponent into a trap.
"But the game looks so complicated!" In my opinion it is at it's very barest "just hearthstone, but with three games side by side". Yup, basically you have creatures that are trying to hit face. Just divide your resources (cards in hand) to those three different lanes as you choose and win two of the lanes and your done. (Ok, you can also win the same lane twice to be victorious, but that's basically it.) Of course it seems strange with an unfamiliar UI, but it is not that much more complicated than HS. The tactical depth on the other hand is far superior and if that is something that is not your cup of tea, then it is not a game for you. But the pros and many, many, many of us more devoted players have been craving for something like this for sooooo long! Thank you Artifact for coming to reality in november :)
I also want to poke my finger at the economy side of things. I'm already an old fellow (30 years old ffs!). I've been raised in a society where I bought a game and the played the game. Yes, I bought the game. For me the whole concept of free to play is a weird one and for me HS has never been a f2p, because I've poured so much money into it. Now if I need to buy Artifact in order to start playing it, I cannot even describe how..... normal it feels. Also I've read the comment about how "x amount of € for a card game is too much" so many times and that is something I have difficulties to digest as well. For me card games is my favorite game genre (to the extend that I don't play any other games) and these games need continious updates, expansions and spectacularly well balanced cards in order to be enjoyable. I don't know any first person shooter that has 100 different weapons and every three months a new set of 100 different weapons come in and so on... Card design needs to be perfect and it requires skill to design new and interesting things all the frigging time. So why do we need to pay "just for a card game" is a ridicilous question in my opinion.
I want Artifact to shake the electronic card game industry in order for it to grow! Hearthstone has been the shining horse for so many years, that is has prevented the competition almost entirely. That is a really bad thing for us customers in a long run. Hearthstone will always be a good starting point for novice gamers and the casuals, but it is great to get another viable option for the esports scene.
Please share your views on Artifact. I sure have seen so many quotes on various threads already that I can smell the hype train! (and the hate train :P)
If Artifact is "just Hearthstone, but with three games side by side", Artifact is doomed to fade quicker than Gwent. But I don't think it is.
I think that Artifact is aiming for the people that like TCGs and which find HEarthstne too simple. It will be a more complex game already because of the three lanes and it must be, because if they aim for casual gamers, they will utterly fail. Casual gaming is Hearthstones battleground and it is unlikely to be beaten on that ground. E.g. look at Elder Scrolls: Legends. ESL has two lanes but besides that it felt very similar to hearthstone. And it never got a lot of attention. It was fun for the short time I played it, but eventually I returned to Hearthstone (only have time to play one CCG and after all, on average I like Hearthstone better). So If Artifact has the ESL approach just with three lanes, I can not see that it gains any traction.
And for me, I will not even try it. I don't want to invest 20 bucks to see whether I like it or not (which will also be a major barrier for F2P people). That's nearly half my next preorder and I am not willing to pay when there are so many other CCGs which are good enough to be played for free like Gwent and Faeria (and probably shadowverse which I never tried). I think Artifact is severely overhyped. I might be wrong, we will see...
$20 is nothing, if the game is good and rewards skill more than RNG and grinding. I’m definitely excited for Artifact and I will be in the closed beta.
FTP players do not seem to understand the value of their TIME. That’s one thing that Artifact has explicitly set out to address - there will be no grinding for cards. It’s a brave move, in my opinion, and I hope it succeeds. It may be that Artifact targets a more cash-rich, time-poor audience, that are looking for a more complex, skill-intensive, game.
If Artifact is "just Hearthstone, but with three games side by side", Artifact is doomed to fade quicker than Gwent. But I don't think it is.
Yes, I did oversimplify it to the extreme because I've seen so many comments of being "overwhelmingly complex/I don't understand wha'ts going on". It shares the same structure though: you have creatures and your goal is to defeat the tower like you would defeat the opposing hero in HS.
But I will now throw in a mind game for you: Let's say we're playing this "Artistone" and your opponent has a sorceres apprentice and a mana wyrm on lane two, but lane one and three are empty. Where do you start deploying? That wyrm + apprentice combo is such a powerhouse that it might strike your lane two down in an instance if you leave it unguarded. But how about those two empty lanes, they do seem appealing for you to take victory in!
For me we're already pitted with so many decision points and we have to adapt tactically the whole time, so that the gameplay feel will be miles away from Hearthstone.
If Artifact is "just Hearthstone, but with three games side by side", Artifact is doomed to fade quicker than Gwent. But I don't think it is.
Yes, I did oversimplify it to the extreme because I've seen so many comments of being "overwhelmingly complex/I don't understand wha'ts going on". It shares the same structure though: you have creatures and your goal is to defeat the tower like you would defeat the opposing hero in HS.
But I will now throw in a mind game for you: Let's say we're playing this "Artistone" and your opponent has a sorceres apprentice and a mana wyrm on lane two, but lane one and three are empty. Where do you start deploying? That wyrm + apprentice combo is such a powerhouse that it might strike your lane two down in an instance if you leave it unguarded. But how about those two empty lanes, they do seem appealing for you to take victory in!
For me we're already pitted with so many decision points and we have to adapt tactically the whole time, so that the gameplay feel will be miles away from Hearthstone.
I Guess you didn't read my response beyond the first sentence then, did you? I explicitly said that it will be more complex than Hearthstone because of the lanes. Even ESL wasn't the exact same, but it was too little different. Nevertheless, if the lanes is all that distinguishes Artifact from Hearthstone, it will by far not be enough for the game to compete. And it will also fail to attract the gamers that want a "deeper" game experience since then it would be like ESL (with just one lane more). And the lane did not make it "feel" like a different gameplay.
I Guess you didn't read my response beyond the first sentence then, did you? I explicitly said that it will be more complex than Hearthstone because of the lanes. Even ESL wasn't the exact same, but it was too little different. Nevertheless, if the lanes is all that distinguishes Artifact from Hearthstone, it will by far not be enough for the game to compete. And it will also fail to attract the gamers that want a "deeper" game experience since then it would be like ESL (with just one lane more). And the lane did not make it "feel" like a different gameplay.
I did read, and I mainly felt ashamed about my oversimplified statement and wanted to open my thoughts on it more.
I have to admit that I haven't played ESL, but coming back to my history with Conquest and it's five planets it was something spectacular and added very much depth but only little complexity.
The more we get descision making opportunities the more enjoyable experience it will be for me. If Blizzard released Hearthstone 2, a game like I described as Artistone, nothing else changing but having three simultaneous battles, I think it would be a much better game. A present HS match can be over in a heartbeat if you don't happen to draw answers to that wyrm + apprentice combo right away. But must you win on two boards would grant a chance to start pushing those battles instead of the lost cause.
Basically I do feel like Artifact will have the same bone structure than HS, albeit with three skeletons, and beyond that it will have some crazy muscles :P
If Artifact is "just Hearthstone, but with three games side by side", Artifact is doomed to fade quicker than Gwent. But I don't think it is.
Why are you implying that gwent fade away? Gwent is due to full release from open beta next month hand in hand with Thronebreaker, a single player RPG that use Gwent's mechanics for the battles.
Because after a short peak with tournaments (noxious vs life coach final), there was not much heard of it any more. But I didn’t mean to imply it has gone completely. I think it is still a solid game. Just as the presumed hearthstone challenger, it failed. Miserably.
I want to be excited for this game because it appears to be a lot cheaper than HS, is made by a trusted company, and is a fresh card game. The three-board concept just sounds overly convoluted and unappealing to me, though. I would love to be able to get into the beta and have the devs prove me wrong.
Artifact seems really complicated to me. As frustrating as Hearthstone can be, I can't imagine people leaving it in some mass exodus. It's just the best card game out there right now. I don't think people want something even more complicated instead.
Hearthstone failed to evolve in any meaning full way, like every expansion is same old same old. I wish they would break mold and introduce something new and interesting, but i doubt it will be affected by Artifact, Hearthstone is just more fun to watch, seeing someone getting fucked by RNG is good feeling.Like some people, like Noxxious,Reynad, etc..., stated that Artifact has interesting premise but boring and dull implementation. For example, you can equip items to your hero, but most items are buff hp or damage, there are some interesting ones, but not enough. When you use cards that is ability of certain hero, you do not need that hero on the board, you only need hero of the same color and that is pretty fucking stupid.
Will game fail, i doubt it because Valve will support, will game be next big thing, bigger than HS in Twitch views, i very much doubt that. People will flock to it when it comes out to play, because it is new thing , but after sometime more of them will give up.
Since this thread is active again, and IGN has a new video with gameplay for Artifact. What does everyone think about the video below?
I agree with one of the youtube comments about the "wet napkin" level of enthusiasm from the video. Seems like there is a bountiful amount of underwhelming reception in the comments.
Also about Artifact in general all I have are two words; reveal video.
I actually like how OP mentions poker and then proceeds to how good Artifact is because it is complicated. Poker is a clear proof that you can have a very simple rules and a very complex game. The whole idea of "Artifact has more complicated rules and that means it needs more skill" is absurd. It is like inventing chess on a 16x16 board with more types of pieces and calling that a more skill intensive game.
So far the whole three lane idea of Artifact looks awful for me. It will be interesting for people who likes that kind of complication but I believe that players like that are not very common.
Yea it may be obvious but if there a trading there is also
- The bad cards will be cheap, and the great cards will be expensive, what make you as a normal player wont spend much money on cards... would that make it p2w?
- dicovering a new archetypes like aggro, one turn swing, etc would change the card prices little bit. For example lets say the meta is stable and suddenly... there is someone playing aggro deck with cheap cards and he is winning alot, that would change the price of these cards because alot of players want it (idk if this is con or pro)
- disabling in-game currency could make it harder for every one to play right, at least after i pay the full game price give me a consistant source of packs( quests, daily wins, etc)
Thas my opinion...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Do you like poker? I love it, though I suck at it :P The thing that intrigues me in poker, is the fact that you're playing the player, not just your own cards.
I have also played a goooood chunk of Fantasy Flight Games' Conquest LCG (rip) and it shares a similiar mechanic to Artifact in that it has 5 planets you must choose and divide your forces to. Pick the right battles in other words. It has been my favorite of game all time, and knowing that Artifact will have three lanes to fight in makes me so damn happy! I referenced poker in the beginning because (based on Conquest) I have actual in-game knowledge about how it feels to bluff, coy and pick the exact moments when to start pushing the preffered battles and also when to abandon a lost cause. It feels ah-mazing! With Hearthstone's base mechanics i.e. the skeleteon of the game, it won't ever be about outplaying your opponent as much as it is to strictly follow your starategy (= basically your deck and what it is designed to do) and hope for a decent draw.
For the reason above, I believe Artifact will also be a really interesting game to follow on twitch and youtube, and learning from better players. Hearthstone's "silly moments" compilations can be fun to watch at times, but what is actually really exciting to watch is when a good player does something clever and lures the opponent into a trap.
"But the game looks so complicated!" In my opinion it is at it's very barest "just hearthstone, but with three games side by side". Yup, basically you have creatures that are trying to hit face. Just divide your resources (cards in hand) to those three different lanes as you choose and win two of the lanes and your done. (Ok, you can also win the same lane twice to be victorious, but that's basically it.) Of course it seems strange with an unfamiliar UI, but it is not that much more complicated than HS. The tactical depth on the other hand is far superior and if that is something that is not your cup of tea, then it is not a game for you. But the pros and many, many, many of us more devoted players have been craving for something like this for sooooo long! Thank you Artifact for coming to reality in november :)
I also want to poke my finger at the economy side of things. I'm already an old fellow (30 years old ffs!). I've been raised in a society where I bought a game and the played the game. Yes, I bought the game. For me the whole concept of free to play is a weird one and for me HS has never been a f2p, because I've poured so much money into it. Now if I need to buy Artifact in order to start playing it, I cannot even describe how..... normal it feels. Also I've read the comment about how "x amount of € for a card game is too much" so many times and that is something I have difficulties to digest as well. For me card games is my favorite game genre (to the extend that I don't play any other games) and these games need continious updates, expansions and spectacularly well balanced cards in order to be enjoyable. I don't know any first person shooter that has 100 different weapons and every three months a new set of 100 different weapons come in and so on... Card design needs to be perfect and it requires skill to design new and interesting things all the frigging time. So why do we need to pay "just for a card game" is a ridicilous question in my opinion.
I want Artifact to shake the electronic card game industry in order for it to grow! Hearthstone has been the shining horse for so many years, that is has prevented the competition almost entirely. That is a really bad thing for us customers in a long run. Hearthstone will always be a good starting point for novice gamers and the casuals, but it is great to get another viable option for the esports scene.
Please share your views on Artifact. I sure have seen so many quotes on various threads already that I can smell the hype train! (and the hate train :P)
If Artifact is "just Hearthstone, but with three games side by side", Artifact is doomed to fade quicker than Gwent. But I don't think it is.
I think that Artifact is aiming for the people that like TCGs and which find HEarthstne too simple. It will be a more complex game already because of the three lanes and it must be, because if they aim for casual gamers, they will utterly fail. Casual gaming is Hearthstones battleground and it is unlikely to be beaten on that ground. E.g. look at Elder Scrolls: Legends. ESL has two lanes but besides that it felt very similar to hearthstone. And it never got a lot of attention. It was fun for the short time I played it, but eventually I returned to Hearthstone (only have time to play one CCG and after all, on average I like Hearthstone better). So If Artifact has the ESL approach just with three lanes, I can not see that it gains any traction.
And for me, I will not even try it. I don't want to invest 20 bucks to see whether I like it or not (which will also be a major barrier for F2P people). That's nearly half my next preorder and I am not willing to pay when there are so many other CCGs which are good enough to be played for free like Gwent and Faeria (and probably shadowverse which I never tried). I think Artifact is severely overhyped. I might be wrong, we will see...
$20 is nothing, if the game is good and rewards skill more than RNG and grinding. I’m definitely excited for Artifact and I will be in the closed beta.
FTP players do not seem to understand the value of their TIME. That’s one thing that Artifact has explicitly set out to address - there will be no grinding for cards. It’s a brave move, in my opinion, and I hope it succeeds. It may be that Artifact targets a more cash-rich, time-poor audience, that are looking for a more complex, skill-intensive, game.
Yes, I did oversimplify it to the extreme because I've seen so many comments of being "overwhelmingly complex/I don't understand wha'ts going on". It shares the same structure though: you have creatures and your goal is to defeat the tower like you would defeat the opposing hero in HS.
But I will now throw in a mind game for you: Let's say we're playing this "Artistone" and your opponent has a sorceres apprentice and a mana wyrm on lane two, but lane one and three are empty. Where do you start deploying? That wyrm + apprentice combo is such a powerhouse that it might strike your lane two down in an instance if you leave it unguarded. But how about those two empty lanes, they do seem appealing for you to take victory in!
For me we're already pitted with so many decision points and we have to adapt tactically the whole time, so that the gameplay feel will be miles away from Hearthstone.
I Guess you didn't read my response beyond the first sentence then, did you? I explicitly said that it will be more complex than Hearthstone because of the lanes. Even ESL wasn't the exact same, but it was too little different. Nevertheless, if the lanes is all that distinguishes Artifact from Hearthstone, it will by far not be enough for the game to compete. And it will also fail to attract the gamers that want a "deeper" game experience since then it would be like ESL (with just one lane more). And the lane did not make it "feel" like a different gameplay.
I did read, and I mainly felt ashamed about my oversimplified statement and wanted to open my thoughts on it more.
I have to admit that I haven't played ESL, but coming back to my history with Conquest and it's five planets it was something spectacular and added very much depth but only little complexity.
The more we get descision making opportunities the more enjoyable experience it will be for me. If Blizzard released Hearthstone 2, a game like I described as Artistone, nothing else changing but having three simultaneous battles, I think it would be a much better game. A present HS match can be over in a heartbeat if you don't happen to draw answers to that wyrm + apprentice combo right away. But must you win on two boards would grant a chance to start pushing those battles instead of the lost cause.
Basically I do feel like Artifact will have the same bone structure than HS, albeit with three skeletons, and beyond that it will have some crazy muscles :P
lol a bunch of stupid noobs calling HS "too simple"... when actually looking for other game because they suck at hs
Because after a short peak with tournaments (noxious vs life coach final), there was not much heard of it any more. But I didn’t mean to imply it has gone completely. I think it is still a solid game. Just as the presumed hearthstone challenger, it failed. Miserably.
Lifecoach doesn't even play Gwent anymore. Does anybody aside from HS rejects? I doubt it.
I want to be excited for this game because it appears to be a lot cheaper than HS, is made by a trusted company, and is a fresh card game. The three-board concept just sounds overly convoluted and unappealing to me, though. I would love to be able to get into the beta and have the devs prove me wrong.
I dont see Artifact being anything more than a Niche
The economic model of Artifact is beyond dumb. Good luck.
Artifact seems really complicated to me. As frustrating as Hearthstone can be, I can't imagine people leaving it in some mass exodus. It's just the best card game out there right now. I don't think people want something even more complicated instead.
$20 upfront is not pay 2 win ?
lol
Season 36 = Legend Rank 60 . ( https://playhearthstone.com/en-us/blog/20695745 )
Hearthstone failed to evolve in any meaning full way, like every expansion is same old same old. I wish they would break mold and introduce something new and interesting, but i doubt it will be affected by Artifact, Hearthstone is just more fun to watch, seeing someone getting fucked by RNG is good feeling.Like some people, like Noxxious,Reynad, etc..., stated that Artifact has interesting premise but boring and dull implementation. For example, you can equip items to your hero, but most items are buff hp or damage, there are some interesting ones, but not enough. When you use cards that is ability of certain hero, you do not need that hero on the board, you only need hero of the same color and that is pretty fucking stupid.
Will game fail, i doubt it because Valve will support, will game be next big thing, bigger than HS in Twitch views, i very much doubt that. People will flock to it when it comes out to play, because it is new thing , but after sometime more of them will give up.
Since this thread is active again, and IGN has a new video with gameplay for Artifact. What does everyone think about the video below?
I agree with one of the youtube comments about the "wet napkin" level of enthusiasm from the video. Seems like there is a bountiful amount of underwhelming reception in the comments.
Also about Artifact in general all I have are two words; reveal video.
This is not a good start for the game sigh
The ArtiFAQ
I actually like how OP mentions poker and then proceeds to how good Artifact is because it is complicated. Poker is a clear proof that you can have a very simple rules and a very complex game. The whole idea of "Artifact has more complicated rules and that means it needs more skill" is absurd. It is like inventing chess on a 16x16 board with more types of pieces and calling that a more skill intensive game.
So far the whole three lane idea of Artifact looks awful for me. It will be interesting for people who likes that kind of complication but I believe that players like that are not very common.
Dont you guys think that...
Yea it may be obvious but if there a trading there is also
- The bad cards will be cheap, and the great cards will be expensive, what make you as a normal player wont spend much money on cards... would that make it p2w?
- dicovering a new archetypes like aggro, one turn swing, etc would change the card prices little bit. For example lets say the meta is stable and suddenly... there is someone playing aggro deck with cheap cards and he is winning alot, that would change the price of these cards because alot of players want it (idk if this is con or pro)
- disabling in-game currency could make it harder for every one to play right, at least after i pay the full game price give me a consistant source of packs( quests, daily wins, etc)
Thas my opinion...