Hearthpwn

The hearthstone expansion cycle is so stale, we're reviewing reviews.

Wait - mods deleted half the comments? KEKW

I tend to avoid Trump's card reviews now. He's been wrong about so many cards in the past. Good player? yes. Good at initial card analysis? no. He just cannot think outside of the box when it comes to cards and I think that's why he overlooks a lot of cards and interactions.

I'm the opposite, the only card review I even watch is trump because of how he reviews them.

Anyone with a bit of game knowledge can look at a card like troublemaker and go "10/10 best card better than rag" but if control warrior sucks that doesn't really mean anything.

a card review without context ( deck building) is meaningless. Trump is the closest to this approach but they should build an actual deck, so many good useless card we've seen before 

Many thanks for the collection ~~~

I only play wild so these reviews are kind of worthless to me. Fun to watch, but they don't really consider how the card performs in Wild.

If that's what you want, this is the place:

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubWVzc3kuZm0vYXBpL3Nob3cvNDk1My9yc3M

Kibler as usual = radio casting. Its called review but all he does is an explanation how the cards work.

That's because Kibler approaches his set reviews differently than the other guys listed.

Kibler's reviews are from the perspective of a game designer. He's more interested in asking the question "what kind of deck would this card be useful in?" than "will this card be good?" The means he ends up talking about the individual strengths and uses of each card rather than trying to extrapolate how many stars or what tier of deck each card will fit into.

If you're trying to guess which decks to craft on day 1 he's not as useful as the other reviews (though, given the track records of the predictions a lot of these guys, they aren't particularly helpful either), but he gives a unique perspective that's great for people who are more interested in brewing decks and game design than raw competitiveness.

I haven't heard that in this video. 90% he speaks about what card does and that's it; he doesn't paint any scenarios for Scholomance meta nor mention potentially new archetypes; it just card by card description which is utterly boring. I don' see anything unique in reading card text for me and I m not sure how this is a designer perspective since most of the time he goes 1 by 1 and in a vacuum.

People laugh at Vicious but they did exactly what you are implying Kibler did (which he didn't); they try to think about new possible archetypes/decks and then scorecard based on those predictions as well as mentioning that some cards might be better then they score them depending on how strong the archetype becomes. What Kibler did is just Scholomance summary for blind people.

He does the same while casting; radio description of what's going on or what was the draw - personally I am super happy that he is not doing that anymore. Even Doa tried to be more insightful (tho he doesn't know the game that well ofc)/

he doesn't paint any scenarios for Scholomance meta nor mention potentially new archetypes

I mean, yeah, because he's not trying to predict the metagame or rate cards on some arbitrary scale that is effectively just guessing.

Again, Kibler isn't trying to predict what kinds of decks are going to exist or how good they are going to be. That's just not the point of his set reviews, and if that's all you're looking for, you're going to be disappointed. He's looking at each card individually and then talking about what makes the card unique, what kinds of decks it might see play in, and how he thinks he could work it into that style of deck. He's not looking at the power of each card and the class balance, he's looking at what each card's purpose is.

Kibler isn't (and has never claimed to) be trying to tell you what the next metagame will look like, because Kibler has never really seemed to care much about that. He's never played to be competitive in HS, he plays to brew sweet new decks with some off-the-wall interactions that he finds fun. That's why his reviews are always about the potential and potential use of each card rather than what tier they'll end up.

I have no idea why you're getting cranky about Kibler for just not doing the type of review you're looking for. There are plenty of other guys making meta predictions that are always completely wrong if that's what you want to watch.

Ah! Player POV and Dev POV. Nice and interesting thoughts. :P~~~

Trying to predict the meta or what decks are going to be popular is such a crapshoot. And a huge waste of clickbait-y time. And Kibler DOES make predictions about what cards are worth paying attention to and does bring up situations where a card will be powerful. Just not for every single card. I don't get him "just reading the cards" at all. Sometimes he goes on a LITTLE long for my tastes, and he doesn't have something interesting to say about every card, but I certainly enjoy his card reviews more than people being blatantly wrong and making weird guesses. Or giving cards star ratings (which is... useless unless the star ratings actually mean something like with Zalae's old reviews).

I KINDA wish these card reviews would only focus on cards which are worth talking about. It feels really bloated otherwise.

But Chump is great, and is a bit more ambitious than Kibler is. He'll talk about what decks that currently exist that the card may or may not fit into, and what new decks may come from the cards.

Shiro says stop talking rubbish and I for one agree. Kibler is King. Long live the King.

I have no idea why you're getting cranky about Kibler for just not doing the type of review you're looking for.

Well you see, having an opinion is not being cranky, I am just surprised its called review when it's not. Imagine Movie critique who describes the movie plot and that's it - not even mention if actors or director did a good job or if its worth going to a cinema and how this movie looks versus other movies in the history or this season - would you call it a review? 

edit: I guess video is good for people who dont understand ard mechanics well; then Kibler explain hopw it works for them very well; for me it was waste of time and definitely its not a 'review'

Kibler doesn't just read off what cards do, I don't know where you're even getting that from. He absolutely evaluates a lot of them. And talks about whether he's excited about a card or not.

Thanks for the acknowledgment!

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubWVzc3kuZm0vYXBpL3Nob3cvNDk1My9yc3M

no warshack review? damn