A side-by-side comparison of the F2P model for the top 5 card games

[Wingflier]

So I thought this was a fascinating side-by-side comparison of the top 5 card games on the Market right now (in terms of popularity).

What do you guys think?

[TheVampire100]

Gwent is in the top 5? Okay, time to end my life.

The article is good and detailed though and it just shows, even if Hearthstone os one of the first popular online card games, it's also falling flat compared to others in the genre. especially the F2p experience is simply garbage by now because they churn out one set after another and its hard to keep up with the new cards and strategy changes unless you invest some good amount of money into it.

Also, I would like to show this, a comparison table of "almost" all the popular or known digital card games right now. It is a little dated though, because it was made in the beginning of 2017 but except that it still is accurate to the main aspects of the games.
http://worldcitiesranking.com/digital-card-games-comparison-table/

[Wingflier]

Gwent is in the top 5? Okay, time to end my life.

Why the hate for Gwent?

It's one of the most unique out there, and certainly the most unique of the popular bunch.

[TheVampire100]

Because it's a terrible game. There is nothing fun or entertaining at this game, it's plain boring it serves little to no interactivity or tactic. It's simply a game "tug of war" which isn't fun to begin with but they literally made the concept even more unfun.

Also, unique does not mean it's entertaining. It is unique, yes, because no other game made something so plain, simple and useless than this game. But maybe "plain" the new casual trend.
But, yeah, at least it is unique.

I can see that people don't want to play another Hearthstone clone from which we have already more than enough (and if we look at the article, these types of games are the biggest money sinks you can get), but going so far and playing a game with literal no content is just... madness.
We have already other "unique" games out there that are far more interesting because at least tehy provide an entertainign game mechanic that centers not aroudn "who has the higher number on their field".
we have PvZ Heroes, whcih introduces asynchronous game mechanics, that are very unique to this genre.
We have Mabinogi Duel/Duel of Summoners, which removes the RNG completely from card draws simply because there are no card draws.
We have games like Duelyst and Shardboudn for a more boardgame-centered card game (but to be honest, Duelyst is falling flat since namco obtained the game and Shardboudn is still in development).

I would take any other game over Gwent.

But yeah, it's unique. Because no one wnats to make something like that.

[Mánagarmr]

...But yeah, it's unique. Because no one wnats to make something like that.

200 000 people disagree with you. I don't like Gwent either, but your posts here in this thread reek of "waah, people like stuff I don't, eww!" Please keep a more civil level than that.

[TheVampire100]

You are right, I went overboard with this. But what I wrote stands true. The game is simple, plain and boring and no one can in any way make me believe it is not like this. The game has literally no gameplay at all.
As for the high playerbase, the game drives from the Witcher fanbase. Gwent was a mini game in Witcher and people liked it there. Teh developers made an entire game out of this with "improved" stuff and "deeper mechanics". People play it because they liekd Witcher, they liked the mini game.
People also like "simple". There is an increasing trend that games get more simple and less complex because that's what people nowadays want. I'm in a minority here, that I don't see any potential in this game simply because people liek it easy. You don't have to learn deep strategies for this game because there simply aren't any. The whole game is centered around getting high number cards out, playing cards that increase your number or decrease the enemy number or that draw new cards out of your deck, so you can play more in the next round. The game lacks the deep tatcical gameplay elements of any other game in the same genre, it is pretty much the most simple game that you can get in this genre.
There is some strategy involved, sure, but is so little and basically all decks are centered aroudn the same strategy that I mentioned above.
It's okay for those 200.000 people if they want a very plain game with little to no gameplay mechanics. But if I want a simple card game, I play Uno.

[Misery]

Dare I ask what "Gwent" is, exactly?

I know it's from the Witcher (not something Iv'e played) but that's all I know.  Yet I keep hearing about this, despite that it apparently started out as a mere minigame within that series?

If anyone here has actually played it, I'd be interested to know what exactly it's about and what the appeal is. 

[Draco18s]

Dare I ask what "Gwent" is, exactly?

I know it's from the Witcher (not something Iv'e played) but that's all I know.  Yet I keep hearing about this, despite that it apparently started out as a mere minigame within that series?

It was a Freemium card game inside the Witcher, one with very strong pay-to-win mechanics.
The reason it was popular was because it gave you something to do with your in-game currency that was borderline otherwise unspendable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxDz6RWncVM

Players then demanded that the company make Gwent as its own standalone game.

[Wingflier]

Vampire, I don't even know where to begin with your criticisms of Gwent. If it were a human being I presume you'd be about ready to murder it at this point.

From my perspective your seething (and somewhat irrational?) hatred for it are blinding you to the fact that it does have many redeeming features, as I would say all of the top 5 card games do, even the ones I can't stand, like Hearthstone (which I commonly watch people stream simply for the sheer entertainment value).

It's just not true to say that Gwent has no interactivity. Yes, ultimately you are victorious by winning 2 out of 3 rounds, and each round is won by having a bigger army on your side of the board, but how is this inherently less interactive than getting your opponent's health total to zero?

You act as though there is no interactivity within the game whatsoever, but that is quite frankly not true. There are so many ways to interact with your opponent's side of the board including weather effects, nukes, spies, locks, steals, consumes, and countless more. It's true that some decks are more concerned about maximizing their own side of the board, but from what I've seen this is pretty rare. The most popular decks are filled to the brim with ways to punish or outplay your opponent for their mistakes.

Of course it's fair to say that Gwent is boring and/or not your cup of tea, I feel that way about many popular games and even T.V. shows (I can not for the life of me understand the appeal of Rick and Morty). But to claim that it's objectively terrible? I don't see it. As much as I despise Hearthstone, I can step outside of myself for just long enough to see the appeal to a much more casual audience, especially one who already loves Blizzard and has copious amounts of expendable income.

If anyone here has actually played it, I'd be interested to know what exactly it's about and what the appeal is.

I would say that the appeal of Gwent vs. the other popular card games is the strategic depth. It's true that it's not as flashy or visceral, but this is more than made up for by the removal of most random mechanics and level of depth.

So much of the game plays like a hybrid of Chess and Poker. You can't know exactly what your opponent is holding, but you can surmise it base on their behavior, and you can bluff with your own hand to try and make them reveal theirs.

So the 3 round feature is probably where the game gets the majority of its depth. Winning the first round gives one player a huge advantage, because the losing player *HAS* to win the second round, or they lose the game. This means that the player who is victorious in the first round can bait the "losing" player to expend all their best cards in a desperate attempt to win the second round, making the third round a breeze for himself.

But it's much more complex than that. Some decks specifically intend to lose the first round and play from behind. Some decks essentially want the first and second rounds to be passed and then put all of their power into the 3rd round, creating an unstoppably huge board that the opponent can't possibly deal with. Some decks actually attempt to win both the first and second round, not even giving the opponent a chance to recover.

It all hinges around the use of the pass mechanic to attempt to create leads which you believe your opponent can't overcome without an critical amount of resources, but doing so is always a gamble, and relies both on knowing the matchup and making educated guesses about what the enemy player has.

It's honestly difficult to explain but very fun to watch.

[TheVampire100]

Don't even try, the game is dead to me. All what you mention is true but it still boils all down to the same core mechanic which is not fun to begin with.
So no, Gwent will never be a good game in my opinion. It works out as minigame because, like Draco said, i gave you soemthing to do with your money in the game. But as standalone game? it simply has not enough to offer for me.
Even Mabinogi Duel, which is just the bare bones of a card game, has more to play with than this game.

[WolfWhiteFire]

So is this entire thread going to about TheVampire100 simply stating that he doesn't like Gwent and why, in his own opinion, and Wingflier trying to convince him he should? Not really any reason to go back and forth with it, might as well just drop it and move on to other aspects of the article, the current conversation isn't really going anywhere. For example, that it is apparently cheaper to buy hearthstone cards through amazon than it's own in-game store, or the quality of the article, or what you think about the accuracy of the rankings at the end, or pretty much anything else anyone can think of.

[Cyborg]

So is this entire thread going to about TheVampire100 simply stating that he doesn't like Gwent and why, in his own opinion, and Wingflier trying to convince him he should? Not really any reason to go back and forth with it, might as well just drop it and move on to other aspects of the article, the current conversation isn't really going anywhere. For example, that it is apparently cheaper to buy hearthstone cards through amazon than it's own in-game store, or the quality of the article, or what you think about the accuracy of the rankings at the end, or pretty much anything else anyone can think of.

pay2win is lame, ergo most card games are lame.

[Wingflier]

Based on my experience with the 5 games in question, I'd say it's pretty accurate.

Even though it was written on an Eternal-based site, it's not unfair at all to say that Eternal is the most generous of them all, by a wide margin.

I don't even know what to make of Cyborg's comment without straining not to make my head explode. The entire point of the article is a comparison of the games' various free to play models so that you aren't forced to pay money in the first place.

[TheVampire100]

Eternal has a different problem though, crafting takes forever. The recycling values of cards are trash and getting enough for even a common card takes forever. You get some shards from packs, that's good at least, no other game does this, but the point still stands, cards give little to no reward for recycling them, making crafting a pure nightmare there.
I have like 10-20 decks from the internet that I wanted to try out but I cannot get to finish a single one, because I don't get enough shards to get all the cards. And most of them are budget decks, tells enough about this system.
They are generous with giving out cards and rewards and such but they decide what cards you are getting in the end. In other games, the crafting system helps you to get the cards you missed from boosters or the RNG system, Eternal does this not.
It's still a better game than Hearthstone, in general it is better than most card games but this is probably the worst point of it.

Also, just ignore almost everything Cyborg says. His comments are often centered aroudn his limited view of the world.
But yeah, technically he is right, card games are P2W, denying this would simply be stupid. But that doesn't mean they cannot be fun. That's where he is wrong.

[keith.lamothe]

Also, just ignore almost everything Cyborg says. His comments are often centered aroudn his limited view of the world.

I'm just going to say this and go away again: if Chris and I had chosen that approach to Cyborg, it would have been detrimental to the quality of our games and a disservice to our customers.