• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

justiceiro

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
6,664
I'm kinda bitter because they are using dota 2 as a plattaform to promote this game in any way possible. They added a cg as ad, a panel on the main menu and even a table in game with some globins players.

dcc.gif

On the other side, i feel sad for sunsfan now.
 

Metallix87

User Requested Self-Ban
Banned
Nov 1, 2017
10,533
Have you not seen the reviewbombing?
No. I'm not too interested in the reviews, to be honest. I watched Jeff Hoogland stream the game for a while when it first came out, felt it was too complicated for it's own good, and stopped paying attention to it, before ever spending money on it. I got involved in these discussions recently as news has come out that the Twitch viewer numbers and overall user base are dying quickly, but I've not paid attention to that side of things.
 

Deleted member 5864

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,725
Not f2p and impossible for new people to quickly know what is happening on streams killed this game
The few streams I watched, the commentators were doing an extremely poor job of explaining what the fuck was happening. Had to go over to another streamer's channel who was restreaming the tourney in his own time to get some explanation of basic systems and strategy.

The game actually seems robust and well done mechanically (not viewer, or casual friendly), but I always get this nagging feeling when it comes to Valve lately that they put more effort into designing storefronts than games. I freely admit that is 99% my own bias after how they've handled themselves with their game development priorities, but I think a lot of the messaging surrounding the game was poor. I walked out because the game is not for me, most of the launch "excitement" seemed to be around how much money people were going to make before Axe and Drow came down in price, and not, you know, the "fun" times ahead with a mechanically complex game. The fact that the not so casual audience stepped off right behind me tells me it's not only the streaming blunders or lack of casual appeal that was the problem.
 

ZeroX

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
21,266
Speed Force
Every Artifact thread there's so much god damn misinformation

Yes the game has open chatting (that you can opt out of)

No the game is not that expensive (compared to HS/MtGA)

Yes the game would work on mobile although tablet would probably be much better than phone

Yes there have been balance changes/nerfs/buffs and the overall balance is good currently

They recently patched the game to reduce game time/stalling

Great news! Hopefully this leads to all companies (and VALVE most of all) finally understanding that they don't have to put all their eggs in the same basket (Multiplayer) Having a balanced portfolio of games is the best. They should use the income from MP to fund quality single player content for a dedicated audience.
A good game dying isn't "great news!", and if you're think it'll lead them to make single player games you're incredibly misguided.
 

Lyng

Editor at Popaco.dk
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
2,206
No. I'm not too interested in the reviews, to be honest. I watched Jeff Hoogland stream the game for a while when it first came out, felt it was too complicated for it's own good, and stopped paying attention to it, before ever spending money on it. I got involved in these discussions recently as news has come out that the Twitch viewer numbers and overall user base are dying quickly, but I've not paid attention to that side of things.

Ah okay. There was review bombing from a lot the "bu buh but muh haflyfe tree???!!!" People
 

Ferrio

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,046
Ehh, it's not really overly complex. Also many videogames would be too onerous to do as a board game, but they don't get called "too complex". I could show you several real board games that are worse, lol.

Right many video games wouldn't do as a board game, but a CCG *should*. Artifact would put to shame some board games on their down time and upkeep. I mean look at all the things you'd have to track and do:

-Randomly assign heros/creeps to lanes every round.
-Assign hero/creeps's target every round.
-Keep track of every health/armor/attack on every single card when rows can have *TONS* of cards.
-Calculate the damage from the combat phase 3 times every round.
-Keep track of all unit cool downs
-Keep track of all improvements
-Keep track of gold, bounties, secret shop items etc.
-Keep track of rounds, hero respawn times.
-Keep track of all equipped items and their cooldowns.

It would be a nightmare, you'd spend very very very little time playing the actual game. There'd be Axis and Allies games that'd take less time.
 

Deleted member 5864

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,725
Not valve per se, but a large group of players on steam very much wanted Artifact to fail.
A lot of people want to see every game fail. If people had that power, most games would fail.

Atlas got reviewbombed to hell and back, and it's still steady on Twitch and Steam numbers (which is baffling to me).
 

Code Artisan

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
805
If i am already casually playing Hearthstone as a fill-in game, why i would invest time and money to move to Artifact? It simply doesn't worth it.
 

ShiningBash

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,416
Interesting, I feel like a lot of people in that other thread on this exact topic kinda chastised the OP for asking if the game was dead. It would appear that we now have receipts.
 

Lyng

Editor at Popaco.dk
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
2,206
A lot of people want to see every game fail. If people had that power, most games would fail.

Atlas got reviewbombed to hell and back, and it's still steady on Twitch and Steam numbers (which is baffling to me).

Oh I agree. Like I said the main reason this s failing is its lack of casual appeal.
 

Papercuts

Prophet of Truth
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,007
I like CCGs a lot but I honestly haven't even considered Artifact with the payment model it has. I don't want to commit money upfront before knowing if the mechanics really click for me, so if it isn't F2P from the start I don't really give it a second look.
 

Rover

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,412
Right many video games wouldn't do as a board game, but a CCG *should*. Artifact would put to shame some board games on their down time and upkeep. I mean look at all the things you'd have to track and do:

-Randomly assign heros/creeps to lanes every round.
-Assign hero/creeps's target every round.
-Keep track of every health/armor/attack on every single card when rows can have *TONS* of cards.
-Calculate the damage from the combat phase 3 times every round.
-Keep track of all unit cool downs
-Keep track of all improvements
-Keep track of gold, bounties, secret shop items etc.
-Keep track of rounds, hero respawn times,

It would be a nightmare, you'd spend very very very little time playing the actual game. There'd be axis and allies games that'd be shorter.

I mean this is a moot point, honestly. It's a digital CCG that incorporates some mechanics that work because it's digital. The computer can do the fiddly bookkeeping things automatically. It doesn't have to work in paper form, the same way Forza doesn't have to work in paper form.

It's not like we're talking about a Crusader Kings card game. You are looking at and tracking some fairly normal things to track in a videogame.
 

Budi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,882
Finland
Great news! Hopefully this leads to all companies (and VALVE most of all) finally understanding that they don't have to put all their eggs in the same basket (Multiplayer) Having a balanced portfolio of games is the best. They should use the income from MP to fund quality single player content for a dedicated audience.
They do understand, as is evident by them acquiring Campo Santo early last year. Who are in the middle of In the Valley of Gods development. It's definitely going to be heavily story focused and also singleplayer. Excited? I sure as hell am!

Games failing like this is never good news though.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 2441

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
655
Is it realistic that they get this game turned around and turn it into a big success? Or is 1500 like a nail in the coffin number thats just so low you can't come back from it?

Don't want to doom and gloom and call any game dead, but you gotta look at where the player count boost is gonna come from, and I'm not seeing one considering the current landscape of the genre.

They recently patched the game to reduce game time/stalling


A good game dying isn't "great news!", and if you're think it'll lead them to make single player games you're incredibly misguided.

Did they halve it (at least)?

And your last point is 100% correct. Unsuccessful games, especially well designed ones (even if they're niche and have very particular flaws) do no good for the industry, and Valve's not gonna suddenly change the balance of their portfolio or business strategy based off one unsuccessful attempt.
 

Ferrio

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,046
I mean this is a moot point, honestly. It's a digital CCG that incorporates some mechanics that work because it's digital. The computer can do the fiddly bookkeeping things automatically. It doesn't have to work in paper form, the same way Forza doesn't have to work in paper form.

It's not like we're talking about a Crusader Kings card game. You are looking at and tracking some fairly normal things to track in a videogame.

I don't think it's a moot point, because it's design philosophy goes against what most people want in a CCG. It's not just that it's more complex than your average CCG, it's more complex to the point that the only way to play it is digitally. That doesn't make it less of a game cause I think it's a very competent game. What it does show is that it doesn't fit the model that it's trying to compete against.
 

Deleted member 2321

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,555
So will that

A: Drive then away from game development for good?

Or will it

B: Drive them towards making the kind of games their fans actually want from them?
 

Lyng

Editor at Popaco.dk
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
2,206
I don't think it's a moot point, because it's design philosophy goes against what most people want in a CCG. It's not just that it's more complex than your average CCG, it's more complex to the point that the only way to play it is digitally. That doesn't make it less of a game cause I think it's a very competent game. What it does show is that it doesn't fit the model that it's trying to compete against.

Have you played Twilight Struggle or Legend of the five rings LCG?
 

Orbit

Banned
Nov 21, 2018
1,328
If employees at Valve genuinely wanted to make this game, then I wish them luck and I hope things start looking up, as I'm sure a lot of blood, sweat, and tears went into this.

If, as I suspect, this was just Valve trying to get their hands in the Hearthstone money-making pie, then good - glad it is doing badly.
 

Ferrio

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,046
The complexity and how much you need to keep track of. Much more so than Artifact and they are physical games.

I'm not saying games like that can't exist, but for a CCG that's a lot of overhead. When people are complaining about Artifact's complexity when the computer already does all the heavy lifting on the complexity, that's a bad sign.

That said, just looking at Legend of the Five Rings and it's board state I don't see how it's more complex. Maybe more strategic, but the game looks *a lot* leaner than Artifact.
 
Last edited:

Code Artisan

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
805
We wanted half-life 3,
we wanted portal 3,
we wanted left 4 dead 3,
we wanted team fortress 3

not that ... thing. If Valve could stop chasing after Blizzard or Epic and start doing Valve stuff again, that would be great.
 

Deleted member 1698

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,254
Really shows nothing was learned from sfxt.

Iffy monetisation + slow games that take forever + doesn't translate to streaming + amazing depth that you just don't understand!!! = total failure, no matter how strong the license is.
 

Rover

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,412
I don't think it's a moot point, because it's design philosophy goes against what most people want in a CCG. It's not just that it's more complex than your average CCG, it's more complex to the point that the only way to play it is digitally. That doesn't make it less of a game cause I think it's a very competent game. What it does show is that it doesn't fit the model that it's trying to compete against.

Netrunner is more complex than Artifact, competed with Magic for a place in the local card shops, and found a very loyal fanbase. That's what Artifact needs to tap into.

There are gamers who want more complex games, if they're good and interesting. I think Artifact can do that. This whole notion that a game has to 'show well' for streamers seems poisonous.
 

Deleted member 5864

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,725
It is completely viable to play Hearthstone forever for the low, low, price of free.

Free is infinitely cheaper than the $20 upfront cost of Artifact.
I have to agree with this, considering I started in beta and did it for years. I would save my arena winnings and get 40 or 50 packs ahead of an expansion launch, which used to be more than enough to get a.couple of competitive decks. You can get a decent deck for little dust basically every expansion.

That said, it started to get tougher over the years as more cards were added.

And yes, this deliberately ignores the "full collection" price comments. I would certainly hope that's the case for a newly released game. And I've never seen the point for owning every card in a game like HS.
 

ZeroX

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
21,266
Speed Force
Did they halve it (at least)?
  • After you receive the coin, the game clock now waits an additional 5 seconds before it begins ticking.
  • The tournament timer now grants 30 seconds per round, down from 1 minute, and starts at 2:30, down from 3:00.
  • The standard timer now grants 1 minute per round, down from 2 minutes, and starts at 3:00, down from 5:00.
  • Draft gauntlets and Constructed gauntlets now use the tournament timer rather than the standard timer. (Call to Arms and Global Matchmaking use the updated standard timer.)
  • Fixed a bug where animations that killed multiple heroes would start your clock ticking down before the animation finished.
  • Fixed a bug where you could pass very quickly using the spacebar during a long animation, causing the opponent's clock to start ticking down before the animation finished.
 

Budi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,882
Finland
So will that

A: Drive then away from game development for good?

Or will it

B: Drive them towards making the kind of games their fans actually want from them?
Is option A serious? Like the one thread with EA leaving AAA games behind. Their games have been huge successes, one bomb doesn't change that. And by option B) do you mean multiplayer shooters or mobas?
 
Last edited:

spootime

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
3,429
Don't let Artifacts catastrophic failure distract from the fact that the CSGO team spent 1.5 years making the worst battle royale mode of all time.


But in all seriousness I think the Valve era is dead. They can't just release a game and expect millions of people to buy it because they're valve.
 

Lyng

Editor at Popaco.dk
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
2,206
I'm not saying games like that can't exist, but for a CCG that's a lot of overhead. When people are complaining about Artifact's complexity when the computer actually does all the heavy lifting on the complexity, that's a bad sign.

Yes true which is why you won't see those games sold at target.
And this is the crux the matter.
Artifact is a beautiful game design that is made for people who want a deep rich experience.
Valve apparently thought there would be a huge market for that.

Despite games like Pendragon and Paths of Glory being better designs than risk and monopoly, their complexity keeps them from ever hitting big n the main stream market.
And the same is the case for Artifact.
 

Bjones

Member
Oct 30, 2017
5,622
I don't understand the comment about " many online games struggle to find an audience on steam" what does steam have to do with that?
 

Rover

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,412
Yes true which is why you won't see those games sold at target.
And this is the crux the matter.
Artifact is a beautiful game design that is made for people who want a deep rich experience.
Valve apparently thought there would be a huge market for that.

Despite games like Pendragon and Paths of Glory being better designs than risk and monopoly, their complexity keeps them from ever hitting big n the main stream market.
And the same is the case for Artifact.

That's not necessarily a problem IMO but it does change how they market it, including what they charge for it (designer board games are very expensive compared to the mainstream games).
 

cakely

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,149
Chicago
Netrunner is more complex than Artifact, competed with Magic for a place in the local card shops, and found a very loyal fanbase. That's what Artifact needs to tap into.

There are gamers who want more complex games, if they're good and interesting. I think Artifact can do that. This whole notion that a game has to 'show well' for streamers seems poisonous.

I agree with you about Netrunner.

Have you ever played Vampire: The Eternal Struggle (It was called Jyhad when I bought my cards)? I think that's the most complicated CCG I've ever played by a fairly wide margin. It didn't help that it was really intended to be played with larger groups, like, four and up.
 

Lyng

Editor at Popaco.dk
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
2,206
That's not necessarily a problem IMO but it does change how they market it, including what they charge for it (designer board games are very expensive compared to the mainstream games).

Yes which is why they need to double down on this market and not try to change the game to appease a more mainstream player base.
 

ty_hot

Banned
Dec 14, 2017
7,176
The only difference between a poker championship where you pay to enter and this game is that on Poker everybody has the same odds, in Valve's game your deck might be worst than the others, which forces you to spend money on extra cardsnto have better odds...

It's gambling, but brutal.
 

Lyng

Editor at Popaco.dk
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
2,206
The only difference between a poker championship where you pay to enter and this game is that on Poker everybody has the same odds, in Valve's game your deck might be worst than the others, which forces you to spend money on extra cardsnto have better odds...

It's gambling, but brutal.

You can buy the cards individually. This game is far from gambling.