Apparently so.

Being a big CCG player (Magic primarily, though I've dabbled in--and generally grown bored with--others), a fan of the Warcraft mythos, and someone who appreciates the Blizzard formula in general (polish, approachability, scalability, and purposefulness), Hearthstone is pretty much right up my alley. I've watched a lot of games on youtube (it's a surprisingly fun spectator game for a CCG), and now I've played a few myself. I've got some initial thoughts, which I'll follow up as I get more time in.

List-O-Random-thoughts:

==The first thing I noticed was the sore lack of "instant" or "interrupt" class cards. It keeps things simple, and makes turns clearly defined, but it also makes strategy feel very one-sided...it's just that the side switches every turn. Defensive options are pretty thin and light on strategy.

==The economy (mana) progression is a tidy way of guiding escalation, but it does come with downsides: it means strategy is necessarily simpler at the start of a game than the end. This isn't how CCG's should work. And yes, there's still room for choice and strategy from turn one, but card cost versus mana progression (and thus supporting deck construction) holds your hand a lot and, even more than that, restricts how MANY options you have (if not WHICH options you have). Sure you can cast one of three 2-mana spells on turn two, but you can still use those same 2-mana spells on turn 8...along with additional options as well. The fact that you need cards to get you through the early low-mana phases makes deck-building a little too claustrophobic. It also tends to make mana itself feel mostly meaningless in a lot of situations...it's a resource but it has little function beyond (sometimes artificially) limiting your abilities.
Other games take far more interesting approaches to economy. Star Wars CCG ties it to the player's life and card supply. And Magic builds more of an economic ecosystem, (with early "mana burn" rules introducing some extra consequence to inefficient or uncareful use). But the key thing, I think, is that Magic (and many other CCGs) lets you buy mana with mana. The early game for many Magic decks consists of building mana reserves rather than combat. Deck-diving for land or trading other resources (life, cards, etc.) for permanent or temporary mana. There's none of this in Hearthstone. Every player in every game has 1 mana on turn one, 8 mana on turn 8, and 10 mana on turn 10. The linear progression is reflected in card design and it WORKS mechanically, but it's a little too structured for my tastes. Keeping both players on the same level economically despite deck structure and hand/draw eliminates a lot of strategy and (for better or worse) luck. But it also pares down the rules and helps get to the meat of the gameplay, which is what will help make Hearthstone very popular when it publicly launches.

==Attacker choosing targets is really weird. It's not bad, it's just sort of backward. It still allows you to use board-control through creatures to "steer" damage. But it gives creature/board control an interesting twist since the enemy CAN just attack you directly despite a line of big, tough creatures standing between. It's still important to maintain board control through minions, but it works differently and creates different strategies.

==Creatures are designed to die. You don't see a lot of long-lived creatures that you protect and empower until the right time. Damage numbers climb much more often (and rapidly) than health numbers. And creature health doesn't regen every turn. This, combined with the previous point, means you can easily lose an expensive creature to a cheap one. A 5/2 can die to a 2/1 on any turn. It means the board shakes up a lot, but it also means it's hard to BUILD a strategy you can invest in. It's very much a turn-by-turn game. Clearing the board helps avert death, but having lots of creatures doesn't guarantee victory. You need to use every single one every single turn or you'll regret it...even if it means losing them all to do a little damage. Any damage is damage, and games only last a handful of turns so a wasted turn is a serious risk. This is (again) very contrary to my Magic conditioning, where avoiding direct action now in support of a growing strategic culmination later is often the better choice.

==The direct-damage/creature damage mana cost divide is really incongruous. A small-medium creature may do 5 damage, but a dirt cheap spell will do 6. Sure, spells are one-time only, but as we learned above, creatures often are as well. And since games only last a few turns, the choice between cheap damage now or an expensive creature that can (if it survives) attack later is a no-brainer. This needs balancing, but I'm not sure how. The fact that creatures can act as a damage sponge is not really worth the extra cost when the attacker is the one selecting targets.

==I like the Combo system, especially since it suits the game's "do everything possible every turn" playstyle. Rewarding you for leaving a turn with no mana unspent is kind of the counterapproach to mana burn. Why would you NOT cast that combo card if you have the mana left? It discourages saving for later and encourages making what you have now work now.

Overall, the very very stripped-down set of CCG rules works pretty well, and makes for a fun-to-play game. BUT...It also makes me want to go play Card Hunter (another game I'll be posting about soon) or even Magic Online...all of which are free with optional real-cash card purchases just like Hearthstone. Cardhunter has vastly more depth in both gameplay and customization, but that's not really a fair comparison as it's a tabletop/CCG hybrid and Hearthstone is only the latter.

I think I'll have a LOT more fun with Hearthstone once I can play it against my friends and not just randoms. Limited beta access means that's not likely for a while, though.

Man I missed this post...

Well Hearthstone is a game changer. I think this game will bring a lot of people who aren't into the card scene to play this game. I have never been a card guy, but I do know that Hearthstone is playable for newer players but can still be enjoyed by more hardcore MTG players. It does a good job of bridging the gap and this game will help the genera move forward.

I am not a card guy but I know a good game when I see it. I most likely won't play it but I understand why others do, it looks genuinely fun. Because I am not a card guy and I haven't played HS, I can't fully appreciate your thoughts. I can only imagine how frustrating it might get to type up a long post only for it to be ignored.


This video popped up in my subscription feed:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA_H8EoWeGc

I thought it was awesome, maybe you could appreciate it more than I.

That video was awesome, and explains what I meant about it being turn-by-turn in such a drastic way. Of course, that was late-game, so it could have gone either way...all in the timing (which is partly luck).

This one's great also:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOD7Ni_3NIc[/youtube]

RCA wrote:Well Hearthstone is a game changer. I think this game will bring a lot of people who aren't into the card scene to play this game. I have never been a card guy, but I do know that Hearthstone is playable for newer players but can still be enjoyed by more hardcore MTG players. It does a good job of bridging the gap and this game will help the genera move forward.

Absolutely. And from that point of view I certainly can't complain. If it brings more people into card gaming, it's a good thing. The fact that it's playable for novices and still fun CCG veterans is impressive.

RCA wrote:I can only imagine how frustrating it might get to type up a long post only for it to be ignored.

Nah, it's cool. I was hoping we could maybe breathe some life back into this forum, and this was the first part of my Gaming Forum Stimulus Plan. There's more to come.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:all in the timing (which is partly luck).

But with card games wouldn't that be a part of deck building, which would increase your chances of helping you out?

MinisterofDOOM wrote:was the first part of my Gaming Forum Stimulus Plan. There's more to come.

Hahahhaa gaming and PC is the only reason I come back.
Every now and then I wonder, what does MoD think about this.

So if you could apply to Revision3 games and get a job there that would be great.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:This one's great also:

Wait, you can use cards on your opponents? Is this a new mechanic for card games?

Also this exploit couldn't really work unless you were playing VS someone who was playing along, right?
Also when or if Hearthstone gets competitive, could people boost their rank by winning in this manner?

RCA wrote:But with card games wouldn't that be a part of deck building, which would increase your chances of helping you out?

To a point. However, regardless of deck-building skill, the draw is still random, so your hand is still random. Most CCG's (including Hearthstone) limit the number of duplicates of any card you can include in your deck. Hearthstone's mana system also adds some extra restriction to deckbuilding as you need to maintain a certain distribution of cards of certain cost, or you'll end up with a hand full of cards you can't afford to cast in the early game, or a bunch of ineffective but cheap cards in the late game.

So, in answer to your question: yes. BUT deck building is both a factor of AND a contibutor to the inherent luck-based aspects of the game. Deck building translates to card draws which translates to your hand, whose usefulness is dependent upon your mana reserves, which feeds right back into deck building. In Magic, mana reserves are a part of the deck design (and the only type of card NOT restricted to a small number of duplicates). This allows you to build more designed strategy into your deck's functionality and separate yourself more from the factors of luck. Hearthstone's "have another mana every turn" removes all of that in favor of a vastly simpler, more level-playing-field approach. Neither's wrong, but they both absolutely come with trade-offs. Magic's system requires you to be more familiar with the flow of turn and game and have a little more foresight, while Hearthstone leaves you more immediately dependent upon what you happen to get in your hand.

RCA wrote:Wait, you can use cards on your opponents? Is this a new mechanic for card games?

Not really. However, it's an illustration of one of the biggest "simplifying factors" of taking a CCG digital. Most card games have complicated and very, very carefully chosen text explaining (in terms of game rules) how the card works. Often, a card will see text revisions to remove unintended loopholes allowed by text wording. So, in a lot of cases, this kind of use of a card will be ruled out by that wording. BUT, other times it's left alone. Some very unusual strategies can hinge on "helping" your opponent or buffing their cards.

For example: My opponent has a Greater Basilisk out. It's Deathtouch ability means any of MY creatures that attack it will die, even if they also kill the Basilisk. Not appealing, especially considering that the Basilisk's 5 toughness means it might even take more than one of my own creatures to deal enough damage to finish it off. But if I happen to have one of these, whose ability is "Target creature deals damage to itself equal to its power" I can make the Basilisk damage itself. The Basilisk only has 3 power (damage) though, and with 5 toughness (health) Kiku's ability won't finish the Basilisk off. I could use this guy, though to add 2 power to the Basilisk, then use Kiku to make it kill itself. I've just cleaned up an irritating creature without having to sacrifice any of my own, partly by buffing the very card I was trying to kill.
Of course if I had Dark Triumph instead of Agend of Skauku, this whole strategy wouldn't work, since Dark Triumph specifically only targets my own cards.

Hearthstone doesn't have the wording issue, as the functionality of the cards is all built into the digital game. It means card texts can be more "natural" and easier to understand despite potentially complex functionality under the surface. It also assures correct use of cards (there's a reason games like Magic have Judges at tournaments--it can often be difficult to interpret rules in complex scenarios). So it cleans things up a lot (the Hearthstone M.O.) while removing, perhaps, a little depth from ultra-strategic use of certain rules or abilities or wordings.

RCA wrote:Also this exploit couldn't really work unless you were playing VS someone who was playing along, right?
Also when or if Hearthstone gets competitive, could people boost their rank by winning in this manner?

You could, but really no more than match fixing is possible in any other online competitive game. And the manner of win doesn't factor into rank. If you defeat an opponent with 9 billion damage, it's no different than defeating them with the 4 you actually needed to deal to barely win. A win is a win, and a loss is a loss. If you can make it happen within the game's rules without your opponent intentionally "throwing" the game, it's fair.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:(there's a reason games like Magic have Judges at tournaments--it can often be difficult to interpret rules in complex scenarios)

Wow. I had no idea. It turns into scrabble without a dictionary?

Your example is actually a really neat because it shows me how people use cards on their opponents all while letting me know just how complicated Magic is.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:If you can make it happen within the game's rules without your opponent intentionally "throwing" the game, it's fair

Makes sense.