If Actions Speak Louder Than Words, Then Actions x2 Speak Louder Than Actions
United States
Hutto
Texas
Chit Chat Hamstring!!!
-
Let me start off by saying that in my definition anything that is collectible is not technically a game. If a game depends on its collectible nature to increase its popularity, then it’s not a very good game to begin with. That being said, I will be reviewing the Vs. Collectible Card Game produced by Upper Deck Entertainment.
Theme
The theme of this is great. Not very original, but great. The theme of this game is that all of your favorite DC and Marvel comics heroes, villains and characters can battle it out in an epic duel. The cards in this game are very all encompassing of the themes of the comics and the feel of the pulp, fists and powers-a-blazin’ comic book zeal. Like HeroClix (exactly, like HeroClix), the Vs. Collectible Card Game (CCG) is marketed as such that you can mix and match your favorite comic book heroes from DC and Marvel together to fight side by side with each other. The only leg up that HeroClix actually has over the theme here in Vs. is that HeroClix mixes in an Independent comic books line into their line-up. This is great for someone like me that left the “Big Two” comic books house over a decade ago and I’ve rarely looked back. Come on Vs.! Where’s your Indy line-up? I give the theme of this game two stars out of three for theme. Put in an Indy line and I’d give Vs. a third star.
Rules
Like most collectible “games”, having concise rules is near impossible. With every release of a new card set, there are more rules errata, FAQ’s and corrections than the previous release. In order to play Vs. with any degree of accuracy, you’ll need about 100 plus pages of poorly organized rules from Upper Deck’s website. Having to constantly refer to the rules, makes the game feel like you and a friend are either filing a lawsuit or filing the taxes of the superheroes involved rather than having a wham-bam, quick-paced brawl on the streets of Gotham City. For not having concise rules, by any definition of the word concise, I give Vs. one star out of three.
Production Quality
The Vs. CCG has great art! The rules books, as poorly worded and organized as they are, are glossy, color and very pretty. Upper Deck has really gone all out to have a game that looks great. I’m not of the camp that puts card covers on each of my cards. It’s a game for Pete’s sake, if you’re going to play it, the cards are going to get a bit roughed up. If I were to collect the game and never play it I could see myself protecting my cards, but then how fun is a game that never gets played? That being said, my cards are still in very good shape. I’ve played the game a bunch and my cards are nearly as pretty as when they first were unwrapped. I give the quality of the game two out of three stars.
Luck Factor
The random factor of this game is based on a few things, both of which your opponent suffers equally. That I can live with. First off, each player constructs a deck of cards that has at least sixty cards. You can have as many cards in your deck as you want, but you must have at least sixty cards. The more cards you put in your deck over sixty, the less chance you’ll see exactly what you want during the game. We’ve found that in a normal game you’ll only see twenty to thirty of your cards come into play. So you’re only going to be using a quarter to half of your deck. You can control this by putting duplicates of cards you really want to play into your deck. There are limits to how many of which type of cards you can have in your deck, but your opponent is limited by this is well. Another random factor in this game is its collectible nature. This is something that has bothered me since getting into the Jyhad CCG ten years earlier. People with more expendable income have a better chance at getting better cards. If you want better cards, you’ve got to be willing to blow more money. You only play with sixty or so cards, but to get sixty or so good cards you’ve got to burn more of your money. That’s lame. Lame. Lame. Lame. One of the saving graces of this game is that the combat is not resolved through dice rolls. The combat is resolved by matching somewhat static values. I like that. There really is no need to muddy this game up any more by rolling a dice. Another random factor to Vs. is the fact that if you play different people often you don’t know how their deck is stacked. I like the mystery of sitting down with a new opponent and being completely stunned by their deck building strategy. That’s a good thing. Most collectible games have some sort of balancing mechanic built in (i.e. building an army with the same build cost or only using figures under a certain unit cost). This game has none of that nonsense. Life is not evenly matched. Neither should my game be evenly matched. For its Luck Factor, I give Vs. two out of three stars. There’s a good degree of luck involved, but it’s not annoying or hindering.
Replayability
I’ve been playing this game for a few months now. I’m sad to admit that it is getting old. There’s only so many times I can see the Green Lantern duke it out with Iron Man. I remember when the ‘Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon’ DVD came out. I could watch the “Night Fight” over and over again. As great as that scene is, watching it over and over again will make it lame real quick like. Vs. is the “Night Fight” in ‘Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon’. A lot of ‘ooh’s’ and a lot of ‘Whoa, baby’s!’ at first, but after a while ‘enh…’ and ‘yeah, so…’ become more common. This game is good at about the once every couple weeks play rate. I’ll give Vs.’s replayability a two in three stars.
Overall
This game is fun, for a while. Don’t over play this game or you’ll burn it out fast. There are two games to this game. The deck building that you do on your own. You can spend hours fussing over which of your cards you’re going to put into your sixty-card mega deck. I really like doing this. It reminds me of the planning scenes from “The Seven Samurai” or “Toy Story” (“Legs? You’re with Ducky.”). Then there’s the actual game. The fight of the ages. The duel of the Titans. One complaint, my friend Tom brought up and I completely agree with, is that for all the money Upper Deck is handing out at tournaments and raking in selling this collectible game; why can’t Upper Deck put a decent web site together to showcase their cards and their overall product. Upper Deck’s web site is weak, weak, super-weak. There are much better sites out there that have a ton of options and information on these cards. In my opinion the best of these site is ( http://vs.tcgplayer.com/). Peruse this site for fifteen minutes, if you can! There’s so much information here that you’ll hardly be able to scratch the surface in fifteen minutes. Good luck! Vs. is good game, but it’s collectible so it can hardly be considered a game. Much the same that Ice Skating can be called a sport. Bah! Overall, I give Vs. Collectible Card Game a rating of four out of ten.
Game on!
-
Adam Conus
United States
Renton
Washington
-
"Let me start off by saying that in my definition anything that is collectible is not technically a game. If a game depends on its collectible nature to increase its popularity, then it’s not a very good game to begin with."
This is a bothersome way to start a review. You don't have to like trading games to realize that they bring a different element to gaming than any other sort of game. There have been games that have been made into trading games in order to increase sales, and those products have all failed miserably. The best trading games, on the other hand, use the format to enhance the gaming experience.
I know trading games are held in low esteem by many BGG members, but I think the reasons have very little to do with the quality of the games. IMHO, the reasons people don't like trading games are because they are expensive and trading game players tend to play their game to the exclusion of other games.
Adam
Board, Trading, and Role Playing Game Lover
-
If Actions Speak Louder Than Words, Then Actions x2 Speak Louder Than Actions
United States
Hutto
Texas
Chit Chat Hamstring!!!
-
Bothersome as my review begins, I notice that your reviews are lacking in beginnings, endings or anything else in between.
Trading card games are not games. Let me give you an example.
Imagine that there ia a board game out there that cost $50. This board game has an 80-page rule book, that is in legalese, poorly organized and poorly worded. This $50 board game has only the components for one-player and requires other players to buy their own set (at $50). Who would buy such a game?
Would you buy Settlers of Catan for $50, come to find out that it was unplayable by itself? That your $50 purchase only included the blue pieces? And that in your set of blue pieces only one road was included? That you would have to buy more sets to get more blue roads? Additionally, other players would have to buy their own $50 dollar set of Settlers of Catan to play with you? And that their set might include all roads and no cities?
Would you buy Settler of Catan if it was sold in this format? Kind of silly isn't it? Or shall I say exploitative?
CCG's and the people who make them are brilliant. And they get paid well for their brilliance. It's the suckers who keep them in business that are suspect.
-
Bobb Beauchamp
United States
Palatine
Illinois
-
joebelanger wrote: Bothersome as my review begins, I notice that your reviews are lacking in beginnings, endings or anything else in between.
Trading card games are not games. Let me give you an example.
Imagine that there ia a board game out there that cost $50. This board game has an 80-page rule book, that is in legalese, poorly organized and poorly worded. This $50 board game has only the components for one-player and requires other players to buy their own set (at $50). Who would buy such a game?
Would you buy Settlers of Catan for $50, come to find out that it was unplayable by itself? That your $50 purchase only included the blue pieces? And that in your set of blue pieces only one road was included? That you would have to buy more sets to get more blue roads? Additionally, other players would have to buy their own $50 dollar set of Settlers of Catan to play with you? And that their set might include all roads and no cities?
Would you buy Settler of Catan if it was sold in this format? Kind of silly isn't it? Or shall I say exploitative?
CCG's and the people who make them are brilliant. And they get paid well for their brilliance. It's the suckers who keep them in business that are suspect.
Your example has nothing to do with your statement, that CCGs, or as you call them, trading card games, are not games. Your example goes on to describe a game that is sold in component parts. By themselves, the parts cannot be played as a whole game, but put them together, and you have the working whole.
All of which means that there is a game there, you just need to spend a lot more money to make it a playable game.
I've been playing games of all kinds for 30 years. CCGs for over 15. I think I'm pretty well qualified to say that most CCGs I've played have, in fact, been games. They have a set rule structure, a goal, and mechanics for achieving that goal. If Magic: the Gathering, or the vS system (which is just a variant on the system I first saw in the Battletech CCG) are not games, then neither are Settlers, Risk, Axis and Allies, or any other the thousands of other games listed here on BGG.
It's clear that you don't like the collectible aspect of CCGs, which often are generated by the rarity of more powerful cards. That's fine, it's not meant to appeal to everyone. There's plenty of people that love wargames, but despise miniature war games because of the cost involved in building an army, and the time it takes to paint one. That's fine. Games like Warhammer are game systems linked to a hobby, in the same way that CCGs link a game system to a hobby.
My brother often makes disparaging comments about these new games disguised as toys. Games like Axis and Allies, War of the Ring, Descent, World of Warcraft, all make him turn up his nose and say "oh, it's a TOY." Some people have preconceptions about what makes a game. No big deal. But I'd suggest that if you're going to review something, maybe you should stick to things that you don't have a preconception about.
I've got one of the vS starter sets, an older Batman set. The production value is really high...great art, a little moody, which fits the Batman/Joker theme. As I mentioned, the game plays a little like the Battletech CCG, with cards assigned to areas, able to attack each other, and comparing static values to determine the outcome of battles. It seemed to me to be a little simple, but fun for comic lovers and people that don't want to spend several hours playing a single game.
In the starter set I have, I don't see how some cards can be overpowered compared to others. More powerful cards cost more to bring into play, so while you're saving up to play that rare Batman, your opponent's beating you silly with Penguin. I don't think that the vS system suffers from the $=power fault that games like MtG do, but those that want to collect all their favorite heroes may need to do some scrounging in the single card ailes of eBay, or be ready to buy lots of packs. But since this game has a natural appeal to the comic crowd, that shouldn't be a big deal. 
-
If Actions Speak Louder Than Words, Then Actions x2 Speak Louder Than Actions
United States
Hutto
Texas
Chit Chat Hamstring!!!
-
I have purchased the game 'Risk'. It came in a box. I paid my money, opened the box and my friends and I played the game. No one at the table was at a disadvantage to the other players, upon opening the box. The game cost me $20. It cost my friends nothing.
Go to your local game store and ask to buy Magic: The Gathering. Not a starter set, not a booster. Buy the game. The whole game. The box. Everything. Can you do that? Is that even possible? Can you buy a CCG in its entirety? Six copies of every card from every release in one box, so that you and five other friends have the same chance to win? Try doing it for twenty dollars. What percentage of the game could you get for twenty dollars?
I can buy 'Bang' for fifteen dollars and I could get its expansion for $15 more. Seven of my friends and I can play 'Bang', in its entirety, for $30.
And don't give me that famous crack dealer line 'everything you need to play is in a starter set'... That may be true, but everything you need to win is not included in a starter set. Buy a starter set and play a constructed tourney with only the cards from that set. Good luck.
I'll give you this much. CCG's are game-ish. They are part of a game. But they are definitely not a whole game.
Preconceptions or not, I review them as I see them. In my reviews, I will not pretend that some games are marketed to a certain personality type and others are not.
-
david funch
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
-
The 60 card deck limit is one of the many things that's absurd about this game. A mininum of 40 cards with a max of 3 of any given card in a deck would suit this game much much better. It would tighten up your deck alot so that it functions like you want it to more often than it currently does.
Overall the game just plays poorly. There's lots of cards to encourage players to get away from playing the standard of recruiting the highest cost character possible but it still doesn't work because of the oversimplified card drawing. I get two a turn? Woopie. Yes, let me play out my hand halfway through the game.
There are ways to draw more cards but for the most part that means setting up the majority of the deck just to make sure a card drawing engine works on a regular basis. See the problem? Wow, I'm drawing more cards and those card unsure that I'll be able to still draw more cards. What's the point?
I could go on and on about how poor the gameplay is but I won't.
-
Bobb Beauchamp
United States
Palatine
Illinois
-
joebelanger wrote: I have purchased the game 'Risk'. It came in a box. I paid my money, opened the box and my friends and I played the game. No one at the table was at a disadvantage to the other players, upon opening the box. The game cost me $20. It cost my friends nothing.
Go to your local game store and ask to buy Magic: The Gathering. Not a starter set, not a booster. Buy the game. The whole game. The box. Everything. Can you do that? Is that even possible? Can you buy a CCG in its entirety? Six copies of every card from every release in one box, so that you and five other friends have the same chance to win? Try doing it for twenty dollars. What percentage of the game could you get for twenty dollars?
I can buy 'Bang' for fifteen dollars and I could get its expansion for $15 more. Seven of my friends and I can play 'Bang', in its entirety, for $30.
And don't give me that famous crack dealer line 'everything you need to play is in a starter set'... That may be true, but everything you need to win is not included in a starter set. Buy a starter set and play a constructed tourney with only the cards from that set. Good luck.
I'll give you this much. CCG's are game-ish. They are part of a game. But they are definitely not a whole game.
Preconceptions or not, I review them as I see them. In my reviews, I will not pretend that some games are marketed to a certain personality type and others are not.
Where is it stated that a game has to come with everything you might ever need, ever, in one box, for a certain price? Is tag a game? Does it have to have a certain number of people to be able to play it? Must you go to Toys R Us, ask for the game of Tag, for $20, in a box, take it home, and set it up to play with your friends?
Is football a game? Can you go to the store, ask to buy Football, the Complete game, for $25?
You reviewed a CCG and marked it down, as a game, because it was a CCG. Your review wasn't "as you see it," it was as you thought it should have been, compared to other types of games you like to play.
Your review states flat out that CCGs are not games. Your comments subsequent to that suggest that, in order for something to be a game, it must come in a single box, it must cost money, it must have easy to understand rules, and it must not cost anyone but the owner anything.
Is Advanced Squad Leader a game? Is Warhammer Fantasy Battles a game? Star Fleet Battles? Are Role Playing Games games? What about Wizard Kings? For each of these examples, you'd be hard pressed to buy the "whole" game in one shot. WFB alone would cost you several thousand dollars to get the entire game, not counting past versions. Some of those, like many RPGs, don't even come in a box.
-
If Actions Speak Louder Than Words, Then Actions x2 Speak Louder Than Actions
United States
Hutto
Texas
Chit Chat Hamstring!!!
-
Tag is a game. I own it. So do you. Same with Football. I got them both in one shot and further expansions won't cost me a thing either.
Are you saying that only people who like CCGs are qualified to review CCGs? A world full of positive reviews sounds pretty boring to me...
You are incorrect in your statement that I gave Vs. lower marks based on it being a CCG. Reread the review and find where I penalized Vs. for being a CCG. I gave it a 6 out of 10. That's better than average. What do you want from me a '7'?! Well, you're not going to get it. I can promise you that every review that I write will be biased, slanted, spun and severly leaning toward "as I think it should be". Only the reviews that you write will not be so...
Let me clarify the single box statement. I don't mind expansions, variations, extras and add-ons. I love them. I am an avid Heroscape player. However, I like to know what I am buying. Clear packages! Why don't they sell CCGs in expansions instead of boosters. Why are they sealed? Why are the contents hidden? What happened to the Crimson Skies CMG when they did package it that way?
Games must cost money?! One of my favorite games is Hearts. Where did I say that a game is only a game if it costs money. That seems like a CCG-player frame of mind to me. But not just money... lots of money and trails of wasted, lesser-valued cards too!
Easy to understand rules and concise rules are two completely different creatures. Is a game that has poorly written rules really that much of a deal-closer for you? (Scene from a hobby-shop counter. You: What game do you have for sale that has rules that feel like they were written in stream of consciousness. The harder to understand and the more difficult to memorize or reference the better? Whatever that game may be, I've got good money to throw at it.)
ASL, WFB, Starfleet Battles and RPG's are all games. I can thumb the contents of an RPG book in the game store before I buy it. How many times have you opened a CCG booster before paying for it and handed it back to the clerk telling him that you weren't pleased with the contents? No, CCGers bend over and take it for every sucky card they get in a booster. With an RPG, I COULD go into a well stocked game store and buy it in its entirety. The same goes for Battlefleet Gothic and other GW money-sucks. Cheap, hell no. Possible, sadly for your point... yes.
-
Bobb Beauchamp
United States
Palatine
Illinois
-
Joey, I don't mean to be argumentative, although I'm sure I come across that way. Your review is very well written, presents good points about the Vs. TCS in general, and would be helpful to someone looking for input to determine if they'd like the game or not. All that, despite your admitted bias against TCGs in generally.
But I do have an issue with you saying that TCGs, flat out, are not games. What, then, does qualify as a game, according to you?
For me, and I think for most people, it doesn't really take much to define a game. A set of rules, stating what you can and can't do in the game (how to play), and a stated objective (how to win). That's about it. It's hard to tell from your comments exactly what you think something needs for it to be a game, but it seems like it has to have easily understandable rules, componenets available for a reasonable fee/effort that allow balanced play for players of all experience levels.
What is it about CCGs that makes them not be games? At their core, they have a set of rules...maybe not the most clearly written rules, but if that keeps something from being a game, then Avalon Hill never published a game in their entire history. They have a set, defined objective, and the rules tell you how to get from point A (set up) to point B (endgame conditions, resulting in a win/loss, or tie). If football is a game, then CCGs are games as well.
And speaking of, in what way does everyone "own" football? Simply because we all either know how to play, or can find out for free, doesn't mean that we own it. Show me your football league. Or just your team. Heck, just show me your helmet or pigskin, for that matter. Knowing how to play something isn't the same as "owning" it. I know how to play over 100 different games. Some I own published versions of, some I don't. Some of those games are CCGs that I no longer posses any cards for. But I could make some, just as I could head to the park with some friends and start up a game of football, without getting a full set of pads, goalposts, a first-down team, refs., 40,000 spectators, etc.
-
Nicholas Jost
United States
Fresno
California
-
joebelanger wrote: Bothersome as my review begins, I notice that your reviews are lacking in beginnings, endings or anything else in between.
Trading card games are not games. Let me give you an example.
Imagine that there ia a board game out there that cost $50. This board game has an 80-page rule book, that is in legalese, poorly organized and poorly worded. This $50 board game has only the components for one-player and requires other players to buy their own set (at $50). Who would buy such a game?
Would you buy Settlers of Catan for $50, come to find out that it was unplayable by itself? That your $50 purchase only included the blue pieces? And that in your set of blue pieces only one road was included? That you would have to buy more sets to get more blue roads? Additionally, other players would have to buy their own $50 dollar set of Settlers of Catan to play with you? And that their set might include all roads and no cities?
Would you buy Settler of Catan if it was sold in this format? Kind of silly isn't it? Or shall I say exploitative?
CCG's and the people who make them are brilliant. And they get paid well for their brilliance. It's the suckers who keep them in business that are suspect.
So its still a game just an expensive one? What exactly are you arguing? What if a CCG costs $10 for both players (as your able to do with many out of print games)? Does this make it the best game ever? Especially if it has a small rules set like one edition only games tend to do? You're not making sense.
-
Nicholas Jost
United States
Fresno
California
-
joebelanger wrote: Tag is a game. I own it. So do you. Same with Football. I got them both in one shot and further expansions won't cost me a thing either.
Are you saying that only people who like CCGs are qualified to review CCGs? A world full of positive reviews sounds pretty boring to me...
No but you should review a game on how it fulfills its merits. What your doing is like panning Settlers because it has a non fixed board. You can rate a game lowly for poorly implementing what it sets out to do (for a CCG this would include poor sorting or power levels or art) but to rate it down for what it is just doesn't work. For an example from the movie world you, as a reviewer, shouldn't rate Pride and Prejudice lowly simply because you don't like period films.
Quote:
Let me clarify the single box statement. I don't mind expansions, variations, extras and add-ons. I love them. I am an avid Heroscape player. However, I like to know what I am buying. Clear packages! Why don't they sell CCGs in expansions instead of boosters. Why are they sealed? Why are the contents hidden? What happened to the Crimson Skies CMG when they did package it that way?
Because people like it? Does the method of purchasing change the *game* (which you deny the existance of).
Quote:
Games must cost money?! One of my favorite games is Hearts. Where did I say that a game is only a game if it costs money. That seems like a CCG-player frame of mind to me. But not just money... lots of money and trails of wasted, lesser-valued cards too!
No, you implied that if a game costs too much (you're $50 example) it magicly ceased to be a game. Which seems odd. He's arguing that price shouldn't matter for the games merits.
Quote:
ASL, WFB, Starfleet Battles and RPG's are all games. I can thumb the contents of an RPG book in the game store before I buy it. How many times have you opened a CCG booster before paying for it and handed it back to the clerk telling him that you weren't pleased with the contents? No, CCGers bend over and take it for every sucky card they get in a booster. With an RPG, I COULD go into a well stocked game store and buy it in its entirety. The same goes for Battlefleet Gothic and other GW money-sucks. Cheap, hell no. Possible, sadly for your point... yes.
In some well stocked game stores you can do that with CCG's too. The rules are generally available for free online with complete spoiler lists.
-
If Actions Speak Louder Than Words, Then Actions x2 Speak Louder Than Actions
United States
Hutto
Texas
Chit Chat Hamstring!!!
-
kingbobb wrote: Joey, I don't mean to be argumentative, although I'm sure I come across that way. Your review is very well written, presents good points about the Vs. TCS in general, and would be helpful to someone looking for input to determine if they'd like the game or not. All that, despite your admitted bias against TCGs in generally. But I do have an issue with you saying that TCGs, flat out, are not games. What, then, does qualify as a game, according to you? For me, and I think for most people, it doesn't really take much to define a game. A set of rules, stating what you can and can't do in the game (how to play), and a stated objective (how to win). That's about it. It's hard to tell from your comments exactly what you think something needs for it to be a game, but it seems like it has to have easily understandable rules, componenets available for a reasonable fee/effort that allow balanced play for players of all experience levels. What is it about CCGs that makes them not be games? At their core, they have a set of rules...maybe not the most clearly written rules, but if that keeps something from being a game, then Avalon Hill never published a game in their entire history. They have a set, defined objective, and the rules tell you how to get from point A (set up) to point B (endgame conditions, resulting in a win/loss, or tie). If football is a game, then CCGs are games as well. And speaking of, in what way does everyone "own" football? Simply because we all either know how to play, or can find out for free, doesn't mean that we own it. Show me your football league. Or just your team. Heck, just show me your helmet or pigskin, for that matter. Knowing how to play something isn't the same as "owning" it. I know how to play over 100 different games. Some I own published versions of, some I don't. Some of those games are CCGs that I no longer posses any cards for. But I could make some, just as I could head to the park with some friends and start up a game of football, without getting a full set of pads, goalposts, a first-down team, refs., 40,000 spectators, etc.
First off, let me say that my opinion of something is exactly that. MY opinion. If I had biased my ratings of Vs. for being a CCG, it would have been rated thusly:
Theme: 1
Concise Rules: 0
Quality: 0
Luck factor: 0
Replayability: 0
Total Rating: 1
I am not being emphatic for argument sake, I am comparing the game to some of my favorites. Now you can see that my ratings of Vs. were not biased in any way, shape or form. A four is a workable rating and lucky to be had.
Now, I understand that you take exception with my saying that CCG's are not full games.
Here's how *I* define a game (since it seems so difficult to grasp from the copious examples listed above):
A game must have rules
A game must have an objective
A game must be inclusionary. (That's where CCG's deviate from my definition of a game. CCG's are exclusionary of other players, new players, casual players, players with limited resources, players with lives, players with a healthy...)
A game must be quick to pick up. (First play of a game is for education, second play of a game and thereon out is for entertainment. CCG's lag in this deptartment as well.)
A game must be fun for nearly all the players involved. (CCG's seem to be play a card, interpret the meaning of the card, read the card errata, further interpret the meaing of the card and the errata, occasionally argue, ad nauseum... Not *my* idea of fun.)
The more a 'game' deviates from these points, the less of a game it is in *my* eyes.
Come to think of it, Baseball is a lot like CCG's. The Yankees got the money, the Yankees got the trophees. Yes, there is the occasional upset, but the Yankees got money and the wins.
Everyone owns football in the way that if I buy a ball and call a couple friends, I've got a pick up game going. Now, who did I pay in order to play football out in front of my house? Everyone owns football. Or would it be easier to understand if I said that no one owns football? Same thing. Come on, is that really such a hard concept to wrap your brain around? I didn't say that I own the NFL or any of its affiliates. No need to be so flamboyant.
You're just grasping at straw. This is getting petty. Give me something substantial.
-
If Actions Speak Louder Than Words, Then Actions x2 Speak Louder Than Actions
United States
Hutto
Texas
Chit Chat Hamstring!!!
-
nickjost wrote: So its still a game just an expensive one?
Yep, expensive and for such an expensive game... you don't get a whole lot. (in my opinion) Cards? How much do cards cost to produce? Does an ultra-rare cost any more to produce that the hordes of commons that clutter the basements of gamers everywhere? Card production mark-ups to retail prices are obscene. And somewhat insulting, to me at least. If it's not insulting to you, I wish I had your pocket change.
nickjost wrote: What if a CCG costs $10 for both players (as your able to do with many out of print games)?
If a CCG costed $10 for each player and each player got exactly the same set of cards, then yes that is a game. (Listen to the segment on 'When a CCG is no longer a CCG.' http://www.roll2d6.com/podcast/roll2d6-episode2.mp3) Amen to that. It IS possible to make a CCG into a playable game.
nickjost wrote: Does this make it the best game ever?
No, unless you have really LOW standards for game quality and design. But as most CCG players do, then Yes I suppose it would.
nickjost wrote: Especially if it has a small rules set like one edition only games tend to do? You're not making sense.
I'm not making sense? Was that first question in code? Yeah...
-
If Actions Speak Louder Than Words, Then Actions x2 Speak Louder Than Actions
United States
Hutto
Texas
Chit Chat Hamstring!!!
-
nickjost wrote: No but you should review a game on how it fulfills its merits. What your doing is like panning Settlers because it has a non fixed board. You can rate a game lowly for poorly implementing what it sets out to do (for a CCG this would include poor sorting or power levels or art) but to rate it down for what it is just doesn't work. For an example from the movie world you, as a reviewer, shouldn't rate Pride and Prejudice lowly simply because you don't like period films.
No, YOU should review a game on how it fulfills its merits. I review games on the impressions they make upon me. And had you read the review and looked at my rating of 'Vs.', you'd have seen that I gave 'Vs.' a fair shake. Additionally, I hate period films. I love 'Pride and Prejudice' (A&E/BBC version). 'Pride and Prejudice' made an impression on me, far beyond the frilly dresses and the longcoats. You're going to need another leg to stand on...
nickjost wrote: Because people like it?
Hey some people like Hentacle pr0n. Doesn't mean it's exactly my bag? My mother taught me something deeply profound. She said, "If all the other kids walked off a cliff, would you follow them?" I'm thinking that the mothers of CCG'ers never uttered these words... or they didn't get through...
nickjost wrote: Does the method of purchasing change the *game* (which you deny the existance of).
Yes. You are getting scammed. But then again, are you really getting scammed, if you do it willingly? You may have a point...
If I had to buy the game of RISK, one army piece at a time in sealed packages that might contain useless rocks... then yes, that would suck. RISK would not be very fun and I would question what madman packages a game this way...
nickjost wrote: No, you implied that if a game costs too much (you're $50 example) it magicly ceased to be a game. Which seems odd. He's arguing that price shouldn't matter for the games merits.
I made no such implication. Reread the analogy, take notes and think before you click 'Submit'. I also deny the use of magic in game pricing. There is no game, that I know of, that was priced by use of the arcane arts.
nickjost wrote: In some well stocked game stores you can do that with CCG's too. The rules are generally available for free online with complete spoiler lists.
There is no 'brick and mortar' game store that you can buy every card from every expansion from any CCG. If there is, please let me know the name of the store and the city it is in. I'll Google the store, call them and ask them if I can buy a CCG of my liking (in its entirety). Trust me, I'll let you know if they can, because this store will then be my one and only stop for buying games. Any store that is that well stocked deserves my business for life. I'm waiting.
-
Bobb Beauchamp
United States
Palatine
Illinois
-
joebelanger wrote: kingbobb wrote: Joey, I don't mean to be argumentative, although I'm sure I come across that way. Your review is very well written, presents good points about the Vs. TCS in general, and would be helpful to someone looking for input to determine if they'd like the game or not. All that, despite your admitted bias against TCGs in generally. But I do have an issue with you saying that TCGs, flat out, are not games. What, then, does qualify as a game, according to you? For me, and I think for most people, it doesn't really take much to define a game. A set of rules, stating what you can and can't do in the game (how to play), and a stated objective (how to win). That's about it. It's hard to tell from your comments exactly what you think something needs for it to be a game, but it seems like it has to have easily understandable rules, componenets available for a reasonable fee/effort that allow balanced play for players of all experience levels. What is it about CCGs that makes them not be games? At their core, they have a set of rules...maybe not the most clearly written rules, but if that keeps something from being a game, then Avalon Hill never published a game in their entire history. They have a set, defined objective, and the rules tell you how to get from point A (set up) to point B (endgame conditions, resulting in a win/loss, or tie). If football is a game, then CCGs are games as well. And speaking of, in what way does everyone "own" football? Simply because we all either know how to play, or can find out for free, doesn't mean that we own it. Show me your football league. Or just your team. Heck, just show me your helmet or pigskin, for that matter. Knowing how to play something isn't the same as "owning" it. I know how to play over 100 different games. Some I own published versions of, some I don't. Some of those games are CCGs that I no longer posses any cards for. But I could make some, just as I could head to the park with some friends and start up a game of football, without getting a full set of pads, goalposts, a first-down team, refs., 40,000 spectators, etc. First off, let me say that my opinion of something is exactly that. MY opinion. If I had biased my ratings of Vs. for being a CCG, it would have been rated thusly: Theme: 1 Concise Rules: 0 Quality: 0 Luck factor: 0 Replayability: 0 Total Rating: 1 I am not being emphatic for argument sake, I am comparing the game to some of my favorites. Now you can see that my ratings of Vs. were not biased in any way, shape or form. A six is a fine rating and lucky to be had. Now, I understand that you take exception with my saying that CCG's are not full games. Here's how *I* define a game (since it seems so difficult to grasp from the copious examples listed above): A game must have rules A game must have an objective A game must be inclusionary. (That's where CCG's deviate from my definition of a game. CCG's are exclusionary of other players, new players, casual players, players with limited resources, players with lives, players with a healthy...) A game must be quick to pick up. (First play of a game is for education, second play of a game and thereon out is for entertainment. CCG's lag in this deptartment as well.) A game must be fun for nearly all the players involved. (CCG's seem to be play a card, interpret the meaning of the card, read the card errata, further interpret the meaing of the card and the errata, occasionally argue, ad nauseum... Not *my* idea of fun.) The more a 'game' deviates from these points, the less of a game it is in *my* eyes. Come to think of it, Baseball is a lot like CCG's. The Yankees got the money, the Yankees got the trophees. Yes, there is the occasional upset, but the Yankees got money and the wins. Everyone owns football in the way that if I buy a ball and call a couple friends, I've got a pick up game going. Now, who did I pay in order to play football out in front of my house? Everyone owns football. Or would it be easier to understand if I said that no one owns football? Same thing. Come on, is that really such a hard concept to wrap your brain around? I didn't say that I own the NFL or any of its affiliates. No need to be so flamboyant. You're just grasping at straw. This is getting petty. Give me something substantial.
Aye, this is getting long, but I did want to make it clear that I respect your opinion, and I appreciate most of your review. I think you may be getting me, or at least my later posts, mixed up with someone else, as I never really questioned your review, just your statement that CCGs aren't games.
And thank you for the clarification as to when you consider a game to be a game. I don't agree with all those. Maybe I have lower standards as to what I think constitutes a game. It does seem to me that you're describing games that you enjoy, as I know plenty of games are exclusionary (hide and seek...the hider finds a spot, and pretty much doesn't do anything else), hard to pick up (Magic Realm is maybe the greatest fantasy boardgame of all time, we've had it in our collection going on 20 years, and we STILL don't know how to play with all the rules), and are not fun for everyone involved...dodgeball comes to mind. Yet I don't think you'd find anyone that would say that tag, Magic Realm, or dodgeball are not, in fact, games.
I don't know why I feel like I need to defend CCGs. They do get treated like the Tigons and Ligers of the game world...bastardized half-breeds that are either loved or reviled. Although unlike most hybrids, the seem to spawn rather quickly.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to respond, Joey. I didn't mean to get petty, although I don't really see the difference between owning football and owning any other game you know how to play.
-
If Actions Speak Louder Than Words, Then Actions x2 Speak Louder Than Actions
United States
Hutto
Texas
Chit Chat Hamstring!!!
-
Thank you.
I appreciate your candor and your point of view. While we may not share the same passion for CCG's, I believe that we share the same passion for games in general.
Anytime you're in Austin, you're welcome to come over and give me a crash course in your favorite CCG and see if you can convert me through the gameplay experience. Over the game, I'll see if I can explain the whole 'football' thing.
Thanks again for the healthy dialogue. If anything, you got me to see that CCG's are more of a game than I previously gave them the credit.
-
|
|
Chit Chat Hamstring!!!
